Why the fuck does this board deny rock hard climate science?

Why the fuck does this board deny rock hard climate science?
>every reputable source says the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate
>CO2 levels are also undeniably rising, and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
I get it, you're all scared of JewGore who wants to profit off of people being scared of climate change, but it's some serious fucking mental gymnastics to ignore climate science. Besides, what the fuck is the climate Jew going to gain from everybody switching off of oil- one of the largest economic factors in the world?

Other urls found in this thread:

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
youtube.com/watch?v=D7pKldlZNqQ
forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/27/the-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-growing-but-it-doesnt-mean-global-warming-isnt-real/#70db3cd86a88
theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/03/barrier-reef-coral-genetically-altered-in-hope-of-surviving-climate-change
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The only reason they peddle climate change is because it gets them votes.

Sadly this board is full of people stuck in their mommy's basement and refuse to go outside...
Green tech is coming regardless if they like it or not...

>rock hard science
Get rekt soygoy.
God controls the thermostat.

Does co2 have a significant enough impact to make it worth reducing our competitive advantage over other countries by using more expensive sources of energy?

Also, you can spend your own money on reducing co2, rather than trying to make the government force me to spend mine.

>>every reputable source says the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate
But that's wrong.
If you check the data and ask the actual climate scientists they're split more 50/50 on the issue.

I'm not arguing whether the government should do something about it. Honestly, I don't think they should. All I'm wondering is why the fuck everybody is denying it when it's obvious that it's happening.

...

50/50 on the degree in which the climate is changing, but they all agree it is changing.

...

...

Sup Forums is a board of feels, and shills have manipulated them into a stance which is now a part of their identity, so science doesn't matter at all.

Why does everyone else deny race realism when the science is settled?

...

All the models that show all these disastrous effects assume the level of co2 stays the same. Reducing the emissions keeps the co2 levels the same, which wouldn't prevent the effects it claims will happen. This is proof the alarmsits are just making shit up for their NWO.

Post a link to one. Just ONE journal article so we, your peers, can review it and let you know empirically why it stinks

>The climate experts say the ocean level will rise due to temperature increase metling the ice on the polar caps.

>Climate experts are unaware of the archimeds principal.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I know it's not a journal article, but if you're so certain of your shit, it shouldn't be too hard to pull apart.

Denial is a great starting point for the arguments against action to reduce co2.

Yet it was much warmer in the 1100s

Yes, goyim. Climate change isn't real. Keep buying oil. Good goy.

your uncited graph is bullshit buddy

you're projecting and your little lib energy companies are gonna run deep into the red without government subsidies

>Why the fuck does this board deny rock hard climate science?

Because the models and predictions from 20-30 years ago were so laughably far off from the reality today.

The coasts were supposed to be underwater now according to alarmists like you.

If you guys cry wolf all the time, people are going to stop listening (which is a shame, because maybe people do have some good points and there are things to be concerned about and that need to be addressed, but these moderate opinions are drowned out by people screeching about doomsday scenarios and fire and brimstone).

The climate changes all the time. We shouldn't pay China and India billions so that we won't be allowed to frack oil. (((Environmentalism))) got hijacked as soon as shlomo saw a dollar sign on hungry polar bears. Modern environmentalism is just another way to say wealth redistribution.

climate (((science)))

be a good goy and opt in to buy solar energy from your power company for double or triple the price

>"the planet is warming at an alarming rate guys. We should probably do something about it."
"Hmm. That's hard to point and laugh at."
>"THE PLANET'S GONNA FUCKING EXPLODE WITH FIRE. FUCK DRUMPF WE NEEDED THAT SECOND SCOOP TO COOL US"
"Wow, that's easy to laugh at, and now I don't even have to think! Looks like I can laugh at extremists and ignore actual problems hiding behind them."

Oh yeah cause Coal power is going great aye. Closing down left right and center

We are addressing the problem, though. CO2 emissions in the US are the lowest they've been in decades, ironically enough thanks in large part to hydraulic fracturing and the natural gas boom. Many coal-fired power plants have been replaced by natural gas ones, which is cheaper and burns far cleaner. Plus people in general just being more environmentally conscious and trying to cut back on their carbon footprint.

Fat lot of good it does when developing nations like China and India aren't held to the same standard as other countries who ratified the Kyoto protocol, though.

Serious question:
How does someone determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 400,000 years ago?

>every reputable source says
kek
same crew who says space is real. woo hoo. yonk yonk. know what I mean?

