Gimme the redpill on climate change

Gimme the redpill on climate change.
Is it a natural cycle or are we as a species influencing it a lot this time around?
Why do so many scientists agree climate change is real, or is the data cherry picked?
What is there to gain for (((groups))) if climate change is real/fake?
Any sources, infographs, studies and so on are welcome.

Other urls found in this thread:

smokeandfumes.org/fumes
nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html?mcubz=3
unvis.it/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html?mcubz=3
archive.is/4a9Gv
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Why do so many scientists agree climate change is real,

several billions in form of financed research, so would you say something is not likely if you would get your research funded for the next decade or two?

But did they give any evidence to back it up that makes full sense, or did they basically respond with "we are scientists, we say it's so so believe us"?

The climate is always changing. However, the argument that mankind is the largest, or even a relevant, determinant in the amount of climate change is far from "settled science." The single largest cause of climate change is the sun. Over the last 20 years there is no demonstrable rise in global temperature, and in fact there has been more summer ice in the arctic over the last five years than in the previous five years.

As the first user pointed out, many scientists are slow to question the role of man in climate change because there are billions of dollars in research dollars to be had if you sign on. Also, because quite a few scientists have already made that Faustian bargain, it makes it harder and harder for the others to break ranks (peer pressure, etc.).

Globalists want to "settle" the science and close the books on the argument so they can establish global carbon taxes to further drain the working / middle classes and simultaneously enrich the elite establishments. If Gore really believed in manmade climate change he wouldn't live in a house that burns 30x the national average of energy, Leonardo DiCaprio wouldn't own and use both a private jet & a massive yacht, etc. The premise of climate is, at worst, a giant lie, and at best a gross distortion of the facts.

I'm sure you could find some libertarian or energy company to fund you for saying anthropogenic climate change is a lie

climate change is real

if i bitch about litter at a park, but then people find out i am one of the people that litters, that doesnt mean there actually is no litter.

to the contrary, it just proves that even those who know a problem, are still self-centered... especially if it seems no one else cares.

of course but swimming against the stream in the current media and academia climate is social and often financial suicide.

Look at Copernicus, who waited just before his death to release "revolutionibus orbium coelestium" because of fear he would be ridiculed or worse.

Its a natural cycle that has high and lows depending on a multiple factors which is solar activity (which climate models don't use), global currents, the jet streams, and the release of a mixture of chemicals into the air either by natural or human process. Though human process is negligible with the current CO2 output. The data is often cherry picked only showing a limited time frame of 200 years and not showing the medical or roman warming periods which are much higher than today. Same goes for the scientists which the majority of scientists that did not reply to the survey where not included into the results which could have a number of statistical bias.

As for groups that could gain from this are large oil companies that can take the tax hits can buy out the guys that can't afford it. Some companies make it a selling point to buy their hybrid/electric car even though those vehicles are less safer or produce more hazardous waste in production. Nuclear energy always takes a hit even though its a Rankine system. Some green companies just ran away with tax payer money like the Solyndra scandal.

It's real. Ask a chemist or chemistry prof about the properties of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. Protip: don't listen to Sup Forums on this one

I think the climate is changing, but alot of the research is aimed at securing funding for further research or dubious fixes that may or may not work

It's real and it might be caused by people, but its completely overblown and mostly used as an excuse to transder money and industry from White countries to niggers.

Not really worth worrying about.

>Some green companies just ran away with tax payer money like the Solyndra scandal.

most of them only work on subsidy basis.

We had a windpark craze a few years ago, where they poped up like nothing, reason for that was subsidies and guaranteed price for the electricity. The parks usually where amortized in 2-3 years and gave crazy ROIs.

When they cut the funding and lowered the guaranteed price for electricity noone was building them anymore.

Most of this industry is payed and funded by the taxpayers of the western world.

So why did Exxon's internal studies say it's real?

>Exxon knew

you mean the same knowledge exxon was taking from climate scientists that was publicly available?

Do you imply they wouldn't pay their own internal studies in a matter this important to their business? Or that there weren't any experts on their payroll to go through the papers?

