>"I don't believe in climate change because there's no evidence" (there is)
>"I believe in God despite there being no evidence"
Are American conservatives the most delusional people on Earth? We've had literally 3 "one-in-a-century" type Hurricanes within a week of another. When will they wise up to the fact they're being played for a fool by fossil fuels lobby interests?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Fuck off Shareblue.
Sag e
>(there is)
a lot of studies have been proven fake, forgeries, politically motivated with conclusions taken out of context
That's besides the point. The point is that Republicans have a different criteria for determining if there is a flying spaghetti monster in the sky than for determining if climate change is occurring.
Umm sweetie religion and political party preference isn't mutually exclusive.
What is your claim?
Is the Earth not warming up?
Are humans not causing it?
Does putting CO2 in the air not cause the greenhouse effect?
Does melting ice sheets not cause an increase in temperature?
Is there a worldwide conspiracy by climate scientists to falsify research?
There is plenty of evidence all the above questions have answers directly in line with that of the consensus among climate scientists.
The planet has climate cycles. 12,000 years ago there was a massive ice age and there has been a general warming trend since then. Sometimes the climate dips or rises in smaller cycles within the larger trend. At the smallest level of this microcosm we call it weather.
The earth turns and different sides of it face the sun. The climate changes every 12 hours. The earth wobbles and in this sense the climate changes every 13,000 years.
Hurricane Irma's weakness (only cat 4) was 100% undeniable proof of global warming. What I don't understand is why people are against global warming if it weakened the hurricane?
Jesus Christ is this burger education?
You are referring to Milankovitch cycles, which generally take place over 100,000 years or so. The progression of ice ages and warmer interglacial periods within these cycles is well understood.
All the research and data we have about these cycles indicates that the temperature changes we have experienced in the past 100 years or so are unprecedented on such a short scale. All the evidence we have shows that historically these temperature changes have taken thousands of years, not 100 or less.
Thats not even getting started on the historically detectable volumes of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere correspond with the temperature and how they are now at levels not seen for millions of years.
To summarise, you in fact do not know better than the global scientific community, despite what Brietbart says.
I dont believe in manmade climate change and I'm a godless heathen.
Earth has had a constant cycle of hot and cold
Thank God climate change afforded us over a decade of freedom hurricanes! We need more climate change and we need it now!
>"just trust the scientists! you don't know any better!"
>"ok, I'll trust them"
HEADLINE: SCIENTISTS FALSIFY CLIMATE DATA AND LIE IN REPORTS, DATA IS FUCKED
>"just trust the scientists you redneck!"
>"hahaha not this time! fool me once etc"
Maybe the earth is warming up, but people have lost faith in science and academia. They have reason to be skeptical of all claims of climate change.
>Are American conservatives the most delusional people on Earth?
Climate change exists largely along political cultural lines in the US, not necessarily along the lines of education.
You forgot to mention how you read the headline on Breitbart.
>There is plenty of evidence all the above
sorry, you're wrong
I was speaking in general terms, not just for myself.
People understand that they are being lied to, but don't know who's lying. As a result, they tune out all discussion on climate change and stick to what they already believe.
and it has nothing to do with climate
Wrong.
not all conservatives agree that the climate chang isn't true
Hey, ask Brock if he recovered from that heart attack.
>Cause.
>plebbit spacing
kys famlam
>in all fields
The left conflates the science of climate with its intended purpose, creating enormous and controlling bureaucracy in order to impose selective regulations in order to "fight" climate change. Notice that no one on the left actually behaves in their own life as if climate change is an impending apocalypse.
>implying Liberal cunt stop china and brazil so they can do about "Climate change"
>Who is more responsible to inequality : frightened white kid waving some flag or A banker , businessman like warren buffett and jeff bezos , zuckerberg
You keep saying "Evil white men do this, do that"
but never mentioned "evil corporation" do this or do that
all the racial bait is cause endless conflict instead soving problem
Why Liberal fag desperate want to serve corporate elite?
Are you guys retarded?
You're literally retarded
"global scientific community"
when will this meme die
If that's true, it's already too late you stupid bong. Buying a prius won't change that. "Green" is just as much of a scam as fossil fuels, dummy.
Basically:
>The conspiracy is among the underpaid scientists who work for the pursuit of knowledge, not the trillion dollar oil industry allergic to regulation.
>All the research and data we have about these cycles indicates that the temperature changes we have experienced in the past 100 years or so are unprecedented on such a short scale.
No. It only seems that way if you look at multiple data sets on a smoothed scale, like pic related. Each line represents a different data set, and if you look at them individually you'll see they all include a great deal of sudden spikes and drops in temperature, some even more extreme than 1 degree over 100 years.
