How can politicians deny that the climate is changing? We've seen some of the hottest summers on record, sea levels are rising, and droughts are more commonplace. Climate change is happening.
Do politicians deny Climate Change because they are bought by the fossil fuel industry, or are they really that stupid to not know that the Earth is getting warmer?
Other urls found in this thread:
theguardian.com
breitbart.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
pubs.acs.org
populartechnology.net
c3headlines.com
chrono.qub.ac.uk
notrickszone.com
notrickszone.com
notrickszone.com
friendsofscience.org
twitter.com
I don't deny that the climate is changing.
There's just zero evidence that the current change is 100% man-made like liberals like to claim.
Every time "evidence" is presented, it's either tainted (emailgate, etc.) or intentionally mislead ("omg look at this increase" -> zoom out -> it's fucking nothing).
I'm sure humans are having an effect on the climate, but there's no evidence as to what exactly that effect is. Right now, global warming/climate change is just a tool used by the elite to try to control people.
At least some people are fighting back against it: theguardian.com
>Climate change is happening.
no one really refutes this. But it's not caused by man. We as a species have been recording temperatures since before the industrial revolution and the worldwide temperatures have been rising since before we filled the skies with smog and coal dust. There's almost no effect via logging in the amazon either, because ocean surface algae accounts for the majority of the world's oxygen, not trees.
Ultimately, we can tweak the environment a little here and there, but we have very little effect on it. On a side note, we are and have been living in an Ice Age, because we have moving glaciers that we still track. Our natural dinosaur climate is one where the polar ice caps are near or fully thawed and the planet much hotter. Life goes on, with or without us.
Trumpifu!!
What a flat, slapable-looking bitch.
>We've seen some of the hottest summers on record
>literally the coldest summer ever on record
What are you talking about, shill?
We definitely are having an impact only how much is debated, I recommend asking a scientist in Antarctica, they'd have a good understanding of climate change
In America everything works different, even climate change...... you are all so blinded and ignorant. Its unbelievable how you are controled by the elite ! Tell me one advanteage the elite has from making people believe in that the climate change is human made ? They would basicaly lose a lot of money. Every country in this world can accept that but no ! americans dont believe it....
Look up Richard Muller and Berkeley Earth
true. this bitch a climate change victim, global warming melted her god damn titties off.
Who cares? It's normal on a geological timescale for there to be absolutely no ice sheets or glaciers anywhere on earth. We'll be fine.
>bitch
>she
They can regulate us and sell us product. As usual.
Look up regulatory capture.
Wait a second i know where that neighborhood is
Actually, global temperatures are declining.
Antarctica's sea ice is expanding rapidly. The sun which is entering solar minimum is actually the weakest it's been since 1645. Mini ice age anyone?
Is that goddess Kayla?
Atmospheric chemist here:
You're a total moron and I hope you don't reproduce.
hng i love chicks with small tits
You meant faggot here
Why should they make us buy new products ? They earn a lot more if your car uses 40 liters of gas and they dont have to look at enviromental protection costs while producing products, which is resposible for the most part of this anyways.
Just google geoengineering solar radiation management
>Actually, global temperatures are declining.
What the fuck is this meme when literally all data shows a rising trend?
>chicks
Nuclear Quantum Climatologist here:
You are a fraud, man-made climate change is not proven.
>no argument
>not as intellectual as him
>desperate
f-f-faggot
>that showed him
>back to fear mongering
Climate change is not manmade.
We are in an ice age and the planet has naturally gotten much hotter than this in the past.
She's so pretty.
if thats not a girl then w/e but I do like women who have small boobs
m8 you never an argument either.
Lol, and yes, yes it is.
Are you stupid? You think the elites are limited to one fucking industry and that industry is oil?
Fucking moron, if you know nothing about investments and business why don't you go learn before running off at the mouth. Typical German pos.
can someone fuck her already
Nice try kiddo
Dude...it's a girl. Calling her a "her" is a meme.
this is now a trap tread
>girl
>she
>goddess
>bitch
Climate change chicken little shit is fear mongering nigger
Well sure the climate is changing and if it continues at this pace it will make the earth a barely-habitable hellhole. But unless scientists can prove 100% to every single mouth-breathing basement-dweller on Sup Forums that it's caused by man we shouldn't change anything that we're doing. That would be radical and dangerous.
There's about fifteen peer reviewed journals dedicated to the atmospheric sciences and a hundred or so labs in NA alone publishing monthly data on temperature with CO2 concentration and VOC fate and that doesnt even touch on the light scattering and modelling people.
The problem with you idiots on here is you're sheep that have never really fact-checked for yourselves, you just adopt someones rhetoric and parrot that back while adding little popularized quips and retorts. You're no better than the SJWs and leftist idiots that operate on feel-good emotions at this point.
