Climate Change

why is most of Sup Forums in denial about this?

Other urls found in this thread:

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/04/20/science.1202131
climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>climate change
seasons?

Because Sup Forums is filled with uneducated hicks masquerading as people with knowledge.

The climate is never the same, it's always changing.

go suck umbalus dick you german cuck

>LMAO 97% OF SCIENTISTS AGREE WHAT ARE YOU STUPID user?
>implying that statistic hasn't been debunked a thousand times
>implying that there isn't a horrendous amount of money pushing the climate change agenda and securing that consensus
>implying it isn't (((them))) jewing us again
>implying that real scientists are regressive pearl clutchers who screech "DENIER!!!" at everyone who disagrees with them
>implying that a lot of these studies aren't data-cooked for more $$$$$$$
>implying that satellite and uncooked data suggest it's LITERALLY NOTHING

There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic, OP.

Fuck off jew shit
sage

Fuck off you little shit. we won't be giving you fucks anymore money.

when you take a look at what self-styled climate skeptics do (taking discredited clowns like Peter Moore, Stefan Molyneux or Christopher Monckton at their words, citing obscure blogposts and Breitbart articles as authoritative scientific sources, spinning conspiracy theories about how scientists are systematically faking the data to trick the world,...), to call that "skepticism" would mean to give skepticism a bad name

Climate change is real goy.

>LMAO THIS GUY IS SRSLY CITING MOLYNEUX AND BREITBART!!!!!
>THIS GUY RITE HERE IS WHY ALL CLIMATE SKEPTICS ARE ABSOLUTE TRASH
>GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
>SKEPTICS BTFO
>Sup Forums BTFO!!!!!

This is what you sound like right now m8.

The only thing I don't understand is how subsidizing the industrialization of developing countries will reduce carbon emissions.

It's not that we deny climate change, it's that we don't think that humans are causing it

feel free to prove me wrong

Show me some proof.

No, consensus isn't proof.

what else do you think could account for the warming?

climate change is only in minds of those who profit from it

I have a BSc. and MSc. in a science field that has little to nothing to do with the climate but I was just wondering at what point do climatologists get told to lie about their results, to skew their facts and to never tell outsiders about what's really going on? Because we never got that talk but maybe it's not important in my field.

I mean the rest of us scientists are well versed in factoring in discrepancies, to thoroughly analyse data and to always question and double check our findings. Surely they must teach climate scientists this too, right? But maybe they don't because people on the internet have found that virtually their entire field is wrong. That must be embarrassing for them. I really hope people on the internet don't discover that electrons are a jewish conspiracy because that will set is back decades.

This planet isn't warming up, it's approaching a mini-ice age. If you seriously believe that we are 100% causing the Earth to warm up, than you might as well deny the ice ages.

On what exactly? All you've done so far is post a strawman slide thread on a catonese waterbottle making critique board.

>implying that the "warming" isn't the lugenpresse

Because it doesnt matter as long as chinks exist, they'll destroy the planet way faster than us, so we need to not gimp our economy in order to stand a chance against them when push comes to shove

The climate has been changing for thousands of years. You are really really really late to the party...

I believe in climate change, I just don't care.

It'll render most of Africa, Latin America, South Asia, and the Middle East uninhabitable and kill billions of brown people, but up here in the north, it'll just make winter a little less awful.

i dont deny it, i just dont give a fuck, the planet will be fine, its been through worse situations that had nothing to do with humans, humans might create an environment they cant live in or not, debatable, if so, we deserve what comes.

weather is obviously changing, it will change the details of the environment.

the problem isnt that we pollute, everything shits, the problem is there are too many people doing it,VAST majority is from china and india and they dont give a fuck, so even if the west goes 100% green, china and india will still fuck us

>This planet isn't warming up
why are the ice sheets melting then?

I want you to prove me wrong in my view that all climate skeptics can do is do the things I mentioned

Sup Forums is denying man-made climate change. Not climate change in a whole.

>approaching a mini ice age

>why are the ice sheets melting then?

Umm, try again, sweetie

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

I honestly wish climate change was real because it would kill a ton of shit skins and crop production in the PNW would go up an estimated 20%.

I drive a f350 just to do my party in climate change.

>...that all climate skeptics can do is...

laughingwhores.jpg

...

