Why doesn't Sup Forums believe in global warming?

Why doesn't Sup Forums believe in global warming?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4
climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485864/Attorney-General-Loretta-Lynch-considered-taking-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html
cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/index.html
huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/professor-nicholas-drapela-fired_n_1615947.html
foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate.html
climate.nasa.gov/
google.com/search?q=1970 global cooling news&biw=946&bih=946&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinvPKg_OzOAhURkRQKHUBaD0IQ_AUIBygC
youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Global warming is a thing but is it our fault with "greenhouse gasses" or are we just exiting the ice age finally

I believe in global warming. I don't think it's a big deal though. The warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so its effect decreases as it's quantity increases.

Also If these liberals cared so much why have the ultra lib countries in Western Europe not gone totally green? Why didn't the libs in the US try to go totally green when they had the House, Senate, and President?

If they actually thought they were saving the world from a catastrophe they would have done something.

I do. It's been hot as fuck this summer on the job site

Because alarmists have been proven wrong time and time again.

You must repent before the all knowing climate priests and cough up some carbon pleb. Makes me feel ill, feels like...religion. Ignorant and dangerous.

Fucking this.

Antarctica was never meant to be covered in ice. Daily reminder it will be the new Dubai in your lifetime. They'll build the space elevator from there. Mark my words.

There's no point in trying to stop global warming because eventually yellowstone is going to blow.

Did you also work outside when it was freezing as fuck 2 years ago?

Although I guess that depends where you live.....if you live in Ontario than it was freezing 2 winters ago.

Because I'm not very religious.

I can't believe I am responding to a bait bread. But here it goes. I don't not believe in global warming. It is actually getting fucking hotter. We just can't agree on whats making it hotter. You say humans do this. But the earth has done this before and humans weren't around those times, so why should I not have air conditioning because you retards blame plastic and bb guns for the temperature outside?

Pseudoscience that believes CO2 is the silver bullet in the equation.
They're religious zealots who conveniently forget the history of the planet goes past the year 1800

1.) nobody believes that the climate of the planet is supposed to remain constant and never change. Changes in climate is natural.

2.) The issue is whether changes in climate are due to human activity

3.) The same people who are the most adamant, and even vicious, about the issue are not scientists, they are activists, and their solution is always the same; government needs to seize more money and control.

4.) The same people who are most adamant about climate issues are the same people who even now push lies and outright false narratives such as the wage gap, 1-in-4 women will be raped in college, etc. When people see the same people who have lied about those issues, skepticism about climate is not anti-science, it's actually a very rational to question those claims.

5.) Can you name another issue, anywhere in academia, where people who raise questions are threatened, denounced, fired or have their careers ruined as with this issue? The sheer furor with which opposition is shut down rather than debated is yet another bit of rational skepticism.

Because NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Also fuck the polar bears.
And here it is, one of my many arguments in interpretative dance form: youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

Democrat politicians have no interest in doing anything that might limit the profits of the oil industry. If you think either party is actually representative of their base then you're retarded.

That said, it is worth noting that there is actually no motive for any private entity to make shit about climate change up, and all of my science major friends believe in it. So I've just decided to use occams razor before I get neck deep in another conspiracy that ends up being a pile of shit once you put all of the pieces together.

Global warming is probably slightly affected by carbon dioxide, but not enough for the disastrous consequences a relative handful of climate scientists like to promote. I'm more concerned about acidification of the ocean.

I believe that people are hubristic and think that because the world is one way when they're born that's the way the world is supposed to be.

The Earth has had many climates over its billions of years of life. A recent one was an ice age that in the lifetime of the Earth was less than a second ago on that timescale, and we're still coming out of it. It's the reason that we had ice covering the poles. Before that the ice wasn't there. Now it's going away again.

As far as human carbon production, we're actually doing future life a favour prolonging the carbon cycle mining it back up out of the Earth again and putting it back into the cycle for carbon based life to live on. The eventual death of everything on the planet is going to come from carbon getting locked into the ground through this cycle and over a long long fucking time life gets smaller and smaller until plant life dies off.

1-4 is a giant non sequitur. Glad you told me what climate is and what activists do.

5. Produce a case of legitimate published science that was denounced in this way.

What to talk about the science now?

