Climate change isn't re-

>Climate change isn't re-

Hmm, I wonder who I trust more on this issue. Scientists who dedicate their lives to monitoring the atmosphere, or conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.

Other urls found in this thread:

thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=R__AR0yISSU
youtube.com/watch?v=QOFhpoDY0As
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

and the obvious solution to fix it is to tax it

t. liberal scumbag

not necessarily

not an argument either

>implying climate change can be prevented, manmade or not
>inb4 le r****t

>appealing to authority this hard
Saged

>percentages
>polls
have you learned nothing from the past election?
that 3% is probably right

When did fucking America get so smart?

So basically, of 10,000 possible responses, they got back 3,000, ignored 2,925 of those to only look at what the people who's jobs literally hinge on them saying 'yes' to question #2 and this is '97% consensus from the scientific community'?

CO2 only became a greenhouse gas after congress voted it to be as there was not a scientific consensus at the time. So if CO2 is a ((greenhouse gas)) what are we going to do about volcanoes and should we blow up the Hawaiian islands just to be safe?

>Hmm, I wonder who I trust more on this issue. Someone whose career and authority depends on perpetuating their own narrative, or someone whose career doesn't.
Ftfy.

>97% of Climate Scientists want to keep their job.
Truly shocking results.

In other news: 97% of astrologers think astrology is real.

Climate change is real, nobody is denying that. What's not real, however, is that it's man-made.
Even if it was, what are you going to do about it? Liberal faggots love to virtue signal about "muh man-made climate change", yet there they are eating expensive steak, buying apple products made in a polluting Chinese sweatshop, etc.

>Peer-reviewed

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

let's consider for a moment that you are right about climate change.How does sending huge amounts of money to India and China who are not obligated to reduce any of their green house gas production change anything?Raising awearness doesn't do shit.It's just another money laundering scheme these politicians engage in since the fall of socialism in europe.

if it isn't humans, what is actually driving up temperatures?

fpbp

Climate scientists out of a job if it turns out global warmening isn't real? 100%
Environmentalist and political pressure groups who lose influence if it turns out CO2 does nothing? 100%
Use your brain OP you fucking fag.

...

>muh appeal to authority

How can you know anything to be true without an appeal to authority you cognitive dissonant autistic fuck?

>97% of astrologers think astrology is real.

They'd be right then

Earth itself, it's a natural cycle.

An excellent question we could actually take a fucking look at if faggots would stop bitching about how 'Da science wuz settld' and let funds go to actual climate modeling that isn't agenda driven.

As for explanations, solar cycles, the fact that we are literally in the end of an ice age, airborne CO2 probably does factor in there somewhere, but we can't even figure out how much.

Isn't the 97% meme a myth? What are the real numbers?

Dutch geology professor Salomon Kroonenberg claimed humans have little to no influence on the changing climate

What is it they agree on though?
I think it's hard to find rational people who don't think the climate is changing.

>airborne CO2 probably does factor in there somewhere

It's not just greenhouse gas (which even 19th century science proves to be true) but ground level pollution. Right wingers don't seem to mind when chemicals get dumped and toxins released into the air that give people lung cancer

could you be more specific? What's the simplified mechanism?
>solar cycles

but we can measure the output of the sun very easily from Earth (and with satellites in orbit) and it doesn't match how temperature has behaved during the last 4 decades or so.
The solar explanation is also inconsistent with a few other observations like the fact that the stratosphere is cooling or that warming is strongest during the night and not the day.

>What are the real numbers?
about 2:1

>Dutch geology professor Salomon Kroonenberg

>geology

Wow I will trust his individual word as a rock scientist over thousands of actual climate scientists.

>muh science

I'm in science. You greatly overestimate how "scientific" it really is. Most of this climate "Science" is statistical analysis. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The truth is that the climate has been generally warming since the end of the ice age 12,000 years ago

I like how the OP conveniently ignored this

There are people on this board that think Obama wasn't born in the US and that the Sandy Hook shooting was a false flag operation. These people are beyond help and will continue believing in retards instead of scientists no matter how much scientific evidence is provided to them.

The climate changes naturally. Humans probably contribute a bit to it, but it's impossible to say how much or even what the ultimate effect will be. The climate is 'greening' at the moment and co2 and slightly warmer temps and increased precip are responsible. Is that bad?

Please kys. Geology is an old-fashioned term that includes:

>climatology
>paleontology
>geo-science/earth science
>mineralogy
>petrology
>geophysics
.
.
.

Climate change is a Jewish hoax to help destroy white Gentiles and Christianity and so that the state of Israel can grow ever stronger. Look at who supports climate change advocacy groups. It's all Jews.

you can't stop it even if it's entirely man made so why argue about it?

