Global warming

How can you be so sure climate change isn't real?
All these world leaders seem convinced and they fact check these things.
Doesn't it seem more likely that big oil tries to hide it?
2015 was warmest year in recorded history ever btw
pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
bbc.com/news/world-europe-21712295
labexkorea.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/green-technology-the-10-leading-countries/
cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Of course the climate is changing numb nuts. The controversy is at what rate and how much of an impact humans have on it.

Spoilers: our impact is so low that "scientists" have to cook data to show that it's increasing a rate much higher than it actually is.

Everyone knows, Sup Forums is just satire

I'm tiring of discussing this shit over and over and explaining why anthropogenic climate change is nothing but a political narrative (a fairy tale).

So instead of wasting my time I will link you to this video and tell you to do some thinking yourself:
youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

It's five minutes and it won't kill you.

>Doesn't it seem more likely that big oil tries to hide it?
Sure, but in my country, exon and chevron paid more taxes than any other company last year, so it's not like they are getting away with anything.

>All these world leaders seem convinced and they fact check these things.
They are convinced that they need more of my money, so they can fly their private jets more often and increase their carbon foot print as long as I am a good sheep. To them it's about control, not about science or environmentalism.

It's witchdoctor bullshit. None of the alarmist claims show up in the actual paleoclimate data, and all of the model predictions have utterly failed. Pic related.

Did you even watch the video? He says Co2 is a greenhouse and it increases temperature

The question isn't whether CO2 blocks certain wavelengths of light. It's whether the conclusions made about laboratory observations translate to the climate system in general. The alarmist hypothesis is that they do, but as we have so far seen, the predictions made based on this hypothesis have all been completely false.

So what should we do with a hypothesis that proves to be wrong over and over again?

Also, see

1. Co2 has a greenhouse effect
2. More Co2 is pumped into the atmosphere
That 3. The greenhouse effect increase is thus a necessary conclusion no? Will look through that pic

See how all these charts works with thousands or millions of years and in the only pic working with 2010-2020 they admit a drastic increase in temperature?

People are retards and think that the burden of proof for global warming is based on showing beyond a reasonable doubt that it exists and not a risk-benefit analysis.
Some harms are so catastrophic you prepare for them even if they probably won't occur.

Fuck off back to Sup Forums you mutt

You faggots always use the same pics.

You keep at least 3 threads which all have a pic of white women and shit skin male.

Using words like cumskin and stormweenie.

Huh? Where did I use any of these words? This is about climate change.
Also
>that woman
>white

>1. Co2 has a greenhouse effect
Like I said. The question isn't whether CO2 blocks certain wavelengths of light. It's whether CO2 has the kind of impact the alarmists claim on the climate system. So far, all of those predictions have been false, leading us to the conclusion that the alarmist position on CO2's impact in climate is also false.

>See how all these charts works with thousands or millions of years and in the only pic working with 2010-2020 they admit a drastic increase in temperature?
There is no drastic increase in temperature in any of those data sets. What are you talking about?

If you're referring to the Marcott data set (the bold red line in the last graph), notice that the apparent "increase" at the very end isn't even off-trend. You need to understand how that data was compiled. It combines modern measurement techniques with a highly smoothed historical average of proxy data. In other words, the smoothed historical data omits the variation we see in other data sets, then suddenly *includes* that variation with modern measurement datasets. If you understand what that means, you'll also understand how deliberately fraudulent that is.

There is nothing abnormal about current temperatures, and the data proves that unquestionably.

Then why use that pic?

Fuck off with your playing dumb.

Go back to /intl/

There is an average of 100,000 flights a day.

during these flights, most of these aircraft produce contrails, or little white lines of harmless water vapor clouds left behind from their aircraft.

because of the volume of flights and these small clouds, the albedo of the planet Earth has increased slightly.

Because of an increased planetary albedo, more sunlight is being reflected away from the earth instead of being absorbed, causing a gradual and measurable global cooling.

WE'RE HEADED FOR AN ICE AGE

BAN PLANES IMMEDIATELY

CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FUCKING THING WE NEED TO THING ABOUT RIGHT NOW

>this is what an actual climatologist sounds like

Talking about this one.
>no drastic increase
Yeah but how not drastic is not drastic? If you see we have a couple billion people on the verge of becoming industrialized and co2 levels still rising

Nobody but you talks about race you subconcious cuck. I just picked the first pic that wouldn't get overlooked

>All these world leaders seem convinced
That's what makes me skeptical to be honest. I don't trust them one bit.

>Nobody but you talks about race you subconcious cuck

>I just picked the first pic that wouldn't get overlooked

So obvious it's hilarious.

Ill keep saging tho.

You're confused. The rising temperatures are from *model predictions.* Also keep in mind that the error bars on those models were large enough to include a substantial number of other outcomes, but the prediction was rising temperatures.

The steady temperatures in that graph are the actual, observed data.

