Be honest: Do you trust climate scientists?

Be honest: Do you trust climate scientists?

Attached: bv.jpg (720x720, 61K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

the alternative being godcucks? yes

You mean 99% of all scientists?

Yea, kinda.

I mean every cause has it's fanatics but I'm afraid it's still valid.

Please stop. Filtering this is impossible and you’re making me sperg out with all these greta threads. This Andy sixx level mental illness

Why are you afraid?

Yes global warming is real.
Yes i dont give a fuck about it.
Just dont think the solutions which she gives has a real impact. Building one more pipeline aint going to kill the earth.

>it's fanatics
Opinion disregarded.

Do you not know by now that Sup Forums is a literal propaganda tool being deliberately exploited by 3rd party interests? This is not incidental spam, it is calculated spam.

You mean government-funded research that couldn't possibly have a hidden agenda or monetary incentive to produce certain results and the totally unbiased journals that publish it?

Attached: 1569299818531.png (720x835, 353K)

Well just because 97 or 98 agree doesn't mean its correct that is not what science is and it was warmer in the mediveal times and there were good harvests

I trust publicly available data that's been through the scientific process and includes degrees of uncertainty.
What I don't trust are rhetorical arguments with overt biases and faulty reasonings that seek to undermine the above

Be honest. Do you expect anyone to fall for your bullshit rhetorical traps?

>asking “do you trust the peer-reviewed scientific method”

In the 21st century.

Attached: FD44F6D1-4B99-44B2-96C1-CCD97CF1A4DA.png (1247x729, 80K)

who cares. we're all fucked no matter what. just burn coal and live while you can.

No, something my buddy said is that if the temps havnt been like this sense say, 1869, then its a pure jsut mother nature, as there was no climate change in 1869.

I think it would be quite an incredible coincidence if they were all wrong

no

they've been making false proclamations for years
> 1960's: OMG the world will be under ice in ten years time!
> 1970's: OMG the world will be under ice in ten years time!
> 1980's: OMG the sea will rise by like a billion feet in ten years because all the ice is melting!
> 1990's: OMG the planet is heating up; everywhere is twice as warm as everywhere else!
> 2000's: OMG the planet is *really* heating up now guys: we've recorded a global: 0.0001 degree increase everywhere and that makes everywhere warmer than everywhere else!
> 2010's: OMG like the world has only 8 years to sustain life because it's heating up and there will be ice, and the oceans will rise and there's rainfall and the sun!

if they were any other group other than "scientists" we would have stopped listening to them decades ago.

now: is global warming happening?
yeah, probably
is it all our fault and should we rush out and buy that ultra green energy lightbulb for $50?
no

Imagine being paid to shitpost.

This is textbook Dunning-Kruger. Glittering stupidity combined with grim certainty.
Don’t reproduce, ok champ.

Attached: 61F9888C-6B35-4AEE-8ED4-862B957BE1CD.jpg (670x800, 80K)

>you right now: OMG I'm going to list a bunch of claims that are either grossly misrepresented or made by minority opinions that were rejected at the time

How about being neither you retard

I'm serious. 80% of the shit on b that isn't 13 year olds posting porn, comes from foreign interests trying to influence opinions and culture in the west. And they're succeeding. Dead serious.

i'm a 35 year old neet lying in bed there's nothing calculating going on here

>2019
>still arguing with bots and spam

>implying we have any influence on the clima
>we have also no impact on deforestation, smog, overfishing of the oceans or the ozone hole created few decades ago
>its impossible guys!

which ones op ?

