|| CLIMATE CHANGE || HOAX OR NOT

What do you guys think.

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1a566c5076fb
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif
theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

>1 post by this ID

>1 post by this ID

> "global warming"
> coldest summer in 50 years

Climate change obviously exists.
The question is whether or not humans have a major impact.
I think we have a marginal impact and it certainly is no excuse to stop our energy industry.

true

thats only a measurement of sea ice on the surface, which is constantly fluctuating. the actual volume of ice (recorded with radar from satellites) has been plummeting for decades now.

>coldest summer in 50 years
>hottest summer in 50 years

Hoax

I agree but do you think that politicians are using it as a way to money off of companies who "threaten" the increase of heat. In other words is it manmade.

US PEOPLE HAVING INTELLEGENCE, HOAX OR NOT?

>man-made
Hoax
>natural cycle
Real

whats so hard to believe that humans have an impact on the climate

cause of hoaxs and policians and mediaiaa are tryifdng to brainwash uus with memesauer

Please stop with this one post shit. The IDs are bound to the thread. Fuck off to b you retards.

You ok there? Having a stroke?

IT IS A FUCKING HOAX

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”


Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)


Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”


In 1988, a former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”


In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”


Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France said: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”


forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1a566c5076fb

>man-made
>Hoax
Don't think so. Don't you guys know about Dust Bowl?:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
>The widespread conversion of the land by deep plowing and other soil preparation methods to enable agriculture eliminated the native grasses which held the soil in place and helped retain moisture during dry periods.
tl;dr: Farmers fucked the soil and then caused a huge mess in the form of constant storms of dust.

Every living organism has an impact in his medium and we as humans (as the dominant species of the planet) have the ability to cause serious impact in it, that (some day) could be bad for ourselves.
No, the answer is not "HURR LET'S DROP THE OIL AND NUCLEAR POWER AND LIVE LIKE HIPPIES BRO" but we should work on alternative forms of energies and apply them in what is possible. That's all.
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
This is actually a good opinion.

And yes: as always some people are going to try to push some weird agenda using this as excuse. That doesn't mean this is false.

It's real. It's man made. It's too late to turn back now. Enjoy your doom.

Ah no.

2 posts by this ID.

Take it easy there, champ. Wouldn't want to slide too much now.

So that dust bowl that occurred 100 years ago is still fucking us over today?

Regardless of global warming opinions, we should really pushing for nuclear power and better fuel technologies for cars anyway. Because 1) much of that oil is coming from parts of the world full of Quran licking goatfuckers who don't deserve any more of our damned money and 2) oil is a pretty finite resource and it's better to wean off it before it gets so expensive we have to post armed security at all gas stations.

As far as I know: nope. And that's because the government toke a really good and smart action to stop it.

This desu. Don't get why some people get so defensive about it.

Nibiru

So how again does the dust bowl relate to global climate change?

I think that global warming is reall!

Because there are so many people now, and the overpopulation will make things get warmer over time!!

Like when there are lots of people in a room and it gets gross LOL.

Thanks~

・ﾟ: *・ﾟ:* *:・ﾟ*:・ﾟ .・
- Missy_Starshine

Yeah I know we can change it hugely and I agree would should take steps to have care about our environment but I meant climate change as its known now was not caused by man made methods.

are people here just fools? Do you know nothing about the Permian era? Do you not know that during global warming its a cycle between extreme cold and extreme hot? In the Permia era, the era that killed off 90% of every species, formed ice caps nearly the size of a hemisphere, yet the cause was global warming still.

Praise kek, the destroyer cometh

>A group of farmers caused a quite big mess for being negligent while managing land
>Humans after the industrial revolution are (maybe) too focused producing and using all the available resources without knowing that those thing are bad for ourselves.
tl;dr: Humans have the power to affect his own planet.

I think we should be careful. That's all.

I'm confused. Did the dust bowl contribute to climate change or not?

i think he was using an analogy

Our energy usage isn't really the main issue. Changing to renewable sources will help only a tiny fraction.

The real issue is that we have AND/OR:

1) A too large world population in general to feed (incorrect at this time but may happen in the future so it's good to control it somewhat, i.e. immigrants and native sandniggers need to be limited to 2 kids)

2) A too large middle class world population that wants to eat dairy, eggs and meat. This is already starting to be the case. Most gases which "could" affect our climate come from agriculture. it's also by a big margin the #1 reason for deforestation.

As it takes way too much space, water and other resources to create beef and other sorts of meat we should be looking for alternatives which can be:


1) Increase prices of meat heavily so that only rich people can eat it on the regular

2) Introduce a diet which involves meat only once or twice a week

3) Figure out technologies to grow steaks and the like in labs at a fraction of the resource and space costs.


As I would never want to become a vegan, I'm hoping they figure out #3 before 1 or 2 are necessary.

Analogy to what?

Well also this: "HURR GLOBAL WARMING MUST PRODUCE HEAT. and that's not how this things work.
The Day After Tomorrow gave a simple explanation about that, actually.

^

Pretty sure he just was using the Dust Bowl as an example to demonstrate the effect we can have on the climate.

