>>78765773

How can people be on the internets and not question everything? Especially computer simulations of End of Days manufactured by nefarious global governance think tanks?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc
hl-128-171-57-22.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/33072/1/Kosaka&Xie2013.pdf
science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwca_KH7Uc4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc

Correllation != causation

According to Climate Scientists back in the early 2000s, New York is under water is currently under water.

Fuck your gootubes and a hypothesis impossible to prove, you are basically a religitard arguing the equivalent to the existence of God backed by mountains of propaganda manufactured by your well paid climate priests.

In studies where overwhelming correlational evidence is identified, causation can be assumed where it would be impossible or unethical to do a study on it.

An example is smoking and lung cancer. No experiment has ever been done to attribute smoking with lung cancer, there is only overwhelming observational evidence showing a correlation between the two. Yet, it is common knowledge and accepted that smoking causes lung cancer even though the scientific method has established causal relationship between the two.
>Fuck your gootubes and a hypothesis impossible to prove
Science is falsifiable by definition. Nothing can be proven using the scientific method, only disproven. The failure to disprove any given hypothesis leads to the assumption that it is true until further evidence is discovered.

>though the scientific method has never established a causal relationship between the two.
fixed

its easy.
watch.
climate change is natural and based more on the sun above us and magma below us than the co2 we produce.
isn't it funny every solution seems to be giving the politicians more money and power?

>climate change is natural and based more on the sun above us and magma below us
Disproved in the video posted here at 18:00.

>scientists agree the earth is likely hundreds of millions, if not billions of years old
>only look at the temperature fluctuation of earths surface over a less than 2 century time period

Give me some data that spans a few thousand years, that shows there was no trend before hand, then I might believe the massive growth of humans and their byproducts and consumption are having a measurable effect on the overall temperature of the entire globe.

>Give me some data that spans a few thousand years, that shows there was no trend before hand
See We can dig into icebergs to get a general feel of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and the given temperature at a period of time, dating back 800,000 years. While it is by no means as accurate as the temperatures we are taking today, it helps paint a general picture of how carbon dioxide and temperature interact and what trends have existed naturally in the past.

As it goes without saying, carbon heats up the surface atmosphere on earth and modern temperature change and carbon emission are unlike anything seen in 800,000 years.

What would people have to gain from making up global warming?

Why do people rush to defend the global rich over things like this yet push for brexit?

The rich are not some conglomerate, they are individual players organized in complex webs of alliances and conflicts. Votes, PR, products to sell, there are any number of reasons for pushing hysteria

OMG less than a single degree of change over 20 years. there is essentially no change, you are retarded.

Less than a single degree averaged across the entire atmosphere.

For reference, 9 degrees Fahrenheit is the atmospheric difference between us and the last ice age.

Your graph has no source because it's fake.
Come on, user.
Be better.
They're lying to you. You're paying billions because of it.

>carbon heats up the surface atmosphere on earth
It actually doesn't.
How stupid are you, user?

>man made
Technically it is machine made

You do realise there is a lag, right?

I want to see this in relation to global temperature change over thousands of years, not just 20

Everything you say is easily proven false.
Look at this. Actual data.
Run, user! Run to your safe space!

>I want to see this in relation to global temperature change over thousands of years
Yes, the last ice age was thousands of years ago.

You do realize you have a negative IQ, right?

Yeah, an 800 year lag of Heating then CO2 levels going up.

You self-hating hippy scum

No one will deny that the scare-mongering projections of early climate-change doomsayers were exaggerated, but the effects of global warming are starting to be felt in a very real way. Isn't it about time we acted reasonably in order to protect out farmlands and our environmental integrity?

There's a quantum physicist that debunked global warming in detail

It's not called global warming anymore. It's climate change.

>15 year flat line
>IT IS REALLY HAPPENING NOW! BELIEVE US AND GIVE US MORE MONEY AND POWER OVER YOUR LIVES!

Please end yourself as soon as possible

That's a naive concession. The globe is warming. Call it what you want.

>but the effects of global warming are starting to be felt in a very real way.
All the evidence says no.
Look for yourself. Don't be such a sheep.
>Isn't it about time we acted reasonably in order to protect out farmlands and our environmental integrity?
Warming would mean a lot less dead people than cooling.
Why do you want to kill people?
Let me guess...either you are a child, or you make money from it.

