Redpill me on Global Warming

I have believed in global warming my whole life, always thinking deniers were brainwashed by oil companies or what have you. Please enlighten me Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
youtube.com/watch?v=-lLgA9C1G4c
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

idk

Putin thinks there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development

so there's that

Putin seems to know what he's on about calling out alot of bullshit, the guy may be onto something.

>the world is still coming out of an ice age
>but lets blame evil corporations and cars anyways

I always thought climate change was a better term, but I'm not sure. I mean my geography teacher in britbong college was a complete climate change denier who made some decent arguments and I'm not too sure what to think anymore.
I mean isn't it a well known fact that global averages are getting higher every year? Even though it's by a tiny amount.
At the same time though climate has gotten hotter and colder throughout history.
Glacial retreat is something to consider.
Milankovitch cycles are something to consider,
The idea that the poles may be reversing soon is something to consider too.

The development of modern science in the late 18th century went hand in hand with the rise of modern industrial capitalism. Its potteries, mines, steam engines, mechanization, and science itself, were all done by private enterprise. The role of government was to enforce patents and maintain a healthy legal and commercial environment.

Nowadays most scientists are paid by the government. What passes for science has largely become taxpayer-funded Environmentalism. Environmentalism has taken over much of science.

Scientists discover, understand and inform.

Environmentalists preach.

>All of us … are borrowing against this Earth in the name of economic growth, accumulating an environmental debt by burning fossil fuels, the consequences of which will be left for our children and grandchildren to bear. Marcia McNutt – Chief Editor, Science Magazine.

This is preaching. There is no scientific justification for this statement, which was made by the editor of one of the world’s most prestigious science journals. It is a statement of militant Environmentalism, pure and simple. To say that she should have known better is to misunderstand the situation. It would be like saying that the Communists, who controlled big chunks of the Australian trade union movement in the 1950s, “should have known better”. Environmentalists are way ahead of those old Communists; their “Long March through the Institutions” is now a fait accompli.

It works like this: activists use science to push for international action on a science-related issue in an area such as health or environment. Then, an international agreement is established, and the science on which it is has been based becomes institutionalized and funded by government. Time and again, when this happens, “the science” stops being science. This is because the scientists working on the relevant topic start being advocates and stop being researchers. After all, they are now being paid by the bureaucracy to support a particular doctrine, not to discover new stuff.

Real science, which requires a sceptical and innovative frame of mind, then withers on the vine.

Here are some examples:
>Radiation Health
In 2012 I received 7000 milli-Sieverts of radiation as treatment for prostate cancer. I found out from the Web that this is twice the fatal dose! I became curious about how I came to survive this assault and I discovered that radiation administered in moderate doses is not cumulative and is not especially harmful. In my case it was definitely beneficial.

But the International Committee for Radiological Protection says otherwise . They say radiation effects are always cumulative and that there is no safe dose: see here about Wade Allison‘s book, Radiation and Reason.

But you can’t be too careful, I hear you say. Well, yes you certainly can be too careful. The Japanese government was too careful when it forcibly relocated 100,000 people following the Fukushima meltdown.

>The facts:
Number of deaths: about 1600 people.
Cause of deaths: Suicide mainly.
Number of cases of radiation sickness: 3 people.
Number of deaths caused by radiation: none!

The suicides arose from the social dislocation which occurred when people were compelled to leave their homes and their farms and their jobs and their schools to be relocated to the other side of Japan for reasons of political correctness.

I keep hearing conficting points, the ice sheets are shrinking, this year the ice sheets are at their thickest for decades, genuinely not sure what to believe, regardless of what happens its always a man made cause, never the possibility of this simply being natural.

>The 1968 London Convention on Ocean Dumping
This forbids the disposal of poisons such as heavy metals in the deep ocean. Hydrothermal vents were discovered in 1977, 9 years after the convention took place. Also known as “black smokers”, they lie on mid-ocean ridges and above volcanic hotspots, 2 to 3 kilometres below the surface of the ocean. Every year they pump into the ocean:

500 tonnes of Arsenic,
1500 tonnes of Lead,
50,000 tonnes of Copper,
140,000 tonnes of Zinc and many other metals including Uranium and its radioactive daughters.

This has been going on for, perhaps, a billion years or so.

Nature is the biggest polluter of the ocean and the London Convention is a joke. In fact it is worse than a joke because it precludes sensible, practical solutions to important environmental problems. For example, without it we could dispose of radioactive waste in deep ocean trenches where it would be out of harm’s way until it is ultimately subducted under the earth’s crust by geological processes.

>Climate Change
The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the most egregious example of this science-destroying institutionalization. It is all the more virulent because it feeds into the pre-existing mindset of Left and Green ideologies about “Corporate Greed” and “Mankind wrecking the planet”.

Billions of dollars are being pumped into this. Tens of thousands of climate modellers, their technicians and their computer jocks are the self-righteous recipients. They are not going to give up their funding easily – for them this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and, what is worse, most of them sincerely believe that they are saving the planet.

Over the last 30 years, Climate Science, once a forgotten little wallflower, has become a rock star.

It may be true, but it's being used as a scare tactic by the left. I think by now Florida was supposed to be under water, but the ocean hasn't risen an inch.

There is really no solid evidence that human activities affect global climate. It is only a theory. Computer models based on this theory have no predictive power; they are complicated curve-fitting exercises and, like all such curve-fitting exercise, they fail catastrophically outside the range of the fit.

On the other hand there is ample evidence that so-called “greenhouse gases” do not affect global temperature to any observable degree

1. The observation that the amount of industrial CO2 added to the ocean-atmosphere system since the beginning of the industrial revolution, about 400 Gigatons, is only a tiny fraction of the total amount in the system, 32,000 Gigatons.

