No, the debate isn't over, no matter how many snobby elitist snowflake liberals like to say it...

No, the debate isn't over, no matter how many snobby elitist snowflake liberals like to say it. It's funny how they claim the facts are on their side, and then never produce actual evidence for their claims. You'd honestly have to be completely full of yourself to think that humans can affect the climate, something that has been around for millions of years before humans. I'm glad that we finally have a TRUE leader who will stand up to big climate 'research' and stop falling for liberal deception

Other urls found in this thread:

imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png
naturalnews.com/2017-01-14-mathematical-proof-that-man-made-climate-change-is-a-total-hoax.html
xkcd.com/1732/
climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Shut the fuck up. Just stop. Please. Stop

why don't you stop being a shill for big climate research? how about doing your own research for a change?

...

I'm not shilling for shit. I just want you to shut the fuck up about the goddamn weather

climate change is part of the weather, they aren't separable

climate change occurs because of how the weather is, and then it proceeds to effect the weather, making a circle. you can't separate the two ideas because they are so closely linked

It's the climate lobby that needs to shut the fuck up with their false narratives and begging the government for more funding

exactly... there is no 'human caused climate change', there is just the weather. Liberals need to sit down and STFU.

...

The 'change' is no longer refuted even by the most respected opponents of it.
The debate has switched to whether it's man-made or not, to which the burden of proof belongs to both sides. Human-induced climate change theorists are charged with providing evidence that our societies are significantly affecting the change and deniers need to prove that the change is par for the course.

blah blah blah... big climate talking points. All the research says that global temperatures AREN'T rising and if they do it will be because we're coming out of an ice age

Your bait -

it is of the lowest quality.

Hang your head in shame.

well the problem is that we know that weather changes over time, so there is "climate change" in that regard

we just dont know exactly all the details of how man effects the weather

imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png
Thar u go, OP. Have phun.

>everything I disagree with is bait

Easy. Man does't affect the weather. Don't be so egotistical.

>big climate research?
Like big pharma? Kek
>How about doing your own research for a change?
We all know you haven't and are just shit posting

I'm curious where you're getting your temperature data.

You also can't say "aren't rising" and "if they do" in the same sentence. If they weren't rising there wouldn't be need to have a backup argument.

naturalnews.com/2017-01-14-mathematical-proof-that-man-made-climate-change-is-a-total-hoax.html

can't tell if this site is just full of paid shills or what... Only a moron continues to believe false narratives when evidence is provided for the contrary

Just look at those embedded ads..
Reverse Alzheimers, get rid o fat over night..
user, there are sum major Shekels flowing there.

I'm not making the claim that temperatures are rising, it's not on me to provide evidence. I've yet to see evidence not from a Soros-funded source. I'll take my facts narrative-free, thanks.

quit your strawmanning... That has nothing to do with the content of the article. but I'm assuming you can't refute it anyway

>climate change isn't real
>hurr i'm a virtuous conservative durr
>yfw that's exactly what the liberal jews want you to think
>mfw jews and retards still believe this

xkcd.com/1732/

imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

/thread


That said, man made climate change is real. There is no debate. It's a bunch of idiots defending business interests (oil).

But then again, you say "snobby elitist snowflake liberals"

It's clear that you don't want to debate this. you've made up your mind and you refuse to listen to reason, science, or facts.

Go crawl back into your teaparty, flat earther, anti-vaxxer hole.

Your facts are nothing but narrative, and yes to say that there is a change and not provide evidence for why it's happening is just as irresponsible as your opponents.

If you're the same one who posted the NaturalNews link, did you happen to notice that when they hyperlink the discovery of "a team of international scientists" it just links to CWC Labs, which is just an offshoot of NaturalNews.
This isn't how science works.

>article unironically quotes infowars
into the trash it goes

That's a cute assumption that I'm any of those things. I actually lean left on economics... i can't stand to see people on the left succumbing to such nonsensical ideas such as that humans could possibly be affecting global temperatures.. utterly ridiculous.

