Why do Conservatives deny climate science?

Why do Conservatives deny climate science?

Other urls found in this thread:

thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
principia-scientific.org/breaking-key-un-climate-fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because California and New York are still not under water. Time to burn some tires.

You mean the "science" that says the only way to save the earth is UN-enforced global socialism?

I'm conservative and i think its real

>why can't whites just stop reproducing already?
>make it easier for us so we can get it over with

Because they're smart moral people.

Stop subsidizing the third world
Bring manufacturing back domestically
Drop the Consumerism Jew
Localize food production

I just suggested 4 more realistic ways to help reduce CO2 emissions and pollution than the UN ever put out.

(((Global warming))) my ass

Why do Liberals cook data?
thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

Because actual science is based on actual facts and not on a consensus.

>climate science

why did you photoshop a horses head on a tranny's body?

...

Why does OP always start with a false accusation, and expects someone to refute it?

Let me change the subject instead

Science functions by disproving things, that's the way it work, it cannot be used to prove anything. Politicized science can never be accurate science because the disproven results are being influenced by outside, social factors. This will remain true even if the earth turns into venus.

There's no "denying" anything, you fucking cancerous piece of human waste. It's called "agreeing with facts" that your "climate science" aka "climate change" aka "global warming" is completely unsubstantiated and has been proven wrong far more times than it's been proven right, not to mention new articles every day about how most of the data is flawed and studies are manipulated, not to mention it's the most obvious political farce of the past fifty years.

You're using the Orwellian nuleft tactic of falsely labeling something so you can attack it, and I hope you actually die horribly.

You forgot about nuclear power plants and electric public transport.

Also all cargo and cruise ships should use methane, not diesel/ fuel oil

Nuclear is a bit problematic, at least in terms of fission. Fukushima has me worried given the active cover-up about the true extent of the radiation.

More public transport would be great as well, as well as revitalizing railroad for travel and making certain areas more bike friendly.

because it was created in the 1950's by the club of rome. its been well documented in a number of books since then. anyone that reads knows this.

also why us senators have been opening dummy inc. since the 90's to sell their 'carbon credits' to other corps looking to avoid carbon tax.

I think most of the radioactive isotopes have decayed by now

Global warming has happened many times in the past. As has global cooling. And both will continue happening in the future. There's nothing man has done to cause it, and there's nothing man can do to stop it. It's simply the natural course of our planet's ecosystem.

>science

Fission is not problematic.
Fourth-generation reactors are safe to the point of being fully automated. Nothing can go wrong unless you deliberately make it go wrong.
On top of that, there's still research to be done on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Those cannot meltdown and cannot be weaponised, and they can be used to breed more uranium for other reactors too.
The USA had one of them operational for 5 years back in the early 60s, but pulled the plug when they learned it couldn't be weaponised.

That said, you can have the design for a literally flawless, unbreakable nuclear reactor that can power the whole planet. Nobody will want you to build it.
Ecomentalists are too paranoid, normies don't know what to believe so they rather don't, big oil would lose its energy revenue and there would surely be a battery of climate scientists who 'discover' how a radioactive cataclysm caused the last extinction mass event.

>You're using the Orwellian nuleft tactic of falsely labeling something so you can attack it, and I hope you actually die horribly.

That's exactly what you are doing you fucking faggot

You are straight up lying about articles being out every day

Substantiate your own stupidity prior to spouting horseshit because you don't like what your leftie boogieman panders

bruh, your gayness is showin

I dont deny it i just dont care and dont want to pay more taxes

We have not yet learned how to use controlled thermonuclear fusion. Therefore, nuclear power at the moment is the preferred. Clean, safe, renewable (Closed Fuel Cycle), available (Thorium Cycle)

t. nuclear physicist

>Why do Conservatives deny climate science?
I don't really deny the science, I just doubt that a bunch of claims by leftists who want to undermine capitalism and civilization in general are credible.

if anthropogenic climate change is real why do "climate scientists" keep getting caught lying about the data?

We know it's real, we just dont believe in your manmade climate change bullshit story used simply for the purpose of introducing a carbon tax.

blyat

>actual scientist here

Trump voter.
Of course humans contribute to warming of the globe by emission of greenhosue gasses, and people should try to curb it by other methods than some regressive carbon tax.

Here's the thing, if you acknowledge the science behind anthropogenic climate change you can use it as an immigration argument, and have a great point that you should oppose a lot of immigration because it will increase your nation's emissions and pollution.

air tight, believe me it triggers hardcore

Wow that picture solve climate change perfectly. Moar for Earth sake.

cus Gawd is real & Geezus is comin back

Dog faced shitskin to go with your dogshit thread. How appropriate. Sage.

thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Every single day you lie, then you come on the internet and yell that others are "denying" the truth. Your agenda has been exposed so many times, and your "science" debunked and proven fraudulent literally hundreds of times over at this point.