He thinks the oil industry will profit less when the politicians push for higher taxes for "planet killing" gas.
>there is actually no motive
No motive that You know of
>all of my science major friends believe in it
Argument from popularity. Opinion discarded.
>I've just decided to use occams razor
Not what you think it means.
>another conspiracy that ends up being a pile of shit once you put all of the pieces together.
You mean like the religion of global cooling, I mean global warming...I mean climate change.

Because it is absolute fucking bullshit. More jewish trickery to implement the carbon tax. A tax for just being alive should tell you exactly (((who))) is behind it.

What?
Oh, you're logicky I see.And you're going to bring up the 97% "scientists™" now. And the "settled science™".
Oooooh...My bad, get the PC down to us plebs bruh.

>Democrat politicians have no interest in doing anything that might limit the profits of the oil industry

Is that why all those oil rich countries like Germany, France, Belgium etc are totally green now?

No. They realize that green energy is a meme, and at this point in time has practically no place in a modern society. They only do enough green energy to not cause a huge disruption to their economy.

If these people TRULY believed they were causing a major extinction event they would do all they can to stop the use of fossil fuels. Which they haven't. So if even the most liberal countries dont care why should we? Hell we all know the developing nations aren't gonna do shit. China already emits way more C02 than the US, and they have practically no restrictions on their fossil fuel for the next few decades even given our newest green treaties.

climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485864/Attorney-General-Loretta-Lynch-considered-taking-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html

cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/index.html

huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/professor-nicholas-drapela-fired_n_1615947.html

foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate.html


There you go. Took me a few minutes to find people being fired and threatened.

Want to talk about the science? Ya know, what is true? I'll help you start learning

climate.nasa.gov/

crowder pls go

Sure, the climate IS changing.

There's no proof humans are responsible. Climatologists are all slimy fuckers [spoiler]actually I got confirmed in my appointment as a meteorologist today, heheh.

>THE SKY IS FALLING™
>but there's a cure
>THE SKY IS FALLING™
>give us your shekels
google.com/search?q=1970 global cooling news&biw=946&bih=946&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinvPKg_OzOAhURkRQKHUBaD0IQ_AUIBygC

We have ice cores that record CO2 composition and temperature for the last 400,000 years. I think we know the history of the planet goes past the year 1800.

Activists are always the most vicious, but to say because nutjobs are nutjobs that the reasonable advocates are absurd is not correct.

The fact that the opposition is unpleasant does not mean they are wrong. The evidence is overwhelming that Global Warming is a real phenomenon, and we can quite literally observe it in action.

You sound like the feminists I know who say the criticisms of the Wage Gap are nonsense because "All these people bring up the same arguments".

You are literally on par with an SJW.

because the south pole is cooling

13 heartbreaking photos that will make you think "Fuck having industry and shit"

sauce?

Oh, the internet.
youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

NASA adjusted the temps in Antarctica from cooling to warming a few years back. So now it is"officially" warming

hence 1.) and 2.)

Sup Forums does believe in global warming.... Sup Forums just knows man-made global warming is a bullshit scam.

You don't believe a bunch of 16 year old's opinion on world matters? SHILL SHILL SHILL

Because its fiction.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Did you even read the article? The antarctic ice is covered by a thick layer of snow that's deposited when the region is below the freezing point. This isn't saying it's getting colder, it's saying that presently this snow melts but freezes again before it runs of, temporarily staving off the loss in ice in the South Pole.

Also, if your point is that "Polar Bears are doing fine because of this", Polar Bears live at the North Pole you fucking retarded moron.

Please challenge yourself to a full hour of learning on the subject. Start with the NASA website. Citing global cooling proves that you have not done this yet.

Fringe climate denying scientists, infowars, and right wing political pundits do not count towards the one hour.

The saddest thing in the world is to see polar bears struggling to find ice to stand on and hunt from

so so sad

Well you're right, but no one is arguing that any climate change, period, is bad. What they're saying is that natural climate change happens over time, over LONG periods of time, and not at the scales we're seeing. We're talking gradual fluctuation periods of, iirc, 40,000 years, not a few hundred.

Nice ad-homs you got there. Would be a shame if someone were to demonstrate the predictability of your ways.... Oops..

This.

The Earth has been slowly warming since the last Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago. The climate will always be warming or cooling, and it's out of our control.

If you want a lib's head to explode, just ask this question:
>In regards to global warming, how warm is too warm?