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

In the arctic or Antarctic, snow falls and forms solid layers. In the layers, a certain amount of the atmosphere is trapped in the ice. Well, just as we can see how old a tree is by its rings, or as we can see the geological record by looking at the layers of rock in the grand canyon, we can "go back in time" through these layers of ice that have trapped the atmospheric compositions of their times.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

>people are trying to profit off of climate change, therefor, climate change doesn't exist.

Nothing will continue to happen forever.
>N-no it won't! You'll see!
Then I'll see - until then, I'm treating you exactly like I regard every doomsayer that has ever lived.

Climate change isn't an event, you fucking tard. You're not going to walk out of your house one day and suddenly be under thirty feet of water. It's a slow process, but the ramifications are clear.

And what proof do you have that humans can do anything to stop it? What proof do you have that we cause it?

>isn't an event
An event is anything that happens.

If "the ramifications are clear" then let's see some, because otherwise you're just a fucking doomsayer.

youtube.com/watch?v=D7pKldlZNqQ

Except global temperature has remained relatively stable, disproving all climate model estimations.

Furthermore, the anthropogenic effect is overstated. When you look at the overall picture of climate change and the feedbacks, human impact is virtually nonexistent.

Careful when you start making conclusions on cause and effect, surely forest fires are contributing but you'll somehow attribute that to man-made, to which I would argue otherwise...

Things like scientific method ought to be useful.

Don't follow it at your own peril.

But nature quite often has a mind of its own and you would be wise not to forget what this planet does all by itself, like in the billions of years prior to human life....

Why the fuck are you so concerned this board subscribes to the thoughts you want?

>Solutions
>mitigation and adaptation
>heat-trapping greenhouse gas lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years
>even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today climate change will continue
>Mitigation involves reducing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, either by reducing the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat or transport
>or by carbon offseting

So, basically damn if we do damn if we don't scenario. We can either put more regulations on utilities or create a market for buying carbon sinks to offset. Hmmmmm. Who could we get to regulate markets without oversight AND create an artificially inflated one that could be used as a political threat? HMMMMMMM.

The sad thing about that whole sight is that none of it is practical. Every article, post, and link, seems to suggest a need for more funding because project X maybe the key to solving all these mysteries about Climate Change (even though it's a settled science).

Here is a question: how come there are no economic models for the mitigation route? If we do reduce gases in said ways what is the possible outcome for society? People just want to know the risks, the trade offs, to alleviating the worse of Climate Change. Why do 98% of climate scientist avoid approaching that problem?

We can't really do much to stop it at this point, but considering the fact that CO2 spikes following the industrial revolution- the revolution that caused a bunch of people to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at geological scales- I'm pretty sure it's caused by man.

Well, we've got an increase in hurricanes, global average temperature, and receding polar ice caps as ramifications. Yes, I understand that we're not going to sink into the ocean, but the climate is changing fairly drastically. Whether that's good or bad, I can't say.

Except you're fucking wrong kiddo. Explain these feedbacks that disprove human involvement in climate change.

It's a board dedicated to political discussion?

nice fake graph you got there, faggot

>Well, we've got an increase in hurricanes
That's false, global average temperature has seen a decrease over the last seventy years, the north pole is expanding.

And everything is so fucking slow, and possibly far more beneficial than bad for human living conditions given more of the world is put into livable temperatures than is made less livable by a global temperature increase.

>two graphs with no explanation
Wew

>I get it, you're all scared of JewGore who wants to profit off of people being scared of climate change, but it's some serious fucking mental gymnastics to ignore climate science.
Earth's weather is a chaotic system. Do you know what that means? It means even if you're slightly off in accurately characterizing the current conditions, your predictions about the future will be way off. Can't predict weather with accuracy, but scientists can predict the climate?
>But muh climate is a long term trend whereas whether is a short term phenomena. Straw man argument you Nazi!
The Earth's in between two ice ages. No one denies that the Earth's temperature is going up. We just think scientists are bat-shit crazy to say that man-made C02 will somehow have an effect on the coming ice-age - which climate scientists refute since they think we will be living in Kevin Costner's Waterworld.

I find it hard to believe that someone found a block of ice and measured the contents of each ring backwards over 400,000 times.

I do find it much more believable however that agendas are pushed through lobbying and federal funding.

Learn to read, shit-for-brains faggot

>North pole is expanding

>unprecedented
what was the yunger dryas

The real question isn't wether or not c0s warms the planet, but what happens to the planet. Why do civilized countries need to pour billions into shit holes.
>yfw more c02 gives more ability for greater biomass
'climate change' might be the greatest thing humanity ever done. Crops will grow wild. Forests will reclaim land. inarable lands will become arable.