You have absolutely no concern for logic, facts, science, or climate in any way, and you make that clear by continuing to ignore facts and vigorously, fanatically lying about this issue every single goddamned day. You are the cancer infecting the minds of the human race, and you must be exterminated, excised like the tumor you are. That is the only proper response to your absolutely vile attack on reason and truth.

You've lost, and the only thing you have left to cling to is the propaganda that your puppet masters sold you in the first place.
SAD.

>wanting climate initiatives to be funded in the private sector instead of by the taxpayer
>"""denying""" climate science
This is like saying conservatives deny religion because none of them are suggesting that taxpayers should be forced to fund churches.

The earth is massive, if you think that you can rise the levels of that shit in the atmosphere and make a change of temperature in 50-100 years with 4 cars then you are retarded.

Dont fall for the kike agenda, they only want to destroy the petroleum bussiness.

What did he mean by this?

Lol

It's Liberals that deny climate science.

Shut the fuck up faggot.

None of the people in the bullshit you linked have ANY information about them available. They literally have no credence nor can I find any other significant work from them because the shit you posted is fucking FAKE.

You can try and pretend to have done your due diligence on this but you are nothing short of a fucking retard who takes in only the information that confirms your bias.

Also, this is the first time I've ever posted on these threads. I try to abstain because both sides are so full of fucking shit that I cannot trust either source of information.

As much as I agree that all studies MUST be substantiated and done properly, funded by impartial parties, what you do is nothing short of comically stupid. You sit at your computer and give me SINGLE LINKS of bullshit you find after "hours of research" when you yourself have ZERO education on the matter.

Go fuck yourself you mouth breathing troglodyte.

what is ice age?

Are you a fucking idiot?
I mean obviously you are. Just thought I should make that clear to you.

principia-scientific.org/breaking-key-un-climate-fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/

read it and weep bitch.

I dont deny climate change. Thats why i had a vasectomy 4 years ago

Dumb self hating cuck.

>not an argument
name-calling is the lowest form of disagreement

>deaths per trillion kilowatt
>nuclear bomb detonates with a release of quadrillions of kilowatts
>kills 1000 people
HAH LOOK IT ONLY KILLED 1 PERSON PER TRILLION KILOWATTS

I think its incredibly selfish to have kids tbqh. Overpopulation, climate change, not to mention the west will be taken over in 4-5 generations

how the fuck do you connect your question with this pic??

...

Why do niggers deny child support?

Because it's not science. It's a religion.

>Time to burn some tires.
Say no more.

plenty of conservatives accept humans are affecting climate change with carbon emissions. retards deny man-made climate change. the fact some of those retards are conservative is irrelevant

fpbp

It's a fairly shit tier discipline that "science fans" give too much credit to. Prior to the overhyped global warming, these people were barely allowed out of their basements and didn't make much money. Now a "climatologist" can get a lot of attention and funding if they spout the right nonsense. But it's not on par with real and established sciences. Plus you know full damn well that if the proposed solution required less government and fewer taxes, the globalists and media would be mocking it even if it were a real threat.

sauce?

Because, according to scientists in my childhood, we should be all living under the sea along spongebob by now

because they're uneducated hicks who simply take the diametrically opposed position to everything left-wingers say, not matter how retarded it is

remember the hysteria around the "hole in the ozone layer"

>Why do Conservatives deny climate science?
I don't. I just reject the idea of unlimited CO2 driven warming, that warmer temps would be always negative, that humans can make any real difference sort of mass engineering projects, that taxes on CO2 will help anything.

Pic related, it's why CO2 can't be a cause of unlimited warming.

>global satellite temperature data shows a negative slope returning to the 0°C abormality baseline
>liberal teenagers on Sup Forums who don't look at the data and instead look to alarmist articles about how hot the desert is continue screaming about the sky falling

Wew lad. If our CO2 production is always net positive so CO2 concentration is increasing, and solar output is steady (this is the assertion of the pro-climate change camp) then temperature should always be linearly increasing. Why then is there a return to baseline after the 2016 El Nino high? The data doesn't match the claim, otherwise temperature abnormalities would continue to rise instead of leveling off.

Why would we?

>implying you need more of a reason than everyone being beautiful mixed people

Why do Liberals deny science?

It might be more believable with a testable hypothesis instead of computer models made by....climate scientists. Aka the rejects of science.

The environmentalist have been screaming about a worldwide man-made caused natural disaster for decades.

First it was the coming ice age in the 60's. Then it was the destruction of ecosystems via deforestation in the 70's. Then they switched back to the coming ice-age again in the 80's. In the 90's, they crammed our heads with bullshit claims that endangered species would all suddenly and magically go extinct and this would lead to radical shifts in all ecosystems. In the 00's and today, they say global warming is going to kill the planet within 2 days.

Everyone knows the earth goes through different climate cycles. Another Ice-Age WILL eventually come. But humanity has very little influence on when and how that will happen.