>start by looking at the data NASA altered to make global warming real

>"I can cite five people who were fired, therefore in a field of likely over 10,000 globally, there is no consensus.
Whenever climatologists have been surveyed, the number who agree that Global Warming exists and is anthropogenic is always >90%.

This is some low energy debating

>If I don't agree with it, it's been doctored by Da Jooooooos!

>Fringe
Your own jewpedia says otherwise:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>denying
You mean using that thing called the scientific method and coming up with different conclusions than the consensus™?
>right wing political pundits
As opposed to left wing useful idiots, which is all you've got by the by.

>Whenever climatologists have been surveyed, the number who agree that Global Warming exists and is anthropogenic is always >90%.

The must not have stopped by my college.

Two out of the ten geoscience professors at my college believed that humans were responsible for climate change. The rest of them (80%) said it's a bullshit claim.

>This just in, theoretical physicists and botanists have as much understanding of global climate as people who specifically study global climate

>produce a case
>he produces 5
>n-NOT ENOUGH, MAH 10,1000

And what was the name of your college?

So, why do you think these five have discovered something that outweighs all the evidence previously presented? Have you read their research papers? Do you know anything about them besides the fact that they agree with you?

>I fully trust NASA with ground based temperature records, but I hate satellite data


I literally don't trust anything but satellite data at this point. Even though one of the 2 major satellite data groups is a huge pro global warming troup i still trust them more than the land based data.

You'd think NASA would lean more towards the space based science, but no they rarely give it any mention

I do, but I don't give a shit. Carbon taxes and the like can fuck themselves.

I was asked to name one, I did a quick search and found 5. The only other academic "discipline", where these kinds of threats and intimidations happen is in oppression studies departments. If there was this kind of ironfisted response to dissent, would you risk it?

The overarching question is why are people skeptical? This is just one reason, and it's the exact same reaction that people have when a dictatorship holds an election and dear leader wins 99.9% of the popular vote.

I'm talking about taking a simple step to understand what you're talking about. You refuse to engage with the science.

Also, that wikipedia list is very small and contains economists, cato institute directors, and largely debunked personalities.

The reason these data were changed is because cities and suburban areas radiate heat. Sensors near them need to have their results adjusted to account for this, or they produce an inaccurate result. They literally explain this in the research paper.

>Why doesn't Sup Forums believe in global warming?
Polar bears can swim for hundreds of km. If the david suzuki cock worshipers out there would quit using 'muh bears' pics, I might be a bit more sympathetic. The earth warms, and it cools in cycles over the long term, humans or not.That much is fairly certain. The sun is that inconvenient 500 million km-in- radius fusion reactor that evironnutter people always assume remains constant, it fucking certainly does not.

>greatest happening of all time
>actual scientific proof of it
>humanity will be driven to extinction, 3rd world countries will be hit first and worst
>worldwide famine, social unrest and collapse
>saudi arabia will become uninhabitable due to heat
>the kabaa will literally melt
naw man no evidence. btw this website i found under a dumpster says yellowstone will literally explode tomorrow, post frogs and get numbers : - )

happens every summer. polar bears just swim to the nearest icesheet. Its not sad, its normal

As warm as it takes to acidify the ocean, then its all downhill from there, I think about 4.6 degrees more than its current temp IIRC

Ask yourself if you live near a coast.


It's not "when" but "where".

>You sound like the feminists I know who say the criticisms of the Wage Gap are nonsense because "All these people bring up the same arguments".
>You are literally on par with an SJW.
Your previous post .
Still not an argument.

It's because the premise behind it falls apart when held up to scrutiny and it's been way to politicized, too many people using global warning or environmental issues to scam people. Like senators who decided a piece of land is supposed to be protected for wild life, but turns out that they have a beach house they're trying to sell and the value of the property goes up because it's next to this wild life reverse.

SJWs changed the left and made them more about race issues currently, but a few years ago they were all about environmentalism, with the same corrupt, virtue signalling style they do with current issues. Every proposal they ever make involves someone violating someone else's rights or being asked to give something up. Or Company B has Company A carbon taxed so they go out of business and Company B gets a monopoly. Shady stuff everywhere you look with the issue.

Many scientists have come out and said that the scientific community can't get funding or grants unless they smack "global warming" on the proposal, so they just do it to get funding or attention to something else. I had a prominent Geology professor (the dude has species of dinosaurs named after him) who said it wasn't real and geologists know it more than anyone because studying the earth's history you'll notice this is the same exact pattern that's been displayed before.