>hicks
nah man, in my experience Sup Forums is basically 2 groups

>the typical neckbeard neet furry hentai loser
>males(some females) who are slightly more intelligent than the average trying to figure all this shit out through discussion and cooperative research who come here for the anonymity and unfettered free speech

t. been here since we promoted birdflu as a a major health threat to the normies

oh man 12 whole years of data

>US temperature means the rest of the world

Because they use it for pushing narratives of control and higher taxation while it doesn't actually fix anything

In order to reduce the temp by 1 degree Celsius it'd take $3 quadrillion dollars and 1440 years

It's economic suicide

it distributes wealth away from america to shitholes to be used for anything they want

The planet have existed for around 5 billion years.Only a slighty change in the climate takes centuries.A human being can't experience such things as human life is too short.Also human activity/man-made climate change is not real because we as species have been around for like 5-6 millenias(compared to 5 billion this is fuckin nothing).So we can't change the climate we are not powerful enough for that,we are irrelevant and the world will exist long after the human species is gone..

There is a lot of hysterical posturing highjacking climate change for actionist proposals or claiming funds but it is an undeniable reality.
Instead of dismissing the way the planet will change and affect us all in some way, or just hyping up every self appointed worldsaviours idea which needs more middleclass money we should discuss how and to what extend funding or investment in future societies should be channeled that are resilient to the coming storms.
It is a misconception after all that only leftist demands are in line with climate concious politics.

So the article says that there is a net increase of mass in Antarctica on the order of 82 Gt/year.

But Antarctica =/= the cryosphere, is it?

Can you tell us what's happening in Greenland and the mountain glaciers or do you want me to do that?

Also anthropogenic climate change supporters operate like a cult. Look up how the "97% of scientists agree" lie was created and you'll understand. They took things that were outright negative or neutral towards the anthropological narrative and considered them as positive towards it. Many scientists protested being included in the "positive" category

They're basically pushing an apocalyptic narrative. Only 0.3% of climate papers that support the narrative call on an apocalyptic scenario yet the supporters hold those up as fact.


There is WAYYYYYY more money pushed towards saying it's real than saying it isn't. If a scientist goes against the narrative then he is attacked and blacklisted and has his government funding cut

>upon response to Einstein learning that 100 scientists signed a paper saying "100 scientists against Einstein"

>""why 100. If I were wrong 1 would've been enough"

as I said, feel free to correct my perception

No denial, its just happened before. It will happen again.

I'm skeptical of any group who tells us "The science is settled" and actively quashes any dissenting viewpoint. That is not how the scientific method is supposed work. And another thing, if the governments of the world really gave a fuck about the planet, would they be offering "carbon credits" to the very sources of pollution that they are always bitching about being the ones responsible for killing the planet. Carbon credits are literally the modern day equivalent of indulgences sold to people by the Catholic church in the Middle Ages. It's a money making scheme. "Here my child, you have paid your dues to the Holy Church Of Climate Change, you may now commit the sin of pollution guilt free....for a little while."

Americans are brainwashed by the oil and coal companies.

Also they don't believe in science because of Jesus.

Because mainstream science is now telling people that there are more than two genders. Science is no longer science.

Models setting historical global temperature trends against historic atmospheric CO2 have failed to be predictively valid.

Because their fields are heavily dependent on government funding. These governments use the narrative as an excuse to enact control legislation and higher taxes in a way that theoretically won't piss the citizens off as much

>oh no we had to tax you out the ass or the world will end

They would be out of a job if they didn't constantly push for there being some grave threat

The issue with climate change deniers is that they have absolutely no idea how to read data.

You criticise 12 year data for ice sheets melting, yet don't realize that it's statistically significant, considering some of these ice sheets are thousands of years old.

Regional cooling data is shown to somehow justify global heating trends.

High past CO2 and temperature levels are given as proof that the Earth is fine with higher levels, yet it's never taken into account that the climate was radically different, and to get to that level with everything being fine took tens of thousands of years, not less than a century

Climate change deniers operate on misinterpreting and misrepresenting data, either mistakenly or purposefully changing time scales or regional scales.

>we can't change the climate we are not powerful enough for that

then when I point out that human emissions of CFCs has substantially depleted ozone over Antarctica, which in turn has caused the speed-up and poleward shift of the extratropical westerly jet, resulting in large-scale changes in precipitation over the entire Southern Hemisphere, what's your response?

>>males(some females) who are slightly more intelligent than the average trying to figure all this shit out through discussion and cooperative research who come here for the anonymity and unfettered free speech
Good one.

They aren't melting. Antarctica is getting thicker. ACC supporters had to use a lot of mental gymnastics to get around that one

Statistical signifigance doesn't mean functional signifogance you layman fuck. Especially when p hacking exists.

T H I C C

Antarctica has been getting thicker for thousands of years.

But the rate of growth is rapidly slowing down and soon it will be shrinking.

