Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
This is the last issue that I'm a normie on
I'm terrified of climate change killing my children and grandchildren
The only angles I think to peg it to globalism/Jews to is
1) it's real and they don't give a shot about us and will go off into self sustaining bunkers while we die off
2) it's fake and they're manipulating us into thinking it's real so that they can get us to agree to them spraying shit into the atmosphere to make us stupid
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
climate.nasa.gov
zerohedge.com
bing.com
mobiloil.com
journals.ametsoc.org
youtube.com
thechronicleherald.ca
change.org
twitter.com
It's real, but humans didn't cause it and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
It's real, it's not going to kill us all, it WILL cause some problems, it is going to continue regardless if we stop using fossil fuels or not, but most important of all...
IT IS ANOTHER WAY TO TAX YOU
it's going to fuck up third world countries pretty bad. if you think the refugee problem is bad now wait until the climate refugees come
Watch the documentary, "The Smartest Guys in the Room."
It's no longer free on JewTube apparently. But that's the basis for the 1992 Rio summit that lead to the carbon meme going full force.
Checked
Also, do these graphs indicate that we're headed toward another ice age?
Is it going to kill us all though?
I'm less concerned about the cause than I am the effect
Give me a hasty gestalt
>Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
Most modern temperature charts you'll find have older data adjusted downward from the raw data to invent the appearance of greater warming. Another 20-30 years from now, the charts for 1880-2000 won't match what the same 1880-2000 charts say today. "Scientists" will claim 1900 was another 0.2C colder than current claims.
This doesn't prove or disprove man-made climate change, but it does prove man-made climate data.
>Give me a hasty gestalt
It's financial in nature. I'd have to explain to you things like derivatives.
But I'll give you three names: Al Gore, Ken Lay, Maurice Strong. Just spend the $3 and watch if off amazon or whatever. You have to understand the system and the criminal mind.
Fact is the planet has naturally had a fluctuating climate. Man-made global warming is a farce. The same scientists making those claims today were claiming that there would be an ice age in the 70s-80s. Only when their guesses didn't pan out did they change their narrative. It is nothing but a cash grab for these climate change scientists. I guarantee that they would not be willing to put their own lives on the line on one of their claims.
Alrighty, thanks user
Thanks user
look at the data yourself. Over a long period of time, the changes in temperature we see now are quite mild. However, it is absolutely true that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, which is causing our planet to warm significantly. Is that a bad thing? Not if you are white.
1/2
Your going to have to back up fir a while, your not there yet. The Titanic was sunk on purpose. Check the passenger ledger, also realize; Ice doesnt Cut through steel. Call me when your done, i have about 50 more before your ready for the climate change hoax which is just another tax on us. Now get to work
Checking numbers. Bear in mind that's only going to get you the Ken Ley angle, but it was really key to building on the older Club of Rome type stuff.
It's a big topic. This documentary is very entertaining. And if you're not laughing with them then you don't understand the criminal mind behind it all.
check'd
Also, "climate change" or whatever we're supposed to call it, is actually a good thing.
Nature culls the weak and stupid.
Bring on the fire and flood, and after it the ice ages.
Only the strong survive. And white people are better at it than almost anyone.
There were certainly a great many important people on it, I'll look further into that
Do you have any others?
All I have to say is that it's interesting how the only things science is 100% settled on are the issues that vex the Right.
Science hasn't figured out if eggs are good or bad for you, but don't question climate change or abortion or evolution. Even questioning them makes you a retard in their eyes.
Which is exactly why I think there might be a case for all the "right wing science". You wouldn't censor and silence things you could easily disprove would you?
It's another excuse to tax western industry into nonexistence and import billions of subhuman """climate refugees""" into our countries.
>effect
Earth's been hot with high CO2 before and it didn't kill everyone.
Africa and india might dry out but they're literally all starving and swarming into the west already anyway climate change makes no difference there, and canada and siberia might become arable so we'll be able to grow more food.
...
What makes global warming a good thing for whites?
Whites (particularly northwest Europeans) are adapted to a specific lifestyle and cimate that can be characterized as "sedentary agriculture at high latitiudes". We have light skin to ensure adequate vitamin D production with as little as 1 hour of sunlight exposure, as well as blue eyes to see better in potentially 20 hours of darkness found in Northern Europe. We rely on agriculture to produce the massive amounts of food necessary to support our population, and we manage to grow food nearly anywhere. Except, as yet, the taiga, which also represents the majority of land held by (historically) white nations.