That means the predictions were wrong. Dead wrong.

You're misfiring in the way a Turkroach misfires. I'm almost convinced there is something genetic about Turkish retardation.

Neither but this isn't politics that much is it?
Like there is no conspiracy to rid goyim of inefficient old cars

this and the impact will be even lower once humanity runs out of fossil fuels in around 2080

nice time scale on that graph faggot

Isnt the climate going up and down for tausend of years?

See
The graph isn't showing measured temperature increases. It's showing how the model predictions of increased temperatures wildly deviated from actual observations.

How do you think saging works when the other guys bump newpham?

>You're misfiring in the way a Turkroach misfires. I'm almost convinced there is something genetic about Turkish retardation.
Quality argument right there. You seem very secure.

>The steady temperatures in that graph are the actual, observed data.
Which too are slightly increasing. Once again 2015 was the warmest year ever measured
"It's not THAT bad" doesn't mean it's not happening

You can look at the post I replied too. It just got cut off in the screenshot because it's unnecessary to identify the chart I'm referring too. Use your brain sweety

>Neither but this isn't politics that much is it?
Of course it is, but as German that perspective might not have been obvious to you. It's a very good tool to keep your advantage over developing countries.
bbc.com/news/world-europe-21712295

But we haven't had this level of civilization for thousands of years. And with rising sea levels at the end of the last ice age thousands of people died

This'd be real hot if it weren't some brown dude

>Which too are slightly increasing.
And could start decreasing tomorrow based on the established trend of natural variation. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures.

>Once again 2015 was the warmest year ever measured
No, it wasn't. Re read the pic in:

Your just lucky people are replying.

But people like you using those kind of photos need to take to the wood chipper.

You're right. But in return we pay millions of dollars to make 3rd world shitholes green aren't we? Unless which I'd believe it's a sheme for the jews owning green energy firms

He's a Turkish shitposter, but people are going to come to the thread to talk about AGW. Insert redpills accordingly.

As you yourself said those were predictions. I just took it from the Leo speech so I'm not gonna defend that claim without proof however.

>And could start decreasing tomorrow based on the established trend of natural variation
Yeah but we established that greenhouse emission warm the planet already right? So even if tomorrow the temperature would sink about one degree it wouldn't stop us heating it up again it would just buy us some time

>But in return we pay millions of dollars
And where do you think that money ends up?
labexkorea.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/green-technology-the-10-leading-countries/

>As you yourself said those were predictions. I just took it from the Leo speech so I'm not gonna defend that claim without proof however.
Google CMIP5.
cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/

>Yeah but we established that greenhouse emission warm the planet already right?
No, we have not established that CO2 emissions warm the planet in the way predicted by climate change alarmists. We have established that those predictions are wrong.

>How can you be so sure climate change isn't real?
Because global warmers already confessed several times that it's just a big scheme to re-distribute the world's wealth and all numbers are cooked.

How can you not know this?

Which is why I added the part about jews, I get it

>No, we have not established that CO2 emissions warm the planet
Then read the vid spainbro posted pham

>Because global warmers already confessed
Sounds more like confirmation bias to me. Can you post a credible story? Also I'd prefer to know how the numbers got cooked instead of just taking it on faith

...

>Then read the vid spainbro posted pham
Read the pic in
If CO2 impacted global temperatures the way the alarmists predicted, temperatures would be much higher than they are. Their predictions have been consistently wrong, and current temperatures are not only the lowest they've been in the past 65 million years, but well within established trends of natural variation.

Do you have no other taking points? That the predictions were OFF (not wrong) doesn't mean Co2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Nor does it mean ever increasing amounts of Co2 won't harm the environment. YOU see:

WOAH-OH EVERYBODY, RETARD ALERT, WATCH OUT!

Looks like someone thinks they know something! Then again, this could just be "INTELLECTUAL" SHITPOSTING!
However, I think we've had enough guys, why don't you go home. The adults are here now, so we can discuss what really is going on. Go on, shoo, you little cucks. You have no relevant information or worthy opinions.

>Prager U

No, they're wrong. Objectively, demonstrably wrong. The predictive value of the models is zero, meaning the hypothesis that human-contributed CO2 emissions is not impacting the climate in the way the alarmists claim.

>Nor does it mean ever increasing amounts of Co2 won't harm the environment.
You need to prove that it will. So far, all claims to this effect have been falsified.

...

>So far, all claims to this effect have been falsified
Did you never had 7th grade chemistry? The fuck you think co2 is?

(You)

>shitposting this hard
the models predicted fire and brimstone, but instead we got steady temps. the global climate system works differently than the doomsayers claim, and co2 emissions are evidently Not as impactful as everyone has been screaming.

DO GO ON

Like I said above, the question isn't whether CO2 blocks certain wavelengths of light, it's whether it affects the climate in the way AGW proponents have hypothesized. The hypothesis has turned out incorrect predictions, meaning it's time to discard it.

Read: