Why can't climate deniers define climate?

Why can't climate deniers define climate?

Attached: gretard3.jpg (937x528, 281K)

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nobody denies there is climate, retard.

answer the question, incel

Definition of climate (from merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate)
1
: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
His physician advised moving to a warmer climate.
2
a
: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
a healthful climate
a warm, humid climate
b
: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors
a climate-controlled office
3
: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere
a climate of fear
a climate of suspicion
the cultural climate of the 1960


So what else confuses you?

>thinking the climate exists

Global warming doesn't exist
China and india are the leading countries for emission and oceaninc waste

By the way, nobody denies there is a climate, just people disagree about climate change because it's so easy to trigger retards that believe in it

Why can't you fuck off with this pointless thread?

The answer is, the people you refer to do not exist, because nobody denies there is climate, so you question is nonsensical.

do you believe in air pollution?

because they got their talking points from the news, not their own research or thoughts or reasoning

yes, but do you agree you shouldn't constantly change the data to match your climate models?

Climate change is just being greatly over exaggerated.

yes an entire society of people just magically ignored all the scientific papers that exist. Oh wait im sorry they did, they are the deniers of climate change.

Again, if you'd stop changing the data (for example the genius 'hockey stick' researcher) then people might take it more seriously. Instead you don't want anybody to be able to question the data because it almost immediately falls apart. Climate activists remind me a lot of Officer Barbrady on South Park when asked honest questions.

Attached: 2bzShOeP8B69YhRU5DM6cTWyJGXK5cTAFXiYH5ULOI0.jpg (576x440, 37K)

lol, you deny that climate changes?

11 more to go, greta

It all comes from Green Peace. Those tards spent the 80s saying the world would be flooded so much that the himalaias would be the only land above sea level and then they lost it entirely and started funding eco terrorism in the 90s so theres no one to roll back any of the shit they said.

Global Warming is an engineering term or more specifically an engineer attempting to summarize what would happen if the climate was modeled like any other system where energy keeps being added (e.g. sunlight, it was ALWAYS more sunlight = more energy) means that the system runs HOTTER. Hippy dippy shits took that engineering nomenclature and turned it into propaganda that turned into "fact", that used "fact" to establish causation, and causation to determine "public" opinion that formed "policy".

The reality is our global climate is going to warm, solar output is increasing adding energy aka heating up our climate system which helps to destabilizes it causing extreme weather events and ecological changes. Shits a reality, it just might not be a man made reality we need to panic about.

Dumb nigger. I'm not listening to some autistic 16yo. There's a new word called "adaptation"

What gets debated is the extent. And again, if climate activists would stop changing the data to match the desired outcome they'd be more believable.

97% of researchers disagree brah

>climate was modeled like any other system where energy keeps being added
Either you or that engineer is retarded, the atmosphere is not a closed system. In fact it's the greenhouse effect that makes the atmosphere closer to a closed system.

>solar output is increasing
source?
Only similar thing I've heard of is this:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
But the "data" suggests we're in the less/lowering output part of the cycle currently. And besides, the "climate" section of that page essentially says research shows solar activity does not explain away climate change
>inb4 i'm the retard for trusting wikipedia

97% consensus among climate scientists....

I heard she likes it up the bum

Klimate Loli

why do all ecological solutions involve buying "more efficient" new shit or paying more taxes? Wonder why?$$

How come it never involves making things you have last as long as possible, or building things so they'll last longer?

Attached: jew_basic.jpg (600x600, 42K)

Normal Science
>falsehoods eliminated through criticism and truth found with a constant flow of testing new ideas

Climate Science
>ITS SETTLED SCIENCE
>BELIEVE SCIENTISTS
>HOW DARE YOU QUESTION A TEENAGER

>post shit bait
>works

Why can't conservatards distinguish between "climate" and "weather"?

Attached: 80557672_10222432547908929_8992450908277178368_o.jpg (1055x812, 112K)

Welcome to post-2015 Sup Forums

How Dare You

What is reading comprehension?

>constant flow of testing new ideas
only when it seems worthwhile - nobody reasonable is trying to test the laws of motion at "everyday" scales.

>BELIEVE SCIENTISTS
who are those eliminating falsehood and finding truth, if not scientists? Do you not believe the people you refer to in your "normal science" description?
Or are you simply satirising people that don't question climate scientists?

ONE SENTENCE,
VAGUELY RELATED PICTURE,
GUESS WHO?!?!?

bruh its 2020 not 2016

>2020 isn’t a year after 2015

Attached: wk09pyiobxo31.jpg (640x793, 60K)

geoengineering is how climate is being manipulated or "changed". Dumb fucks. No secret and the ABC'S of declassified conspiracy theories . Money and fear mongering from the poster children who are being molested by the same globalists. A lot of money in the climate game

crisis actor who can't hang