Sure, the climate is changing. It always is. The issue i have is two-fold. One, no one can prove that humans are to blame for one hundred percent of the changing climate. Two, the US does not need to pay out billions to various climate committee slush funds and the American tax payer doesnt need to be forced to pay "carbon taxes" and the like to 'fight' climate change.

Now fuck off, kike.

There is no such thing as "climate science", you idiot.

"Every reputable source" = people who confirm what I want to believe are "reputable", while anyone who contradicts what I want to believe is not reputable.

The planet warms and cools, and there is ZERO "rock hard" evidence humans can influence that at all.

why do scientists drive gas muzzlers and power their home with coal and nat gas?

Yeah lets not look at recent trends when that's super inconvenient.

>artic ended in 2007

Anarctic ice sheet is growing

forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/27/the-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-growing-but-it-doesnt-mean-global-warming-isnt-real/#70db3cd86a88

>artic ice sheets melting is proof of global warming
>Artic ice sheets expanding is proof of global warming

>climate research and modeling
>"science"
>"rock hard"

Global warming is undeniable

> but yet its still the same temperature
> sea level is still the same

I find it hard to believe you think this is how the process is done. its more like

>average snow fall per year
>extrapolate
>drill to the depth that corresponding ice layers would be
>claim climate change is real
>????
>profit

What I find hard to believe is that the earths average temperature changed way more drastically than anything we've seen about 12,000 years ago, with no real c02 change, but c02 changes are what is going to kill us.

>but it doesn't mean global warming isn't real
Of course not, it actually means global warming is even more real than we thought. Nevermind that none of the predictions made by the AGW crowd have come true so far, it's settled science so we just need to figure out a way to fit this data into our conclusions.

>consensus is science now

k then m8

I don't think anyone denies global warming. However, it really does activate my almonds when I witness the EPA questioned by the Congress and they're unable to provide any scientific models which show their regulations actually having a net benefit on the environment.

Why would I ever believe in something so illogical and narrow minded as Global Warming when the man who discovered it and advocated it, recanted on his death bed saying it was a baseless theory.

quiet goy. you don't need to learn anything like that.

>We can't really do much to stop it at this point, but considering the fact that CO2 spikes following the industrial revolution
How was atmospheric CO2 measured before the industrial revolution

I feel like I live in bizarro world sometimes

I don't think the denial rate on this Vietnamese basket fishing forum is as high as you think. Most of us know that climate change is a thing. What we are against is the Jewish carbon tax. Since the left thinks the best solution is no solution we bog them down whenever possible. Now, if they wanted to do something like tax us to revamp our power infrastructure I for one would be ok with that.

because its man made you retard

CO2 driving climate change is a meme. Look up the late ordovician glaciation. The entire planet was completely locked in ice: glaciers reaching the equator. And CO2 was 400x higher than today.

People without a rigorous scientific background fall for the CO2=greenhouse gas meme, without asking important questions like: where does CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere? What frequencies of sunlight does CO2 reflect?

And aside from one super major, jews don't control any of the oil companies. They are one of the only segments of the economy that are almost totally jew-free at the highest levels.

>ice sheet is growing but temperatures have stabilized and are expected to continue to travel this way for decades and they changed the name from global warming to climate change and desired for America to spend trillions in foreign nations not willing to change anything but
>global warming is real
Its not. If it was, NYC would be underwater.
So many more catastrophic predictions that have been predicted have not come to pass, and will not come to pass.

in 30 years when nothing has sunk beneath the waves will you still blow the horn of global warming?
Or will you accept the new nomenclature of climate change?
Why do you think they changed it?

You're right. Why should I, as a taxpayer, care about the investments my tax money makes? If they tell me there's something in the box, I should just believe it without asking what's in the box.

Because the earth is in a transition period.

The earth goes between being a frozen iceball to a tropical world and back again. It's a function of solar heating interacting with orbital mechanics. As we are currently coming out of an ice age (frozen snow ball), the planet is headed towards tropic world, a world warm enough for alligators to swim at the north pole.

No climate scientist is going to deny the general trim.

The point under debate is the speed and how much, if any, added effect does humanity have on this process.

The global warming alarmists want you to think its all human's fault. But if you are talking CO2, it just takes one moderate volcanic eruption to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as all human activity--- from the time the first homo sapien started a fire. That's not bullshit, that's just the reality of our world.

Global Warming Alarmists will have you believe that they can predict every volcanic eruption, and how big it is in terms of CO2 output, in their models, and they can accurately predict the changes in solar radiation. Understand that even Helio scientists (Sun scientists) cannot predict actual future output nor can volconologists (volcano scientists) are able to even predict which volcano is going to erupt, let along how big the eruption will be.

