That is such a fringe weird statement for a party to officially hold, it puts off 80 percent of Germans. I mean, I vote AfD but the moment any of the other parties has a normal, lawful goal on immigration and asylum I vote that party and not AfD any more.
Why does the AfD follow certain completely delusional conspiracy theories?
Other urls found in this thread:
thetimes.co.uk
thegwpf.org
nature.com
realclimate.org
journals.ametsoc.org
archive.org
iopscience.iop.org
arstechnica.com
en.wikipedia.org
psycnet.apa.org
journals.uchicago.edu
twitter.com
no conclusive proofs, ask China and India to make efforts instead
because AfD is a party for retarded conspircacy faggots that hate science and facts.
Nationalists have this meme they are following blindly just to keep their movement coherent. If there are things such as global warming, then their entire agenda of nationalism falls apart, the science of global warming literally legitimizes globalism and global citizens.
If you think about it, they deny global warming, for the same reason the left denies IQ science. Because if IQ is real, then all the apartheid, discrimination and separatism between the races is justified. There is no reason to believe in equality if IQ is real, and thus the ideology would become inconsistent.
Never trust political fanatics, they are just ISIS in different clothes. Neurotic and bipolar obsessive compulsive liars with main interest being power generated to their "ism".
nice facts and science you are proposing us there friend
...
providing facts? just google about global warming. nearly every real and accurate scientist says that global warming is a fact. If you deny it becasue u think u have more knowledge than most of scientists on the whole world u must be a dumbed-down faggy retard.
>a fact
thetimes.co.uk
>Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.
>his previous prediction had been wrong.
thegwpf.org
>3. In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the empirical estimates of cli-
mate sensitivity were largely based not only on data that has now been super-
seded, but also on an inappropriate statistical basis that biased them towards
higher values, thus making the global warming problem appear ‘worse’
Nooooooo delet dis!
Muh science higher ground!
...
>instead of going on an emotional delusional rant and shutting down nuclear plants and exporting our coal and importing nuclear energy from our neighbours like leftists retards how about we solve the actual problems
>lol that delusional conspiracy theory comrade goy
One more reason to vote AfD
This we stopped researching global warming here. The final report and summary basically said its happening and man is a cause.
Why shut down nuke plants? It doesnt contribute carbon to the atmosphere, negating the green house effect. If it's an old reactor it will create nuclear waste and thermal pollution only.
>no conclusive proofs, ask China and India to make efforts instead
they wont do anything, in fact with the so called holly grail "Paris accords" they are allowed to increase CO2 emissions by the same factor as their economy grows because they only use Total Emission Intensity, while every western country is using total emission.
Its a huge scam to fuck over western countries
The AfD literally says we don't know whether humans contribute to the currently rapid temperature rise and that we thus shouldn't do shit.
Shutting down our 1970s nuclear fission plants while keeping our coal power base load around makes perfect sense. We pay billions to France for enriched uranium every year while greens want to shut down clean coal. Now we save those billions and keep our coal jobs.
>GWPF
Aka, another fossil-fuel funded denier club. The fact that you're using this as a "legitimate" source is not surprising.
As for the first news article you linked, here's the actual paper. Read it.
nature.com
There's nothing in the paper that states that global warming is not a threat to our civilization, the paper focuses on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would allow the atmosphere's global temperature rise to be limited to 1.5°C. The paper postulates that civilization can emit ~200-250GtC (giga tons of Carbon Dioxide). Currently humans are emitting around 10 GtC per year, and it is rising due to the developing world, and is projected to rise further as regions like Africa experience population booms and develop further.
>Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.
>not yet a geophysical impossibility
Essentially what they're saying is it's NOT an impossibility that CO2 emissions could be limited to below 250GtC and that warming COULD be maintained to 1.5°C. This does not mean that it's been "overblown" or any of the other cherrypicked, bait headlines that climate change deniers have spread over the past weeks regarding this paper.
What in this quote sounds like "Wow, everything's just fine, let's just continue doing absolutely nothing?"
Here's a good in depth read about the actual paper itself by a climate scientist, if you want to actually learn more about it:
realclimate.org
>thetimes.co.uk
you didn't really read the article did you. It says that warming is not as fast as previous models had predicted but warming is still occurring.
Climate change deniers are retarded. They will deny facts even if they cite them.
>final report
>science
Not sure you understand how empiricism works.
That's the thing. Germanys climate policy makes literally no difference. It's a waste of time and money.
Man made climate change is real, but it doesn't matter. The war isn't decided in Europe.
>denying something that doesn't exist is bad
Nah they shut down the public funding for the research so they had to conclude all ongoing research. Hence the "final" report.