Should the earth significantly heat, it would open up that taiga to established forms of agriculture, producing real colonization opportunities for an agricultural civilization suited to high latitudes. As an added bonus, increased CO2 concentration increases yields of agriculture, meaning we can support a higher biomass (i.e. more white babies). As has been noted, we are actually entering the downswing of this warm age and will in a few thousand years likely descend deep into another ice age. With global warming, this ice age can be nullified, and preserve high latitudes for agricultural habitation.
You would want to go at least back to "The Limits on the Growth" by The Club of Rome. It's basically a rehash of John Matlthus.
It's a subtle subject, as you might expect if there is an entire allegedly scientific field eating free money for years like there is no tomorrow to finally come up with the real True Proof.
Don't worry about it user, you're in America the site of New JerUSAlem.
We'll get some shakes when the Dove returns, but it's the rest of the world that will be eliminated.
I started my journey because I was worried for my own children's safety, but with all the thousands of hours spent researching the past couple years, I am happily awaiting the end times.
See those digits?
>proofs yo
Let's see some information, Dr. Doubles
Yes: "When in history was climate ever a constant?" also ask such common sense questions as: "How does global warming cause droughts here, but when we get more rain than usual, it's because of 'global warming' too"?
>Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
We are so fucked. And I'm a Trump voter.
>Does anyone have red pills on climate change?
Blindly disagreeing with what you're told doesn't make you sceptical.
This image confuses a number of things. The two largest:
First of all, it confuses different timescales. The pattern of changes on the million-year scale is entirely separate from what happens on the hundred-year scale. As an analogy, it's like invoking continental drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket.
Secondly, that "Climate-Model-Predictions.jpg" graph has a number of issue. It averages together a bunch of model runs, but (IIRC) a number of those runs are based on input conditions that didn't actually occur. It also uses "Avg 2 Satellite datasets" which I presume is UAH+RSS. UAH is widely considered to significantly underestimate the warming trend (It's WAY below what surface records show), and RSS has recent been revised upwards (twice?). Finally, it's comparing surface predictions to mid-troposphere measurements.
The justification for the adjustments is published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to claim it's inappropriate, you would actually need to show the methodology they used isn't sound. You can't just leap from "I don't like the results" to "They must be lying".
>Over a long period of time, the changes in temperature we see now are quite mild.
The current rate of warming is incredibly fast, and vastly exceeds the rate of most changes in the past.
>When in history was climate ever a constant?
Compared to right now? Most if it.
Again, timescales matter.
>How does global warming cause droughts here, but when we get more rain than usual, it's because of 'global warming' too
Because climate systems are big and complicated, and adding heat can move high-precipitation areas from one place to another. That's like asking how central Australia can be dry and central South America wet when they're at the same latitude..
>The justification for the adjustments is published in peer-reviewed journals
That's been the worst part for me. 10 years ago most of that would have been laughed out of the room.
Sadly, it's a cult, just like in my field. These people are so stupid. But I guess that's why I took a tour of being a part of """"((((science)))"""" to find out if they were really this stupid or just misguided.
>That's been the worst part for me. 10 years ago most of that would have been laughed out of the room.
For actually doing their jobs, rather than finding the results you'd like?
Quite the opposite. I used to work with some old Bell Labs kind of guys who actually gave a crap about science.
Granted it you look in to the history of it, and I might recommend, "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser as part of the most recent congressional investigation into the anti-American activities of the tax-free institutions, but when NPR announces to me 3 years after introducing the notion of carbon trading that Al Gore has just invested some more millions of dollars to -- and I quote -- "help prove global warming" -- years after the science was settled?
I think I dropped some clues already in this thread. I don't think they found the results they liked.
>Foundations: Their Power and Influence
As far as I can tell, that book says nothing about climatology or climatologists. What am I missing?
>Al Gore
Why do you care so much about what Al Gore says? He's not a climatologist, he's a former politician and a minor celebrity.
If Al Gore announced that the Sun goes around the Earth, would that discredit modern cosmology?
>I think I dropped some clues already in this thread. I don't think they found the results they liked.
I'm not asking you to drop clues, I'm asking you to post evidence that they adjustment’s weren't justified.
You still haven’t done that.
Everyone stop posting this shit.
No you don't need to prove a causal link between the existence of man and global temperatures to prove AGW (even if you did the scale on these graphs are inappropriate) you just need to prove the causal link between CO2 and temperature and prove that we can then have an impact on CO2 levels.
Why is no CI shown and why would you average two different satellite data sets and four different balloon sets in the projection? Why test projections against the two most error prone forms of measurement?