This... sums up my own post too. Complete agree.

There is evidence that it is happening but there is no evidence to suggest it is man made. Futhermore, a lot of the examples you listed are alarmist figures and examples that try to extrapolate current trends into the future and think thats how it will be. Actually believing it is a non changing exponential increase rather than just a anomaly for maybe a few decades like it normally is.

But the data is adjusted in the exact opposite direction as would be the adjustment from the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). As cities grow, UHI increases which means that reason temperatures would be adjusted downwards the most where as those of the far past would have the smallest adjustments. But the actual adjustments are the exact opposite.

Thanks for pointing out NASA/NOAA fraud. Pic related, more fraud.
Data source: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

Okay, fine, I'll go through them:
1) They did not fire him, they terminated his fellowship, which is logical because he denied the purpose for which the society was established. This is like complaining that someone was kicked from the KKK after saying "Ya know, I'm actually half black"
2)Loretta Lynch is a fucking loon, how is this relevant?
3)This was a weatherman who published a book that basically accused climate scientists of participating in a grand conspiracy to overhype climate change, and that climate change was fine because it would bring more tourists. Of course he was fired. He would also have been fired if he wrote a book saying "JFK was shot by the CIA, but that was a net positive for the United States".
4)
>Huffpo
Please try again
5)His firing has literally nothing to do with climate change. He never even published nor commented on anything relevant to climate change. He published a research paper funded by the cigarette companies that said smoking did not lead to cancer, then published a second paper where he said diesel fumes were not toxic and that the committee which declared they were was run by people who should not have legally been there.

>This just in, 2+2 is 4 unless my climate expert™ says it's 5
>And you must believe what I believe or else you're bad and stupid....I mean, you're a denier.

That's likely because over time people moved more and more out of the cities and into the suburbs, divesting heat over a larger area rather than concentrating it into large hotspots, no pun intended.

>This was a weatherman who published a book that basically accused climate scientists of participating in a grand conspiracy to overhype climate change, and that climate change was fine because it would bring more tourists.

Now you're just making crap up. He never said "conspiracy!" You did. Because "hurr durr, its all an oil company conspiracy!"

Projection much?

So, what, if Dr Sheckelstein with a degree in economics says Quantum Mechanics is bullshit, his opinion is on par with a theoretical physicist?

97% has also been debunked. And everything else you got.
What do? Call me a denier again?
>inb4 contribute to the discussion - it's fucking bait, I'm answering in jest, morans!

>Ask yourself if you live near a coast.
There have been pacific islanders living on small islands for the last 12000 year, since the sea levels started to rise (ending of the last great ice age). If they are that fucking stupid to stay on the island, after watching the water rise over generations, then they deserve to drown. The same goes for large coastal cities in rich western nations. I'm not willing to subsidize some faggot that will lose a trillion in waterfront property because he is a) to stupid to have invested there long term, or b) won't just pay and advocate to genocide China and india and africa

>cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/index.html
>from the article
"The book claims that scientists, politicians and the environmental lobby had generated a "hype" around climate change that amounted to a "global scandal," and made the French unnecessarily fearful.
In it, he also questioned the findings of leading climate scientists, and argued that France actually benefited from a number of advantages linked to a warming climate, such as better weather and improved grape harvests."

Source?

Believing the science vs believing the hype are different.

As for the science I do not know or care enough for it to effect my daily activities and I feel that most people fall into this category.

As for the hype I do not follow hype of this nature and generally believe hype is a front for agenda. Clearly this is the case with global warming.

As for dealing with those who fall for the global warming hype I generally ignore them as I would Jehovah witnesses or ads online. I find most who do fall for global warming are generally not religious and like the newly religious they want to spread the word. I like to thank of global warming as the religion of the left.

TLDR: Too much hype and agenda for me to give a shit.

> Gosh I made a foolish statement, better back peddle.
Which again, spreads the UHI, it does not "divest" it. Asphalt and concrete are the big sources of heat, not to mention furnaces and the hot air from air conditioners. And the sun's energy gets absorbed by asphalt and concrete; re-readiating as heat. You can't escape the sun by moving to the suburbs.

Building a dike is cheap for a modern city. The dutch have literally been doing it for thousands of years.

