How much of a hoax is it? I don't see it talked about on Sup Forums much
Climate change/global warming
Julian Cox
Hudson Baker
Please respond
Aiden Scott
About as much of a hoax as Israel's legitimacy
Easton Nelson
>have a war for terrirtory
>win war
>win territory
so illegitemate :D
Aiden Cooper
Shutup kike
Brody Bailey
climate change is real. it changes all the time (other wise we wouldnt have ice age at some points, and no ice age at other times).
global warming pretty much possible that it exist (i havent looked into any data honestly) but we are currently in an iceage
de.wikipedia.org
>definition 1: iceage is when one of the pols is frozen the whole year. (according to this definition we are in an iceage for about 30 million years)
>definition 2: iceage is when both poles are frozen the whole year (using this definition we are in it for 2,7 million years)
>(i took the german wikipedia because the english seems to only have an article about the animated movie)
so its bound to get warmer at some point. the real question is how much do we effect and accelerate that process, and how bad will it get. about that i can only guess as good as everyone else but seeing how the most basic things (like that we are in an ice age right now) is never mentioned in such debates it seems like its a hoax
Luis Jenkins
>doomsday
>replying to jewish threads
Jack Long
It's not a hoax
Samuel Barnes
ok, then hitler taking over poland and big parts of europe was okay as well. just like russia and crimea. ah and murica killing the natives and taking their land is then ligitemate as well
Connor Bennett
there does exist massive climate change, but it is mostly due to solar an planetary cycles, the impact humans have is minuscule in comparison. The earth is going to get warmer/colder regardless of human events.
Owen Parker
It's pretty much complete bullshit.
Nathan Robinson
Human contribution is ABSOLUTELY a giant factor in current climate change. pic related
Lucas Brown
its real and partly human caused
Colton Thompson
Not a fucking hoax
Aiden King
How many times are you idiots going to stick high resolution data (annual) on top of data that has a resolution of 70+ years?
How about an apples to apples graph? Pic related. Nothing new, CO2 was higher in the 19th century.
Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.
Easton Nelson
Does your country not get bombarded by much AGW dogma? As far as I can tell Oz gets the worst bombardments, most of their victims now believe. We get a lot here, not sure about Europe, US gets a bit. Have no idea about third world but think they got other things to worry about like surviving day to day. I suspect it's a new age religion as it has all the markers, armies of climate priests, doomsday prophecies generated by computer simulations, carbon tithes and even a heretic - denier hunt starting up. Interesting times.
Xavier Thomas
Hurr, durr ClimateGate didn't occur.
> But wait 10,000 committes exonerated Climate gate!
Not one of them had a climate skeptic on the committee. Most members had a financial interest in "Climate Change."
Zachary Fisher
Its not a hoax, only the reasons why it happens are.
Humans dont affect it at all, its all natural phenomenon.
But it sure is happening, world is getting warmer...until it starts getting colder.
James Allen
Nice cherry picking. Why do the arctic melting graphs start with data from 1979? Because that was a PEAK in arctic ice. Pic related. From UN IPCC 1990, when they were more honest.
Camden Thompson
I may not be a scientist, but Ive been to the same beach every year for over a decade. And I can say that there is a tidal pole I see every year that measures how high the water gets. And every year it gets up to the exact same point during high tide. Just saying.
Justin Martinez
global warming is real.
Humans played a very insignificant role in heating the planet though.
It appears to be part of a natural cycle.
Hudson Miller
Why don't you post a graph of Antarctic Sea Ice? Oh yeah, it set new world records recently.
Isaiah Russell
It's real, however there are many and complex effects that affect climate. More CO2 in the atmosphere means net hotter surface temperatures on earth, but there are other things that affect those temperatures, how much does each effect contribute is difficult to determine.
In the end it does not matter, solar and wind power are getting cheaper at a very fast rate, we will abandon fossil fuels once the old forms of energy become uneconomical.
Henry Nguyen
>no climate skeptics on the committees
like the James Inhofe of the article, the man who held up a snowball on the Senate floor and said that climate change can't be real because snow exists?
Colton Walker
sea level rise isnt supposed to be an inch every 5 years guy, its a foot or three by 2100
Logan Morgan
It's not a hoax, the reason behind it is not what they say though.
Do you really think there would be thousands of people shuttled to and fro, from dozens of countries, for decades, just to look at ice?
Something they've been able to observe from satellite for years now?
Jayden Young
satellites are more expensive than people, and you can't measure ice core samples from space
THAT'S seriously what makes you doubt that? That manned expeditions are still a thing?
Nolan Young
He wasn't on an official investigatory committee! Look for example at the whitewashing of Mikey Mann by Penn State. Or that of Hadley CRU's Phil Jones and company. Show me the skeptics on those committees.