Adjustments are necessary because:
1. There are local non-climactic influences that can alter a stations recorded temperature (roads, construction, urban heat island)
2. Different methodologies and instruments have different systematic bias
3. Temperature stations are often moved and coverage in certain areas changes. If I move one station from a valley to a hill its not as if temperature in that area has changed.
Pic related shows how raw data becomes much more useful via homogenisation
I remember reading how if the paris accord succeeded and every country on the planet stopped polluting and spent billions of dollars in protecting the environment, we'll see a 1 degree celsius decrease in temperature at around 2100.
That marks how useless it is in the long run.
>As far as I can tell, that book says nothing about climatology or climatologists. What am I missing?
Within about the first 1/3 in, you'll get an explanation about how money dictates science through the various ministers of power. The Kinsey scale will be an easy one. I might be more receptive to it because I work in science and have to deal with funding issues.
>Why do you care so much about what Al Gore says?
Because he was one of the trios of bright ideas who got paid after the 1992 Rio conference to figure out how to sell all this. Skull & Bones, too. Really, you should just discard anything and everything he's ever said because his Armand Hammer literally USSR communist spy father who only cares about money doesn't even mean much any more. Al Gore is about as ready to get a brain tumor as John McCain for how irrelevant he is these days.
>they adjustment’s weren't justified.
For that we'd actually have to read the publications, and I stopped keeping citation lists at around the time of the Copenhagen Treaty, so you'll have to ask somebody else. It's wroth looking in to just to see how you'd laugh it all right out if you were to work in a real field of science.
Check it out op. You're very welcome.
Thanks user
Adjustments should be focused on the measurement devices, not endless complications on the models in order to make money backing up what they're paid to try to prove.
It's worse than an art degree.
I'm a global lukewarmist. I don't throw it out altogether, but I'm deeply skeptical of the more apocalyptic prognostications. People who want me afraid are probably just trying to control me. Fuck em.
>I'm terrified of climate change killing my children and grandchildren
Don't be. In the 1970s we were bombarded with "the Ice Age is coming!!!" Check out old magazine covers, like Time, from the 70s, you will see it. Then in the 1980s it was the Oxone hole and how it was growing and we were all going to fry. Then in the mid-1980s newspapers were stating that the Ozone Hole over South America was huge and was already killing people.
They keep us in fear. Remember that. That is how they stay in power and keep their strengths. They feed off of our fear and stress and other negative emotions.
Watch the elites. That will tell you all you need to know about the state of things. They continue to fly around the world in their private jets, to one of their six homes around the world, all of which have pools and fountains and 13-car garages. They spend Summers floating around on their huge yachts. Their kids have "Rich Kids of [name country}" instagram accounts, showing their luxurious lifestyle. My point being, the elites are living opposite of how they say we need to live to save the world. They yell at us to live in Tiny Houses while they own six houses around the world and mega-yachts.
They lie.
>Adjustments should be focused on the measurement devices
They are.
> not endless complications on the models in order to make money backing up what they're paid to try to prove.
That's not how climate models OR research funding works.
>People who want me afraid are probably just trying to control me. Fuck em.
I take it you don't go to doctors either?
>For that we'd actually have to read the publications, and I stopped keeping citation lists at around the time of the Copenhagen Treaty, so you'll have to ask somebody else. It's wroth looking in to just to see how you'd laugh it all right out if you were to work in a real field of science.
You don't get to assume that scientists are lying, just because it fits your political views.
That's laughable bullshit.
Climate change is real.
MAN MADE climate change is a scam to fleece tax dollars. Carbon credits are all the evidence you need to understand this. It's literally the government saying "yeah, pollution is bad, but if you pay us enough money we'll let you do it anyways."
It's complete bullshit.
20k years ago the pacific northwest was LITERALLY covered in ice, an ice age if you will. somehow all that ice melted well before the invention of cars.
so ask yourself, "how much of climate change actually caused by humans?" it's a certain percentage but it's vastly overblown
>muh acid rain
>muh hole in the ozone layer
>muh overpopulation
>muh nuclear power will kill us all
all fucking kike lies
This, the red pill is that a carbon tax or cap and trade is what we need
>It's wroth looking in to just to see how you'd laugh it all right out if you were to work in a real field of science
>tfw all could be revealed to this guy in a two minute google search but he instead chooses to discredit a full field of science
>Adjustments should be focused on the measurement devices, not endless complications on the models in order to make money backing up what they're paid to try to prove.
