This is for all the climate change deniers on this board. Fuck you. You are killing this planet... Can't you see that???
97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientist agree that climate change is man made and will destroy the earth. How will we live with NO EARTH???
I'm profoundly disappointed that people on a supposed board of Truth would deny the truth of climate change in favor of the fabricated lies made up by the coal industry...
Other urls found in this thread:
climatechangedispatch.com
wattsupwiththat.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
papers.ssrn.com
fas.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
joseduarte.com
archive.is
youtube.com
twitter.com
/thread
Who caused the climate to change before there were any humans?
I'm waiting patiently for your answer.
Soap on a /Sage
>So asshurt you made a thread.
Look kid, this isn't Reddit or Tumblr where you can block people who aren't as retarded as you.
The climate has always been changing. But now we are changing it.
>climate has changed before therefor it is impossible humans are having an effect.
>ignore all scientific evidence
Nature. Nature still plays a part in it. But now our emissions speed test process up and that will lead to very dangerous situations if not dealt with soon.
We are not killing the planet
We are killing you
Learn the difference
Are we to assume that humans are warming the planet at the exact same time the planet is warming naturally?
We're coming after the rainforests next.
Expect us.
i dont give a fuck about the planet after i"m gone
>The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogo-sphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
>The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it." - Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
>The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
>Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
climatechangedispatch.com
This ass must have had a pounding
Can you name one climate scientist?
The planet has survived meteor impacts super volcano's and fuck tonnes more. We still need to watch our carbon emissions but to pretend its going to destroy everything is just dumb.
I think humanity could benefit from a genetic bottle neck. Might raise the average intelligence from an outrageous 100. That's what we should really be worried about not raising the temp by a degree or 2
Who gives a shit we're not gonna stop China and everywhere else from emitting
Any climate change con artist is just trying to sell you on something to make money off your dumbass
The climate goes through periods of change all the time, excessive heat/ice ages happen all the time
Take your climate change shilling somewhere else Al Gore
Hey Jimmy your mom said the lasagna is done!
Come out of the basement, and do the laundry!
>People that get paid to research climate change won't deny its existence because they would lose their jobs
Wow shocker
>97% agree. How will we live with NO EARTH???
What are you waiting for? Save the earth already. You don't need the 3%, you've got 97%. STFU and start saving yourself.
I care far less about the planet than you do. But I can assure you that I've far more than you have to mitigate climate change.
Pic related. What the fuck have you done faggot?
Oh look, another idiot (OP) posing as a scientist.
97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of welfare queens who depend on a government paycheck or subsidies to make a living agree that climate change is man made and will destroy the earth.
How will these people live with NO SUBSIDIES???
I'm profoundly disappointed that people on a supposed board of Truth would deny the rantings of these welfare queens in favor of the fabricated lies made up by the solar power industry...
...
...
Natural cycle occurring and if you are really worried about the planet, do not worry. It has it's own feedback mechanism for dealing with pesky organisms:"starvation, diseases and for humans only, WAR".
>muh 97 gorillion
Yes. And your use of "the exact time" undermines the timeline of this.
Our emissions strengthen the natural processes which will in turn make the shift in climate happen in a much shorter timeframe than what is normal for the natural changes in climate throughout time.
In this image is a visual representation of what 400 parts per million looks like. There are one million pixels in the picture and I randomly colored 400 of them red. Look at the image and tell me how a tiny fraction of one percent of CO2 is going to destroy us..
The only thing that is going to kill the earth will be the sun when it goes into red giant mode
>climate change deniers
I thought it was Global Warming?
>97% of scientists who already agree, agree
That is one weak arument if I've ever seen one. Here, have a few decent arguments instead.
>mfw I'm colorblind
Hard to spot user, there was also a point in history the earth was allot warmer, the oceans released allot more CO2 exactly because it was warmer and as a cherry on the pie, the atmosphere had 4000 parts per million. Oh btw I am against dumping industrial waste into the environment.
>There are one million pixels in the picture and I randomly colored 400 of them red
I love you, user.
If global warming is real, why did god give us unlimited coal and oil?
Tax on breathing. But nonetheless getting me some CO2 emission stock when the become available. That shit will moon!
But statistics show that humans add a very MINUTE amount of CO2 in comparison to natural addition, believed to be under 7%
he Climate is changing, but to believe it is because of man, is preposterous.
The only reason we have any effect on climate at all, is due to the Methane emissions due to agriculture and farming, but even so, CO2, makes up less than 4% of our atmosphere, a 1% change in water vapour would equal a 100% change in CO2, showing that even then, CO2 doesn't even have that grand of an effect.
Decomposition, PLate Shift, and Volcanoes underwater are all the main sources of CO2 creation, forget what your cars make, because that could be fixed if our engines were made to combust fossil fuels better.
This man gave a very good graphic representation of our small effect.
And let's not forget, Ice sheets are expanding in some eastern-arctic regions, and in Alaska.
Buddy, if ice age wants us dead, were dead, and nothing we do here matters.
If we stray a few inches from the orbit - its ice age.
