If humans don't cause climate change to a relevant degree, then what are the motives behind the people pushing it?
Climate Change
Eli Carter
Caleb James
Jesus fucking Christ, is this supposed to be ironic?
Impose a carbon tax.
Control where you can travel
Control what you can eat.
Kill you when you reach retirement.
Cull the population back by 7 billion people, with half a billion slaves.
Create a one global government to rule the world... a government controlled by them.
Not tin hat stuff. The put it in fucking stone for you to see, and you STILL deny it, Op.
Camden Gomez
Do you think it is real then, and is being done to cause all of this? What is the solution?
Joshua Barnes
Carson Morgan
the people pushing it are the globalists. They ignore the poor case for climate change in favor of centralizing power. the rest of them are just sheep moving with the herd and virtue signaling
Oliver Walker
My goal post just moved. We just go from "it's not true if you can't say why" to "it's not true if you can't say how to stop them".
Obviously the way to stop them is to:
1) Explain why the Man Made Global Warming hypotheses failed to predict.
2) That Al Gore and Mann's "hypothesis" that AGW will make winters colder is not a scientific hypothesis as it cannot be falsified.
3) Vote for representatives who will NOT support carbon taxes and will pull us out of scams like the Paris , Copenhagen and Kyoto accords
Evan Wilson
>If humans don't cause climate change to a relevant degree
We do, actually. According to thousands of studies, and the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields.
climate.nasa.gov
en.wikipedia.org
>inb4 shill
>inb4 conspiracy theory
Ryan Martinez
shekels. plain and simple
John Taylor
actually, when you take that same 98% survey and review how many articles state that climate change is at LEAST 50% manmade, it's only 3%
and that's overlooking the fact that surveying scientists doesn't prove global warming
there's nothing democratic about science
try to actually learn about it yourself and practice critical thinking, its pretty astonishing how nebulous the science is
William Ramirez
>Muh bandwagon! Muh experts! Muh Lies!!
Not science.
Science is where your falsifiable hypothesis makes useful predictions. Real scientist reject failed hypotheses.
Yours failed, and it failed right out of the box. Whats more, you replaced it with a non-science hypothesis that can't be tested because it predicts everything. Damn, creationist have this better thought out than you.
>Muh NASA!! Muh Bandwagon!
Nicholas White
>then what are the motives behind the people pushing it?
Don't you know? Trump already said climate change is a hoax made up by the Chinese so that they can kill off American businesses.
Levi Wilson
>what are the motives behind the people pushing it?
price fixing oil
Aaron Kelly
>actually, when you take that same 98% survey and review how many articles state that climate change is at LEAST 50% manmade, it's only 3%
What study are you refering to? There have been multiple studies quantifying the consensus, all of them reaching very similar figures.
>there's nothing democratic about science
True, in science, whoever comes up with the simplest theory that best explains the evidence wins. So far only the models that used antrophogenic sources have been able to explain the recent warming, that's why we trust them. If you object to that, cite a few denier models that explain the measurments better.
Eli Russell
China is one incidental beneficiary of the scam. Trump will not or doesn't know to call out the more serious reasons, see
Cooper Cox
You accuse me of bandwagaggoning while linking that 1000s of times debunked chart.
gtfo
Angel Murphy
>NOO!!! It's DEBUNKED! Can't be TRUE!!! REEEEEEEEE
That's called an "ad hom" attack; an argument against the source and not the facts or logic. And as ad homs go, it's not even a good one - you have nothing to back it up and you don't explain what's wrong with it.
it's funny because this is with their bullshit "adjusted" data. The real mean global temperature rise was about a quarter of what they're claiming.
Logan Morgan
Have you noticed how literally everthing justified by "global warming" is a pointless cash grab or quickly becomes one? Carbon taxes, the paris accord, automobile emissions testing after 2000 or so, "refugees", and so on and so forth. Governments across the world have figured out that they can push though literally anything if they slap "muh climate change" on it, leftists will fight to the death for the newly proposed program/tax and if anybody points out that this deal looks like an offer a nigerian prince sent them they'll get mauled to death by the same leftists. It's so awful and blatent that any arguing about the veracity or impact of "climate change" may as well be a red herring. I'd be fine with enviromental shit if it did anything other then move money into state coffers.
Just recently here in BC, the local commies have started clamouring for a "meat tax", as in a tax on all meet. Take a guess what they used to justify it.No really, if you read this post and fail to guess you know what'll happen to your mum
Brayden Parker
ha ha. late AND stoopid. Back to the flat earth division you go
Anthony Wood
I absolutely agree. All the remedies that are claimed to fix anthropocentric Global warming (AGW) involve nothing more than moving vast amounts of money around from one pocket to another. Kyoto didn't lower emissions by one carbon atom and gave China and India a blank check to produce as much as they wanted. Copenhagen fell apart because the third world caught the Globalist trying to scam THEM out of their share of the "carbon tax" loot.
But pointing that out, without first debunking the "science", is a logical fallacy. I simply point out their hypotheses all failed, and that their new hypothesis isn't at all scientific, and these AGW useful idiots are seriously triggered.
Just stick to the scientific demand that THEY show their hypothesis predicts, wait for them to do a pascal's wager fallacy, invoke God into he argument with the same Pascal's wager, and you're done with them.
Hunter Cook
Destruction of Capitalist Western Economies.
But we only think that because of the decades of writings espousing just that from the anti-capitalist Left.
Sebastian Baker
I never understood the point of this magic card.
Over 2 decades and this is still the most useless card ever made.
Hunter Robinson
2015- global warming migrates in full to climate change
2020- climate change meme officailly dead
2025- year of no summer launches worldwide hunt with rope for all former GW&CC shills still in hiding
Daniel Howard
>logical fallacy
of course. Every plan to tackle AGW consisting of "give me money" doesn't disprove AGW. Though I would argue that it doesn't really matter if AGW is correct or not when the only methods of dealing with it that we seem to ever attempt is "give me money". We're all sailors standing in a sinking boat arguing about if there's a hole or not, while paying somebody to pail water from the front of the boat to the back.
Jaxon Price
Your analogy fails. We're discussing if the boat is "sinking", and you've not proven that. That's begging the question.
Robert Roberts
>World Is at a cool point in its history
>world is ending
pick one
David Miller
Versus the motive behind the deniers. Protecting petroleum industry profits, and the fat political donations that come from them. Which one makes more sense? Occam’s razor suggests the answer that relies on the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one...
Hunter Gray
I don't own shares in any oil company.
Did you know that British Petroleum and Shell Oil funded the creation of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? They were exposed as a pro-AGW propaganda mill by the Climategate e-mails, TWICE! And funded by BIG OIL.
You throw your idiotic "follow the money" fallacy at me and if you really do follow the money, it makes YOU the cuck to the oil companies.
Now I shall pause and laugh. A fallacy based on a falsehood. Can't get better than this!