Attached: 1542490004699.jpg (600x398, 59K)

your carbon foot print must be pretty small what with not actually moving

Attached: 1567373903834.jpg (1200x800, 165K)

Attached: IMG-20191002-WA0000.jpg (615x738, 53K)

Attached: 1569627672125.jpg (500x344, 143K)

what has this reatarded comic, possibly sponsored by oil company, and its sourceless statements anything to do with the topic?

nope and no 9 year old autists either

at least as much as this disabled child sold by her liberal twat parents to George soros

Attached: greta sperging.webm (352x340, 1.19M)

Sure, if you just cherry pick scientists that no one agrees with and misrepresent them as the scientific "pronouncements" of that time, then you have yourself a solid argument.

no need to promote violence about it

Attached: EFMRsHcXsAAAcZp.jpg (679x415, 72K)

who gives a fuck about this child? the statement are done by scienetists and she is repeating it

Attached: 1571093891338.jpg (800x531, 162K)

I don't believe its caused by humans. Climate change has always existed, we are a floating ball of water in space and it's kind of arrogant to think we have that much control of our planet.

Attached: ZbYPBV5.png.jpg (600x537, 53K)

Government funded research , from different governments, some of whom are actively at war, if not soft war with - and all of the scientists have consensus.

Your ‘brain absent’ conspiracy theory actually requires an EVEN BIGGER conspiracy to be true in order for yours to be true.

But hurr durr, it’s the current meme and zeitgeist to be a climate change denying retard.

Although the one thing climate change deniers lack, which would make their argument much more convincing - is evidence.
The climatologists have reams and reams and reams of evidence from numerous sources...the deniers have shittily drawn cartoons.

I know which data source I trust.

Attached: C061FC53-2F4F-41B1-AAB2-26409185354E.jpg (640x480, 69K)

she is a carefully chosen child always on message and goes to bed before the planning meetings

Attached: 1569615179624.png (386x425, 235K)

Well just saying “that’s not what science is” is not what science is either.

Pointing out the temperature and crop yield from an unspecified year on the Middle Ages doesn’t prove anything either. Other than that you are a retard.

Science - learn how

Are you the OP?

>people gather immense amount information about this topic that confirm this theory
>talks about "believing"
we are not talking about jesus christ

I believe them insofar as the climate is changing and that CO2 plays a significant role within it.

I don't believe that they actually know how hot exactly it will become, what exactly the consequences will be. They can't even predict the path of hurricanes 2 weeks into the future. It's impossible to predict what will happen to all the intertwined supercomplex climate systems.

Most importantly I don't believe that the costs of fighting it will be smaller than the cost of dealing with the consequences piecemeal. Shutting down world economy is bound to cost millions or billions of lives. The last time it went to a world-wide crisis we had a world war on our hands. Imagine what will happen if you try and shut it down completely. Mao's China times 100.

Attached: 1571398767925.png (1189x997, 1M)

I surrender to the amount of facts in your posts

Name a couple of scientist if 99% agree

Exactly. I prefer to let coal and oil companies fuck me up my ass and shove their cocks down my throat. I don’t even ask for a reach around.

plus Sweden in general

Attached: swedish.jpg (960x699, 68K)

No.
But I do believe the research from the Koch brothers coal industry - when they conducted their own research into it in order to debunk it...and their findings cooberated the “man made climate change” hypothesis.

They are the two people with THE most vested interests in debunking it.
The fact they didn’t speaks volumes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Professor Brian Cox
Professor James Smith
Professor Andrew Cunningham

what's the p value

>Wants a cleaner more efficient future
>Propaganda from the right making her out to be a Nazi

I can't even

>Do you trust climate scientists?
>Do you trust scientists?
>Trust
>Scientists

The fact that this is an issue these days is why I believe we are in dire need of a new plague.

Attached: 1239602254248.jpg (500x500, 103K)

The solution to climate change is not for America to turn off it's factories and kill itself but that's all that's ever suggested. Leftists aren't actually interested in climate science, nor are climate activists.

Attached: 1571379306077.png (800x600, 260K)

You don't even need scientist to see that we are destroying the environment. You are an intellectually dishonest person if you think otherwise. Grow up and go plant something new fag.

The scientists themselves, yes. Not the media and people misrepresenting them though. The “99 percent” meme comes from misinformation. They were shown data and they said yes this data shows this thing, this is indeed accurate data.