Oh, so the products the site choses to endorse has nothing to do with its validity? Shall I commence refuting?

Alex Jones knows all

The facts prove that we have.

Period. End of Story.

Why don't you go and disprove anthropogenic influence on the depletion of ozone layer. They scientists saw the natural cycles in depletion and re-establishment of ozone layer but came up with a theory that it was man made effect. Now they cashing on climate change.

...

If by "all", you mean "absolutely nothing", then you're right.

Oh please, all MSM outlets run BS ads. But for some reason you trust them blindly. Again, going after credibility and not substance.

>MSM
Let me guess, you use IE, rite?

"facts"

...

Just because the people on this site don't like alex jones doesn't mean he isn't credible. There's a reason the white house asks him for his opinions...

HAHAHA
For the sake of schadenfreude, I hope you're serious.

There is no substance in the article. It doesn't live up to its title. It just keeps yelling about how the science is wrong, and how there is this paper that is waiting for peer review. Pointing out the science is wrong isn't the same as mathematically proving that you are right.

Why should I accept something as fact when the science is wrong AND hasn't been peer reviewed? Why can liberal news hosts speak about it as if it's fact when it absolutely is not known for certain?

Because the major governments of this planet and many different research groups, the majority of their field, to be specific, all agree upon this?

The favorite lies of the deniers; The 70’s Ice Age Scare
climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Look, if you want to play the intellectually superior skeptic, that's fine. Science at it's core doesn't prove universal absolutes, so you're fine to not settle on cement facts.

But that's not what you're doing. You're assuming information is inseparable from a bias you're giving it and acting like the level of investigative research is equal. Plus, I'm pretty sure you don't understand what the 'peer' in 'peer review' means.

C02 is a heat trapping gas. Settled science.

LISTEN UP FAGGOTS

if climate change was so god damn true and obvious why does the IPCC lie to us about the statistics?

telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

>I actually lean left on economics

Social liberal, financial conservative is top tier mate

Because calculating the temperature of an ever changing system in a hundred years is a little harder than your middle school maths, Timmy.

But social market economy seems to be working out pretty well for countries like Germany..

Dear retard,
Does anyone seriously doubt that smoking cigarettes leads to heart disease and/or cancer? Yet, no model of epidemiology knows who or when a person will get sick from smoking a cigarette. For many years the merchants of doubt used that lack of precision to claim there was no proof whatsoever that cigarettes are bad for your health. We are witness to the same tactic being deployed today in an attempt to discredit climate science.

Ignoring mountains of accurate evidence to demand precise markers on something as variable as the climate is just like asking for a date certain when a smoker will be diagnosed with cancer - it simply doesn’t work that way.

Next time that somebody claims a superior knowledge of the science and insists that the climate models have it all wrong just remind yourself that the science regarding C02 and warming is every bit as firm as the link between smoking and cancer. Are you going to disregard that link because epidemiologists cannot predict with absolute precision who is going to fall sick tomorrow?

Put a frog in boiling water and it jumps out

Put a frog in cold water and slowly boil it, it just sits, until it dies.

...

We're seriously affecting the CO2 levels, which will most likely have an effect on the global temperature.
*HOWEVER*
Research in 2014 (notice that the "97%" image people like to post only goes from 1991-2012) revealed that previous analysis severely underestimated the level of CO2 in the Jurassic Period. While Jurassic CO2 was nearly 5 TIMES what we have caused with industrial pollution, the average global temperature was only about 10 degrees F (3 degrees C) higher than today's levels.

While it is true that the current CO2 levels are higher than anything in the 800,000 year Ice Core Record, and in fact higher than anything since the end of the Carboniferous Period, it is also true that the period from the Late Carboniferous Period to the present was the only time in Earth's history that the CO2 levels were *below* 400 parts per million (the current level).

We're not anywhere near an all-time high level of CO2. The population explosion of algae that later became coal and oil depleted the CO2 in the atmosphere from 1,800PPM to around 200PPM. Even though we are currently returning that Carbon to the atmosphere, we aren't anywhere near the levels of CO2 from the start of the Carboniferous Period.