Just look at the keystone of climate change, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. He is currently in contempt of court for refusing to produce the taxpayer funded data used to compile his report. Anyone still believing this con man needs to step back and reevaluate. climatedepot.com
the fact that 'climate science' relies on 'belief' and 'consensus' makes it pretty fucking sceptic. if it was real then it would just be real, there wouldn't be a need for '98% consensus' . the very fact that they need to liken it to religion should raise a red flag. science isn't a democracy, it doesn't become true because 8 out of 10 scientists believe in something. the problem is people like you who gobble up whatever drivel they are spoon fed and then say 'well all the scientists who disagree are shills for oil companies' or they are republicans. there is a wealth of information dating back 50+ years that refute the claim of man made global warming.
the biggest cause for climate change is the sun (how about those solar flares, think they might have more of an effect than some rednecks v8?), shocking revelation i know, but the massive fucking fireball that we are orbiting actually effects the plant a great deal.
Basically,
>Multiple independent studies have come to roughly the same conclusions, but I'm going to harp on suspicion about one particular study from a dubious source.
Search up the co2 levels in prehistoric times, hundreds of times higher than they are now. Was that was Americans driving oversized cars aswell? Gtfo you retarted shill.
>Equating faith to knowledge
Why does the left do this? You don't "believe" in science, you acknowledge evidence. Science is a process, not a fucking matter of belief and faith.
>scientists publish a study
>behind massive pay wall
>irreproducible
Modern science is much like how priests and monks treated the Bible hundreds of years ago. You see the common man could not read the Bible, he was told what was in the Bible by these priests and monks. Some were honest, others were not.
We live an age where people trust their own eyes, not what some journalist is telling them to think. If you truly care about this issue you should scientific journals to become public domain not sealed off behind a paywall that only the rich can access.
>We've had literally 3 "one-in-a-century" type Hurricanes within a week of another.
Source?
Solar irradiance was lower in prehistoric times.
Now fuck off faggot
>Climate change is a religion.
No shit. it's supposedly science however. Thanks for destroying your own argument in the first sentence.
>Muh hurricane confirmation bias
It's amazing how the stupidest people in society feel entitled to talk down to their betters. That's probably the real reason you "believe" this snake oil scam.
>t. Medfag with published research
>Two-thirds of "scientific studies" are irreproducible
>Therefore one of the most highly-studied phenomenon of the last 2 decades is irreproducible.
You are reflective of the critical thinking ability of the average person.
>Science is a circle jerk
In most fields, yes.
I was told one way to guarantee funding for biology research was to tie it into CO2 emissions. In the next breath this idiot told me how much of a disaster climate change is.
>t. Medfag with published research
>Believe me, there is no algorithm to determine the prime factorization of an integer
>t. medical student
>"one-in-a-century"
Who the fuck are you quoting? CNN?
>Should be treated with extreme skepticism given that trillions of dollars stand to be made by advocates.
FIFY. Again, a retard LARPing as an intellectual. Your shit religion give you the moral cover to do so and pretend you're doing good.
>unironically thinks he's made a point.
You failed to address the content of the post. Naturally. Only the dim or those that stand to make a lot of $$$ subscribe to your shit religion. Which are you.
>Study participants who scored highest on a general-science-literacy test did the best on the study’s climate-literacy test. But contrary to the researchers’ expectations, those participants were not more likely to agree on whether human activity is causing climate change, according to the study.
>“Despite consistently giving the correct answers to climate-literacy questions,” Kahan noted, “the most science literate study participants were even more politically polarized.”
>Underpaid scientists who got into the field out of a genuine desire for knowledge have conspired with one another to generate "trillions of dollars" for some abstract entity.
>Fossil fuels-based companies who generate trillions of dollars from polluting the environment have no incentive to prevent the acceptance of information that may result in regulations and/or use of competing technologies.
climate change is real.
well, except for the r-e-a-l-l-y tiny "recent proxies" with the alarming upward spike at the far-right.
By being dogmatic zealots on climate change and using it as a moral bludgeon
>if you don't believe this you're morally or intellectually deficient
Liberals have fostered a reactionary resistance against it. The fundamental fact is that the liberal desire to virtue signal is the primary reason there is resistance against the concept of climate change in the first place.
When a conservatives sees liberals beat their chests about how sinful Republicans are for allowing climate change to continue, they see how any regulation will be a punishment targeted primarily at them. It's no surprise they reject it.
There's an overwhelming amount of evidence for climate change. All the scientific literature is out there in the open. All the data is out there in the open. If you reject it after fairly reviewing the information available, then fine (although I still think you're wrong). But if you're rejecting it purely on basis of >muhfeels then you're a genuine, grade-a fucking retard. You fulfill all the stereotypes the average liberal has about the conservative and are worthy of the contempt you get. It's not the liberals fault that conservatives have the emotional maturity of children.