Look at this funny looking spaghetti I found lying around. Thankfully it is not real

Look at this funny looking spaghetti I found lying around. Thankfully it is not real.

Other urls found in this thread:

science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.full)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

It's real, but it's not humans doing it. Obviously a more reasonable explanation is that the planet is warming up spontaneously. We'll call it Spontaneous Global Warming (SGW).

>since 1880
what about 1 880 000 years ago ?

#obamaarmy

Global warming IS NOT manmade...We have no fucking hold or effect on this planet. It's cyclical...In another 25,000 years you'll be complaining it's getting cold.

>It's cyclical
THIS! Everyone knows that objects can just spontaneously heat up, this is why SGW is the actual answer.

unhuh... the scientific community must have good reasonsto try to convince us otherwise...

its funny how obvious it is that global warming is going to cause the collapse of civilization

Yeah, funding

...and why would the people funding them want to lie about climate change?

Here's an interesting concept:
If the science is 100% clear and decisive, the trends are solid, and accurate predictions can be made today, ask these scientists if you can cut 90% of their funding.

The only thing funny is how stupid people like you are to believe global warming is going to lead to the collapse of civilization

civilization will lead to the collapse of civilization.

nothing in science is 100%, we are constantly leraning new things, getting more accurate tools, and refining the techniques used. Given the already staggering evidence suggesting that climate change, while not MAN MADE, it is being exacerbated by our actions, if we as a human collective chose to act on our actions, then maybe some reseach could be cut, sure. Never will any field of science ever require 0% funding

Its called a positive feedback loop, we are potentially pushing the climate as such that it will continue getting hotter beyond natural levels at rates never before recorded in human existence. If we hit or have already hit this threshold, without huge advances in technology in a relatively short period of time, human civilization, if not destroyed, will be completely changed

science is just a theory, theory of flat earth relativity is a theory... therefore it is a science...

I'll just leave this here

false, how could anyone know the temperature from the past? Niggas werent there, we aint got no time machines... get your head out of your ass

Civilization will most likely lead to colonizing different planets, endlessly expanding, spreading like a cancer. Stop being so easily manipulated.

>we are potentially pushing the climate
>potentially
No, we are not doing anything to contribute to global warming in a meaningful way.

It's like watching a stock price. It may flash crash, spike to three times in value in a few days etc. If you weren't watching it at those specific time periods, looking back on a long chart won't show these sudden spikes due to their short duration. Unless of course you were watching it at exactly that time.

The temperatures go in cycles over the history of the last couple hundred thousand years. High to low. This is well known and scientifically accepted. Might it not be that we're simply watching it in real time (stock price) - seeing the sudden spike in another cycle?

Cycles, averages and arrogance. That's the whole man-made global warming consensus.

yea forget those science funders who want all of the science funding

science is religion without the tax break. nigger

this is what a trump shrill looks like

Because the people funding them likely also have their toes dipped into large buisinesses that largely affect the environment, so they wouldn't want it changing their profits.

Why does the left do anything? Political Control.

They warned us about The Population Bomb and claimed only Socialism could save us. It was a lie.
They warned us about Peak Oil and claimed only socialism could save us. It was a lie.
They warned us about CAGW and claimed only socialism could save us. It was a lie.
Once this one is over they will find something else to scare children and the uninformed with. Guess what will be the only thing that will be able to save us.

Generally, yeah

>implying I voted for a steak salesman
this is what no argument looks like

What if we blamed the problem on human population and said we needed to reduce below 1 billion people?

It takes thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years to colonize another planet successfully. You don't just board a fucking plane and head to the Mars mall you dumbfuck, there is a huge infrastructure problem, physiological problems to sort out, and if we ever get outside our solar system, it will take literally tens of generations to ship enough people to sustain ourselves elsewhere.

>It takes thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years to colonize another planet successfully.
Source: your ass. Nice try though.

No one believes that's going to happen.
>95 years before present
>95 years before 1950
>Using a graph that stops 162 years before today
Also that study only looked at Greenland (which explains the negative temperatures on the right). It was a regional proxy from 162 years ago, it is not reflective of global trends.

>What if

And what if the Left carved their dreams of genocide on giant stone tablets?

>Not wanting to cull niggers, gooks, and those greasy indians
Wew lad.