So what super-science are the Global Warming Alarmists using that they aren't sharing with the rest of scientists? Humanity could really use it to our benefit.

Remember, Global Warming Alarmist scientists had predicted that there would no longer be snow in North America after 2015. It's 2017, and the US has a LOT of snow and ice.

These global warming scientist have never been accurate in their 10 year, 15 year, and now 30 year predictions. How are we supposed to take their 50 and 100 year predictions seriously? Their past predictions have all been garbage, so why should we place any weight into their future predictions.

Oil and gas ain't
It's a shame that """green""" energy is shit in comparison

And what of bleed-off? Or do they assume that CO2 levels in the ice remain unchanged over time?

I also found it hard to believe that the lightning wasn't caused by Thor swinging his hammer around until I decided to research things I
don't know shit about before denying them.

Nice cooked graph. You know NASA has been busted repeatedly for changing the temperature records to embarrassing data that conflicts with their best political bludgeon for getting funding.

Answer me one thing, How do you estimate the earth is warming, to what standard: 100, 1000, 10000 years?

ah NASA. once of their rocket launches equal 50,000 houses running on coal 24 hours a day for a year. but no global warming is real goyims

hahaha OP the faggot gets raped in debate, then runs away from his own thread

>climate change will make the ocean levels rise!!!
>it's not
>w-well that's because the ocean floor is dropping!
It's settled science goy!

Scientifically, you take proxies. Ice samples from places that have been cold that long, soil samples, plant samples... lots and lots and lots of samples.

The problem is that each proxy has it good points and bad points. For instance, we used to think ice samples were the very best, clearest record of past atmosphere conditions. Then we found out that they are garbage for things like CO2. Whoops. But your mainsteam hasn't caught up with that. Hell, half the climate scientists haven't caught up with it. Its inconvenient to have science invalidate your science "rock" and turn it back into a chunk of squish muck that MIGHT suggest what you want, or it might directly conflict with what you want. But that's the science game.

Also, with samples, you get a lot of cherry picking which samples go into the official database or are used, versus what is tossed out as outliers.

Science is fun like that.

"science" is largely a weapon used by the establishment to push whatever propaganda psy-op they need the normie slaves to swallow.

just like evolution. a randomized genetic mutation oops we just have one path

When science can't even get the daily weather reports right, how can I expect them to understand weather over centuries?

Actually, forest fires started by man in the Amazon FIGHT global warming, according to Global Warming Alarmists. The reason for that is humans control the burns, making the burnt bio-mass into large areas of charcoal, which holds onto the carbon much longer than unburnt trees and the associated bio-mass of the amazon.

But still, most Warming Alarmists call for that human process to stop because "burning releases carbon and carbon dioxide is the enemy, so all of carbon is suspect!"

huh, i always thought jesus was born on 0 AD or 1AD not 4BC

> Posts photo of guy kneeling down with his butt in the air
> uses the term "rock hard"

>gather proxies
>use statistical modeling to generate series of data points
>even the most aggressive modeling doesn't have a data point within 220 years of another
>compare 50,000 year graph directly to 150 year modern day graph without proper scaling
>"the pace of warming is like never before!!!"
or my favorite
>"it's the hottest year on record!!"
>(ignores own 'scientific' temperature proxy records showing millions of years of hotter temperatures)

How about you go back to r/faggot you fucking faggot

I believe it. I also know it is a scam.

Geoengineering is the only possible solution and the left talk about taxes and lifestyle changes ie globalism AKA communism that by their own data wouldn't even stop it, not even reach a 2 degree rise goal.

So if you actually do believe in global warming OP and want to save the planet then support geoengineering, starting with supporting places like Oxford university and nobel prize winners in America who want to continue their research but get harassed by leftwing and green organizations and even receive death threats to stop them from doing scientific research or the DNC who wants to defund all government grant research grants republicans have pushed forward.

We will never be able to get the entire world to use less power and eat bugs ok.

believing in conspiracy theories is a great way to jerk yourself off.
You're better than all those other idiots to buy into this false knowlege. you know better. you're part of this small circle of people who REALLY know what's going on.

appeals to that whole "im special" thing

Herod the Great, who, according to Matthew, killed all the babies in Bethlehem younger than 2 years of age, died in the Spring of 4 B.C. Jesus would have to have been born before this time, anywhere from 7 B.C to 4 B.C.

not an argument

what research

Your solution to this so called problem has been the same over all of its incarnations. Higher taxes, less liberty. Suck on these nuts

Reminder that genetically modified organism will save the Earth.
theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/03/barrier-reef-coral-genetically-altered-in-hope-of-surviving-climate-change