>here's historical data showing fluctuations in global climate
>ergo, mankind did it!
"Fuck off."

That's how.

It was changed to climate change to describe phenomena only tangentially related to temperature such as storms and weather patterns, not because they found out the troposphere isn't warming.

>if I average the 15 year temperature over 15 years, it looks flat
Come, now, this is an economic concern at this point. Why don't we agree to blame China for the majority of pollutants?

From the Triassic to the Quaternary, a time spanning more than 200 million years, the earth was hotter than it is now, and not just a little hotter, but downright steamy at times, with temperatures 10 or more degrees Celsius higher.
Are you lying, or stupid? Serious question. Answer it.

They give 'big word' lists to warmists, with the hope it will make them appear more intelligent.
The people who believe in warmism aren't very bright, obviously, and it helps cement their views so this guy can make more money.
No government, anywhere, will fund anti-warming studies. Billions of dollars are up for grabs if you toe the line.

Because of two reasons

1. There is zero evidence that man-made climate change is real; and even less that we can do anything to stop it or change it.

2. China and india give zero fucks, as you well know.

So you will just guilt/fearmonger the West into giving you more and more money and power because you say you have the 'solutions' to problems that only you and your disgusting cult can provide the 'real' numbers on.
Please light yourself on fire.

>All the evidence says no.
Live in your own little world and you can export all the emissions wherever you want and say "I live in an well-formed system which takes in more energy and outputs waste." Unfortunately the rest of the world has to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

No one who can ever be so certain about evidence has ever seen any.

Nice Argument!

>What is heat dissipation into the ocean

Its like you dont want to educate yourself.

hl-128-171-57-22.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/33072/1/Kosaka&Xie2013.pdf

science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897

But fuck science right, I'm sure you know better than people who study this their entire lives.

desu, after seeing how every other position the left pushes is either blown wildly out of proportion or completely fabricated I find it hard to believe that this is the one issue that isn't bullshit. Most likely it is just another excuse to tax the shit out of businesses and virtue signal. Even if it is a real thing, I don't really give a shit, I'm more than ready for this shitshow to be over.

But can you prove there is a direct causation? No?
While sure there might be some correlation, the earth has naturally gone through cycles of extreme heat and extreme cold with or without human beings. Seems almost narcissistic of humans to think that we have so much of an impact on something so much larger than ourselves.

Do you realize what happened to all that heat? It got stored in the form of Oil, Coal, Gas etc over a span of millions of years as plants absorbed it from the air, grew, died, got covered over and buried untill the pressure made them into fossil fuels (hence the name).

This process took long enough for creatures to adapt to a colder climate like we have today.

The problem we have now is that we put all that CO2 back into the atmosphere fast enough that barely anything can adapt to the resulting heat. You can't believe that if you increase the PPM of CO2 in the air it won't have any result, thats just plain dumb and stubborn.

Its simple biology & simply chemistry, an 8 grader can probably understand this.

Explain these:
Warmists ignore them, because you're lying.
The only question left is, why?

Again, noone denies it. Climate change has been happening since there is Earth and will be working as log as Earth has an atmosphere. We deny the fact that its main cause is human activity.

Considering that there are many Ph Ds in Chemistry that don't agree with that at all.

Do you even know what the make-up of the atmosphere is? Do you know what the strongest Greenhouse gas on the Planet is?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't CO2.

The natural cycle argument doesnt work here, and you should stop parroting convenient excuses just to keep yourself from having to think this over. Those cycles take millions of years, with the exception of little ice ages, and solar output is normal so this is not the same.

>You can't believe that if you increase the PPM of CO2 in the air it won't have any result

And yet it doesn't:
Again...are you lying, or stupid?

Convenient, but I don't see much scientific evidence to support natural warming going this fast. What I do see is the PPM of CO2 rising quickly and all you need is a basic understanding of chemistry to understand what adding CO2 to a gas mix can do.

In any case, if you are correct, this will turn out to be a hoax on a massive scale with millions of people involved and impressive amounts of scientific and government fraud. Millions of highly educated smart people who stand to gain incredible amounts of cash if they scientifically disprove manmade global warming would have to be involved in this conspiracy. The end result will be the end of humanity, because if this warming continues unabated it will take a century or so for the oceans to start emitting toxic gas and killing us all.