So you are suggesting Tim Ball's version is correct, but Michael Mann's isn't. Are you a retard or just an idiot? Also, the IPCC never used Mann's version which was an approximation published in the freaking 1990s before we had a lot more proxy data.
Space is fake
Climate Change is fake
Please go take it in the ass for Haji, thanks.
the more stupid parts of American conservatism are leaking into Europe.
>deniers
Interesting word choice. Try switching it up for Heretics or Witches some time.
>the science of global warming literally legitimizes globalism and global citizens
how so?
>Because if IQ is real, then all the apartheid, discrimination and separatism between the races is justified.
that doesn't follow as well. you can aknowledge inferior people without treating them unfairly
AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYO
That's a Greenland ice core proxy. Are you retarded?
No, deniers is just fine.
NPR did a large segment about AfD the other night. It revealed several interesting FACTs including:
>AfD is the party of radical violent right wing extremists
>there is a rising tide of neonazism across europe
>Sup Forums is a site dedicated to making up fake news
>they're being mean to Merkel
>we all have to combat the fake news and only listen to trusted news sources
>if you spread fake news on line you go to prison
I had to conclude that Germany is in fact back under Hitler's control.
global warming is a good thing you retard
BURN THE WITCH
>If there are things such as global warming, then their entire agenda of nationalism falls apart, the science of global warming literally legitimizes globalism and global citizens.
This might actually be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Well, it is true. Nationalism and fighting global wobble doesn't go together well.
It's literally a product of the 1992 UN summit in Rio, courtesy Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and Ken Ley. Ken Ley is the key guy here, since, if you know about Enron and derivatives, then you get how the carbon taxing and trading thing and controlling the energy supply is a vast money-maker to fund the emerging global market.
It's not hard. Go back to Limits on the Growth from the Club of Rome (that was back when it was global cooling) and just have a look. It's part of developing a one world Gaian religion - all based around the idea that we need to work together to save the planet because we're literally worshiping it as our god. And that's one more side of the mass psychological control necessary to achieve the one world government objective.
The amount of misinformation spread by people like you is simply infuriating. The fact that people like you STILL post these misleading ass images every single thread...
I guess we have to go over this shit AGAIN.
First off, this chart is simply put, fraudulent and meant to be misleading. For example, notice how the X-axis stops at 1855? since the chart is at years before present (1950) the last data point is 95 years before 1950, aka 1855.
This point ALONE should tell you all you need to know about how misleading this is, but I can go on. 1855 is long before there is any indication of the modern warming trend by the way.
The guy that made this graph is trying to indicate that temperatures in 1855 is indicative of the current global warming trend, a complete fabrication.
Don't even get me started on how the guy that made this graph is using greenland ice core data as a proxy for global temperatures... You cannot use just Greenland's temperature data as a proxy for the entire global climate. That's not how it's done.
Just look at this post:
It's no longer about science. It's about religion.
BIIIIIX NOOOOOD
Our occident must be pure BAMN, user. You can't expect that others build your case when they already did and concluded different.
Bumperoo with
>muh 97%
Oh wow, a completely misleading comic that is not based in reality of what climate scientists were publishing at the time. Of course the same old global cooling being a consensus myth is somehow thrown in there as well, even though it, like everything else you post, is a complete myth and fabrication.
>We'll be in an ice age by 2000
Provide evidence that this claim was widely accepted.
>Global cooling will cause a world war by 2000
Again, provide evidence that this was postulated by any credible scientists during the period mentioned.
Do the same for all the other points, I can actually provide scientific evidence to back up my arguments, you cannot do the same sadly. In regards to the whole global cooling "consensus:"
journals.ametsoc.org
There was far more discussion about global warming amongst climate scientists working and publishing during the 1970s compared to very marginal discussion about "cooling." There was never any "consensus" among scientists that the Earth was headed into an ice age (which is absurd because we're already living in one) or cooling phase, the vast amount of discussion was focused on warming and anthropogenic warming. See also:
archive.org
From the NAS from 1975 talking about anthropogenic climate change.
Yep, evidence-based science is totally a religion. Do you even step back to see how delusional the things you type out are? I don't really expect much from your types these days though, same old bullshit every single thread.
I could talk all day about consensus studies, suffice to say consensus is meaningless in science, only the EVIDENCE matters, and guess what pal, the evidence is not on your side nor does it support your arguments.
IT'S ALL ABOVE BOARD
AREN'T YOU FEELING SLEEPY?
>data that uses numbers that are radically greater or smaller so it destroys scale
>5th column serves no use
>green bars
This is just an autism triggering test right?