Why? Do you actually think that temperature has increased if a nearby traffic has increased or the station has been moved?
Consider this, what if the models are correct simply because thousands of the smartest people to ever live have been studying this data for decades allowing us to refine our understanding of the earths climate?
>They are.
Would you care to cite a body of literature for me to do with how to correct for these devices?
>You don't get to assume that scientists are lying, just because it fits your political views.
Sure I do. Lying and political views are how I scrape money out of the Jew money machine working in science. Do you even work in science for a living?
>Consider this, what if the models are correct simply because thousands of the smartest people to ever live have been studying this data for decades allowing us to refine our understanding of the earths climate?
Sounds like I'd have failed out of my freshman year in college, which I almost did.
Its, real, its too late, but its not going to be as bad as you think.
1. people are adaptable. its our biggest trait
2. we have technology and energy production that's only getting better
3. earth has had periods in its history where there were no ice caps, ecological niches are hard to fill, but i think people are still surprised at just how fast a species can fill a niche it finds, and micro organisms and insects usually have the fastest mechanisms to adapt.
the only fear of climate change is if we destroy the earth for human life. all life will continue. and to me we're already past the point where we can manufacture any needs we as a species will need in any sort of ecological disaster.
Carbon taxes are insanely unpopular though and don't even claw in that much revenue. Raising the corporation tax by a few percent is both far more politically viable and probably brings in more revenue.
Tell me why adjustments are unnecessary for some reason other than they disagree with what you think is right
I do go to doctors. Wtf does that have to do with this?
>an appropriate baseline must include millions of years
What a crock of horseshit. Climate itself is measured over a span of 30 years. Even so, we have data from thousands and even hundreds of millions of years ago that don't contradict current evidence that humans are the dominant cause of current climate change. Such as this pic.
>Tell me why adjustments are unnecessary for some reason other than they disagree with what you think is right
Because in my field of study that would get you kicked out of the department before your advisor would allow it to be known that he had funded this kind of non-science.
I'm not saying my field isn't also pay for play, but we have to at least make a show of integrity to pass peer review.
I literally just made a thread about this: it is real: here's the culprits: 1: Africa burns grassland because they're niggers, 2 china (and japan) make your electronic shit, and they chip it from boats and planes,
3. truckers and planes ship foreign products everywhere
4. we use electronics (power plants) and gas (cars) daily.
5. trees absorb basically all of our bullshit: methane, nitrous and co2, but we cut them down, and build houses around them, and don't let them grow.
Older trees absorb more bullshit then other smaller newfag trees,
so the solutions:
here's my top three sensible solutions:
1:
get one of these for your tablet/phone:
bing.com
2:
use cattle grazing for natural land renewal, instead of burning grassland.
3:
manual transmission: it uses less gas/
mobiloil.com
buy food at farmers markets, and fix your computer/build one: (they're both cheaper, local markets use less gas)
These 4 solutions will also save you a little money. (even the grassland one because burning will cost you in the long run)
It's worth being concerned about whether or not it's true since either way we're running out of resources
>Because in my field of study that would get you kicked out of the department before your advisor would allow it to be known that he had funded this kind of non-science.
You do realise this is the reality of all observational sciences right?
You'd be kicked out of any reputable earth science department if you insisted on not adjusting a stations recording if a new highway caused a 4C jump in average recorded temperatures.
What do you say to results such as pic in which show that if one adjusts for temperatures it essentially gives you a series as if the artificial bias never existed.
This is dumb and you aren't convincing or in a position of power to impose these measures so just wasting time.
>Would you care to cite a body of literature for me to do with how to correct for these devices?
What do you want?
Different instruments and different artefacts need different approaches. There's no "one-size-fits-all" correction.
> Sure I do. Lying and political views are how I scrape money out of the Jew money machine working in science. Do you even work in science for a living?
How is that evidence for anything at all?
I asked for evidence the adjustments weren't legitimate, not that you suck at your job.
>Don't be. In the 1970s we were bombarded with "the Ice Age is coming!!!"
Nope.
>posting that chart
>thinking it makes climate models look good
LMAO, an ensemble of drift-free random walks with historically estimated standard deviation probably has a better Brier score than your shitty climate models.
Obviously we'd have to recalibrate the individual sensors. Are you this fucking dense? They got the drop on that like a decade in advance and the field is just like
>NOPE MUH RUSSIA
m8 I just want a new paper that isn't focuse on how to rejigger all the data. I want a paper that is focused on what is not old '90s bullshit, like the magnetosphere. It's high time to defund this very, very hard.
