Reminder: There is no science supporting Climate Change™.
Reminder: There is no science supporting Climate Change™
Zachary Anderson
Other urls found in this thread:
steamcommunity.com
google.com
climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu
climatedepot.com
thegwpf.com
thegwpf.com
pnas.org
epa.gov
di2.nu
epa.gov
data.giss.nasa.gov
psmsl.org
twitter.com
Logan Bailey
Actually, I'm not as worried about climate change as I am about ocean acidification. That's much more destructive and has zero controversy around it.
If we want a reason to reduce carbon emissions, O.A. is that reason.
Brayden Ward
Chase Miller
>ocean acidification
>has zero controversy around it
Also not a thing. It already varies wildly and we don't have anywhere near the ability to artificially change it. CO2 doesn't play a role here, either.
Dylan Flores
New fast growing Discord Sup Forums server, quickly join before the jannies cuck us.
discord gg/bVvJDeG
----------
RDQ0EQ
Chase Lewis
>If we want a reason
>global victimhood
How about actual data instead of looking for reasons?
Nathan Hill
CO2 creates the carbonic acid
Justin Parker
steamcommunity.com
poorfag here, anything will do kind anons
Jayden Taylor
no shit it's literally jewish nonsense
Jaxon Robinson
Sure, but not enough to make any difference. Where do they say the CO2 is stored? The oceans. What happens when it warms? Releases CO2. It self regulates.
Henry Russell
Except there is
Thomas Ramirez
Uh huh
Gavin Mitchell
Michael Mann and models are science?
Joshua Butler
Holy hockey sticks!
We haven't broken any heat records since the 30s. Your wikipedia graph is bogus.
Xavier Brown
It is clearly going up. Even in your graph. The slightest bit of pH increase the huge mass that is the ocean makes a huge difference to the ecosystem. Also keep in mind that the increase in the pH scale means exponential change in acidity.
Zachary Jenkins
>are you sure about that
google.com
Also my second graph was taken straight from noaas website, you can even view one yourself the option is always there
Isaiah Fisher
>It is clearly going up
Not really, we just haven't been measuring it that long.
>makes a huge difference to the ecosystem
Proven not true. So far there's only been experiments where they dump HCl into an aquarium and says CO2 dissolved the shells.
Why are reefs increasing today?
Owen Phillips
Looks like it's going up quite a bit... If the Ph in your body changed like that you would die. I don't think you realize how acidity works.
Christian Allen
>my second graph was taken straight from noaas website
NOAA is a bunch of adjusting bullshitters.
Here's what NOAA uses:
climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu
Select 'Seasonal ranking'
Find your station
Look at all the no records.
Samuel White
Find some reliable data that shows it's gone up in the last 40 vs. 200/2000/whatever years ago.
Wyatt Nelson
>hottest-ever-day-one-day-after-previous-record
Isn't that weather?
Austin Collins
I don't think they were measuring acidity 200 years ago, so I can't. Corel is going extinct at an alarming rate though due to acidity, that probably shouldn't be happening. I doubt it was happening 200 years ago.
Christopher Collins
>I don't think they were measuring acidity 200 years ago
So how do we know that it's better or worse now?
>Corel is going extinct at an alarming rate
Not true.
climatedepot.com
Gabriel Walker
>australia-records
The BOM is as untrustworthy as NASA GISS.
thegwpf.com
Jordan Murphy
Reminder: kys you fucking broney. Stop pretending like you’re redpilling people.
Connor Gomez
doesn't matter, we're still going to invert the food pyramid because of it
Carter Peterson
fuck if only i'd got those digits
Jonathan Reyes
Reefs are nearly all gone. There are ocean deserts more and more with little life in them. There are vast jellyfish areas that only they can thrive in. Keep believing what the oil companies tell you, it doesn't change what asia is doing to the oceans.
Jack Ward
>because of it
Because of what?
Colton Hughes
>Reefs are nearly all gone
So much FUD. It's all false. You can link all the huffpo and Vox stories you want but it's not true.
Parker Adams
Can you like something that isn't a clearly biased source?
Justin Gutierrez
kek, Can you?
Cameron Sanders
Maybe I'm wrong. TBH at this point there is too much disagreement in the facts from "reputable" sources I can't say for sure either way.
