Prove to me that global warming isn't man made

Prove to me that global warming isn't man made

Other urls found in this thread:

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150331-antarctica-hottest-temperature-climate-change-global-warming-science/
nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Id like to see a source on those graphs

Burden of proof is on you faggot.

That's like a Christtard saying "Prove Jeezus ain't real!"

No one can convince you that your religion is a lie.

Almost all scientists agree that its man made. Its pretty much accepted fact across the globe. So we're proceeding from the point where you're in the minority opinion and have to explain why you reject the scientific consensus

>Almost all scientists agree that its man made
>Muh 97%
97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who TAKE A POSITION on global warming agree that it's man made.
However, only 1/3 of climate scientists take a position. That means only 30% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Hardly almost every scientist agrees. It's not even a majority of climate scientists

>“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

>“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

>“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
>[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
>“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

Carbon Dioxide is rising

Temperature is not carbon dioxide

Fucking mongoloid

Prove Kek isn't real
check em

>However, only 1/3 of climate scientists take a position. That means only 30% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Source? Also, that would simply mean that only 30% choose to state a position, not that 70% deny it

>global cooling!

>I mean global warming!

>I mean climate change!

>don't be a heretic, I mean denier!

>you are not allowed to challenge this view!

>here are laws you must follow that I don't have to for this climate change danger!

How fucking stupid do you have to be to buy into a bunch of politicians and celebrities scaring you into giving them money and doing acts of peity like giving up your car of eating crickets

Checked and praise'd!

>lie to you in order to get you to give up your income but still retain right to use force in order to steal your income

>make back room deals with companies in order to get rich even though it hurts society

>have millions of confidential documents but claim to be public servants

>live in armed quarters with bodyguards but want to ban your right to own a gun

>steal your children's inheritance when you die

>borrow trillions that unborn will play off

>incarcerate millions for having vegatation on them

>order troops to die under false pretenses
But hey they all the sudden care of global warming so that's why they are so vocal about expanding their own power so they can stop it ok your behalf

There's no source on any of those graphs.

>makes you think

>Source?
It's the same study that everyone cites when they bring up the 97% figure

>Also, that would simply mean that only 30% choose to state a position, not that 70% deny it
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the 70% accept it either. 30% say we know it's real, 1% say we know it's not real, and the rest are saying we don't know. That's hardly almost every scientist agreeing

you're one of those

>how can it be global warming when it's snowing xD

people aren't you

I must have made them up

If I took the time to show you the source you would just say "but I can get a group of people to vote and say they are wrong!"

Relativist scum

Does it look like any of those graphs reference snowfall?

Try again

Wow that's an amazing quote.

its alright, man. we are going to burn the corrupt whores in their towers.

just go to

climatedepot dot com

i dont have time for this shit

youtube this man

richard carrier

no jesus, you dumfucks

lets quit bitching and build 4th, 5th and 6th generation nuclear reactors around the world, carefully managed by the US government. clearly the US and i guess France know how to not be a whole new level of retarded with nukes.

if only we hadn't set off so many nukes in our atmosphere already.. the standard environmental radiation will see an increase for thousands of years. :(

>I use logic on Christianity

>I ignore the basic logic that tax = theft

>I take up for Muslims who want to kill non believers

Marxist religion everyone

What good does it do to say Climate change is man made or not? It is a fact, that as long a we live on this Earth, there will come a point in time when temperatures will rise WITH OR WITHOUT doing anything. Rather than bickering over whether or not we are capable of playing king maker with the climate, we should take this as an opportunity to begin preparing civilization for the inevitable environmental warm up.

>That's hardly almost every scientist agreeing

Polls never survey 100% of a given population of people. Actually, 30% is an extremely high sample group. And if you're not satisfied with the opinions of individual scientists, scientific organizations worldwide have endorsed the position. To my knowledge there is no accredited scientific organization that doesn't accept man made climate change as a fact

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Oh no, Northern Canada Europe and Russia will become more temperate and allow for more crops to be produced as well as livable cities! What shall we do!

GUYS THE GOVERMENT SAID ALL KINGS ARE GODS LOL WHAT ARE YOU HERATICS?