>in the 70's we were bombarded with "the ice age is coming"
This is a full on meme at this point, and its wrong
youtube.com
I'm trying here, I'm going to do these things... and I think if we all do these things, then we will save money, and also reduce carbon emissions, I'm just making suggestions here. I can literally do all of these things in time, except I don't own natural land, so I can't use catle as an alternative to burning: that is a government issue, but we can sign something, I'm sure I can find something to sign let me see...are you a leaf? do something about this:
thechronicleherald.ca
You are lying to the wrong person. I lived through it, I know that of which I speak. My siblings and I used to ask our parents about it as it was on the nightly news a lot and of course, being kiddies, it scared us.
Oh, look, Time magazine covers about the coming ice Ages (covers from 1977 - 1979 - 1973, in that order). Take your lies and shove it.
also in America: this:
change.org
we need to do something about this.
Well I can't post a model against land results to show how dishonestly a model against satellite results has construed the figures.
pic related shows the models against the most reliable form of temperature data, surface stations
Re calibrating every station every time it was subject to some artificial influence would give you the exact same result with many times the effort except instead you'd be missing a few data points where you had to pick up on the artificial influence which you would've kept if you had instead adjusted.
Another advantage is what is noticed in hindsight in the record. As an example a large adjustment that has been made to the record has been one made this century to correct for the fact that US and UK ships back in the 40's used two different methods of testing for surface sea temperature both with different biases.
Politicians and businessmen need to live too
I don't see why (((they))) would allow this to happen when they very obviously have control over it
Also
>muh incorruptible acedemic institutions
Lil
The problem being that none of those things do anything measurably when you, or even everyone on Sup Forums does them
>Obviously we'd have to recalibrate the individual sensors
The problem isn't just the individual stations, it's where the stations are and how they make the measurements. Also, climatologists aren't the only users.
> I just want a new paper that isn't focuse on how to rejigger all the data.
Then what do you want? Perfect data doesn't exist, and working with imperfect data requires "rejigging it".
> It's high time to defund this very, very hard.
Because it reaches conclusions you don't like?
It's real, but it's part of the natural cycle. The majority of emissions are actually coming from solidified and frozen methane deposits beneath the ocean. Because the planet is naturally warming up, the methane deposits are melting and rises to the atmosphere, causing the planet and the oceans to warm up even more and release more methane. This affects the ocean currents and weather, causing harsher weather events (storms, etc.), ice melting, places experiencing extreme drought/desertification, and so on. Factor in other naturally occurring events like volcano eruptions that is dumping all manner of pollutants/emissions in the atmosphere, or the sun's output increasing or decreasing, or the planet's orbit around the sun shifting slightly as a normal phenomenon or influenced by other heavenly bodies. Because of said natural events, it gets worse and worse until it hits peak which usually ends in an Ice Age or extreme rise in temperatures, then an equilibrium which brings it back to normal (or as close to a normal as it could get, which becomes the new normal). That explains the "Little Ice Age" that happened all the way to the 19th century. That explains the permanent changes in regional climate, turning arable land into deserts or turning tundras into arable land. It also explains the migrations that happened throughout Earth's history. People back then didn't move just because--regional climate change may have been responsible. Humanity's effect on the natural cycle is negligible.
The truth about the climate change push is the monetization of emissions by creating a market where "carbon credits" are traded. The introduction of this carbon trading market wouldn't reduce emissions at all. In fact, the energy/fossil fuel market and the carbon trading market need each other. It's just another Jewish scam making money out of nothing, like (((banking))). (((Leftists))) control the carbon trading while (((cuckservatives))) control the energy/fossil fuels.
I don't care about your anecdotes of people spreading false information to you. It is a fact that there were over six times as many papers predicting global warming than those predicting global cooling. Getting your scientific information from Time covers is your first mistake and means jack shit.
3. It's real and liberals use "but think of the children" and NIMBY to push pollution onto third world countries and buy back products made in dirty conditions so that we can pretend we're green and clean
but they do, a very, very tiny amount, and they are financially beneficial. so, yeah...
...
>implying Time is a scientific journal
>It is a fact that there were over six times as many papers predicting global warming than those predicting global cooling.
Bullshit. And where is your proof? Easy today to make up crap on the computer and claim it is a study from the 1970s. You are a liar. I lived it. I was in school at the time. Never on the news did I see them counter the coming Ice Age with cooling. You lie to push your Agenda 21.
I never got my news from Time mag. But back then they actually reported news and were rather trustworthy, and were a nationwide magazine that was on top of the news of the week, so yeah, I will use their covers if I want.
First of all, Time isn't a scientific journal.
Secondly, isn't that penguin cover fake?
>Re calibrating every station every time it was subject to some artificial influence
Wow not really. That's why I still have my job is to look in to those disalignments. I'm sorry you're so emotional about your job. I wouldn't hire you.
>Then what do you want?
It's quite simple
>The problem isn't just the individual stations, it's where the stations are and how they make the measurements. Also, climatologists aren't the only users
These must be modeled in addition to the global models.
I never implied it. Look up the history of Time magazine. It used to be a well respected news magazine, nationwide, came out weekly, giving the latest news going on in the US and the world. The news at the time was the coming Ice Age and, of course, peak oil (how we were running out of gas for our cars). That dominated the news in the 1970s. You want to know what the news was in that era, you look at news magazines and newspapers from that era. Duh.
Maybe your middle-aged eyes didn't see it, but I linked a paper in a peer-reviewed journal showing that in the OP. Here it is again:
>First of all, Time isn't a scientific journal.
Who said it was, idiot? Al Gore isn't a Ph.D., and neither is Leo DiCaprio, but you stupid libs sure listen to everything they say about global warming. Shut your pie hole. You just lie.
Time Magazine was always the house organ of the CFR. Do we really have alleged scientists who don't know the first thing about history?
I think in that case they can't possibly have realistic priors.
Climate change is real and it's going to kill all the demons.
Regardless if the method the result would be identical to a homogenised data set
Time journalists wrote their articles based on their sources of climate experts predicting incorrectly about the weather. The climate scientists of that time stirred up fear off of their guesses just like the current ones are doing now. When you actually look at the natural planet cycle, there is nothing unusual. Man-made global warming is nothing but a money grab.
>And where is your proof?
Someones already posted it in this thread.
> You are a liar. I lived it. I was in school at the time.
You read scientific journals while in school?
>These must be modeled in addition to the global models.
What are you even trying to say?
Why would you want the result to be identical to the homogenised data set?
I think we might have to cancel the Anglosphere.
>Time journalists wrote their articles based on their sources of climate experts predicting incorrectly about the weather.
>climate experts
>predicting weather
If you're retarded enough to think *climate* scientists are studying weather, don't bother speaking.
History is the redpill.
We're nowhere near being too hot.
Earth has an equilibrium and there isn't much we can do to alter it. It corrects itself.
We should be building sea walls though. It's going to get hotter with or without our help and cities will be flooded eventually.
Also, oil is renewable.
I don't want it to be anything I'm just telling you what the result would be.
Because you get paid to prove that the variations all fit in to the payment program. Jesus Fucking Christ, are all the Australian """(((scientists)))""" this stupid?
I mean I have to put up with a pig trough of 3rd world shit who all just do what their told because that's how they get visa money but my god is Australia this far gone?
>Al Gore isn't a Ph.D., and neither is Leo DiCaprio, but you stupid libs sure listen to everything they say about global warming
Someone else using a dumb source doesn't make it okay for you to do it too.
Also, Ive repeatedly toldy people NOT to cite Al Gore.
>Maybe your middle-aged eyes didn't see it,
I did see it, almost Satan, as I have great vision. I pulled it up, saw it was written by three guys in 2008 and shut it. I am not wasting my time on an obvious scam to push the UN Agenda 21. How convenient that just as Al Gore is pushing his global warming scam, a paper comes out to try to convince us who lived through it that there actually was no Ice Age scare in the 1970s.
And if you bothered to go through their References list. you will note that many of their articles debate if an Ice Age was actually going to occur (just like today you have scientists debating if global warming will actually occur). , Which is the point I was making, they lied to us then and they lie to us now. I don't see any article from the 1970s that says global warming is coming, just a few articles that say certain things cause the atmosphere to heat up. You fail.
Tell me more about what the result will be.
DELETE THIS.
Those issues are in the memory hole. We've always been at war with global warming, global cooling has always been our ally.
>Someones already posted it in this thread.
That lame article is your proof? Sad.
No worries, it's "climate change"
Unless the Paris Treaty comes along, and then it's back to "global warming" again. Good thing Macron had at least five remaining neurons.
Thats it. Given you employed the best practice process (using nearby historically correlated stations to re calibrate for the artificial influence) then the result will be the same
>Because you get paid to prove that the variations all fit in to the payment program.
What variations? What payment program?
Aren't we still discussing sensor adjustments?