Yes, the day/night cycle is the only motion of the sun and earth that matters. Glad you solved that mystery Hans.

>MUH GREENHOUSE GAS

O shit senpai, that stuff that plants and phytoplankton breathe?

Global warming will be good for the US economy because CORN, which is a C4 plant, will actually benefit

>The climate changes naturally
again, that's not terribly precise is it?
What actual mechanism do you have in mind?

>I'm in science.

This is probably the funniest thing Ive read in a week.

How many scientists do you think believed in the theory of the flat earth and how many did not before we knew that it wasn't flat? Scientist mob rule is literally
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

>citing Cook et al with a straight face to me

Fuck off.

thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

The funny thing is that you environmental lunatics will talk as if this is the #1 problem we are facing right now but when asked if we should build thorium molten salt nuclear reactors which are the future of energy and emit 0 (zero) carbon to the atmosphere you will also say no even if you have no fucking idea what that is.

The truth is all you can do is parrot muh 97% and know next to nothing about the issue you are so passionate about.

Humans knew the earth wasn't flat before science was a thing.

Except youre making a false comparison to a time when the clergy would literally MURDER real scientists who disagreed.

>czech education

The concentration of CO2 is already ample enough for plants to respire.

Just look at Venus, a planet similar in size and composition to earth if you think greenhouse gas is a meme.

huh?

If global warming is not real, why is it so hot in my room?

You can't explain that

'precision' is not something that we will ever have with regard to our understanding of the climate as a whole. At least not for probably thousands of years.

>climate scientists
>whose funding relies on government gibs
>gibs of which, rely on data showing there is an imminent threat

no conflict of interest here, no sir. And scientists are just cute white haired old men in lab coats who would never do something like cook the books for money!

Science was the thing that disproved flat-earth theory you fucking retard. Are you this dumb?

>Cook, et al.

this study is beyond discredited. do your homework user

many of the scientists in this supposed consensus have vocally rejected the study

>random people are the same people to suit my strawman

99% of real scientists in related fields accept that Nuclear energy is the best short-term solution.

What's with that wording?
>stated a position on the reality of human-caused global warming and said that it is happening and human caused
Of course human-caused anything would be human caused.

And how do you measure climate in the past?
By looking at rock sediments for instance.

Climate science is multi disciplinary.

>But the atmosphere is cooler during the day and warmer at night, the sun has nothing to do with our climate because the day/night cycle is the only way it could possibly have impact!

Bill Nye wants to lock people up that don't think climate change is real.
No, it wasn't. Almost the entire population including scientists believed the earth was flat until it was proven otherwise.

so when climatologists were to publish scientific articles saying "global warming is man-made because that's just how this stuff works", would you be satisfied with this?

...

The funny thing is, climate change deniers actually use the opposite as an argument. They are that fucking retarded.

This senator brought a snowball into the senate and threw it and thought that means climate change isn't real. These are the people in charge of the USA.

youtube.com/watch?v=R__AR0yISSU

This.

>But how can an entire field be wrong?
Because the field itself is fraudulent.

There are no accurate climate models in existence. Therefore climate science, when it comes to climate sensitivity, is pseudoscience.

>Bill Nye wants to lock people up that don't think climate change is real.

Bill Nye isnt a real scientist and by "scientist" I mean people actually working/conducting research in relevant fields.

Just because one popular science asshole does something, that magically disproves thousands of research papers?

>MUH 970000000000000000%

I literally give 0 shits about (((research papers))) that are funded by the globalists and leftists who simply want to impose more restrictions on companies.

Research scientists are content with measly $30k salaries, they are among the most trustworthy and un-corrupted people in the country.

Though yeah, we should trust Shell, BP and ExonMobil funded climate change denying scientists, there is zero conflict of interest there and they are very non-money motivated.

Moron

(((Leiserowitz)))


Every fucking time.

>Be earth
>Be 4.5 Billion years old
>Have consensus 40 years ago saying Earths's cooling
>Have "scientists" base "consensus saying earths warming based on 150 years of surface data
>have 90% of your heat stored in oceans
MFW a so-called consensus now involves 0.000001% of all data.

you misunderstood that. I was talking about the rate of warming, not the absolute temperature

Oh shit, you mean its greenhouse gases that make Venus the way it is and not that it's really close to the sun?

Get this into your head:
Climate Change is not proven at all. There is no "100% proof", only a load of indicators.

Now, remember 2days before the election when Hillary had a combined poll of 98% chance to win?

Bottom Line is: Climate change can be a thing were we have "impact" on, but our impact is like farting into a tornado and the media/scientific community hypes this fart for decades now.

fyi: in the 70ies they projected a coming ice age....so far towards their credibility

>humans are just passive lumps drifting through the solar system with no impact whatsoever on the climate

Its funny that you would say that, considering that most of these corporations are lobbying AGAINST a carbon tax.