If we are talking about an earth that has existed for millions-billions of years, then using 100ish years of data as scientific proof of man-mad climate change is an absolute miscarriage of scientific practice and ethics.
If you used that miniscule of a data point in any other scientific study. You would be laughed out of any academic or scientific institution. Even the shittiest community college.
Get real. It's embarrassing. Dirty people coming up with new ways to gain power and more dirty money.
Yes, and no.
If you study chemistry and balance systems, you will see how fast it can change once the balance is tipped.
Nature has tons of buffer systems, so so far we're more or less safe.
The issue is not the change, the change is known to happen, we are not in an ice age we are approaching one, thus the scares of it happening during the 70s.
ice ages come from heating tipping the balance and causing a feedback loop which then causes the planet to cool to an ice age, also sun activity.
The thing is, man activity has increased the rate at which the heating is happening, and this, is the issue.
We're not causing it, we're accelerating it quite a lot.
>climate is changing!
>in a few decades millions will perish!
>unless you pay this tax
>Climate change is happening
Planet X is approaching.
Its always funny when some retard says the global warming is not caused by human activity. Yes, there probably is a natural cycle that causes changes in the climate, but it takes shitload of time, 20-30 years is not a shitload of time in the context of a natural climate change, in fact its fucking nothing.
>girl
>her
stfu homo
You obviously haven't figured out that scientists aren't simply going "well we've been here 100 or so years putting carbon up there and look! durr the temperature rose as we did that!! Ok publish!".
The fact that retards like you exist is how we know that humanity is doomed.
Except you can thank China for all of that.
America is already as green as a developed nation can get- killing whats left of our job market and drinking our own toilet water is going to change a fucking thing in regards to Climate Change. Not until you deal with China, as well as India.
>Fallacy: do nothing because there is no single simple solution to the problem.
Global Warming Expedition Stuck in Arctic Sea Because of Too Much Ice
OP btfo
I just don't care about the whole topic. You hippies can put wind mills in your front yard, not mine.
Usa is a major contributor and should be reduced and can be. Other developed nations pollute less per capita.
>Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, new enemies must be identified. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
>The First Global Revolution- A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome
Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the Club of Rome describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.
The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects.
Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:
Al Gore, Javier Solana, Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, David Rockefeller, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Juan Carlos I, Prince Philippe of Belgium, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
ORAAAAA
Faggot the denial is in human responsibility for it not the measurable effects
Because of "dun't care, I'll be dead in 30 years anyway let the next generations take care of it lmao" mentality.
They literally don't give a shit.
You honestly think a series of global taxes is going to solve the issue of climate change?
muh dick
Bankers will make a lot of money from trading energy credits. Follow the money. Sallie Baliunas, a Harvard astrophysics has conclusively proved that Earths climate and temperature are related to Sun's activity. Still banker controlled politicians are all about 30 ppm carbon dioxide and saying Balinas is Oil Company shill rather than trying to discredit her research.
fossil fuels don't cause climate change, its a natural phenomena that mankind has no power over
I am not denying it exists, I am denying man's hand in it
Then I am sure you will have no problem outlining exactly how CO2 is the cause of our climate changing and the experiments that prove this.
Climate change is normal. EG fertile crecent is a Desert now, Greece is shit and most of the Mediterranean is drying up
>because no single simple solution exists.
You should reread my post. Or are you illiterate? Perhaps that's why you're so ignorant?
It's pretty damn arrgogant to seriously believe we can influence the climate on such a global level. There's been warmer periods of time before and there have been significantly higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere before. In 200 years mankind will look back on this and cringe over the stupidity of their ancestors. Just google the percentage of CO2 that's actually produced by us...
What's the carbon foot print of a volcano?
I want to fuck trump girl.
Burden of proof fallacy.
It's not my job to educate the ignorant masses like you. It's your job to inform yourselves and make an informed decision. Otherwise you are a degenerate.
But put simply: emitting VOCs creates carbonaceous aerosol that ultimately oxidizes to CO2. Rather than scatter light, this reduces albedo and reabsorbs photons and transmits them back to Earth. This phenomenon is well understood and has been reproduced in experiments and models for decades.
You're welcome.
What are the solutions you propose to solve this problem, aside from paying climate taxes?
Leaf, really. What you just posted doesn't even make sense. Or maybe you can't read. Did you even notice the narrative changed from "muhGlobalWarming" to "Climate Change"?? Do you know why??
Because they quickly realized there was literally no proof and it is scientifically indefensible. That and all the true experts on the matter were rebutting it all.
Obviously the climate and. average temps can change over time, this is known well throughout scientific history. Are we humans affecting it?? Yes of course. Is it being blown wildly out of proportion?? Absolutely.
That simple enough for you?? Can you take a break from molesting your pet moose and injecting black tar maple syrup long enough to consider opinions other than your own shitty one, eh??