If sun has a 'dry spell' - its ice age.
We should use our progress to get off this rock and fast.
That would be good for both us and the planet.
youtube.com
Quit falling for scams
>man-made
Venus and Mars are heating up equally.
97% of 43 scientists...wow...
Oh no, man is responsible for solar system climate change. Oh no what do we.
97% of scientists think OPs a faggot.
im 100% sure that shit is supposed to be some mind virus intrusion to persuade me to accept some blind authorities claims.
Ya David de rothchild is just a poor hippie who sailed a raft made of plastic bottles across the Pacific and is no way going to benefit from the carbon credit system his family put in place.
Ask me if I give a fuck.
>climate change means the earth becomes a ball of fire and we all die
OP what is your answer, to all the beautiful posts here, you naughty commie climate fag.
Save the whales you shitlord.
Fuck off climate scientologist
>You are killing this planet.
No, it think that more important people and less civilized nations do. Even if you'd eradicate Germany from a map, the climate change would go on as usual. We are literally unimportant in this one.
What have you all done to save the planet and no paying carbon credit tax is not good enough to make you feel morally superior.
97% Consequential Misperceptions: Ethics of Consensus on Global Warming papers.ssrn.com
>The notion of consensus defies the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry which is not about agreement, but rather a continuous search for understanding. This paper evaluates key disparities of Cook et al (2016) and outlines why a claimed consensus is a powerful tool for driving public policy, but an inappropriate and unethical means of conducting scientific inquiry or informing the public.
>The 97% figure suggests "all" scientists have been surveyed, and indeed so the President’s tweet literally reads, when this is not the case.
>“In 2012, there were 6.2 million scientists and engineers (as defined in this report) employed in the United States” with some 4% or 248,000 working in the physical sciences.” fas.org
>Humans are highly compliant, herd mentality beings who are easily swayed by apparent majority views, especially by role-dominant experts. Asch (1951) Schacter (1951) Cialdini (2007)
>Humans are strongly averse to rejection or exclusion.Sarnoff & Zimbardo (1962) Williams (2007)
>Consequently, the claim that a statistical majority, nearly 100% of role-dominant expert individuals like scientists agree to a sweeping statement about climate change, is very effective in swaying public opinion.
>Earth scientists are some of the more skeptical in light of the vast temperature changes they have studied over the past 4 billion years.
>In the geologic record, carbon dioxide is seen as a consequence of the earth’s climate, nominally a cause, and there is no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels in geologic time.
>Carbon dioxide has been at very high levels while temperatures were extremely cold and vice versa.
/thread
>Doran & Zimmerman (2009) is based on Zimmerman (2008). Numerous earth scientist respondents to Zimmerman (2008) explained their view by email that the sun was the main direct and indirect driver of climate change, not humans or carbon dioxide.
>Indeed, as a result of that study author Zimmerman wrote: “I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project.”(pp. 126)
>This important expression of uncertainty by a co-author of a consensus paper and these relevant views by earth scientists (a climate science discipline) are not mentioned, falsely inflating the cause and claim of consensus in Cook et al (2016).
>Cook et al (2016) cite consensus statements by national academies of science, though most of these were made before 2009, over a decade prior to the news of the IPCC reported their 2013 AR5 (Flato et al 2013) that there had been a 15-year hiatus in warming with temperature trends of “values very close to zero” (despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide concentration in that time).
>Cook et al (2016) inaccurately describes Oreskes (2004) (an article not a peer-reviewed study) as having “100% consensus” when Oreskes actually wrote: “Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.”
>REEEEEEEE! You're killing the planet, you evil NAZI!
And this is why I fucking hate liberals. Anthropogenic climate change is real, and your chimping out does the opposite of convincing people of that. You are part of the fucking problem, and given your flag, it's a safe bet that you have a huge carbon footprint, which makes you a fucking hypocrite to boot.
>Peiser (2005) (also not peer-reviewed) re-ran Oreskes (2004) and found only 13 scientists explicitly supported a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scenario with some 470 expressing no position whatsoever.
>Anderegg et al (2010) was a “contributed” paper which did not undergo conventional Direct Submission peer-review. Numerous scientists publicly objected to the classification of their work by Anderegg et al (2010) and the outcome that it established of a kind of white and black list of scientists of climate science dogma. These anomalies to “consensus” are not reported.
youtube.com
youtube.com
why are you posting this using a device manufactured by child slaves in asia?
>(((Scientists)))
saged
If God wanted the climate to stay the same he wouldn't let it change. Check mate atheists. Also, sage you fucking boipussylovin' (((science))) freak.
I'm going to purchase and then pour some motor oil in the Ohio river just because you posted this.
Dont be selfish and act like you care about killing the planet. You care that we are killing you and your offspring. Planets gunna be okay without your whiny ass leaching off it.
OP IS A BASIC BITCH
>child slaves
>implying they are not being payed
>How will we live with NO EARTH???
It's better that we die out.