>obama recent speech shilling man made climate change hard
>trying to sign climate treaty with UN, bypassing congress
King Nigger is pushing this hard before his term ends. Because he loves our planet?

I believe in man made global warming and the way trump wants to revive the coal industry is the only bad thing he has going on his campaign.
If the global warming thing ends up being a meme I think I'm going to cry because that would means the oil industry won and that real energy will be delayed for yet another 50 years.

I think it's real, but most liberal policies to stop it are dumb.

Realistically, we need natural gas (ergo fracking) and nuclear to serve as baseload power to deal with intermittency from solar and wind. Waiting until those two technologies are viable on their own means much worse warming.

Most Liberals don't get that.

Turns out the reason why US CO2 emissions have been shrinking is natural gas replacing coal plants because fracking makes gas cheap.

What about the many millions of years BEFORE current year? Cause those are a thing. And they were a lot warmer with beneficial effects to the flora and fauna of those times.
And there were no SUVs to make the evil CO2 back then.

Then have you considered that maybe they sampled from different sites?

Did you even read the research paper, or did you just look at this and say "They disagreed with me, MUST HAVE FUDGED THE DATA!!!"?

"hype" =/= "conspiracy" . Leftists certainly do hype things. In other words, he was fired for telling the truth. And yes, warmer climate, like the Medieval Warming Period was once-upon-a-time called a "climate optimum." Because it makes things better.

In short, yes he was fired for questioning the unfalsifiable pseudo-science of climate change.

Yes, millions of years ago life was also ADAPTED TO LIVE IN THOSE TEMPERATURES, not to mention that it would still be eclipsed by the possible gain in temperature if this is not brought under control.

...but I do. Every winter and summer since I moved south has been more extreme than the last. First winter was no to very little snow, 5 years ago. Fast Forward to last winter and I have to dig my fucking car out to go to work like when I left the North. I'm investing in soon to be beach front property get on that before its hot kids.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THEN?
pic related

>Climate Change Denialism
DENIALISM ISN'T EVEN A FUCKING WORD, ITS JUST ANOTHER GLOBALIST COMMIE SJW BUZZWORD

Your point in making this argument is that his firing was wrongful and is thus evidence that the leftists are over-hyping this issue.

Your justification for why it was a wrongful firing is that climate change is an overhyped issue and he called them out on it.

Do you not get that this is circular logic?

Just fyi polar bears can swim, it's not trapped there.

Those millions of years didn't have the polar ice melts we have today nor the fields of thawing methane in siberia. To mention a couple of issues among many.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Libtards also believe you have to drink water to live, does that mean that water is secretly toxic and poisonous?

But The Amazing Science Dindu and the failed comedian guy's opinions are good enough.
Well, I guess a cat is fine too then.

Great, so there exists a case where being against global warming proved that you were incapable of holding a scientific job.
If anything this means the evidence is more concrete and akin to dismissing evolution.

le sigh.

Nobody believes climate change isn't real. After all, we had the ice age. climate changes. Well, maybe bible thumpers don't believe it since some of them think the earth is only 6000 years old.

The contention is whether people have caused the current warming period, when other warming periods have taken place in a cyclical pattern. Please see pic related for an illustration of the current warming period compared to previous warming periods and cooling periods. There's a little spike at the end that some people think is due solely to humans.

I also do doubt whether humans can be affecting this current climate change trend. From a purely logical standpoint, the earth's mass is 6 × 10^24 kg. That mass contains multiple living systems that work in conjunction, including climate and systems such as the ocean that affects climate.

ALL of the human biomass, including their waste and emissions, is 287 million tonnes. That sounds like a lot, but its ONLY 1 and 1/2 TRILLIONTH the mass of the earth.
That is an insanely small number. It looks like this:

0.0000000000015

That mind-bogglingly small number is the relation of human biomass to earth mass. Human biomass comprises only 1 and 1/5 TrILLIONTH of the mass of the earth.

I have a supremely hard time believing that 1 and 1/2 trillionth of ANYTHING can affect it to any noticeable degree.

1) They can't breathe water and can drown just like us

2) They eat seals that rest and breed on the ice. If there is no ice, there is no food for them, and they starve to death.

>le
what did reddit mean by this?

You're literally the only one who brought those two people up.

See

Shut up you fucking autist.