Freaks of Nature

Is there any debating with Climate Freaks?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Or will they just not stop until they get their one world government?

they are turned on by the prospect of being personally cucked by the to-be biggest institution on earth

It's a mental disorder

There's no debating with climate change deniers. Every one of them thinks 14 minutes of looking at (mostly fake) internet pictures makes them a climatologist.

Climate change is real. Changing weather patterns and ocean acidification are real phenomenons that future generations will have to deal with. Biodiversity is really suffering on a global scale.

But keep believing your internet pictures. Anything to keep big oil and the Koch brothers from changing their ways, right? Go go gadget free market and all that. Save the economy not the planet.

...

no, more like niggers, beaners, muslims, chinks, dot heads, and kikes are real phenomenons that future generations will have to deal with.

Okay.

Do you have the original image?
It's important.

Climate science is the TMZ of science

5 minutes of nonbiased investigation makes you more informed about their field than a life time of 90% of these Climate Freaks doing their 'jobs'

They are Climate freaks and have been utterly brainwashed

Do you have any internet pictures to back that up or is it just your ignorant opinion?

true that

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Understanding climate change doesn't take five minutes. It requires hundreds of hours of background in biology, chemistry, climatology, biogeography, and history before you can even begin to approach the subject. Your arrogance in thinking you can understand it after five minutes is just outstanding.

I studied real science, Physics, and climate scientists are the scum of the earth

Climate science is just a cult centred around a faulty evaluation of the Cloud albedo feedback parameter. they are Climate freaks all of their models are wrong because of this one huge blunder that they WILL NOT do proper research into to correct

I'm not saying you understand it all in 5 minutes I'm saying these Climate freaks with degrees in the literal TMZ of science have less true knowledge of the world than some random person doing 5 minutes of real investigation or 5 minutes watching this video

youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

Climate freaks have wasted their lives. Sad!

>t. Viewer of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

Wow that's super interesting. Have you published your data about this? The scientific community would be so interested to hear about all the authority your high school physics class gives you on the subject.

Do explain why the albedo effect isn't real. I'll wait. I've got time.

"facts" and science" are nothing more than liberal plots to make the chinese stronger. I believe in alternative facts.

...

I also watched Leonardo DiCaprio's sequel. It was pretty good.

First three minutes of your video is complete horseshit. I'm still watching though. I get why you're so confused if you consider this a reliable source. Poor thing.

100% this

umm no sweetiepie

you're a little bit delirious from all that brainwashing but it's OK I forgive you

principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

Wow what a totally irrelevant and cherry picked contribution. Your video isn't getting any less bullshit. Got anything else? Preferably something convincing if your can find it.

you haven't actually refuted any of the things I've said. you've just got severely bootyblasted and started insulting me. Sad!

you are a Climate Freak

a freak of nature if you will

I bet you believe the Holocaust religion too you poor soul

no.

By even engaging in conversation with them you are encouraging them to spew more illogical madness.

they are not arguing with you, they never do, they don't listen to you because if they did they would have to listen to logic, and their entire concept of built off of ill logic that doesn't stand up to ten seconds of scrutiny.

By speaking to them you are walking right into their trap.
They never wanted to discuss anything with you, they just wanted to repeat the magic lines they learnt which make them sound human.

Of course the clima is changing. There wasn't a constant clima ever. There isn't a constant landmass, too. Everything is moving and changing.

This is a nice dismissive phrase, just like "snowflake".

Definitely spread this.

kys

You're not convinced me you're worth engaging in serious discussion. What you've presented so far is so shit-teir that I'm still trying to decide if you're trolling or just a literal retard. It's the same reason NASA doesn't seriously consider hiring people who think we faked the moon landing. The reality you live in is so warped and delusional that you're just not worth my time.

Long ago I tried to refute points and engage in productive discussions with you raging morons. But you know, I can't spoon feed you out of your unjustifiable opinions. As long as you have your alternative facts and Fox News opinion pieces to cuddle to sleep at night you will never change.

climate change science is global communism, the seizure of all production. Any nations that are non-compliant will be treated as an enemy. The Paris Accord was the biggest, bold faced truth in all of this - and of course you have two resident pro-EU kraut cocksuckers responding to you, to back up this notion

No it is not.

Well that settles it then, you fucking faggot

Excellent. I'm glad we could come to an amiable agreement.

>He says as he types on his computer made with rare earth metals powered by coal or lng

I don't know about it anymore after coming to a question that nobody wanted to answer.