>Venezuela
Go back to your breadline, commie

I agree with using a mix of advanced nuclear technology (effectively banning the use of outdated plants and forcing governments to keep them updated at all times) with renewables where possible and some coal/oil to fill gaps here and there.

About oil being a finite resource: Of course there isn't an unlimited amount of oil in the earth but we're not even close to that limit with fracking etc. The thing is you don't WANT to have to get all the oil as it costs so many other, more precious resources like water.

Who here is denying that humans have an impact on the global climate?

We could, with concerted effort, quite probably survive another Permian ice age given current technology. It would be a mother fucker, but we could do it.

The real big bit though is we need to get our assets and start building lots more nuke plants, especially given that the vast majority of the waste from them comes from weaponizing uranium and creating plutonium.

Of course.
I hate commies m8

It doesnt matter what you think, you're not a climate scientist. Its cute you have an opinion though.

The post I was replying to originally:

no way it's not real and it's almost certainly human-caused. That being said, most models have utterly failed to calculate its effects properly.

So you believe climate change is real but humans didn't cause it and/or aren't the major contributors to it?

Yeah, they banned frakking in my state because of how badly it fucks stuff up. It can be done safely, but you are depending on an industry that cuts as many corners as possible and has a history of accidentally blowing up a 500 million dollar oil rig in order to save a few hundred thousand thousands on safe countenance.

eh they actually did not do that much before it was over. They tried to grow a fuck ton of trees to stop the dust and some other things but before those programs were completed it ended. But either way, why do ppl care so much. I dont really give a shit, imma die before it effects anyone anyways.

ok how many of you actually have science degrees?

how living m8y?
I don't watch news and don't believe it. So how's living?

...

I'm an idiot, somebody explain to me why the ice in the poles melting is important without mentioning muh poor polar bears.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS NOT A JOKE!!!! CARRY ON READING OR U WILL DIE EVEN IF YOU LOOKED AT THE WORD WARNING!!!!!!!!1

ONCE THERE WAS A LITTLE GIRL CALLED CLARISSA, SHE WAS 10 YEARS OLD AND SHE LIVED IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL, BEACUSE SHE KILLED HER MUM AND DAD.

SHE GOT SO BAD SHE STARTED TO KILL ALL THE STAFF IN THE HOSPITAL SO THE GOVERMENT DECIDED THAT THE BEST IDEA WAS TO GET RID OF HER SO THEY SET UP A SPECIAL ROOM TO KILL HER, AS HUMANE AS POSSIBLE BUT IT WENT RONG THE MACHINE THEY WERE USEING WENT WRONG. AND SHE WAS SAT THERE IN AGONY FOR HOURS UNTILL SHE FINALLY DIED.

NOW EVERY WEEK ON THE DAY OF HER DEATH SHE RETURNS TO THE PERSON THAT READS THIS LETTER, ON A MONDAY NIGHT AT 12:00 SHE KREEPS INTO YOUR ROOM AND KILLS YOU, BUT SLOWLY AND PAINFULLY SLOWLY CUTTING DIFFRENT PARTS OF UR BODY THEN WATCHES YOU BLEED TO DEATH IF YOU DONT SEND THIS TO 20 PEOPLE BY MIDNIGHT SHELL BE COMEING TO KILL YOU! SEND IT SO SHE HAS ANOTHER LOAD OF PEOPLE TO GET AND FORGETS ABOUT YOU DONT BELVE ME HEY?

EXAMPLE 1: JENNY DIDNT BELIVE THIS AND DELETED IT WITHOUT EVEN READING THE WHOLE THING! A FEW DAYS LATER ON THE MONDAY NIGHT SHE WAS WOKEN UP BYE LOUDE FOOTSTEPS AND HEAVY BREETHING THERE WAS CLARISSA STANDING THERE WITH A HUGE KNIFE AND WELL JENNY IS HISTORY NOW.

EXAMPLE 2: TOM ONLY SENT IT TO 5 PEOPLE CUZ HE THOUGHT HED BE SAFE AND IT WAS PROBLY JUST A JOKE BUT OH HOW RONG WAS HE! HE DIED THE NEXT NIGHT ON MONDAY AND ILL TELL YA NOW IT WASNT PRETTY(JUST CUZ HE SENT FIVE HE DIDNT COMPLETE THE TASK)

EXAMPLE 3: JOEANNA SENT IT TO 19 PEOPLE SHE THOUGHT IT WAS CLOSE ENOUGH AND WOULD DO BUT SHE WAS WRONG SHE DIED THAT NIGHT ON A MONDAY AND ONCE AGAIN

If all the ice melts, the sea levels will rise and flood Manhattan and the Netherlands and shit like that. Probably not going to happen though

>yet the cause was global warming still.
the cause was a fucking gigantic volcano eruption

nuclear power is one of the most eco friendly and efficient forms of energy generation known to man

m8 I know my english is not good but you are doing this a lot harder than it should.
Humans CAN cause climate change.
Bad.
Studying Biology.
Land gets submerged.

Ok(?)

