I will send one (1) Bitcoin to the first Sup Forumstard who can convince me why I shouldn't believe the 97% of climate...

I will send one (1) Bitcoin to the first Sup Forumstard who can convince me why I shouldn't believe the 97% of climate scientists who agree that anthropomorphic global warming is actually happening

edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-5

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
nature.com/articles/nclimate2896?foxtrotcallback=true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>I will send one (1) Bitcoin
No you won't.
sage

Dinosaurs got the earth out of the ice age by putting more pollution into the air.

I will if you can convince me.

Post wallet and proofs.

well i can call myself a "scientist" (degree in molecular biology) and from what i know this is all bullshit, we might have like 1% impact on what is happening on earth but thats it. Just like myth that trees are "earth lungs" this is just another eco-terrorism weapon. Read James Tylor at Forbes and you will see

Cause money makes you retarded.

There is a difference between adding to global warming and being the cause of it. But hey let's not have a real discussion.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

> It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1, and is considered by some to be an interglacial period.

Warming is natural. Looks at the graphs

Because 97 percent of scientists don't believe in warming, it's a fucking lie.

The actually statistic is that out of all studies about climate change, those that conclude that climate change exists compared to those that don't is 97 percent, but the majority, over 50 percent yield results that say that there isn't enough evidence to confirm man made climate change exists. That's where your error lies.

Now about that Bitcoin...

>prove a negative and I'll give you a goodboypoint
pfft

Good and good, this is all natural and 1% of our civ. "carbon fart" is nothing.

This

Globar warming is just easy to explain mass fear weapon. but nobody is talking about estrogen pollution (real deal read about it) and antibiotic resistance, but hey im just a crazy lab rat what can i know

Science is dictated by scientific method of using procedural methods and then analyzing results to come to conclusions. It's not about finding a consensus. That 97% believe something's irrelevant. Scientists have observed rising temperatures in the last 100 years of so but this is really a short sample from which to draw conclusions. If you'll remember back to the 1970's these same scientists predicted a coming ice age. Basically, all the (((scientists))) are fags blindly regurgitating what they've been told.

"Anthopomorphic" means having a human shape, or human characteristics... like catirls, etc.
I believe the "97% of scientists" meant so say "anthropogenic" - ie: caused or made by humans.
Having BTFO'd this shitty thread, I proudly claim my Bitcoin.

If you beleive it, you wouldn't want to do the transaction to begin with.

Good thinking

>anthropomorphic
Kys

What are the arguments of those 3% who disagree? Are they proven invalid or are we just supposed to pretend they dont exist?

Because it is actually God giving us signs that these are the end times, but we are unwilling to accept that.

Also rapture will be blamed away by aliens taking those people away because they are not ready for the new age.

Where is my bitcoin?

It's always been happening. But should we give a fuck? The only areas that will become extremely unfriendly to humans are inhabited by low IQ subspecies that can hardly survive there when the weather is nice. The rest of the planet will be a paradise.

>OH NO! NOT FLORIDA!
>THINK OF THE DROUGHTS IN AFRICA
>INDIA IS STARVING
>GOOD GOING GUYS POLAR BEARS ARE DYING OUT AND THE NORTH IS BECOMING MORE LIVABLE
Good fucking riddance.

You should. Its obviously happening. Most of Sup Forums just does it to disagree with their understanding of "Leftism".
Maybe one day Sup Forums will realize that Fascism, Progressivism and Communism are all left.
And not all support it. But oh well.

Sure you will. Nice bait dick head.

KYS

The real question is why you would ever listen to the environmentalists' demands for us to cripple our energy industry with renewables when we could be using nuclear power.

> 30 USD

aaand op is gone... and i wanted to buy something for kids for this bitcoin

hey thats a lot of money!

can you give us a list of the 100% of all scientists names put the 97% in black the 3% in red son8 can shift through what they say

Environmentalists mostly demand that we cripple our automobiles while the ships we move them across continents on run on sludge scraped from the bottom of the oil barrel. Because they're myopic morons more concerned with everything being autistically correct, so long as it's in front of them. Out of sight, out of mind.

The environmentalists would rather you buy a new prius than reuse a 5 year old mustang
>we've destroyed part of the environment mining metals, wringing oil from the ground to make plastic, and spewing sulphuric smog into the air
>let's do it again because this time the result will burn one less gallon of gas a week
>Uh, why?

Environmentalists are the sort that would criticize you for eating a chicken and then have a block of traditional, organic tofu shipped from japan on a leaded-burning jet.

It goes through waves and has always. Can I have one bitcoin now please?

1JXv2LnMAssxtLzWE2E6SAqmMK8dkJg4MT

reason 1:

you shouldn't believe them because you shouldn't just automatically believe an appeal to authority.

always be skepticisming.

/thread

I believe in human caused climate change. Can I have a bitcoin because I am a good cookie?

Because the 97% is a fradulent figure. Its 97% of the 3% of scientists who made it through three previous surveys. In other words 97% of scientists dont agree with man made climate change.
1AsJZgHUNKRQpnDevmPNtWESp6RYBG3tox thanks

If it were true, they would ban private jets. As it stands warming is just a meme to make collimated investors rich.

That argument is conflated. We are warming, but the evidence that it's man made and that it's a catastrophe should be the debate. It's a scam to get tax payer dollars.

97% of scientists believe that **earth's temperature has arisen from the last decades ago.
We still don't have a scientific consensus on what is the cause of it, if we can do something about it and what.
So global warming is real, real as far as it's slowly getting warmer: we don't know how fast it's going if it's strictly related to climate changes or if we are the main or even a remote cause.
Now draw your SJW bullshit out and call me a climate denier but I don't give a shit about a raise in temperature and you don't as well, it's not worth the hassle with so little informationand also nobody is actively doing anything about it anyway, it's a giant virtue signalling opportunity for doomsday freaks.

climate engineering is real , climate change as told by popular mainstream is caused by different reasons than children are told, however you are correct in as far as it is man-made, but not by common people, google will tell you all you need to know to back me up if you search for 'weather modification' or 'weather atmosphere engineering' the surface narrative is it blocks the sun to stop warming, however in practice it keeps energy from escaping into space -thus man made warming, so yes you are correct but wrong narrative, therefore you shouldn't simply 'believe'. if anything do your own research.

keep in mind that we should still save the planet from things that actually do harm and help our communities.

do not send me more than 0.002 i know op just want my info to look it up, if anyone else wants to send a small amount worth of that retarded transfer fee because they learned something
1EARysYETkPVWGNhqb6qaP4xoBJZgFc5MY

if not then just HODL

You mean this graph?

How many climate scientists actually say we AREN'T the cause of climate change? Roy Spencer? Christie? Richard Lindzen? There are probably less than 10 notable ones.

That never happened though. Scientists understood the warming effect since 1896
rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Magazines aren't scientists

They generally boil down to

1. It isn't warming, which is obvious tosh
2. Its the sun, which makes no sense when you actually examine solar activity in recent decades
3. Its El Nino, which doesn't explain why CO2 has spiked to 400ppm despite never reaching this level in the entire Pleistocene or the Holocene before humans
4. Clouds will reverse warming, when they have both a warming and cooling impact

The American Southwest could dry out. Europe will be beset by deadly heatwaves most years. Refugees will swarm across the planet. India and China, 2 nuclear powers, are set to see the biggest hits. Do you not realise how connected society is?

lol

>So global warming is real, real as far as it's slowly getting warmer: we don't know how fast it's going if it's strictly related to climate changes or if we are the main or even a remote cause.
Humans are largely the cause of recent warming. There is no way to explain the recent warming without the radiative forcing from humans.

nature.com/articles/nclimate2896?foxtrotcallback=true
>We find that almost two-thirds of the impacts related to atmospheric and ocean temperature can be confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing

Global warming is really just a tragedy of the commons.

liar lol, (2 posts by this ID) abandon thread, i didn't even ask for a whole bitcoin

>anthropomorphic

Are you joking? You mean anthropogenic, right?

It does exist, and unlike the rural and suburban retards in this thread, SCIENCE proves that climate change is real. That bitcoin would go to good use if a city person with a high iq, who voted for Hillary, were to use the funds to stop global warming.

Ice melting and sheeeet!!!

Carbon dioxide is used by plants as food
Reduce the amount of carbon dioxide you reduce the amount of plants

>one (1)
Trolling is so easy

There are two common ways to measure the greenhouse effect of a gas.
Global warming potential is a measurement of the greenhouse warming effect per mass unit of gas compared to CO2.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Radiative forcing measures the energy trapped per area unit in our atmosphere by a greenhouse gas.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Neither of these has been used to measure water vapour (which means you can't compare the greenhouse effect of any greenhouse gas with water vapour) despite the fact that water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour has "more and broader absorption bands than CO2" and is 45x more prevalent in the atmosphere. Water vapour absorbs non-zero amounts of radiation at every infared wavelength so there is no "window" where more infared radiation is trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 than water vapour. The greenhouse effect also scales logarithmically. The science is clearly not "settled" and you should do you own research instead of blindly believing the scientists who have failed to provide complete data.

12GXCAKA9F1cfWeZsSE9CoFcJ57fTgqLYs
Gonna buy some more Chainlink lets gooo.

>recent warming

-You can't use "recent" in planetary timespan. 1000 years is recent. The Romans had vineyards in England and in 1814 the River Thames froze over. These are both "recent".


>scientists guessed somethign right once
and plenty of them - notable ones too - predicted new ice ages. Lo-and-behold the Earth's temperature flucuates.

>the sun
you have't examined solar activity ever stop pretending. The Earth's temperatue follows neatly with solar activity.

>CO2
CO2 rises with temperature not the other way around. Even the IPCC acknowledges this.

Speaking of whom, even they've had to go on record saying their estimates haven't been anywhere near what they predicted.

But then your grpah has no source so I don't expect you to grasp any of this.

Because science isn't based on a vote?

>you have't examined solar activity ever stop pretending. The Earth's temperatue follows neatly with solar activity.
Statements like this are how you tell someone has spent exactly 2 minutes researching a topic

Because consensus has never been the litmus test for what is true and what is not.

This is what we call the Abilene paradox.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

Responding to my own post. Also who benefits the most from pushing climate change? Scientists. There is an inherent flaw in asking scientists if global warming is real when, if it is real or "consensus" its justification for said scientists getting more scientific funding.

That's like asking cops if they believe cops should be better armed with state of the art tech. Of course they are going to say yes lol.

And then tag me on a wire crime?

Pass.

the irony.

Well screencap this for the future if you're so sure. Because it's entering cooling cycle and everyone and his wife now has access to atmospheric temperature records which are free from IPCC et al tampering. I give it 5-10 years and the last 10 years' hysteria will be an entire chapter in future textbooks.

You shouldn't believe them, not because anthropomorphic global warming isn't happening, because it is happening, but because of the reason they give: the problem is not the CO2, the problem is the mere burning of all kinds of fuel on a scale so massive it heats up the atmosphere fraction by fraction. Every single second all flames burning all over the globe add up to a flame of the size of over a cubic kilometer – continuous. A kid can do the math. So don't believe them because the CO2 story is false. Thanks. 3BMN8tsK8BU5ttGVKA4Af7Qq1xvaRpNqwT