>considering some of these ice sheets are thousands of years old
those "thousands" insignificant considering the planet is 100s of millions years old

Exactly and that's why those "business leaders" and companies were so pissy about trump pulling out. They already had deals in place to profit off the accords when the US pumped billions into third world shitholes. Meanwhile the people in the US would be screwed


Funny how ACC supporters could say

>muh fossil fuel companies are funding all skeptic research so it can't be trusted because corporations

Yet then pull out

>Muh fossil fuel companies and business leaders thought we should stay in the accords

No shit they would. They'd get a fuck ton of gibs

Being in denial about a claim based on models that have never been correct?

I have no idea user.

my response is that you don't have any source to back up that claim,so it all becomes invalidated.You can make up shit and structure in a sentense, but still it is not valid and not a fact, just a bullshit statement

Read it and weep Climate Change Tards....the North Pole has melted several times before and refroze later. Its a cycle that we have nothing to do with.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

>They aren't melting

but they are. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment mission is suggesting that Greenland is losing mass at a rate of 273 Gt/year and the remaining GIC are losing mass at a rate of 217 Gt/year, both STRONGLY offset any mass gain Antarctica.

And the mass loss is actually accelerating with time (at the same time as the mass gain in Antarctica is decelerating, as your article points out)

>No, just because it's significant doesn't mean it's REALLY significant
>It's all p-hacking, unless it supports my viewpoint
>most scientists agree with global warming? Let me tell you why it's all a conspiracy
>Drudge Report and these Youtube videos prove I'm right

Sup Forums is a board with flat-earthers and reptilian believers. So I apologize if I trust thousands of independent universities, research centres, and scientists over an user shitlord.

Reminder:

- step 1: climate change isn't real
- step 2: climate change is real but not caused by humans
- step 4: climate change is real and caused by humans but it's not a problem.
- step 5: what? I was never a climate change denier, it's all lies! boohoohoo I want my mommy.

science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/04/20/science.1202131

>July 8 2012

>July 12 2012

Holy shit you're dumb. That graphic is misleading as fuck. It's Over the course of 3 days. Pretending like a hot day is indicative of melting overall. If that graphic were true for Greenland overall then it would be on fire right now.

If climate change is such a prevalent issue, then why are globalists wanting to increase our already over-populated earth?

Clearly climate change doesn't exist.

Because Sup Forums wouldn't ever agree with a mainstream position like that. These people are contrarians through and through.

We aren't, we just think it's stupid to gimp ourselves and grant China 3rd world status when it comes to cleaning our act up. We do need to curb externalities but that's about it.

For what it's worth, whenever MSM presents something as scientific, that's when you most have to question it. Fluoridation for example has caused more harm in developed nations than not, to the point where Scandinavian states have stopped doing it.

the point of the picture is just to show that there are times at which Greenland is experiencing surface melt over its entire surface (even the vast interior).
You don't have to rage at innocent picture, I wrote down what's going on in Greenland right here

I don't think its most of Sup Forums. Just some dedicated shills and shitposters baiting.
>co2 is a ghg
>human activity increases co2
How much it will change the climate is open for debate.

>step 5
For us northeners, we gonna get fucked not in this lifetime but our children might. Albeit indirect pressure from the gazillion nogs that flee the sahel will become a problem while not helping the bangladeshis against getting flushed from their indian netherlands will flame migration wars in south-east asia.
if only an eight of the world would be as insanely competent as you concerning agriculture we wouldnt have to worry about that too.

Wow, it's a good thing that all people who get into climate science as a profession coincidentally have zero integrity or this whole scam would fall asunder. Lucky for the governments I guess.

>no idea how to read data

Yet the other supporter in this thread just posted a graphic to try and portray Greenland as melting extremely fast.... yet it was over the course of four days in 2012

We aren't the ones who don't understand how to read data. This is why ACC supporters constantly push out the most misleading charts and graphs possible because their side is ignorant about how to actually read them so they see

>line go up. Big number. Bad

Like how they constantly push out charts showing CO2 ppm increase without telling that CO2 isn't even close to the largest greenhouse gas and CO2 ppm warming trends don't scale linearly but logarithmically. The first 10ppm are when most of the warming effect is. After that it drops drastically until the trend from additional co2 is basically zero

Btw NASA even agrees that the earth is getting greener. Plants use CO2. We have a 20% global foliage increase since 1985

The earth isn't being turned into some barren dusty wasteland. It's growing more plants than recent memory. Funny how that works. It's almost like plants use CO2 to survive and we were already on the low end of the optimal CO2 concentration for plant growth prior to the industrial revolution

just wait till it gets as hot as the Paleocene.

climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

I've always wondered if we could engineer a solution to climate change instead of dicking around in politics. For instance if had a tree-planting program in the United States funded by existing corporate taxes, we could shave off a good 1% in carbon emissions (instead of going up). Surely with some thought we could come up with dramatically better ideas.