This is a poor metephor, and that was a bad movie.

dumb and ignnorant. They got the statistics and then they changed them for their agenda. I want to be on your side but I have looked stuff up for myself

what the fuck are you on about. Stop talking about smoking.

I lifted the point that the IPCC has large corruption issues and that they change the statistics for their agenda

the 97% concensous is also a big fat lie...

fake news.

try harder.

omg you dumb little cunt

you don't know shit about europe

sweden is great because of capitalism HELL SEGER

Do you actually research the sources of the articles, or how the data was gathered and organized? You probably don't check to see counter-arguments, either. One random guy making unsubstantiated claims and a writer parroting the claims doesn't mean much at all.

>and insists that the climate models have it all wrong just remind yourself that the science regarding C02 and warming is every bit as firm as
Just three years ago those scientists whom you think so highly of admitted that their previous estimates of prehistoric CO2 levels were "FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED".
livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

not fake

prove why

shouting fake news is dum and a sign of you not willing to listen

>the debate isn't over
We're in a debate?
>no matter how many snobby elitist snowflake liberals like to say it
The the debate they don't know about is over?
How absurd of those silly liberals.
>It's funny how they claim the facts are on their side
What facts? On the side of what debate?
>and then never produce actual evidence for their claims.
You're going to need to tell them about the debate first.
>You'd honestly have to be completely full of yourself to think that humans can affect the climate
You can go to youtube right now and watch people cloud seed... Wait, is this debate?
>Something that has been around for millions of years before humans
Like the plants and animals we've changed through domestication? Or the oil we've burned?
>I'm glad that we finally have a TRUE leader who will stand up to big climate 'research' and stop falling for liberal deception.
I don't have strong feelings about Trump one way or the other, but he never even mentioned climate change in his address. Are you sure this is the debate?

Then look into atmospherical physics.
We know earth is warming up.
We know it's been warming up at a faster rate than usual in recent history.
We just don't know where it'll lead.
The deniers say it'll stay the same, the optimists say we can expect about a degree Celsius in rise, the realists say 2 and worst case scenario: 3.
I can't tell you what will happen. I can just tell you that it'll happen and these people are trying to stop it.

>never produce actual evidence
They produce evidence all the fucking time. You just call it "alternative facts" and refuse to accept it. Big difference.

Only 34 of 33,700 scientists rejected human responsibility for global warming in peer-reviewed climate articles (Powell).
A link to the abstract of the original survey that debunked the lie that the scientific community was split on a human role in global warming:
sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

>shouting fake news is dum

0/10 b8 m8

science != politics

itt: not science

"Financial and social rankings of sovereign states in Europe":
Germany placed first,
Sweden placed 10th, based on their GDP, that is.

we are moving out of an Ice age so I am not surprised. I don't deny that climate is changing. I think that the tectonic platesmoving much faster wich releases C02 has something to do with it as well

>Randall Munroe
>arrogant, effeminate, cunt-worshiping faggot that's wrong about everything
>reason, science, or facts

That's a good one, but seriously kill yourself my man.

>climate "scientist" models
>based on contrived data that is fudged to support a conclusion that was reached before the "science" even began
>implying that climate "scientists" use the scientific method
>it's 2017 and you still don't realize that anthropogenic global warming is a political phenomenon and not a scientific one

Your Randall Munroe tows the neo-Marxist party line because he's a globalist leftist, and not a scientist.

not bait

Even if I bothered posting sources, it'd be a moot point. You'd attack the source itself, instead of actually READING the fucking thing. Theres no point to it anymore. You've made up your mind that "liberals" are lying to you. There is nothing anyone can say to change your mind because you aren't trying to learn anything. If the facts you've been presented with aren't enough, then nothing will ever be enough. You're doing this out of spite.

Very vague descriptions, I ask myself what you'd say if actualy scientists would use this kind of reasoning (which they don't btw).