I don't have an opinion one way or the other but the climate scientists term this period the 'great hiatus"
>Do you even step back to see how delusional the things you type out are?
I do, yes. When I wait for the elevator, I have nothing better to do than read the postings about the next talks or dissertations or funding proposals or ads or whatever. And I very frequently wonder to myself how so many smart people can be so wrapped up in their own little worlds that they can't see what's going on and they still believe all the bullshit despite being published scientists.
I would recommend having a look at Foundations: Their Power and Influence by Rene M. Wormser, who was general council to the Reece Commission. He explains in considerable detail how the control flows down from the money powers to generate junk science.
Only rural and suburban retards vote AfD.
I don't know, user. Let's conduct some science:
Are you autistic?
Were you triggered?
We'll combine your results with others on the spectrum to produce a chart that proves your mother's vagina is an infinitely expanding space.
How about you read the actual consensus studies by the way, understand their methods and how they make their conclusions? I doubt you have any idea about the methods used or how papers were examined for their content.
The long and short of it is that most consensus studies look at a series of hundreds to thousands of climate science papers published in the field over a timeframe. They study the contents of each paper to see if it makes a statement about anthropogenic climate change in support of the theory, or against it. The vast majority of climate science papers make NO OPINION like this within them, because often times that's not the objective in the paper, especially since anthropogenic climate change is so widely accepted that making any statement is just meaningless in most papers.
Read one of the actual studies:
iopscience.iop.org
>We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Again, consensus studies aren't polling or going out and asking individual scientists what their stance on the science is, it's looking at published scientific papers on the subject.
I heard that before. Nearly daily. That's because the cities are filled with shitskins and other welfare dependant filth.
>it's looking at published scientific papers on the subject.
Right. And if you understand sample bias and you've stopped to read some of the literature, then you don't really need a consensus study to know what the outcome of the poll is going to be.
Friend, unless this is just pasta you're expending quite a bit of effort here. Thank you. But you should know that I'm not reading your posts. Save your energy and expel less carbon dioxide in the process.
> "all scientists agree"
> never links to any science
> will show a graph of carbon deposits as evidence
> but carbon doesn't correlate with temperature
Every fucking time.
>AnCap
Isn't science fun when you start with the conclusion in mind?
Because the truth doesn't work well :
>I doubt it's true and fucking our economy to make a tiny little difference while China takes all our industry isn't rational even if it is true" (also the jews try to use global warming as a weapon to destroy us, but we can't say that yet).
So instead of the truth we are forced to just oppose one lie with another lie.
The irony of what you post. It's insane how dense you are, and how exactly what you describe is what happens with climate change denialism. Funding from oil and gas companies is send to organizations like Heartland, GWPF, through organizations like Donor's Trust / Donor's Capital Fund for example. This money is literally used to create actual "junk science" by scientific advisers that get monetarily compensated by organizations like Heartland. They even have their own junk science conferences each year where they get together and spread misinformation and factual inaccuracies about global warming.
arstechnica.com
It's staggering how you can't see past your own cognitive biases, you're so convinced that actual science is "junk science," and you're so contrarian that you are locked into a world of conspiracy that simply doesn't exist. Sadly, like I've said before, the evidence is not on your side, the science that supports it is not. It's all about manufacturing doubt about the scientific credibility of climate science, that's what groups like Heartland have been working towards for literally DECADES using money funded by the energy industry. Heartland is just one of hundreds of similar organizations that are funded in the same manner, though companies like Exxon stopped publicly funding many of these denialist organizations around 2007 due to negative PR. Other organizations that engage in the same exact behavior include "think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, ALEC, Cato, CEI, Heritage, etc. All of these organizations have one thing in common, they're almost entirely conservative / libertarian think tanks.
Learn to recognize your own biases, become skeptical of the very things you choose to "believe" in and maybe humble yourself. Stop living in a world of delusional fantasy in regards to climate science.
>pirate
>PIRATE
P I R A T E
I
R
A
T
E
Denialism is science m8. Socratic method and all.
There's a strong consensus about racial genetic impact on IQ too.
Sometimes common sense is clearly superior to """scientific consensus""".
Scientific consensus is that the sun goes around the Earth.
GALILEO STFU!
BSc in environmental science from the University of Washington amd MSc in environmental science from the University of Zürich here:
I sat in on review panels for the most current IPCC reports regarding oceanography related topics such as ocean acidification, coral bleaching, El Nino/ENSO events, pollution etc etc. From what I have learned is that if a research paper hits all the buzz words you hear in the media, then that paper proceeds forward to the next steps which comprise of political word smithing and alarmism. Those that do not meet the criteria are usually disregarded as deniers and end up not getting their projects funded or poorly funded in the future and being removed from the inner circle. These people that use the buzz words and those who advance those papers are very much in a cult. None of you faggots have seen it first hand and those of us on pol who actually have degrees in this field all share the same conclusions regarding global warming/climate change and anthropogenic forcing.