That said dumping chemicals into the environment and CO2 being produced more than it ever has been historically can't be a good thing. I'd still say we're damaging the planet, I couldn't say how much though.
Jaxon Lee
There's the root of the problem.
Climate change deniers, flat earthers, and whatever other conspiracy theorists will only believe in their alternative sources they can get whatever information they want and deny whatever information they don't like.
Andrew Thomas
What is ‘temperature anomaly’. Could be the latent heat capacity of my farts for all that chart shows. Cunt
Dylan Campbell
*I meant "link" instead of "like" my b
Chase Wood
There's the root of the problem.
Climate change believers, flat earthers, and whatever other conspiracy theorists will only believe in their alternative sources they can get whatever information they want and deny whatever information they don't like.
Jackson Jackson
Did you know the earth is flat too? And 6000 years old?
Landon Peterson
Chemicals is pollution, no one is arguing cleaning up that.
C02 is the issue they claim. We are pumping how much? Compared to other things on Earth? How much really is being added? Base questions that really are not explained.
Just like orange man bad. C02 Bad.
Rumor is I hear Tree's and all plant life hate C02.
Brody Richardson
>dumping chemicals
not climate change.
>CO2 being produced more than it ever
CO2 does nothing to the environment.
The problem is that there is zero solid science supporting AGW. The "skeptics" continue life as usual. The alarmists run around with fake headlines and hockey stick charts, but no proof. The skeptics look at whatever data they can find and don't see any correlations. Alarmists say, "the consensus" and "scientists say" but still haven't provided one piece of proof. The alarmists are the flat-earth, anti-science crowd.
Ayden Nguyen
The only thing that matters is scientific studies. Those are the only things you should be using.
Or become a climate scientist.
Juan Hill
I know. It's what the climate models are based on.
pnas.org
Isaac Myers
They're still having trouble showing that CO2 has an effect on temps.
Jason Ortiz
>we just haven't been measuring it that long.
So just because we haven't been measuring if more hundreds of years it isn't going up like the data suggests?
>Proven not true
You can't prove that it doesn't have an effect on the ecosystem. The ecosystem is far too vast to declare there is "no" effect.
Carter Cox
We can pretty easily measure atmospheric co2 levels.
Jason Wright
>going up like the data suggests
There's no data that shows that. Or is there? Post it.
>You can't prove that it doesn't have an effect
So I have to prove that ghosts don't exist, and that therefore proves that they do?
Daniel Baker
They're still struggling with it. Also BTW, what ever happened to that troposphere hot spot the models predicted? Never heard back from those modelers. Doesn't exist?
Juan Mitchell
I'm pretty sure even climate change deniers generally accept the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically. In this case I don't know if it's really necessary to show data from 1000s of years ago, it seems nature would produce an relatively consistent amount of CO2.
I can't say it's damaging anything though I suppose. There's just a lot more of it than there ever was in the past 2k years.
Brayden Ortiz
That hockey stick has also been proven fake as hell. Where's the other half of that chart, the one that shows CO2 increase follows heat increase? And no, it's never been consistent.
But yes, we have detected it increasing quite a bit.
Elijah Young
Grayson Gomez
Benjamin Scott
Dominic Hernandez
If you're right about the chart being false, I find it disturbing NASA still has it in their website
Zachary Scott
Cameron Gutierrez
>Post it.
epa.gov
>So I have to prove that ghosts don't exist
no, but you can't declare that they don't exist.
Carter Baker
Almost everything NASA does is false. They're a climate activist group. They get caught adjust the past, the current, even the daily temps in some cities. They got caught earlier this year increasing NYC every morning. Surely you remember Climategate: di2.nu
See
Wyatt Murphy
What about measuring levels of co2 in the air are they struggling with? With some money, I can buy my own detector.
And I don't know what you're talking about with this hot spot but I'm not arguing for that in any way.
Isaac Robinson
Colton Jones
>epa.gov
That's not science or proof.
>you can't declare that they don't
Sure, but I'm not going to change my life because you believe in ghosts, and I'm surely not going to pay the government to get rid of them.