You really need to stop accepting everything Sup Forums says m8. Issues like immigration, free speech and feminism are definitely Sup Forums's strengths, but science and anthropogenic climate change are not.

The sun. It's that thing in the sky that gives off light and HEAT.

youtube.com/watch?v=QOFhpoDY0As

Cook et al was not a double blind study and therefore garbage. the 97% meme has been addressed many times. if i wrote a papaer on climate change it would go into the 97% pile simpley because i acknowledge that the climate is changing and that there could be a 0.000001% chance that humans are contributing 0.000001% to the change. That's how retarded the 97% meme is.
just stop

Bingo. I'd rather these pie charts have a section for "I don't care". We are here for a blink of an eye, who the fuck cares.

>American "education"

see

Yea faggot I'm in charge of $200,000 worth of equipment as an undergraduate and conducting independent neuroscience research with my partner

>believes in astrology
>believes in CC
Typical
Sage this thread

really makes you think

>Yea faggot I'm in charge of $200,000 worth of equipment as an undergraduate and conducting independent neuroscience research with my partner

And that has to do with climatology exactly how?

Also:

>neurology
>science

Pick uno.

>that it's really close to the sun?

American education strikes again. It's not even worth explaining this shit to you even you never even learned the role of atmospheres of holding in thermal energy.

Dude the ocean's getting fucking hot. There's a reason soft-bodied animals are dying off and sea ice is melting faster by the day.

But you come from a country that invites mass numbers of Muslims to do your breeding for you, so of course you'd be too stupid to know this.

The entire basis of the scientific method is to try and falsify hypotheses.

It's a fact that Earth is warming. So how can we falsify AGW theory? We can't just ask all humans to pretty please stop all their activities for a few centuries so we can see what the Earth would naturally do. So this route goes nowhere.

Second-best scenario, we try to model Earth's climate. No such (accurate) model exists as of today, and it's so complex that it will likely never exist. So we can't even simulate what Earth's climate would be like without human interference.

There is no way to falsify AGW theory. Therefore it's pseudoscience.

Furthermore, if climate scientists -hypothetically- conclusively prove AGW to be a myth, they would lose all funding and their jobs. They have a definite financial incentive to perpetuate their hypothesis.

Yes, they're lobbying against it because it's bullshit and it negatively affects them and the free market. I completely support that. What's your point?

>insulting neuroscience

I have stabbed single cells with a glass microelectrode and I will stab it into your eye if you ever talk like that again

this
computer models that consistantly fail os not science.
>better get Karl et al in here to adjust raw data to better fit our computer models

Correct, they cannot tell me what would have to occur during the next 10 years, what measurements, that would cause them to doubt global warming, so every year they find some way to justify the years weather and fit it into "climage change".

So now the globalists arent trying to impose a carbon tax to subvert the west? Theyre trying to stop the carbon tax?

Dear boy... make up your mind. This is pathetic. Go back to school. If youre older than 18, you should really consider kys.

Well meme'd. You got me troll.

Hot compared to what ? Data sets don't even cover one ten thousandth of one percent of the life of the planet.
Your Ocean temps are probably hot japan because they are radiated by an incompetent Nuclear industry.

We really shouldn't let retards play with matches.

Yes. A few years ago, in the An Inconvenient Truth era, they were talking about the term "global warming." Notice how no one uses that term anymore? It's "climate change" now - a term that accounts for EVERY change in the climate, not just warming or cooling. Why would the term suddenly change like that? It's just so they can have an excuse for any kind of measurement that pops up.

How does it feel cite a study that has been ripped apart?
You either know it's a lie and continue to cite it because you're a sack of shit, or your so ignorant about the subject matter it would be best if you didn't say a word.

So who are you? A liar or a moron?

If the Earth was much closer to the Sun it would be a dry burning rock, if it was much farther it would be a dry frozen rock. The conditions on Venus and it being a poison gas covered rock are completely irrelevant to the fact that it is a hot poison covered rock.

You can't say 'Hurr durr, look at Venus, CO2 so scary' because the Earth won't look like Venus and the problems with Venus have more to do with being close to the giant fucking fireball than with having random greenhouse gases.

Using linear models to try and predict non linear equations like climate is not science the models have never been correct yet

The Austrian idiot doesn't think THIS is science. These are the people supporting "muh global warming". Will never stop talking about "Muh climate science" but is totally ignorant of science generally

im biochemist interested in neural science ...what research u do ?

So it's literally their job to believe in it and they just happen to believe it?
Drumpf BTFO