LOL ALL SCIENTISTS THINK THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNVERSE GO READ A BOOK, I BET YOU ALL BELIEVE IN GERMS TOO LOL


GUYS THE CNN TOLD ME ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GLOBAL COOL...I MEAN GLOBAL WARM...I MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE. THEY ALL FLEW IN ON HUNDREDS OF PRIVATE JETS AND DECIDED YOU SHOULD BE BANNED FROM OWNING A BIG CAR!

>I must have made them up

Someone could have. That's why I want to see a source

>Relativist scum

Is that what you say to everyone that doesn't accept assertions point blank?

Fuck

We've already lost, it's over

I'm not asking you to accept any assertions, you're the one who wants to enforce laws based on your unsubstantiated view

I didn't say anything about laws. I just asked for someone to provide evidence that climate change isn't man made

You would have to be the one that proves its man made, it's not up to use to disprove you every time you make shit up in order to get laws passed


>global cooling
>global warming
>climate change
>white privlege
>systematic racism
>hate speech
>islamophbia

"Hey prove it doesn't exist! Otherwise we will pass laws based on our pseudo science"

You don't even have a fucking null hypothesis for "climate change", that is, there is no evidence I can give you that would invalide "humans are causing the climate to change"

The earth didn't cool so you switched it to warming

The earth didn't warn so you switched it to "climate change"

What is your control group?

"Prove climate change is fake"

Is the same as "prove kek is fake"

As I said in , its accepted fact by every authority on the subject. Its only a small minority of conspiracy theorists that deny it as a plot for government to raise more taxes. As the one denying the scientific consensus and popular opinion, the burden is yours

Get with the times grandpa it's called Global Climate Disruption now.

A) no it's not, that's false and you just based your entire theory on it. Therefore you need to go back to the drawing board

B)consensus is not reality or science

>Source? Also, that would simply mean that only 30% choose to state a position, not that 70% deny it

It's far less than that.

They have to fake the data just like they fake the polls.

It's from a metastudy of over 10,000 climate scientists. Your very own link is quoting the metastudy I'm referring to. You're wrong, face the facts

"99% believe in Islam so it's up to you to disprove it, otherwise we can make Islamist laws"

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'm still waiting for an actual refutation to the fact that all scientific organizations agree that climate change is man made

You forgot to mention how desertification will lead to massive droughts and famines affecting billions of people. But we can just build giant greenhouses, desalinate sea water, etc etc right? Luckily fossil fuels are not an inexhaustible resource and their consumption does not in any way affect the environment. LOL

For such a supposedly redpilled group of people, I can't understand why Sup Forums is so ignorant to climate change.

>You're wrong, face the facts

I don't see how im wrong. All I see is that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is man made

See Scientific organizations are riddled with beaurocracy and politics. The only thing that matters is the conclusion of individual scientists.

Your original argument was "Almost all scientists agree that its man made." Which is wrong. So the burden of proof remains on you to prove your claim.

>30% is an overwhelming majority
That's why you're wrong

>comparing scientific consensus to belief in Islam

Not sure if you're retarded or being ironic

i learned new things today

DUDE DA JOOS LMAO

"Ignorant"

You lose credibility by dropping leftist buzzwords and making condescending remarks based on personal view

You're in no position to be calling anyone retarded

30% of all climate scientists. What do you expect, that they survey every single climate scientist? Sampling is used almost always in surveys

> based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.

36% took a position. On what planet is 36% an overwhelming majority?

A sample size of almost 12,000 climate scientists is a pretty fucking accurate sample. That's nearly every climate scientist in North America
Lrn2statistics

^ leaf is right
However, Google is our friend pam

You're calling me retarded when you are the one who rejects scientific consensus on the basis that HURR DURR THEY ONLY SURVEYED 30% OF ALL DA SCIENTISTS

Come back when you figure out how surveying works

>I'm still waiting for an actual refutation to the fact that all scientific organizations agree that climate change is man made
I just showed you how they made the 97% claim.

not that it is a myth it is more over exaggerated and blamed more on individuals than power companies. You can go on website that give quizzes on how much impact you are causing to the earth and lie and be the biggest hippy in the world yet in the end it will say you take up 3 or so earths.

That consensus is driven by facts so by your wall of greentext...
> In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
The world is heating up.
There is literally nothing else that can be causing it.
The sun is in a cooling cycle.
Volcanic activity has not been NEARLY severe enough to even compare to human CO2 output
There is absolutely nothing BUT human CO2 emissions that correlates with the rise in global temperatures.