Then they twist that into “SEE WE ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE WE NEED TO SET UP MORE PONZI SCHEMES SO COMPANIES CAN SELL CARBON CREDTS”

This guy gets it. Thanks for being a swell guy.

By building cities and roads? Sure. It’s china and India that are filling the oceans with plastic and shit. Fuck it, I hope warming was actually real. Swaths of north Europe would come out of the water and it’ll actually be not freezing and habitable.

>>Trust
>>Scientists
Nigger, the basic principle of science is that nothing can be trusted. That's why actual scientists only talk in terms of probabilities of a hypothesis being true and if more data is probably required or not, agenda pushers on the other hand demand "trust"...

I just want her log slidding down my fucking troath.

This

>this
As the science gets more accurate, their so do their predictions.

That’s science baby.
If they just dogmatically said the same thing irregardless of the evidence, then they’d be theists

And it’s Poe’s law.
It is impossible to tell the difference between a shitposter with an exaggerated opinion, a retard with an objectively wrong opinion, or a hostile foreign actor engaging in misinformation.

Brave New World indeed

I trust climate scientists more than oil company executives

Source for each of those claims.
I want the name of the scientist who said it, and the scientific journal in which the claim was published.

If you cannot provide for every single one of them in its entirety, then you’re a lying retarded shit bag actively hindering the advancement of human kind and should kill yourself immediately out of respect for the other users of planet earth

Yeah.
Fucking retarded scientists !!!

First they say “we only have about 100 years left!” Then just 50 years later, they say “oh we lied guys, it’s only 50 years we have left”,
Then it was 40,
Then 30
Then 20

Now their claiming it’s 10?!?!?

I mean for fuck sake guys , make your mind up!

Cool, so 50 or 60 years ago, scientists didn't know as much about the climate as they do now...

They both want to get paid bro

You’d stand to make FAR more money as the scientist who can prove that the consensus is wrong and climate chi angel is false. Strangely, NONE of them can.
All you need is the evidence.
No one has that evidence.

Turns out the consensus is right.

Science in action .

The Koch brothers coal industry did their own research into climate change, they got the same results as every other scientists earnestly studying climatology.
Almost as if it’s the ‘evidence’, rather than vested interests, conspiracy thinking or illuminati that makes people think man made climate change is real

this isn't a real argument and you know it

That’s not the argument. Climate change is real. Human activity has some small effect probably. But you know that chart thy always show? They cut it off to only 200 years ago. Look up the full one going back thousands of years, it’s like a stock graph. We’re coming out of a mini glacial cycle/ice age. People really overestimate how important humanity is to something like an entire planet. What you could care about is pajeets and China filling the oceans with trash

no

>Most importantly I don't believe that the costs of fighting it will be smaller than the cost of dealing with the consequences piecemeal.

Such retarded short termism.
No, moron, here’s how the math works out.

These are the possible outcomes;
A)We Take No action, and climate change is real = we’re completely fucked

B)We take action and climate change is real = we’re Fucked, but not completely.

C) We take no action and climate change is not real = no positive or negative outcome.

D) we take action and climate change is false = we now have cleaner air and more renewable energy , overall positive.


It is clearly in everyone’s interest to take action....the only ones who would tell you not to are the ones directly causing as they would be most affected by regulation.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong"

Climate change is all about poor data.

Don't waste your time

Posted by someone who doesn't know how the business of "science" works. Unless you're the "big name" going against the consensus means you don't get published and don't get grants. And even the "big name" gets pounded if he strays too far. Take Watson for example.

but its probably a good thing in retrospect. i mean if the leftys really want to represent global interests then theyre getting what they want and if theyre gonna make leftys look like retards then the right is getting what they want. it’s all inevitable and comes full circle anyway. Not many people truly care they just want to make the people who have different perspectives feel stupid or small

The “action” is a complete scam though. It’s a racket, the climate orgs are like mafias that only exist so the companies can use the regulations to monopolize and sell carbon credits and such

Speaking of poor data..,where is yours?

