Does the film "An Inconvenient Truth" still hold up?

Does the film "An Inconvenient Truth" still hold up?

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/?utm_term=.82cdcaeea5ad
youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

To me, alarmists like Gore just add fuel to the fire of the denier idiots.

It does not help that Gore is a rich asshole banking on a carbon credit scam that might to jack shit to help things and may just let big companies easily buy their way out to still pollute.

The movie is a fucking sham, but that doesn't mean the issue it raises is one.

Sometimes I wonder if we are already fucked and past the point of no return on man made global climate change.

Who cares if we have an Exxon asshole as Sec of State now? The oil companies have already wrecked our planet and our country as it is.

No amount of shitty Al Gore docs is gonna reverse the damage done.

It's literally full of lies.

Global warming is real, but the man induced warming rather than natural warming is debatable.

It's faker than CNN.
The Hockey Cross, which is the main point of the movie, has been crushed by the very men that made it, but that doesn't fit the 98% narrative.
That's just one example among many.

Warming was real between 1970 and 2000. No warming since then. The "pause" was thought to be over in 2015 (of course, an El Nino year) but 2016 has blown it the fuck out. If it's really due to relative intensity noise of the sunlight, it should go back up soon though.

Debatable if you are a literal retard who ignores evidence.

I will never understand people like this, like holy fuck. 97% of scientists literally say it's man made. Or are they all in on the scam?

Never saw it, don't have any interest in seeing it either. Climate change is real though.

>it's another thread where people think climate and weather are the same thing.

Most scientists are in it for the money you turbo naive fag.

I bet you buy pink shit for breast cancer awareness

Totally, they all get paid those mad bucks. I mean, look at the top richest people in the world. All those fucking climate scientists. Damn man

Fuck off, 97% corruption rate, you'd have to be a literal retard to believe that.

Most scientists are things like professor of women's studies. So stats in what percent of scientists believe a thing are worthless.

>97% of scientists literally say it's man made
That statistic includes every kind of scientist in the world. That means they're including people who make drugs, who have never studied the climate, "Do you believe in climate change?" And they go, "Yeah, sure."

only takes a few guys to influence the crowd

not every scientist is a climate scientist, or even understands the field

Worth noting too that it everybody now is so hostile to any dissent on the topic.
If you're a scientist who doesn't believe the theory, and somebody comes one day to ask what you think, are you going to speak out and risk losing your comfy, well-paying gig and potentially not being hired for anything else in the future?

>Most scientists are professors of women's studies

yeah I'm gonna need a source on that.

also the 97% statistic refers to climate scientists.

Stay "woke."

fuck off Sup Forums

Are you kidding me?

The Koch Brothers will make you a fucking millionaire if you are a climatologist who denies climate change.

Are you unaware of how they get funding for their studies

...

Find me a reputable climate change denying group that ISN'T funded by big oil or the Koch brothers.

>implying the world existed more than six thousand years ago

No idea why you want me to do that, because it's not related to what I said.

You should be aware of the competition involved in receiving funding from organizations such as NSF, where only 5% of grants written receive funding, resulting in a culture of extreme competition to receive funding for "groundbreaking studies" or "important issues" all of which is extremely subjective. And, leaves no funding for repetition or peer-review of previous studies

>it's not related to what I said

You're arguing that scientists falsify their findings in order to fabricate climate change as an urgent issue so than can receive funding.

I'm arguing that the incentive to falsify findings is stronger on the denial side, than on the climate-change side.

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/?utm_term=.82cdcaeea5ad

So you argument that "people only say something because they have financial incentive to do so" actually backfired.

If scientists only cared about $$$ they'd all deny climate change.

Dis nigga retarded as shit

Solid refutation.

I've changed my mind. Climate change is certainly fake.

Thank you for this convincing post.

>You're arguing that scientists falsify their findings in order to fabricate climate change as an urgent issue so than can receive funding.

No. I'm saying that they're performing tests specifically related to climate change to get their funding money.


>I'm arguing that the incentive to falsify findings is stronger on the denial side, than on the climate-change side.

I'm not really understanding this. Most researchers I know have a hypothesis about climate change that they want to test, not something they go into the study inherently denying it. If the test results positive, it gets published. If the test results negative, nobody heres about it because journal articles don't publish negative results, normally.

>If scientists only cared about $$$ they'd all deny climate change.

In my opinion, having been around some, they seem to care about getting funding (which they can't spend for personal usage, for the most part) and their ego. Which is exactly what they're doing when they're writing these grants.

I'd encourage you to watch this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

Does anyone else believe Global Warming(or whatever you want to call it) is real, but Man Made Climate Change is a load of bollocks?

who cares about global warming I just don't want the world to turn into beijing

>Scientists are fair and impartial, except when it's about a topic I disagree with

It's either one or the other. Do they scheme for funding or do they go in with an open mind as you said?

Why one or the other?
Both are plausible depending on the scientist

So you think that the huge amount of fossil fuels burned round the world have a marginal effect on the planet? Stop for a minute and just think about the volume of extra CO2 we add to the atmosphere daily.

To the climate change deniers ITT:

Do you think humans AREN'T filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide?

It's common sense. We humans have a shit ton of cars, factories, ect. We're filling the air with Carbon Dioxide.

If you DO accept that....


How can you not understand the greenhouse effect?

>So you think that the huge amount of fossil fuels burned round the world have a marginal effect on the planet?
yes.

Cow shit, Dino shit

>97% of scientists literally say it's man made
Of ALL scientists? No scientist should be taken as an authority outside of his field. I don't give a fuck what a geneticist has to say on climate change.

What did he mean by this?

Well I'm shocked because the volume is so huge, it having no effect wouldn't be likely.

The trees eat the Carbon Dioxide

Scientists also said the world was flat.

Our God is an awesome God.

that's pretty fucking niche though, man

I think he means 97% of a certain amount of scientists. still not conclusive