2. The observed rate of decrease in temperature with height, the adiabatic lapse rate, is measured many times a day throughout the world by weather balloons and it fits a simple convective heat transport model of the lower atmosphere. It does not fit a simple radiative heat transport model; there is no blanket of CO2 “holding the heat in”.

3. Careful comparisons of small changes in global average temperature with variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration indicate that the latter lags the former by about ten months indicating that temperature increases cause CO2 increases and not the other way around.

4. The global distribution of atmospheric CO2 concentration recently observed by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory does not support the view that increases in this gas are largely due to Western industrial activity. Rather, the gas appears to emanate from the rice paddies and rain-forests of the Third World (see here and here).

Bilbo knows what's up

For starters, Climate deniers deny the causes, not as much the effects of global climate change (Although almost every hippy model for the last 30 years had us underwater 20 years ago)

The Earth has been getting warmer basically for the last few thousand years, and we're coming off a little ice age from about 500 years ago. Humans have very little to do with this process. If you'd like to think of general solutions to counter act some of the issues this could cause you can, but I have yet to see a single proponent of climate change suggest such a thing. I also have yet to see a predictive model worth shit, every single one vastly overestimates how fast the earth is heating up using a bunch of convoluted psuedoscience that the data strictly strikes down.

5. The observation that global average temperature has a variance spectrum which is “red” at every time scale from one year to 100,000 years (i.e. the longer the time scale the bigger the variation). The small variations (~0.8°C) which occurred during the 20th Century are only to be expected. They are random walk excursions. There is nothing to explain. Climate science is like picking patterns in TattsLotto numbers. Meteorologists can predict the weather up to about a week ahead. That’s as good as it gets.

But if you are a scientist who is part of the climate change institution this evidence is all irrelevant. The “Science of Climate Change” was frozen sometime back in the 1990s when the IPCC was first set up. Nowadays it is just a matter of running ever more complex computer simulations and making more “projections” of future climate and its alarming consequences.

And, of course, re-jigging the data so that it fits the models better.

We often hear it said that “97 percent of climate scientists agree …” and so on

Well they would, wouldn’t they.

>97 articles refuting the (((consensus))) on global warming
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

>97% myth busted by a real survey
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

Pretty much could not have asked for a more thorough explanation, you've certainly given me some topics which to pursue!

youtube.com/watch?v=-lLgA9C1G4c

Both global warming and climate change are these stupid labels leftists insist on making so that it's easier to be sceptical of their claims.

It's like: if you're politically left you crave red herrings more than black dick. They do the same with veganism, the environmental problem is almost never 'people consume too much meat' and is almost always 'people consume too much'.

But I digress: Whether or not you believe in 'global warming' or 'climate change' or whatever the fact is the resources we rely on are NOT renewable, and we will have to figure out alternatives sooner rather than later.

Another fact is pollution is fucking up ecosystems, as a humanist I couldn't give two shits about extinction, but when south east Asian fisherman need to risk their lives going to deeper and deeper waters because trawlers take their food? Yeah, I have a problem with that.

There are plastics all through the environment, including a literal dead zone in the middle of the ocean, mercury means children shouldn't eat tuna, there is a hole in the ozone layer and carbon dioxide does contribute to a greenhouse effect.

Now, that latter part? That carbon dioxide contributes to a greenhouse a effect? Thats the MOST debatable aspect of our environmental impact. Without humans, after all, there's more room for nature to produce carbon dioxide, which it does readily. Yet despite this being the MOST UNCLEAR component of human impact on the environment it's the one people choose to focus on.

It makes me think we deserve whatever we get for being such FUCKING MORONS.

Also remember that 'the hole in the ozone' basically fixed itself for no reason, because it ripped itself open for no reason to begin with, it wasn't something man had any control over.

If you bring this up, lefists will assume all the years of climate campaigning accomplished something while then turning around and shouting about how corporations are doing worse than ever and never listen to them. This dissonance doesn't even remotely register in their brain.

There was supposed to be a massive 'hot spot' created by our global pollution, but no such thing exists, nor would the forces at play ever allow such a thing, its pure fiction.

>tfw lost my winterchan folder

Can someone help me out with rare winter chans?

Is it not also the case that global land surfface temperature has remained constant, not risen in the past 18 years?

Deniers are usually people who didn't fully buy into then got yelled at by the IT'S HAPPENIINNGGGG breed of global warming advocate or whatever, or they're conservatives that saw liberals talking about it and remembered that subclause 2 of article 16 of the party loyalty pledge requires them to think what they're talking about communist lies designed to eradicate all the glorious judeo-christians instilled by our forefathers.

Nice copy/paste.

Do you even understand what you posted here?

Let's start with 3. Over the past million years we've had about ten glacial/interglacial periods. Yet none of these saw co2 go above 300ppm. What's different this time?

Not sure on that one, I think its true if you average all temperatures, but on a more local scale some areas are seeing differences up or down. Its why they've tried shifting to 'climate change' because the local results can actually end up with more mild temperatures overall.

Only if you intentionally choose data to try show this.

9/10 of the hottest years on record have been since the year 2000.

The earth is getting warmer year by year.
It's a natural process. It's going to cool down eventually. This process takes up ~200 years. We are almost on the part where shit gets colder.

And yet the leftist solution to all of this is MORE TAX MORE TAX MORE TAX MORE TAX MORE TAX MORE TAX MORE TAX

Every single one of your problems can be traced back directly to the left.

Why shouldn't massive multinationals that pollute the most be made to pay for it?