The intellectual equivalent of folding your arms and going “nope” no matter what is said to you.
Wow, what a smart guy

If you know they’re wrong, how do you know?
What evidence do you have ?

Actually the repetitive spamming of specific things is calculated and made to plant the idea of the thing being spammed in the minds of the people that are seeing it, whether they hated it or liked it.
Like lolis and gays and tranny shit you might hate it but the repetition of it plants it in your mind which gives it more space in it and you start thinking about it and even explore it for a second. Some people realize that it's good after exploring it, some people don't but they have it in their brain and became insecure about it since they thought about it for the rest of their life.
And that's how you drive some amount of people to the way you want.
And since i came here i only found that this place is nothing but propaganda bullshit, or most of it.

Maybe that’s how science works on Amerifag.
Luckily for the world, that’s not how science is done in civilised countries

See

God’s plan
>pic related was captcha

Attached: 4378D976-786B-42AF-B7BA-0882565EAA28.jpg (1125x1598, 338K)

yeah
because I'm not arrogant enough to believe my perception is greater than the data and time dedicated of millions
anyone who "doubts" climate change is fucking retarded. what do you think happens to all waste?

LOL never seen that one

False.
Not much else to say in response, so idiotically moronic is your statement

Tim Ball

Notice how the backlash on Greta is an attack on character and not her arguments? That's because she's right.

this is true though and i’d say this is at least unfortunate. though, like anything else it’s gotta come to the light some way.

Agreed

Attached: LUNATICKFLYER.jpg (2550x3300, 1.27M)

Lol
nobodys listening to you

not really. Everyone is for sale these days. Even if they're right about climate change, Greta's carbon rating racket isn't the solution.

Fake.
“That chart they always show cuts off 200 years ago”
Why?
Because that’s when accurate record keeping started you fucking idiot.

Global climate has fluctuated in the past. Duh doi .
Proves nothing

I suspect you don’t have the degree in climatology that qualifies you to even hold an opinion

heir klint
heir klunt
heir knet
heir bach
cmo'n gramps have you seen my newfangled phonograph machine contraption anywarez?

i need my ears adjusted...

My girlfriend is an actual r*ck star.


Duke Zuur Grimes

Attached: grimes.jpg (640x872, 472K)

What did you say?

she hasn't made any arguments, just fear mongering, and people who do that don't deserve respect.

>and should we rush out and buy that ultra green energy lightbulb for $50?
I mean you should buy the energy saver bulbs anyway unless you're a retard. Those niggers last year's compared the incandescent bulbs which have very short lifespans. The oldest 'green' bulb in my house is 9 years old.

It saves me money on bulbs.
It saves me money on my bill.

Dude, what kind of retard wants to go with shitty outdated technology that breaks every few months?

Then what is? Tell us more about your logic...

Attached: 1569816721354.png (558x263, 273K)

I agree but what if the answer is that power costs 2% more in order to hasten renewables instead of waiting for the natural occurrence a couple decades from now

Well, maybe climate change just isn't as bad as they say it will be. Humans are notoriously conservative. Who cares if a few species die out? It'll be sad, but not of immediate concern to humanity. Have you ever felt the need for a Dodo?

The mediterranean used to be full of trees until the Romans cut them down to make ships. I don't know any Italians who feel sad about those missing trees now.

Yes there will be changes and yes they will cost money, space and lives. However, there will also be new spaces, new possibilities and better weather in Chicago.

CO2 isn't poisonous, it's not dirty or bad except for the greenhouse effect. Renewable energies have their own problems. They produce a fuckton of garbage (we have no solution on how to recycle turbine blades) and are unreliable, which is the death for every modern economy. Nucular might be an option here though.

Ruining the world economy is definitely going to cost millions of lives. Climate change just might cost those lives.

get out of here with your feelings pussy, I bet you think windmills cause cancer too

Attached: 67077916_470513270409125_1210674405122768896_n.jpg (654x828, 39K)