>Or that there weren't any experts on their payroll to go through the papers?

well duh and they gave an assessment to that. Have you read some of them?
They basically go like, there is CO2 is might be a greenhouse gas, it might contribute to warming, it might lead to ice melting (this where all papers from before the 70s mostly of the 60s and 50s)

feel free to look into it yourself
smokeandfumes.org/fumes

>They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.
nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html?mcubz=3

They are even sued for it and they don't deny it like retards they only try to fight that they didn't represent it deceitful.

unvis.it/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html?mcubz=3

Not gonna click that.

Seriously asking here:

1. Why does it matter if it's man-made or not? If we have the ability to fix it, shouldn't we fix it?

2. Is there a way to fix climate that doesn't involve paying third world countries that will do nothing except move the money into some corrupt official's Swiss bank account?

>2. Is there a way to fix climate that doesn't involve paying third world countries that will do nothing except move the money into some corrupt official's Swiss bank account?
Stop extracting fossils and ban the people and products from countries who still use them.

>We stress that the question is not whether Exxon Mobil ‘suppressed climate change research,’ but rather how they communicated about it,

kek literally first sentence... now they have run out of fume, claiming exxon was hiding research when they mostly used public available research in the first place.

The litterly knew the same shit as the us gubbermit or climate researchers.

>Exxon Mobil has acknowledged climate change is real since the mid-2000s.[13] “We support the Paris climate agreement and are members of the Climate Leadership Council, which advocates for a revenue-neutral carbon tax,” Mr. Silvestri said.
>The company stopped funding groups that vigorously pushed climate denial in the mid-2000s, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute...
>...The new research was partly financed by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has been active in environmental causes and education

>advocating for carbon tax aka goy tax
>stop funding the jews because they blackmailed us long enough
>other jews keep funding the jews to extract more shekel from the oily jew

nothing more to add... jews jewing jews, because they jews the jews.and the good goym swallows the bluegill.
if you dont see this is just a political vehicle to get carbon tax rolling no one can help you.

Tail end of the ice age man.
Leave a glass of water with ice in the sun.
Those ice cubes are gonna melt eventually.
***Realist.

Humans aren't helping the process however.
Remember that whole CFC's thing, hole in the ozone layer? that probably started increasing the issue and leading to thermal runaway.
Heavy pollutants aren't helping. same with the tonnes of carbon fuel exhaust dumped into the atmosphere every day.
its stopping heat escaping/creating a thermal blanket.
So yeah, it was going to get warmer either way, we just made it happen quicker.
We didn't have weather modeling to predict the repercussions of short sharp increases in temperature.hence why (some) large storms and other weather phenomena are wreaking havoc.
Proof?
Look at the center of australia.
That big ass rock?
that used to be surrounded by water, which carved out the land around it.
its a desert now.
that water had to go somewhere.
check the arctic poles, probably up there.

Carbon dioxide has a higher specific heat that oxygen.

This means that CO2 takes longer to warm up than O2, but once it's warm it takes longer to cool down.

As we add more CO2 into the air, the effect is that the air heats up because it's taking longer to cool down.

The projection is for 2-10C average degrees warmer by 2100.

Thats pretty impractical, no? I'm pretty sure there are enough industries dependent on fossil fuels that we couldn't do that without severely impacting standard of living.

The climate is always changing...its cyclical and to think that pathetic fucking humans can change it is just hilarious.

>Look at Copernicus, who waited just before his death to release "revolutionibus orbium coelestium" because of fear he would be ridiculed or worse.
Copernicus released it on life at the petition of Pope. Read some Koestler.

Current climate policy also allows wealth redistribution to new markets in third world shit holes. These markets are a perfect opportunity for them.

>Carbon dioxide has a higher specific heat that oxygen.

>H2O vapor has twice the specific heat of CO2
>makes up to 4% in atmosphere
>somehow a gas that is 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for all the warming

>user is a faggot for dissing based Nordbot
>archive.is/4a9Gv

first three lines are fine

last line is where all the fuckery is

>Gimme the redpill on climate change.

"Oy Vey! you dirty goyim are raping mother earth with all of the industries that we chosen own! it's like anouda shoah! Give sheckels or you are a dirty bigot!"