We see an upward trend in going temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution with an overall increase of 1 degree Celsius. The only issue is that the tools used to get those historic values probably have a margin of error much higher than a single degree. Especially when compared to modern tools that can measure temperature within a thousandth of a degree.

How can we expect to compare those two data points and what guarantee is there of any accuracy on temperatures measured by pajeet 140 years ago with a thermometer that only measures in 5 degree increments?

you've proven my point that Climate Freaks cannot debate with people. You haven't yet refuted a single point of the video or the fact that the Cloud Albedo feedback parameter is dodgy on purpose

You are a Climate freak, I'm truly sorry, I wish it was another way

We're constantly told that the temperature rise of the past one hundred years is a complete anomaly. Nothing similar has happened is the recent past

My only response to that is

>What was the second highest century-long rise of the past 1000, 5000, 12000, 50000, and 100000 years, respectively?

I want some clearly defined numbers that can be compared

I can't just take that comment as fact without some facts. No clear facts are ever given beyond c02 levels.

You've lost, there will be no global climate change accord - an order will not be established and there will be no organized control of any nation's wealth or production. If this is not okay with you, and you wish to continue fighting for it - then you may elect to pay with your blood. If you choose to do so, you'll be fighting the United States and it's combined forces as well as it's coalition.

In the meantime, you can go lick Merkel's hairy asshole and choke to death on a pile of sour nigger shit, you worthless commie motherfucker

I haven't refuted you albedo conspiracy theory because it's nonsense. You've given me nothing to refute. I also wouldn't engage with someone who said wind turbines are powered by tiny midgets on treadmills.

no we actually do our own research and discover people like Dr. Patrick Moore or Dr. Roy Spencer and countless others. I don't give two fucks if you think the world is coming to an end. Keep living in fear for all I care. Smart people know better.

Did Bill Nye used to have that smug smile? It's almost as if smug Pepe has inhabited him.

The hypocritical climate freak is getting angry and spouting off non sequiturs. He cannot believe that his vision of one world government through the Paris Accord was ended by Donald Trump!

Why are you using technology if you're so worried aboot the environment ?

Wow. And they say the climate change advocates are dramatic. Take it down a notch drama queen.

Okay.

The hypocritical climate freak has still not answered as to why he is using environmentally harmful technological devices, while simultaneously telling others to cut back on their lifestyles!

Keep talking. You've completely lost, the intent of seizing wealth and production of sovereign nations in support of the false premise of climate change is a complete failure. It's fucking over. Done. There is nothing you can do about it, you will never have control.

Don't talk to me about drama chicken little, the sky was never falling, but you certainly are.

Climate freak just had a little brain hiccup there. we've laid out extensive points and he hasn't refuted a single one but he still thinks he has the upper hand! Very sad!

>know-nothing know-it-all : the post

Donald Trump didn't end anything. He just isolated himself and the country. We will be back in the agreement in three years when we have someone smarter in the office. I use technology because technological advancement is the only possible route to truly combatting climate change. Why do you go outside on sunny days when solar power is competing with the fossil fuel industry?

Climate change =/= proposed solutions for climate change. Just because interest groups hijacked the issue doesn't mean it's not happening. Obviously most alarmists and politicians aren't pushing the issue because they would care about climate change but because they wan their friends to profit.

Friendly reminder there is no downside to clean renewable energy. Even if you don't believe in climate change, fossil fuels smell fucking terrible.

Bill Nye has been a proponent of fake science for ages. His nuclear winter theory was literally formulated with 0 actual numbers in it. Science is about measurement, not guesswork, and you CANNOT do science if you don't have a single fucking measurable number. Nothing he says has any credibility to me whatsoever.

Hey, speaking of measurement, what measurable impact would be Paris Accord have on the global average temperature? Let's hear it since you're so well informed.

Lol. That's quite a conspiracy theory you've got there. Those rascally Jew reptiles will never get your wealth if you keep on your toes. Stay diligent.

This whole board is that kind of person. I don't know why you're surprised.

the instrumental error of surface thermometers is extremely small in modern times and there are a few reasons or methods to reduce this small error even further:
-remember the temperature anomaly for a month or a year doesn't come from a single measurement - stations all around the world take several measurements ever day. Since instrumental error is by definition stochastic (it gives too high and too low readings with equal probability) this error gets smoothed out by taking the average of a lot of individual measurements.

-the effects of the sources that are known to be less reliable can be reduced by weighing them differently.

That's why the terrestrial temperature monitoring bodies give essentially identical temperature anomalies.

With satellites it's a different story (which should be surprising because you see a lot of people on the internet claiming that satellite data is the "best data we have"). Satellites don't take direct temperature measurements, rather they have a "Microwave sounding unit" (MSU) that measures microwave emissions from oxygen molecules, which is a function against temperature. And there the error really is considerable, not only because you need a complicated retrieval algorithm, but also because you have non-stochastic errors like microwave emissions from high clouds or orbital drift.
That's why the data big satellite data sets (UAH and RSS) get somewhat different results for the temperature anomaly in the Troposphere.

Plastic production had acidified the ocean and kill the barrier reef, and multinationals pay for studies that blame le fossil fuels and le global warming so fools like yourself willingly give up the right to drive cars because you think you're saving the planet.

Goyim are real. The sweatshop hell that is Asia exists to give you the tech you masturbate with and you assert that the same tech is going to save us all. You're a middling intellect at best, accustomed to throwing your weight around and bullying the barely literate baristas at your coffee shop. You don't belong here. You have to go back.

greenhouse effect proven false in new paper
omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I'm not talking about error in modern measurements. I'm not in doubt of the sum average of those measurements being correct. What I'm asking about it the trend line that they are attempting to draw using historic data recorded by hand by sources that may not have been as reliable to say that global temperatures are up 1°C. If those measurements can't even be that precise then how do we know anything has changed?

...

meant for

>Lol. That's quite a conspiracy theory

The Paris Climate Accord is not a conspiracy theory, you useless nigger shill.

Climate change is very real as far as anyone being a "climate freak" I suggest you listen to some scientists that have conservative values so you can have a better time relating. Tbh liberals deny curtain things in science that seems racist. But science knows no creed, color, or race. Some WNs or Nazis, whatever people describe themselves as don't like this idea though to be fair. So each side is in denial to a curtain extent. Now that my ramble is done, NO you can't refute climate change, it's just is what is.

The people who are talk the most about climate change and push it the hardest, typically have some differing motive
Be it their own personal gain or their hatred of big corporations, especially oil companies
They see them as the ultimate evil, and leach on society

Even if climate change was somehow proven to be incorrect or a co2 scrubber was designed that solved all possible problems, they'd still push the same anti-big business, anti-capitalist narrative

Realizing that is the first step in debating them
They just use climate change as a talking point for a deeper fight

listening to the Climate 'scientists' is like listening to TMZ on their opinion of watergate

>Plastic production had acidified the ocean and kill the barrier reef
Got a paper for that?

Well I can't change your mind on how you feel about climate change, desu many people on Sup Forums don't come here to change there mind but to be reassured. But what I can say is that we'll never know the effects of it within our lifetimes because the serious outcomes will most likely happen after where long gone, but I can wrong about that also I haven't looked at the new data recently, from what I have heard well start to see affects in the twilight of my generations lives, something I don't believe, but like I said id have to see whats at the forefront right now. But if we continue to deny science its seat at the table and only listen to what we want to hear there won't be no planet for white people.

Can someone give me the basic gestahlt on climate change?

I haven't dived into the papers because I can't be arsed, all I know is that lefties tend to quote the "99% of the scientists agree..".

What's the real conclusion?

Plastic has been scientifically proven to be non biodegradable, theres only one rare bacterium that can actually degrade it but like I said rare. so it takes plastic millions of years too degrade in nature, not fun for the environment.

>what's the conclusion?
data faked/manipulated
assumptions used
data models fail
wonder why

that 99% meme was debunked long ago

sufficient coverage with instruments is considered to exist since 1860. Furthermore there are relatively easy ways to estimate the uncertainty of the historical data. One way you can do that is to subdividing the data into smaller groups and then inter-comparing the resulting trendlines (a large spread of trends means large uncertainty, a small spread means small uncertainty).
Since the 1°C anomaly is in reference to the 1880-1920 baseline, this really isn't a significant problem.

It's only at ~1850 and before that the uncertainty becomes considerable.

So you're unable to refute what he's saying. Got it.

Yes science has proven climate change just go ahead and google it for yourself and then google the arguments against it too see for yourself. If you ask farmers summer is two weeks longer then it use to be. But the main reason some far right people don't agree with it is because to help halt or change the warming and cooling in curtain areas of the Earth it'll take a global effort, aka gobalizism. So they feel its another lie by you know who too somehow destroy white folk.

I'm not one to deny any future consequences for our actions now

Very possible that all the co2 we're pumping into the atmosphere changes some world dynamic that we haven't even considered yet

The lack of knowledge and understanding about all this including the temperature angle is what I find the most concerning

I just like arguing and pointing out how so many of the current talking points and agendas have no basis in reality

...