36% of all papers published. 64% didn't think there was sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

They cherry picked the papers that agreed with what they wanted their conclusion to be, when the reality is that only 36% of papers on the matter conclude that there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion

No, they surveyed ALL of the scientists. Only 30% said they agree. You're retarded for not understanding this when it's been explained to you multiple times

Prove to me that Norway oil imports don't cause drivers to die more frequently in rail collisions.

I am in an entirely neutral position on this topic but what about charts that show global averages in the past thousands to hundreds of thousands of years ago that would show nothing out of the ordinary is really happening with Earth's climate?

You have no fucking idea how meta studies work do you?
You don't cherry pick in a meta study. Especially one with a sample size of 12000. Keep grasping at straws

>there is literally nothing else that can be causing it

the world is very complex
there's is nothing except God that could have created it
therefore god is real

strong logic

And you think that CO2 can cause a raise in temperature once 100% of the absorption spectrum CO2 absorbs energy on is absorbed?

How?

What is the physical process that keep giving more energy?

Not so fast lad.

The world is heating very slowly, yes.

The sun is not in a cooling cycle at all and actually the activity levels have been unusually high since 1900.

Volcanic activity has remained at the same average as the past few thousand years.

Don't be a faggot.

mini ice age in midevil times

>MUH buzzwords
This does not constitute an argument

>CO2 increase

oh no, not more food for plants. How dare we!

Holy shit this is getting hilarious

>take 12000 studies
>find the 1/3 that agrees with you, ignore the 2/3 that don't
>ask the scientists who agree with you if they agree with the conclusions of their papers
>not cherry picking

I'd suggest that arguing against the status quo is often a good idea. 'Conspiracy theories' are proven to be facts every few months.

You're not a climate expert, so you know as much as anybody else here. Possibly less as deniers are more likely to have read more on the subject, a proven correlation (in the UK at least).

Sorry, I thought you were the other flag bro. I'm on your side. I'm the original person arguing that a majority of scientists don't agree

The only thing ironic about your post is there is information regarding E=Mc2 that show it isn't a very sound theory at all and in fact numerous test show it to be a shaky theory at best. E=mc2 is about as consensus science as you can get tbqh

>Only 30% said they agree.

Where are you getting this 30% from

climate change is done by jews with chemtrails

Global temperatures have always fluctuated but past fluctuations have always had NATURAL explanations.
Solar heating cycles
Algae outbreaks
Volcanic events
Impacts
etc etc etc
This is the first time that there is absolutely no natural explanation. The only thing that correlates with this heating is human CO2 emissions.
I can't even fathom how you thought this was an argument.
Greenhouse effect is a thing. Read about it.
We are in a solar cooling cycle.
Pic related gets passed around the denier camp a lot but they never bother to think about WHY people thought an ice age was coming.
I'll give you one hint: the sun.
Also I never said volcanic activity spiked in the past 1000 years but it has explained heat spikes in the past.

When you claim a positive, the burden of proof is on you.

The metastudy you quoted. Holy shit there's no way you can be this retarded, you must be a shill.

The question is, why would Canada need to shill for global warming? You could be using a proxy, but for whom?

Where's the source on your graph in the OP? You fucking faggot ass leaf

>This is the first time that there is absolutely no natural explanation.
You do know that climate scientists are moving their thermometers from open fields to paved parking lots, right? They have an incentive to show that the world is getting hotter . After all, publish or perish

>The metastudy you quoted.

It says 97% of papers expressing any position agree that climate change is man made. Youre saying that just because a paper doesn't express a position it must not agree that climate change is man made. Except there is nothing at all to indicate that. You're really grasping at straws

Yes I'm sure that scientists all around the world have moved their thermometers into fucking parking lots.
Antarctica is known for its fucking walmarts after all
news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150331-antarctica-hottest-temperature-climate-change-global-warming-science/

>Greenhouse effect is a thing. Read about it.
And once 100% of the energy CO2 can absorb is absorbed then what?
Let me put it like this, with 250ppm you can absorb 95% of the energy. At 400ppm 99.9%
At 1600ppm 99.999%

All the warming that CO2 can cause has happened. That's why the global temperature has been static for that last 19 years.