Can you please link a set of papers from credible universities on which you base this comment?

Please read

Are you stupid or just blatantly uninformed?

I asked you a fucking question, answer it to the best of your abilities so that we can laugh as what a complete bullshit artist you are.

I even gave you a hint you Socialist cockslut

>There's a quantum physicist that debunked global warming in detail

wow great argument user, dumb cuck

It's obvious why. The government scares the useful idiots into submission to centralize more power.

Why do you think every solution involves extracting more tax dollars to build inefficient energy producers or shipping jobs overseas to keep corporate donors happy? If warmists actually wanted to solve the problem, they would just build nuclear plants and be done with it.

>He doesn't know land temperature is primarily driven by geothermal activity
>Doesn't know ocean temperatures have a 200 year lag and what they do today is based on activity from 200 years ago with the sun and geothermals

Industry is responsible for rising temperature, but it's not how you think. All the draining of oil is causing magma to enter into pockets in the mantle.

We're going to be experiencing Calamity very soon.

Saudi Arabia is literally going to fucking drown in fire.

...

How do politicians get more money & power than they currently get from coal mining lobby groups & petroleum industry donations?

>tenths of a degree differences in average global temperature mean that the planet's going to flood and burn

>russia/USSR
>ever being stronger than the US

Your graph is shit

The fact that climate change skeptics don't even seem concerned discredits their legitimacy doesn't it? Even if it's just a 1% chance of the world entering a terrible period of runaway warming, they don't even seem to care.

Entirely reckless

>implying oil is found in giant cartoonish bubbles surrounded by rock like some sort of underground oil drum

wewlad

>Russia, China, and India signed an economic league
>all are potential military allies with each other

The US is absolutely fucked now that the EU collapsed. Isolationism or WW3 it is

PFFFTT

I'm sorry the Chinks are looking at some pretty horrible economic futures, they won't be able to grow their miliraty much with that going on.

>What is the EPA
>What is the Green Lobby

>1%

more like 0.000000000003% chance

It would take a direct act of god to make man-made climate change real at this point; where as the proposed 'solutions' all involve giving more power to Government which has been proven time and again to be a corrupt and dangerous force for all of human history.

Yeah, nah. wattsup... com discredited much?

A single degree over the whole of the planet? You don't think that is an enormous amount of energy? You don't care that it is concentrated in the polar regions?

Holy shit someone who actually took philosophy of science

Niggers need to read more Popper.

Uh, this chart seems to have last been updated in 1985 - got anything slightly more recent?

Yes

Again, anything more recent than 2001?

Yeah, THAT has been discredited, too.

Yes, heat DOES get taken up in ocean water, but it still warms the planet.

It would be arrogant except there are 7 BILLION of us now. And we now divert a large chunk of the planet's biomass to feeding us or our animals.
You recall how the temperatures across the USA were measured to be lower during the days when no planes were flying post-9/11? So just the condensation trails of planes can cause a measurable effect.

Using periods of ~100 years to measure a system that operates in cycles of THOUSANDS of years is disingenuous at least and outright lying to enforce an agenda at the worst.

If this is IPCC data, where is the 1 degree increase in world temperature that was announced recently? "Subsequent reality" line should have an upward slope, not be level.
Or is this chart out of date too?

What is 'strongest'? Largest by volume? By warming effect, in co2-equivalent units? By 'anthropogenic source'? By rate of change?

>Science is falsifiable by definition.
Not if you keep moving the goalposts after every failed prediction climate change has made. This is the exact problem Karl Popper had with Marxism.

I don't think anyone is truly denying man made climate change. What people deny is the idea that climate change is disproportionately caused by humans and that it is possible to fix this via government intervention like carbon taxes and more regulations. And the pro-climate change arguments have yet to proven this. The burden of proof by default is on people who assert this.

Geo-thermal? Can you describe what that is, please? (You aren't thinking of temperatures below surface are you? Like a 1,000 metres or 3,000 feet depth? Because that IS determined by geological factors.) In climate or weather, the land temperature is at the surface.