So basically just land below sea level gets washed away, my life is unaffected and I get a nice Happening™ out of it. I'm pretty motivated to drive around tomorrow now.

If accurate predictions cannot be made, what you have is not science but philosophy.

so can someone explain to me why is it a hoax? who has anything to gain from that? whats the point of it not being real?

>Ice caps shrink and grow every year.
>It just gets worse and worse.

Whats so hard to understand about this conservashits?

hoax

the earth's average temperature has barely changed

less than a degree in over a century, it's fucking nothing

I hope people here are trolling when they say it's a hoax

That u r a retard desu senpai

climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif

>I hope

Go back to fucking plebbit with your hopes, faggot.

And they never seem able to make accurate predictions. Anthropogenic climate change is just a trojan horse for socialists with dreams of world domination.

>166 years is significant and it proves the cause of my boogeyman is anthropogenic
Dude. Naw.

The "Warming" Part is not by our increased output of CO2. Most areas experiencing extreme heat are those with ozone layer holes created when we were ramapantly using CFC's.

We still are fucking our environments up by other means. Its not just the "warming" that's the issue.

What we forget is that we aren't trying to save the earth, we are trying to save ourselves from the retribution from the earth which will occur via natural processes.

For example, at the rate we are going, bees will be no more in about 150 years. Within 50 years of the extinction of the bees and no other major pollinator species arise, we will see vast deforestation and from there CO2 release will actually fuck us in our ass because there is nothing to mitigate it.

There is also the possibility of an HIV type bacteria emerging as something that's infectitious in other ways than bodily fluids because we keep making new vaccines and medicine and at one point we might not completely kill off some bacteria/virus and it will evolve into something unstoppable.

The Malthusian theory combined with modern science suggests the earth can only handle 4 billion humans if we don't significantly change our way of life.

What im trynna say is that if we dont do anything and just discuss and fight over the matter we will get fucked desu

Weren't there mini ice ages along the way? Wouldn't that sort of skew the result similar to how it would if you just measured temps from morning to noon and made projections based on that.

>my opinion is worth spit when almost every climate scientist alive says the opposite
Dude. Naw.

Hoax duh

Underrated.

along the way as in since 1850? No there werent.

>Malthus
>after the Industrial Revolution
Dude. Naw.

DUDE. NAW.
>autism, the post.

Course it's a hoax
Reason 1: daddy trump said so
Reason 2: Scientists get payed by the green energy companies to say that shit
Reason 3: The Earth's temperature always fluctuates.
Reason 4: If those liberal faggots are saying it it can't be true.

>forgets the "combined with modern science part"
>Burgers being scientifically illiterat again

Boy am i surprised

>forbes

>guys who used to only have research and tv weatherman as career options say that they have some important news that also happens to make them more important and well-funded
You know the rest.

all the IPCC models were disproved, it's just bullshit

>doesn't realize that technology and science and trade have made Malthus wrong
>misspells "illiterate"
>can't see truth through epicanthic folds

The predictions have been shown accurate. The GHG theory is over 100 years old. Basically, we add more GHG to the atmosphere, we see warming. We have and we have.

> Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

This is just the latest in a long line of such incidents.

Well I sort-of am (Geologist, close enough). And humans are partially influencing it but the effects are wildly exaggerated, some places along the coast below or at sea level are fucked (New Orleans) but that's going to happen regardless of human activity. Really it's a matter of politics in the field, it's bloody suicide to speak out against the idea that humans are a plague killing the Earth and there aren't enough people who give a fuck about the actual science to bother peer-reviewing most of the studies so false or exaggerated data is rarely actually called out.

They are now claiming that, since the models are obviously correct, it's certainly the observations that are wrong. Seriously. And fuckers believe that.

>we will see vast deforestation and from there CO2 release will actually fuck us in our ass because there is nothing to mitigate it.

Since the industrial revolution we've increased atmospheric co2 by 45%. CO2 is a GHG.

He was wrong in his prediction but we still use his models in many population/resources related issues.

Also,
>you forgot a letter so your argument is wrong

Burgers please

And???
How does that even remotely relate to what I said other than that those are facts regarding CO2

>The Malthusian theory combined with modern science suggests the earth can only handle 4 billion humans if we don't significantly change our way of life.
The estimates of Earth's "carrying capacity" are all over the place. There's no rigor or consensus. It ranges from 1 billion (though I did read one that said 500k-750k) to 10 trillion. It'd be absurd to use any of this weak science for policy decisions.

The warming is slower than some models predicted. Does this mean the whole theory is incorrect?

Wouldn't the reduction of forest alone make the area around it warmer? A forest has a different albedo then ground vegitation or barren land

He was right for a brief period. Again, the Industrial Revolution took care of that.

I told you why you're wrong and it had nothing to do with a typo... I just thought it was an amusing one.

Its real and a threat, but not as much as a direct threat as the third world hordes at the moment.

Why do alarmists charts generally only go back a century or so? The planet is billions of years old, y'know.

Actually vegetation generally warms the area so no. Helps trap heat in through the night among other things; relatively barren areas often cool significantly at night