Because whites are not the problem, even if its real.

Why do liberals deny reason? Lol I think thats a pretty dumb question desu.

I remember... I wonder if that was really that big of an issue or just a jewish scheme to sell new fridges
(((Scientists))) sure like to blow things out of proportion

what the fuck are you talking about?
Not even the clowns in Huntsville get a negative slope

why do liberals deny racial science?

They don't, well some do, but the non retards simply disagree with what should be done about it and how dire the situation really is

The effects of climate change aren't really that bad, they are easy to contend with and a warmer earth is arguably better for humans overall

>Why do Conservatives deny climate science?
We embrace it. The science shows that the climate is basically stable.

Why do you alarmist retards deny what the data show and tell everyone the world is ending?

This right here you dumbfuck. Look at your chart, negative slope at the end. Look at this chart, returning to pre-El Nino levels.

Do you know how to read graphs and correlate them to your assertions? If the post 2016 El Nino return to mean trend continues you'll have blown through the lower error bar of your (((models))).

If we continue to produce CO2, more heat should be captured, and this should lead to higher temperatures post 2016 El Nino vs pre 2016 El Nino. But the trend shows a return to the same temperature abnormality levels. How is that possible if additional CO2 leads to more captured heat leads to higher temperatures?

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

Climate Science:
1995
>Da icebergs are gonna go down nigguh!
>By 2005 we'll be under wata, shieeet!

2006
>MUH AL GORE
>MUH INCONVINIENT TRUTH
>By 2015 the ice sheet will dissapear

2015
>WE NEED TO HUMILLIATE THOSE WHO DENY CLIMATE CHANGE

2016
>WE NEED, IN THE FUTUTRE, TO JAIL THOSE WHO DENY CLIMATE CHANGE

A failure after a failure.

They've lived long enough to know it's a scam

...

...

that's not how the climate works you retard
if climatologists would look at temperature trends over a single year like you, we could construct all sorts of nonsensical trends that have no significance to the real world

that's why the people who actually know a bit about this topic look at the trend over several decades, which is unambiguously positive, even in your own graphic

Rural and suburanism

fpbp
also, OP, I'm curious: when you start your 8h shilling rotation, do you guys have a strategy meeting, or just apply some handbook rules?
e.g. stupid question + instawhore pic + shitflag seems like a very standard combo, cookie cutter approach. Don't you get tired? I mean, even if you got paid for it, seems a pretty pathetic existence to spout the same maneuvers over and over again, with little result

So you don't have an answer? Immediately disregarding data once a trend contrary to your assertation appears. You're obviously emotionally invested in this topic and not approaching it rationally if the answer to contrary data is to appeal to authority and autistically screech at me.

The reason most of the right will deny climate change is because of how hard the left pushes it and how much they exaggerate it.

I have seen evidence that shows that the earth is warming up and I accept the premise that humans are able to affect the climate. However, when the left talks about global warming they treat it like the world is gonna end tomorrow, so in response, the right just ignores you completely.

Basically the right is saying 1+1=0, but the left is saying 1+1=100. The left might be in the right direction, but just ignoring it and saying it isn't real is closer to the truth

Why do liberals have the same solution to three distinct problems? Unless of course its all just a scam to pilfer money...oh.

it's not my fault that you don't understand that a long-term upward trend can have short-term cooling trends

Because all the people that are pushing it don't give a fuck about it. So why should we? HAVE YOU SEEN AL GORE'S HOUSE?

If God really told him the climate change was such a threat like he claims, maybe he would change the way he lived.

...

Because they know that pretty much anything the government tells them is bullshit, so when the gov says 'give us your money now or we will all die' they don't buy it. Can you blame them?
Also, many conservatives are Christians who are looking forward to the end of the world.

And what about the fact that this last negative trend will put global temperature abnormalities below the error bars for your models' predicted global temperatures? Which is my main point - if the trend takes us out of the models' lower error range then the assertion that CO2 is causing the temperature increase is wrong or improperly weighted.

Using any of these datasets is prone to error, since even the 40 year trend is too short to make definitive claims, but comparing them to the model results is the best indication of whether the claim that climate change is man made and driven by CO2; and whether it is significant enough to destroy economies to fix it.

Based on recent data showing an incoming break through the models' lower error bars shows that the temperature increase is not to the scale the models predict and may not even be worth combatting. If it's even primarily driven by man.

better question: why do you call it science when it fails the first litmus test of being a science?
I'll stop using the internet if I'm wrong, if you agree to never use the internet if you're wrong. Deal?

because it's junk science.. plain and simple.. doesn't exist

Which, you should add, will provide the necessary start up power for an eventual fusion reactor which will reduce the prices of helium balloons significantly

Why are you comparing a nuclear weapon with nuclear reactors?

>google Alan Carlin EPA, find scandal where EPA actively tried to suppress his findings
That was one person. Nice try, but they're real and they're qualified