Every climate change model depends on and requires secondary sources for heating. So what does it fucking matter if we take CO2 up to 800ppm? The warming it could cause has already happened.

If your position and evidence is "X amount of people agree" that is
>Not an argument

You should be showing us all that evidence that c02 impacts the climate significantly.

The CO2 isn't absorbing anything.
It's called the greenhouse effect because it's the exact same heating effect that a greenhouse causes.
Light it refracted by a layer of CO2 int he same way it is refracted by glass.

You have a very basic misunderstanding of how all of this works.

No, you're saying that just because a paper doesn't express a position it must agree that climate change is anthropogenic.
You're saying a majority of scientists agree. I'm saying a majority of scientists don't agree, since most of them can't even decide on a position. Therefore, you're wrong. You're just too retarded to understand why you're wrong.

You think I'm trying to argue that global warming is false. I'm not. I'm arguing that the majority of scientists don't agree, since you're wrong about that.

How much simpler do I need to make this for you to understand?

What does Co2 numbers have to do with warming? The Co2 has doubled but the temperature hasn't? And the ozone is healing?

>since most of them can't even decide on a position.

There is nothing that indicates that. All it says is that they don't indicate an opinion. HUrr you're retarded xD pls try not to read your bias into the information and claim that it says something that it doesn't.

It's BS.
Largest quantum theory interpretations (each one has actual measurable predictions) have around 30%-40% of consensus.
100% scientists agrees that Special Theory of Relativity (which predictions are proven to be right on the cosmic scale) has it's limitations and will be corrected and might be even discarded in future (cosmological constant, yet unknown components, etc).
You can pick every theory in science and have consensus around 30% even if it has right prediction. But for climate change it's magically 97% without any working prediction

>The CO2 isn't absorbing anything.
>It's called the greenhouse effect because it's the exact same heating effect that a greenhouse causes.
>Light it refracted by a layer of CO2 int he same way it is refracted by glass.
>You have a very basic misunderstanding of how all of this works

No you don't understand, and a greenhouse actually has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect.

Short wave radiation hits the earth, and is absorbed and re-emitted as longer wave radiation. That long wave radiation can be absorbed by gasses that are opaque at set wavelengths. CO2 has a range that it absorbs at in 4 key wavelengths. When the amount of CO2 was around 200ppm it let some of the long wave radiation pass out back into space. As CO2 was added more and more of that remaining energy was absorbed. Today it's at nearly 100%, on the edge of an exponential curve.

That absorbed energy heats the air and is re-emitted at a different lower energy (larger) wavelength. That absorption and emission path continues until the photon doesn't have enough energy to be emitted on absorption or passes out to space or hits the ground again.

But my point is, we have already had all the possible warming that can happen from CO2, so what does it matter if we go higher?

Attempts to model global temperatures according to atmospheric composition have failed spectacularly. What should have been a rapid increase over the last two decades was instead near stagnation.

The absolute effect of atmospheric gas on earth's thermal energy is unknown and unquantified. We can and do calculate the effect of gasses relative to eachother, but the numerical magnitude of these effects hasn't been shown

In all likelyhood, recent rises in global temperature have been due to solar variation

>There is nothing that indicates that. All it says is that they don't indicate an opinion
Are you even listening to yourself? They don't indicate a position because they can't decide based on their studies. They don't indicate an opinion because they don't fucking know
I'm going to keep saying you're retarded until you stop acting retarded. It's not an ad hominem, since I'm not saying youre wrong because you're retarded. You're wrong because of the facts, and you're retarded. Too retarded to understand that

>They don't indicate a position because they can't decide based on their studies.

Where are you getting this from? You're making an assumption

The 97% “study” was an IRL Australian shitpost.

>“only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed.

>Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

>Australian SCIENTIST John Cook

From the skeptical science website, ran by the great Australian scientist John Cook:

>This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade

web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

Farming "pollutes" atmosphere with water vapour (pumped from underground water sources mostly), CH4 and other stuff. Any hydrocarbon gas has better greenhouse capacity in comparison to CO/CO2. Water vapour has more significant effect in climate change than CO2. Look up IPCCC they are aknowledging CH4 "pollution" and it's effects.
But media still pushes CO2