I would invite you to think your position to its logical end.
Are there unknowns and uncertainties in climate science? Yes.

But think about what this means:
It on the one hand means that things might not be as bad as climate scientists have thought.
But it equally means that things could be much, much worse.

And I don't think it's particularly moral to take a gamble like that and conduct the biggest geophysical experiment in the history of the human race, with every living organism on Earth as the lab rat.

...

Well the climate is very susceptible to any change, it would be a disaster with the global temperature was raised by single digits, example 2 degrees. That idea can be disputed but what can't be disputed is if the temperature raises and cools in curtain areas it will affect crops.

Yes, I'm aware that Plastic is horrible and is fucking up our ocean, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's causing the acidification. That's what I'm asking about, a paper showing causation between plastic production/pollution and ocean acidification.

...

Yellowstone will erupt before global warming becomes a real problem, so discussing climate change is a waste.

Let's return to my original premise

Hypothetically let's say climate change was somehow proven incorrect, what would that change for you?
Would you still be anti-big oil, anti-capitalist?

Most of all yes I am a White nationalist and I'm a American as far as the JQ goes yes Jews have done our people wrong but there isn't a mass conspiracy by which every single non white or liberal whites are against Nationalism and want to force globalism. Nihilism amongst whites is very common, to believe that everybody is against us, to to deny something that pushes a different outcome then whats wanted is easy. Thats my message to my fellow Europeans, even tho I'm a shill now.

There would be no to be against those things then kek

anti-fossil fuel (companies) certainly
the number of people who are killed every year by the effects of air and water pollution by the burning of coal for example is absolutely enormous.
Or ocean acidification, whose significance also cannot be overstated.

Everyone of those points alone is reason enough for me to oppose fossil fuel companies, even with the hypothetical exclusion of all other points.

dosn't even have to be something that big.

Who do you think funds climate science research that shows extreme dangerous warming?

Who do you think funds climate science research that shows no warming?

I don't know about the acidification in the ocean I didn't know that was even a issue, I'm just anti plastic because its non biodegradable. I think that would enough reason to hate it.

>believing Bobby Fischer quotes count for anything
>being this retarded

>What's the real conclusion?
Look into the science yourself, this isn't /sci/.

Look one post below you

Climate Change deniers and alarmists are both impossible to reason with.

The Skeptics primarily know it is real, but don't fall for the alarmist shit that the Looney Left keep pushing through celebrities, politicians, activist groups and "experts" like Shill Nye who know nothing about the actual climate. Part of the reason we have the migrant crisis is because of the Paris Accord.

The Paris Accord is a non-binding agreement that is ultimately a Socialist policy (wealth redistribution) scam that gives massive amount of dollars to 3rd world nations and they get shoody and inefficient technology or they blow the money on bullshit. Not only that, the US has put in more to this wealth redistribution network while India and China barely do much.

Not only that, people are throwing billions of dollars into actual helpful solutions when all you really need to do is plant more trees and you can save billions doing this.

Fossil Fuel industry has also found a way to reduce greenhouse emissions to near 0 with converters for Coal. So you can keep coal while Solar and Wind solve their efficiency problems. Hydroelectricity is the best natural one. The French fusion reactor will be completed next year (assuming the country isn't overrunned in sand niggers) and you can get a massive amount of energy off of combining Hydrogen atoms.

Oh please. That movie is nothing more than a political hit piece.

Underwater volcano activity in the Antarctica is most likely the reason for the acidification of the oceans and there is absolutely zero we can do about it.

Hell, when huge blocks break off they will blame climate change and not the ocean boiling and toxic spewing volcano's underneath it.

Science need a Reformation.

The hypocritical climate freak has still not answered as to why he is using environmentally harmful technological devices, while simultaneously telling others to cut back on their lifestyles!

...

Yeah people die but I don't see the issue, real American economics is a mixed model of command economy and pseudo capitalism. If the workers start to say where getting sick from this there will be regulations unlike in a complete laissez-faire system. The track leads to eventual clean energy anyways so no climate change would be a great thing, giving scientist longer to develop better system that will be accepted by the population. Instead of rushing and having problems with the system. Ill say this for the climate change deniers though Portugal is pushing there clean air regime hard then even ran there entire nation on a combination of wind, water, and solar energy for I believe a day and a half, why go to all the trouble of doing that?

Your stupid face needs a reformation

I disagree, mainly because staying with Oil and Koch is bad for the economy too.

I don't know enough about the subject to comment on that so I guess Ill have to take your word for it.

Wow, the UN really struck a nerve with that one. Fucking dipshits.

It was four days not a day and a half