China is making headway by replacing old coal power plants with wind and solar plants, and buying less brown (steaming) coal from Australia as a result.
The EPA? How is that relevant?

>more like 0.000000000003% chance

It's pure insanity to believe you can put such a number on this.

Show some humbleness for once and accept that we don't know everything.

I'm pretty sure the answer is still water vapor in every case. Draining aquifers for freshwater to drink and disrupting the water cycle is probably more harmful for the atmosphere than removing every gram of stored carbon from the earth. I say probably because I do not know of any published studies on the changes to our water cycle, despite clues all being there in some of the strangest hurricane seasons we have ever seen.

Hoax, nothing but a kike plot for taxation of human activity based on nothing conclusive

Lots of reasons
>scale of time
Others pointed this out, but it's hard to say that global warming is a serious issue when looking at a span of ~150 years when examining something that rises and falls on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years. Graphs ranging from 1880 to 2016 are not convincing; furthermore, serious scientific interest into climate science was not established until the 1970's, leaving accurate readings prior to that up for debate.
>prediction models
Every single prediction model for global cooling/global warming/climate change since the craze starting in the 1970s has been incorrect by significant margins. No model postulated by climate scientists has correctly predicted how they expected the climate to be in the following decades. According to An Inconvenient Truth, I should be underwater by now - or, at least, my coastal city should have erected barriers to protect from the rising sea level. Instead, the beaches I went to in 1995 are the same as when I went to them in 2015.
>politics
This is the biggest issue with climate science. Academics are not to be inherently trusted because they're basically poor, overly-educated sods desperately seeking attention for their research so they can make money. They have an incentive to reinforce their beliefs because they have an incentive to put food on the table. When you give them countless private and public grants to prove global warming, they're going to do their damndest to do so - because anything proving it otherwise means they'll get less money.

to be continued...

>No one will deny that the scare-mongering projections of early climate-change doomsayers were exaggerated
They never stopped the scare-mongering.
They never broke stride and continued the same exact tactics that were being slathered across national television two decades ago.

>politics 2, electric boogaloo
Politicians see global warming as a way to earn public trust through public fears, not to mention earn money. Fuckers like Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Leonardo DiCaprio are hard to take seriously when they tell us to make sacrifices... and then go on their private jets, stay in their mansions, drive their gas guzzling cars, and generally leave a larger carbon footprint in 24 hours than what the average American leaves in a year. Not only is this hypocritical, but this undermines any sense of danger in their tearful pleas. It makes them look like liars while they collect Nobel Peace Prizes and carbon tax revenues.
>general apathy
This one is simple, and is the accumulation of all aforementioned reasons: if climate change is such a big deal, how come nothing has happened? How come the champions of climate change don't take it seriously? People notice this shit.

Now I'll get into the more moderate issues.
>temperatures
They ARE going up - just not a whole hell of a lot. Instead of global temperatures increasing by 10 whole degrees Fahrenheit, they've gone up a few, marginal decimal points. I do agree that humans have an impact on the environment. That hole in the Ozone Layer is observable and that is something we should be concerned about. The melting polar caps are observable and that is something we should be concerned about. However...
>DOOMSDAY
Climate change proponents preach the end of the world. People aren't going to listen to that shit when they're so hysterical.

to be continued...

>We can dig into icebergs to get a general feel of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and the given temperature at a period of time, dating back 800,000 years. While it is by no means as accurate as the temperatures we are taking today, it helps paint a general picture of how carbon dioxide and temperature interact and what trends have existed naturally in the past.
You seem to believe that carbon dioxide is the only green house gas. It's not even the most significant one.

>refusal to accept reasonable options
Climate change proponents refuse to accept any reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels. They demand that we switch to green energy, which is just not feasible right now. Even my stepfather thinks solar will be feasible in the next 20 or 30 years. My stepfather thinks Obama's birth certificate is fake, that Obama is a Muslim, that Trump is the best president since Reagan, and so on. However, these technologies just aren't efficient enough. The only alternative to fossil fuels right now is nuclear energy, which the green lobby has done everything in its power to shut down.

So, they don't want fossil fuels... but they don't want nuclear, which is clean and safe. They want green, energy which couldn't keep Somali going, to power the West's energy needs. This is unreasonable and they refuse to have it any other way.
>in conclusion
We have a bunch of cultists, lead by academics and politicians who want money, who ignore the failures of climate science, ignore readily available alternatives, and demand their way - which would lead to an energy collapse - or the highway.