Jason Cook
Believe what you want, it's irrelevant, because it'll be kept from you regardless.
Julian Powell
Rewriting the temperature record over and over again.
> No Hoax Here!
Brody Barnes
It's not a hoax. But half the people on Sup Forums don't believe in science, so they'll tell you it's a hoax because only God can control the temperature.
They may try to claim that "something else" is naturally causing the earth to warm, but invariably they will fail to cite any evidence that there is another cause
Often they will state things that are just so blatantly false it's almost hard to respond. See, e.g., >CO2 was higher in the 19th century
How do you even respond to that? It's just completely and utterly false, how can anybody be dumb enough to believe that?
Josiah Garcia
>How much of a hoax is it?
work on your subtlety, shekelburg
Evan Diaz
To me, you only need look at the requisition/acquisitions logs.
Tell me, for what purpose are tanks on antarctica for?
Carson Gray
Wow! What a great graph. They deleted the 1998 El Nino. Pretty amazing. Give's a whole new meaning to man-made global warming. How many times are you going to rewrite the temperature record?
Do you know they took the word 'gullible' out of the dictionary?
Luke Parker
There is some climate change and it is caused by man. But it's nowhere near as dangerous as people would have you believe.
Charles Torres
And what's this? Significant warming in the U.S. At least according to the NOAA.
Joseph Lopez
>
But wait! They used to say there had been no warming. What made them change their minds?
Nathan Wright
there are tanks on antarctica? can you give a source to that?
and what do you believe its for? something about hollow earth?
Jack Baker
Gosh, this paper didn't occur huh?
Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.
You didn't even bother to check, did you? Yes, that's a peer-reviewed paper. buddy. Deal with it. And look at all the CO2 measurements that were deleted from the 'official' record. Yeah, its almost as if they have a pre-conceived conclusion.
Adam Rogers
>>CO2 was higher in the 19th century
>How do you even respond to that? It's just completely and utterly false, how can anybody be dumb enough to believe that?
And look at these direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 vs. very low resolution (and error-prone) ice core measurements. Its almost as if they wanted to use bad data. I'm sure you're quite aware that the usual graphs substitute ice core co2 data for direct atmospheric measured from about 1950 and son on into the past.
Alexander Parker
>cherry-picking a single debunked paper
Beck argues that CO2 varied WILDLY over the course of just a few years back in the 19th century. He lacks any actual evidence to support this and most importantly, is unable to explain why such wild variations occurred in the past but not today.
Maybe you should try reading some of the numerous papers pointing out obvious holes in Beck's """research""". Here's one: biokurs.de
Same, why was CO2 going up and down so erratically back then? What was causing the releases? What was capturing such large volumes of CO2 in such a short span? It defies common sense, in addition to going against the actual science
Evan Ramirez
it's real.
I hate the stupid right who think they have to jump to denying it because that is "our" dogma.
There is hope in photovoltaics, wind and new grid storage technologies.
Cooper Young
>Maybe you should try reading some of the numerous papers pointing out obvious holes in Beck's """research""". Here's one: biokurs.de
Gosh, I'm sure Keeling wasn't playing a part in promoting Global Warming. Gosh, I'm sure that Beck wasn't black balled because he refused to cave to the Climate Change Fundamentalists. You do realize that Beck documented 90,000 CO2 measurements, don't you? You do realize that the Keeling methodology that is see printed up all the time is doubly smoothed, don't you? You do realize that the ocean outgasses (and also ingasses) CO2 in a significantly variable way, don't you? And that the Keeling methodology erases this as part of their smoothing?
Honestly your appeal to Climate Change authoritarian sources is nauseating. Gosh why does the change in temperature difference precede the change in CO2 concentration difference? Pic related. I mean you're so sure that CO2 drives temperatures. At least that's what your faith says.
Go read p 21-22 hear: folk.uio.no
I don't give a crap about your authoritarian appeals.
Brandon Jackson
>I don't give a crap about actual credible scientists
I know
Keep believing your conspiracy theories that the entire international scientific community is conspiring to trick people into believing in global warming, and has been doing so for over 100 years.
Ryder James
>How much of a hoax is it? I don't see it talked about on Sup Forums much
Climate change is real, but the hoax is the government regulations, and government programs, and the trillions of dollars they want to spend, to 'fight' global climate change.
There is no scientific evidence that anything we do will stop climate change. In fact, the global warming scammers even admit it themselves. The head of the EPA admitted it. But they're doing it anyway because they're Marxist scumbags.
Henry White
>big oil companies don't benefit from the global warming hoax
Going full retard.