>killing this planet
Planet is mostly molten silica and iron. Now go spew that greenpeace captain planet garbage somewhere else
you cant block people on reddit anyway
I'd like to see the amount of funding given to those that study to DISPROVE climate change.
Then I'd like to compare it to the amount of funding scientists get to PROVE climate change.
I know the government has spent 2.66 BILLION a year on proving climate change since 1993. I know other expenses added on like tax credits, measure an additional 8.94 BILLION....yearly.
Sorry, I couldn't find information on how much funding Climate deniers get. I read the Kosh brothers donated 100 million once. That's all I got.
If I was a scientist? I'd study how to prove global warming. Because I like owning nice things and having money. And that is the ONLY reason I'd do it.
bonded labor.
uma delicia!!!!!
The planet has been through a lot worse and came out fine. The planet adapts, it always has and always will. What you actually mean is that we'll die because, as usual, you're thinking of only yourself.
>ignore all (((scientific evidence)))
I hope you aren't old enough to vote.
Or potentially mass drought. Either way, the earth has got his.
If there was proof, ONLY ONE WOULD BE NEEDED! This is all opinion, that's why they SELECTED 700 people who agreed with them to be part of the survey.
how is human made climate change going to "kill the planet" as OP said. If anything it will just displace a bunch of people living on the coasts. we aren't going to kill the planet, we aren't going to kill off civilization, and the planet has nearly killed all life on its own at least 6 times.
...
>You are killing this planet... Can't you see that???
I'm not the Israeli security firm who blew up the fukushima reactors out of revenge for an Iran arms deal
>Albert Einstein was a jew therefore his theoretical physics is hogwash even though he was right
Sorry but I'll take science, reason, and deductive logic over MUH FEELS any day.
>Muh 97%
this
>97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientist agree
100%of people once agreed that the Sun and in fact all the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.
>Science is not a democracy
>100% once agreed
Guess that's why science proved it wrong
Well Einstein was not a global warming scientist nor did he have massive amounts of funding available in the billions of dollars.
So I'm not sure why you'd bring it up. Maybe you're just kind of stupid. That would explain it.
Science does nothing but prove itself wrong. That's literally all it's ever done throughout known history. Science proves to us the things we think we know for sure, are in fact bullshit.
THAT is what it has accomplished. Oh and the new things we learned will be proven bullshit later. And THAT is science. That's because the egg heads get ego, and start wanting to promote their " genius " theories as facts. And are rabid about anyone trying to disprove them. It's highly political and it always has been. Usually the top scientists have to DIE OFF before real progress can sometimes be made. Have to get the old fuckers out of they way.
And this was BEFORE a sector of science had unimaginable riches funneled into it. It pays damn good to be a human case global warming advocate now.
That 97% stat was derived from 77 scientists out of a 1599 sample. Fuck off
>97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientist agree that climate change is man made and will destroy the earth. How will we live with NO EARTH???
that study is complete bullshit, it's an intellectual fraud:
Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%
joseduarte.com
And 95% of Dentist agree that Colgate helps fight cavities better than ______.
No one gives a fuck about your doomsday cult bullshit kid. Go cry about it at starbucks or where ever faggots hangout now.
>still can't understand why Einstein was brought up
Thank you for proving my point.
Yea why did you bring up Einstein in a global warming debate regarding funding? You don't have a point. You've failed to fucking make it dipshit.
go kill yourself. problem solved you stupid bitch fuck this earth and humanity. i hope we all die in an irradiated wasteland.
> Albert Einstein was right. Albert Einstein was a scientist. Therefore all scientists are right.
THAT was your point. THAT was the extent of your thinking. Which also is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Congrats. You are a special kind of special.
You forgot to specify if these scientists actually do work on climate studies. I am a geneticist/bioinformatician and I will be the first to tell you that I don't have an opinion on the subject because it isn't my field. Any self respecting scientist will tell you the exact same thing and won't venture associating his name with a claim he doesn't understand. Oh, and you can't call socialists/psychologists/anthropologists "scientists" because they are subjective fields and anyone can make an opinion into a published work with little to no proof in those fields, so I would imagine most of your "scientists" just went away if you considered that.
>hurr durr people were fucking retards thousands of years ago therefore we still are
not an argument
I'll just leave this here. Founder of the Weather Channel says you're a retard.
youtube.com
Your data has been compromised.
If it gets destroyed we'll just rebuild it. That is the human nature. Now fuck off
Sage
>socialists
I meant to say sociologists but it's probably the same thing so whatever.
>a TV weatherman with no scientific training of any kind
wtf I love climate skeptics now
He is a scientist, and the original founder of the Weather Channel, not a TV weather man, you absolute dumb mother fucker.
Yeah it is, actually. You just have no rebuttal. Pathetic NEET.
Because meteorologists are never ever wrong.
kys
what is his field of expertise and where can I find his scientific papers?
If we killed 90% of the stupidest people, the average iq would be... 100.
Because that is how the formula works.
100 is the baseline.
Just like if you killed off the richest 1%, you would still have a richest 1%, just fewer super rich.
SAVE THE WORLD!