if you would just take a look at what's written in the scientific referee journal literature instead of internet blogs, you might even learn something

nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

> pol why won't you just accept the narrative? If the totally unbiased news outlets and (((consensus))) tells us that this is the 'intellectual' position it must be real!
> scientists could never possibly have a motive besides the pursuit of truth itself, because it's not like their livelihood depends on financial incentive like any other job
> and it's not like they would ever exaggerate claims or abuse statistics to sensationalize an issue for the sake of funding

Wow OP you really made me think about how you managed to get out of your cuck shed to make this retarded thread. I'm sure Ahmed will find you soon and put you back where you belong before round 2 with your wife and her daughter to another rapefugee

by the way, your graph isn't correct
it's missing the instrumental record (which contains the entirety of the warming of the last few decades)

>I've always wondered if we could engineer a solution to climate change

Nah.

To prevent it at least some countries would have to leave their oil/gas/coal wealth underground.

And so far nobody has ever shown any intention to do that.
Not even Norway, who pretends to be green.
Not even us, who get earth quakes destroying homes because of massive natural gas extraction.

Lots of people are willing to consume less oil, gas and coal.
But nobody is willing to produce less of it.

I agree with this entirely.

This should be verifiable. Studies disclose their funding sources. Someone should compile some stats.

>year 400-2000

rofl how does anyone take this shit seriously.

If the statistics have been debunked thousands of times why can you deniers never show an example of statistics being debunked?

...

You don't think we could GM a strain of super algae that could cut down on CO2? Surely Monsanto has some very smart people working for them who could figure it out.

You literally don't know what statistical signifigance is, and you think you're qualified to have an informed opinion, that's just cute

>OW YEEZ mesurments from 150 years ago aren't accurate.

The same faggots who deny climate change are probably the same faggots who think the earth is flat unironically because they think that fact was all manufactured by the jews

what's wrong with this?

that's why there is an uncertainty envelope. The thick red line doesn't mean "this is where the sea ice was exactly", it's just the mean of the spread. It means that Arctic sea ice extent was within the red shaded area with a certainty of 95%

Even if climate change is a massive hoax, there is literally no downside to consuming less and trying to be more green.

Well, yes, there is one downside: the millionaires who own oil will see a small decline in profits. Oh god how horrible.

We are talking a lot about trying to stop digging for coal as one of the primary consumers of browncoal in the world, decisions when exactly, to what extend and how is expected to be announded after the election cycle is done.
If you ask the companies, they want to exploit at least the claims they already have, which would mean stopping coal somewhere around 2050.

>Monsanto
You mean Bayer? :^)

Yes, maybe removing CO2 from the atmosphere is possible.

But I think that's our only hope (still, I have none)

When you say "Climate change" you really AGW. Now, AGW may be happening, and it might not be. But the real question is what to do about it. Oil is the world's fuel and it's not even close. When there is a real, viable alternative people will use it. Until, it's oil. So then the two questions remain: 1) how much are you willing to give up in terms of rights and dollars to let (((them))) "do something", and 2) who really says we would be better with (((their))) "something" than we would be riding it out as men and adults?

For me, the risk that the globalist will simply take rights and money and not do shit is FAR TOO HIGH when weighed against the likelihood that we'd be just fine without it.

because Trump told them and Sup Forums has to suck Trumps cock

For me the final straw was the intellectual dishonesty of trying to sell the RCP 8.5 scenario as a plausible, normal "baseline" of future development. RCP 8.5 isn't actually about climate, but makes assumptions about world population, economy and technology over the next century instead. All these assumptions are against current trends, like highly growing birthrates that have actually gone down in the last decades, very limited to no technology advances with regards to energy production or consumption and a huge increase in the use of coal. It's like worst case squared then add some, round upwards and add some more for good measure. Every time you read about a new doomsday scenario in the media you can bet it was calculated using RCP 8.5 as input.

judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/

>which would mean stopping coal somewhere around 2050.

And by that time I'm sure coal is no longer economically viable anyways.
Same as it hasn't been economically viable in most of the USA since they discovered fracking.

Blow it out your ass

The issue is that Russia never signed and China demand to pollute until it catches up. Trump said he is willing to negotiate a fair treaty.

Consumerism is a big part of Keynesianism. Consumerism is literally shoved down our throats by most government in the world because of Keynesian economics.

>Oil is the world's fuel and it's not even close. When there is a real, viable alternative people will use it

That's literally what most enviromentalists are trying to fucking do, but they get shut down by politicians and paranoid dumbasses who believe they'll just ciphon money out and give nothing else.

Exactly.
its a struggle and we'll see if we wait it out or not, if we choose the former no developing country will be impressed by calls for restraint for good reason.