>in peer-reviewed climate articles (Powell).
from 1991-2012
But things changed in 2014 when we found out that the CO2 levels that caused prehistoric temperatures were 2.5 times what we used to think they were.
Ergo, all estimates of future climate change based on data from before 2014 has a margin of error of about 250%.

The increase in speed is one of the many things still unproven. Previous work had it slowing down.

Fuk yerself with a broomhandle, faggot.

That is the kind of English expected from someone taught by the great Alex.

Not him, but if I may: globalist oligarchs and the scientists they pay to reach the "right" conclusions are lying to us. "Liberals" are, by virtue of the psychology that makes them "liberal," predisposed to believing them based on a title or perceived authority.

I don't know what all scientists think about my judgements because all do not agree there are differing opinons on this issue. My father for example who is a professor in Lund says that the debate has been to conflicted with politics. Scientisst can loose ffund ing if not agreeing to the politically corret dogma. just realize that the IPCC has lied up our arse and get on with consuming

Sea levels are rising. Period. You can't even refute that with political theory. THAT is fact, and you've somehow managed to turn this all into some kind of bullshit "liberal conspiracy theory". ALL facts will be "contrived" to you, and every scientist we present you with doesn't "use the scientific method".

If I said the sky is blue, you'd fight with me and claim it's red and that seeing the color blue is some kind of "globalist leftist lie".

Global climate change:

>The Earth is getting warmer. The average surface temperature of the planet is and has been increasing over the past few decades. This increase can be attributed primarily to human activities that increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These increases in average surface temperature have resulted in mass extinctions of plant and animal species, famine, and economic disruption, which will likely continue and become worse as time goes on if measures are not taken to improve the situation.

Which part of that do you disagree with? If so, what's your evidence? Is your opinion backed up by peer-reviewed evidence?

>implying conservatives don't pay scientists to say "its a hoax" too

For fucks sake, lad.

there's a lot more money in fossil fuels than there is in climate research

>If I said the sky is blue, you'd fight with me
Well, actually...
The sky doesn't even exist. The blue color you see is just refraction from sunlight through transparent gasses. Its effect is greatly diminished at night, which is why you can see the stars at night, but there isn't actually a "sky", it's just atmospheric gasses obstruction your view of space.

Everyone knows this, you're not special. Literally no one cares. What a useless differentiation you just made in an attempt to sound smarter than the rest of us.

>Literally no one cares.
I care, which means you are factually incorrect.

>factually incorrect
Who gives a shit? Grow the fuck up.

 


9/11 was a hoax
the moon landing was faked
black people are monkeys
hitler did nothing wrong
the jews run the world and push an evil globalization agenda

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Shit bait kys.

Well seeing as how every time this is brought up someone uses the 95 or 97 or whatever the fuck % of "SCIENTISTS SAY YOU'RE WRONG.", not so much on this matter.

>>factually incorrect
>Who gives a shit? Grow the fuck up.

Anthropogenic climate change believers, everyone.

This gives me cancer like the sun gives me cancer if I stay out in it too long.

>Climate change is real OP is a faggot blah blah

Useless numale libtard pussies are just gonna bend over and let the globalists fuck us. Here's your goddamn proof:

bit(dot)do(slash)11-reasons-why-climate-change-is-a-conspiracy

>Sea levels are rising. Period. You can't even refute that with political theory.

Well, first you must prove this, and more importantly, you must be able to prove that this was caused by anthropogenic climate change. You can cite all kinds of changes in climate, weather, animal migrations, and so on, but it doesn't lend any credibility to your claims unless you can prove that climate change is anthropogenic, and prove that this anthropogenic climate change has caused the phenomenon you're referencing. This is all very simple logic, but I think you're honestly more caught up in the politics and convinced by the perceived authority of the celebrities, newscasters, scientists, and oligarchs telling you the party narrative.

Right, because human kind never caused any other problems with their environment. No lead in the air, arsenic in the water, cadmium in the soil, sulfur in the rain, pesticides in the birds eggs, or toxic waste dumps under our schools.

Not an argument.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...