So where's your evidence it doesn't?

Show me any article of intelligence which says we can have colonization in less than 1000 years.

That was neither left nor right. That was a schizophrenic.

>1950 AD

fuck off user

>planet has been storing energy for millions of years as oil and coal from dead animals and shit
>we burn it all and turn it into heat over a century or two
>planet gets warmer
>people are surprised

no fucking shit retards

I didn't know NOAA has been around since 1880. That's pretty impressive.

Why to republickunts try so fucking hard and scream so loud to try and support the corporate interests? Literally no corporation is paying off a conservative voter for their I'll gotten beliefs. Everything about massive corporations has led to the degradation of natural systems and higher economic instability. So why would some $45k a year idiot watching Fox and friends devotedly fight for the agenda of major energy corporations only to lead us to a future of worse economic times?

It seems like they don't understand that if they keep knocking holes in the walls, they won't have a house anymore.

>it is not reflective of global trends.

...

No, as far as I'm aware that study used regional proxies.

Even more

Pretty much no one in climate denies it's been cooling globally for the past 7000 years. Nor do they deny their have been jumps and dips in the global temp on the level of multiple decades.

So from that, we are not even at the point thermally as when the pyramids were built?

So does that mean if the earth heats more, we will have rising sea level we can exploit to build huge stone structures?

That's not how a debate works, friendo. I made a claim we will most likely end up colonizing other planets. While we haven't yet obviously, I can show mountains of proof (which I won't bother doing) at our attempts of exploring space for decades in an effort to do so.

You made a counter-claim, based on something you pulled out of your ass. This is the part where you back that up or just concede you lost this one.

Also, imagine if 200 years ago I claimed we would invent a glowing device that you can input your thoughts into. These thoughts could be transmitted, giving you the ability to have a conversation with a random person nearly anywhere on the planet in a fraction of a second. I would have been committed to an insane asylum. That's 200 years. You're claiming 1000 or more years. You're an idiot on a lot of different levels dude. Stay in school or go back.

What it all means, is that anyone who claims that today's temperature is "unprecedented" or claims that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius over that of 'pre industrial' times (aka the little ice age) will destroy the environment is lying to you.

It really is that simple

Are you that stupid?

Mars has less gravity, is way in the fuck colder, can only send missions once every two years, and it is a long ass trip requiring enormous levels of energy just to get there. How the fuck are you going to get even 10,000 people to have self sufficiency on Mars without acting like a faggot believing in the magic of human innovation?

We made a leap, but we are facing physical limits. Your next iPhone won't even have any new technology in it because it's too damn hard to do on macro scales. Do you think after tens of billions just to do what we did with NASA, which isn't nearly as funded anymore, that somehow we will just go live on Mars in 200 years? You're a fucking idiot. We simply can not accomplish that level of work in that short of time. Everyone here but maybe 50 people who go on missions is going to die on this planet, as will their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and maybe their offspring will visit, but living in less gravity requires significant biological adaptation.

So you are a meteorological historian, and the graphs are true but the scientists aren't? How do I know any of it is true or false? All I have seen is people trusting in people who aren't the people with the knowledge or skill to make those absolute statements.

I don't trust any of you. I think you are just angry children fighting because you have gay feelings for each other and neither side is willing to admit they just want to anger fuck the other.

Calm down you autistic fuck.

>No sources
So I can't look at them

>Marcott et al. 2013
Probably this (science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.full)

That graph however doesn't appear anywhere in that paper. However, pic related do. Graph B in particular is interesting, since it looks nothing like yours, and in fact implies a different conclusion.

>Picture for ants
>Pretty much no one in climate denies it's been cooling globally for the past 7000 years.
Looking at B, that's partially true, from about 7000 years ago climate was cooling. Then in a very short amount of time temperature anomaly shot up to the highest it's been in the past 10,000 years.

>is that anyone who claims that today's temperature is "unprecedented"
From the Marcott paper you cite earlier
>Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is
unprecedented in that time.

> or claims that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius over that of 'pre industrial' times...will destroy the environment
Lets look again at the graph, it took about 2000 years to go from about 0.2 to 0.4. In less than 100 years we've gone from about 0 to about 0.8. The speed and scale is unprecedented.