Reduce the anthropogenic emissions of carbon. Boom. Only solution.
It has a complex and vast series of implications but your money will be worthless when you have no air to breathe so it's up to you.
Regardless of this person's gender, they have cute tits.
>How can politicians deny that the climate is changing?
No one does. What a person denies is AGW, which is the notion that climate change is anthropological.
I hope you know that its the complete opposite. America is the country least controlled by the elites. Have fun with your influx of syrians done by elite influence.
what? the less regulations the better. say you are selling pharmaceuticals, you want to be able to sell more and milk as much money from each drug - with high regulation you would only be able to sell a drug with a certain success rate - without regulation 40% will do; fuck em more money made.
get it?
/thread
OP when you swallow the red pill this one takes the longest.
>ad hominem
>no argument amongst ramblings
You're embarrassing yourself.
Misunderstanding of scientific proof. An experiment is never proof of anything. It only strengthens or weakens a hypothesis or theory. That's elementary scientific method, leaf. Experiments are not proof. Sorry.
>history began the day I was born
I know what you're doing. Disinfo campaign to get her to be exclusively your waifu.
>things have to of been happening for years to be able to exist
Theory is theory is theory.
>Burden of proof
>It is on the person making the claim to prove it.
>The default position being scepticism
Don't just fire off words and phrases because you like the sound of them. You are the one claiming that this is a thing, it's on you to substantiate that.
>But put simply: emitting VOCs creates carbonaceous aerosol that ultimately oxidizes to CO2. Rather than scatter light, this reduces albedo and reabsorbs photons and transmits them back to Earth. This phenomenon is well understood and has been reproduced in experiments and models for decades.
This answers neither of my requests.
>emitting VOCs creates carbonaceous aerosol that ultimately oxidizes to CO2
Irrelevant information
>Rather than scatter light, this reduces albedo and reabsorbs photons and transmits them back to Earth
[citation need] preferably this happening in atmo rather then in a box on a lab bench.
>This phenomenon is well understood and has been reproduced in experiments and models for decades.
Which experiments and are you referring to the models that have been consistently wrong?
>the climate is changing
yup that's what it does.. it changes. Get your hands out of my pockets.
Correct. Science begs to be disproven.
Please direct me to the source of your evidence to the contrary?
My sources: Crutzen, 1997. Donahue 2006. Lim and Ziemann have lots of stuff. John Seinfeld at Berkeley. Maybe throw in some Jon Abbott at U of T for good measure.
I'm not endorsing Kayla for Sup Forums waifu.
She's in the US, she could turn coalburner at any moment. It's in her eyes.
Some authors in my other post for you ;)
Oh yes. And now go read and shut the fuck up. :)
>i'm too stupid to even know the difference between climate change and man made climate change
>tries to be a part of the movement anyway
people like you should, in all seriousness, kill themselves
you are literally the people making this world into shit.
> global warming/climate change is just a tool used by the elite to try to control people
Pretty much sums it up.
Think about it, you breath out CO2. The act of you breathing is "pollution," as far as the government is concerned.
Before I start, are these the papers you are referring to?
>Burden of proof
>It is on the person making the claim to prove it.
>The default position being scepticism
This is so good and applicable in so many arenas today.
Skepticism is the life blood of true science. Any data can be manipulated. Accidental or intentional human error happen all the time. I mean, fuck, the earth was flat and the center of the universe not all that long ago. Sceptics were destroying for arguing against those fallacies. Same now.
Science without scepticism is religion.
as I scrolled down that pic
dat booty caught me off guard
Shriveled dry crunchy leaf, none of that equals proof!!
Let's get to the bottom of this. What is your scientific background or experience?? If you say, "I watched a lot of Bill Nye" ima punch you in the philtrum.
why is she always doing that weird eyebrow thing
The climate always changes. Al Gore claims it's man-made and the scientists rigged data to show it. When I was a kid I had teachers that claimed another ice age was just around the corner for reasons I don't even remember. I think around the same time the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us all because people were using to many aerosal sprays. It's all bullshit.
> but your money will be worthless when you have no air to breathe
The problem isn't a lack of oxygen you cunt. But in your case, it probably is.
yeah? well, technically your boyfriend's wife's husband's lover's gerbil is affecting global warming, too- the only debate is exactly how much.
Lists of Skeptical Papers
populartechnology.net
c3headlines.com
chrono.qub.ac.uk
notrickszone.com
notrickszone.com
notrickszone.com
friendsofscience.org
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye
Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C
Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C
Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz
* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C
Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C
Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley
Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C
Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C
because climate change is the biggest threat to western civilization.
i don't know about you but idgaf about the rest of the world, america is facing homeland terrorism.
one takes effect quicker than the other.
am i opposed to things that reduce carbon emissions? not as long as they work all the same.
can people stop pretending hotter weather is urgent?