And climate change proponents still wonder why people don't take them seriously...

Ever wondered why there is a /green/ in /greenland/?

>protect out farmlands and our environmental integrity?
There is significantly more natural foliage on the earth and growing crops is becoming significantly easier due to increased carbon levels dumbass.

Plants kinda eat that stuff

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwca_KH7Uc4

My computer simulation just finished and I have proof Op is a faggot

Whether global warming is an issue or not is besides the point. You're a globalist cuck if you support oil and gas while far better alternatives exist.

Nuclear energy would give us more power than we would ever know what to do with while having almost 0 environmental footprint.

>implying that's the solution
Jesus fuck Sup Forums stop being retarded, politics never actually got the solution for any of the problems in the world, science did. This time it's the same thing, we need to find a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and or a way to adapt to the heat.

Not every issue is binary.

There are so many independent studies that corroborate each other from a variety of sources that it would be absurd to suggest a conspiracy.

They have interests to protect. Coal, oil, natural gas, textiles, automobiles, heavy industries etc all have a vested interest in supporting climate change denialism.

We're literally at the point of no return and they simply don't care so long as they can still turn a tidy profit.

The only serious issue with nuclear is what to do with the waste products. Storage needs to be super secure or serious disasters will happen.

Not saying that it's a good solution now but couldn't we build a space station on the moon to store nuclear waste?

1. Thorium plants can reuse waste from older plants. You're left with a highly radioactive but relatively short halflife waste material. This isn't necessarily a bad thing either because it will be very difficult for potential terrorists to hide the gamma ray emissions or even handle it if they wanted to run off with some.
2. It is extremely difficult to make weapons because of U-232 contamination in thorium waste.
2. The waste is absolutely minuscule compared to what gas and coal put out. We're talking fractions here.

Because that graph is a very small snapshot of the history of the earth. The earth has been much warmer than it is now and it dindu nuffin. Don't fall for the green is the new red communist lie that is global cooling... actually global warming... actually climate change.

Yeah it really is. I do support nuclear, just it comes with it's own limitations. Plants should only ever be commissioned in areas with no dangerous tectonic activity to prevent disasters like Fukushima. There's still severe hurdles to overcome with thorium salt reactors too, but they definitely look like a great future energy source. If they can overcome the corrosion issue it would solve the looming energy crisis. The fact you wont need a large source of water for cooling like in conventional reactors is a massive boon also, and the only way a nuclear power source would be possible in space.

Considering you believe it's happening, let's accept that and continue.

I assume you believe the consequences will be catastrophic. Like, the end of all humanity. It's supposed to be an exponential function, right. And within like 100-200 years.

Give us your solution. Pouring money into slightly effective measures to limit the output even while it still goes up is pointless. Don't go "well we have to do something even if we don't know if it's enough" that's bullshit, you're supposed to be being realistic. Don't say "we have to hope we can invent something and just spend money towards that goal" that's also an excuse to be vague and just justify spending money with no idea of whether it'll work.

If it's a life-or-death situation for humanity, it merits the forced sterilization or euthanizing of most of the world's population. That's the only way the output is going to fall in a time to prevent the damage people like you predict.

So give a straight answer. Do you or do you not support a massive campaign of forced population reduction? If not, you're not serious and are just kidding yourself to be politically correct and morally superior to us here.

>Plants should only ever be commissioned in areas with no dangerous tectonic activity to prevent disasters like Fukushima
Fukushima was worst case scenario, everything that could go wrong did and was built on active failsafes instead of passive failsafes. In a salt plant if for example there was a loss of coolant or power, salt cap melts and the reaction ends. Every worker in the plant could leave and nothing would happen. Nice thing about salt is it won't boil and turn into a gas and blow up the reactor.

>can overcome the corrosion issue it would solve the looming energy crisis
Hopefully so.

You don't think the people receiving government funding to do "green" science that doesn't amount to anything don't have a vested interest?

And of course the people that produce useful things for real people in exchange for money have a vested interest in continuing to do so. Guess what, the people that consume those products in their lives also have an interest in it being allowed to continue.