Angel Watson
When it comes down to it, we are damaging the Earth. All this political bullshit is a time waster, people being greedy and essentially lazy. We're not really doing anything about changing the way we live. We can waste time arguing whether AGW is real or we can actually DO something about issues which are real. The way things are manufactured and sold, the way we farm, the way we build, etc. Of course people are working on solutions but the implementation doesn't seem as hard and fast as it should, in my opinion. The whole 30 years of my life I've heard about holes in the ozone layer, cfcs, greenhouse gases, etc. But it feels like we're distracted from the real issue of Anthropogenic Pollution by arguing whether 'the science is settled'.
Carson Young
fuck off
Jayden Carter
>non believers are the problem
Julian Rivera
>are they struggling with
CO2 is not in complete solution, dispersed evenly around the atmosphere. There's a lot of scientific bickering about the surface levels, tropo levels, even ocean levels.
The hot spot. I think it was the late 90s, the modelers said teh models predicted a hot spot in the troposphere in the equatorial regions. This was supposed to be proof that the models were accurate. It was never found.
Juan Lee
>we are damaging the Earth
Prove it. These are just your feelings, user.
Parker Jackson
>other conspiracy theorists
You must have a ton of AGW evidence.
Isaiah Walker
here is the trouble. all those problems came from centralized authorities or their sanctioned bodies, and all the proposed solutions come from centralized authorities or their sanctioned bodies. for them, interest trumps evidence.
Dylan Thompson
That's funny. Nobody ever said a heatwave caused the great depression. It sure as shit did. I bet winter was cold as fuck too.
Ian Scott
I refer you to NASA
data.giss.nasa.gov
Please feel free to explore the site. You will find a significant amount of data supporting the fact that the planet is warming. Argue all you want about the cause but the fact that it is warming is indisputable.
Liam Robinson
>That's not science or proof
It links to actual studies unlike the alternative facts you guys use
Bentley Walker
>no supporting science
>OP clearly eats shit at science
Ethan Thompson
Indeed I do. Thousands of scientific journals all peer-reviewed.
Evan Flores
I refer you to NASA, this biggest bullshitter behind climate change.
Ever wonder why GISS is now on v5? Temp records should just be historical records. Why adjust the past?
Anthony Barnes
>the fact that it is warming is indisputable
>US down to 80's temps
I just disputed it.
Colton Martin
Post it.
Eli Hill
Also, your chart doesn't include the past few years.
Isaac Martinez
so you can refute it like a 3rd grader?
go back to science class, then die in a school shooting
Noah Martinez
>pull the curtain back a little farther and...oh my.
Aiden Morales
It links to NOAA and the EPA themselves. Anything that uses them for a source is not interested in the truth. You think the government funded alarmists are going to silence the alarm?
Evan Smith
>Literally no one has ever produced proof
>"So you deny all the evidence?"
Get fucked.
Wyatt Richardson
Polar ice caps melting, sea levels rising at an alarming rate, wildfires and massive hurricanes are an annual occurrence. But no, go ahead and just believe the studies paid for by the same companies that are creating the pollution. Keep your head in the sand, conservatard.
Ryder Diaz
Shit's fake and has already been addressed. Lurk moar.
Joshua Ross
Just because you don't like them doesn't make their information any less accurate, where do you get your information from
Christian Sanchez
>Polar ice caps melting
yet still increasing every year. find any smb chart you like and you'll never see it dip below zero on the right. the arctic disappeared back before 2000 but has still held as stable as ever.
Ryan Cruz
yep. no discussion, only antagonism. i’ve seen this before...
Ryan Barnes
Just because someone calls it fake with no actual reasoning doesn't make it any less accurate
Tyler Russell
>sea levels rising at an alarming rate
you're lying. there has been no increase in acceleration.
psmsl.org
Samuel Mitchell
companies who fund green energy studies are also creating pollution though. and not much less than oil companies to be honest.
Carter Thompson
>wildfires and massive hurricanes are an annual occurrence
they always have been and are less frequent and less devastating today.
Jaxon Fisher
>the same companies that are creating the pollution
>pollution
>not climate change
you mean all the oil companies that are pushing AGW?
Blake Flores
>i’ve seen this before
>people act like this when I say something is true but can't prove it
>I claim I wanted a discussion
Cooper Hernandez
Nathan Torres
Michael Stewart
Michael Parker
Grayson Wilson
John Nguyen
Levi Ward
Grayson Walker
Caleb Davis