Heritability of IQ isn't a secret. Neither is race differences. No serious scientist is denying this - they're just obscurantist about it.
The first graph isn't an accurate representation of the """scientific consensus""" any more, the little ice age has become a global phenomenon again (ie. became too hard to deny). The medieval warm period is still localized in it though.
You know what I would like to see is a little more public discussion about the gulf stream. I'm a lot more worried about the implications that could carry, why it happened, and if there's anything sensible we should do in response other than just accept that IT GON RAIN
I don't see what if any relation racial IQ differences have to do with climate science. Once again, when losing an argument the same old strawman of racial IQ comes out. Why is it that you guys always bring this up as some form of legitimate argument against climate science when it has no bearing or relation to it whatsoever?
Seems like once again you're trying to derail the conversation into something completely unrelated.
If you even bothered to read what I posted above, I stated that consensus means nothing in science, and that the only reason consensus studies on climate science have ever been conducted is due to public disinformation about the science itself. CONSENSUS MEANS NOTHING in science, ONLY THE EVIDENCE MATTERS. The evidence overwhelmingly shows a >95% degree of certainty that global warming is anthropogenic and a danger to our civilization. You can go on about consensus all day, but again, it's meaningless outside of conveying to the public that there isn't a significant faction of climate scientists opposing anthropogenic evidence, in fact there's hardly any credible scientists at all publishing that do oppose it, I can only think of a few, Roy Spencer / John Christy are the two most prominent. Others such as Richard Lindzen have published deeply flawed research and I don't think Lindzen even publishes anymore.
How about you actually post some science?
Gould has run a very intensive campaign against the idea of races.
Regarding what with the gulf stream, user?
>I don't see what if any relation racial IQ differences have to do with climate science.
Jews.
The gulf stream slowed down to a crawl a number of years ago. This is one of the reasons why the jet stream keeps flopping around and people under its influence experience unusual wild rapid changes in the weather.
Jewpedia actually has a reasonably well-posited article about it.
en.wikipedia.org
I haven't read his book but it sounds like the exact type of obscurantism I meant. Blurring of lines, criticism of specific approaches, etc, all the while never really attacking the fundamentals (human populations differing).
> muh science
> psycnet.apa.org
> journals.uchicago.edu
Still haven't posted any science, you twat.
>why do they deny man-made climate change?
Because its not real.
>I don't have an opinion one way or the other but the climate scientists term this period the 'great hiatus"
It is over now, warming has continued and over 60 years the "great hiatus" looks just like previous steps on the ladder up.
CH4 + 2O2 = 2H2O + CO2.
There is your water vapor. Twice as much than Carbondioxide.
2H + O2 = 2H2O
Still water vapor when only burning Hydrogen. Some Industrial machinery require megawatts to operate. Large industrial area's up to 1 or 2 gigawatt. Good luck in farming that on wind and solar alone. You need gas turbines at the ready to keep the net up during fast fluctuations.
the science is not easy to understand and the words people are using are deliberately confusing so that layman people will understand the statements in one way on climate change [or was it global warming] where they are meaning something else.
It's a bait and switch.
The information is there but it is complicated and hard to discern quickly.
Global Warming can be said to be occurring because we are still at the end of the ice age and that trajectory hasn't been proven to be waning. The problem is that we have a very small reliable measured temperature data set to compare the current warming. "Global Warming" was then switched to "Climate Change" as satellite date for the last few decades shows that there hasn't been any warming. The warming that is seen in other temperature datasets is also shown to be attributed to heat island effect and general construction and infrastructure growth near the temperature recording stations which are not systematized and more shockingly, a blatant massaging of the actual data sets called "adjustments" to actually show higher temperatures using algorithms.
Here is what you can count on:
-Global Warming is occurring as is most likely caused by natural processes including the sun and could possibly be linked to the end of the ice age. An actual cause for this warming IS NOT CURRENTLY KNOWN...this directly from my professor on Climate Dynamics.
-CO2 and variations on temperatures are not at all correlated in the long term temperature proxies we have and to claim computer models that have been PROVEN to not be able to predict reality while at the same time using trying to acquire political power is highly immoral. Using these models to introduce a carbon tax is EVIL. I want to find another word for it but there really isn't. A carbon tax would give the ability for a government to control every aspect of live and human endeavor.
To be continued