Tha LIBRUL government is LYIN' bout this here envirement!

>what do you mean you don't want a small group of globalist oil owners (many of which are Muslim) to keep making money at the expense of all the future people who will one day inhabit the earth!?

>you tellin' me you don't want a handful of globalist billionaires to keep making billions just because there's a chance they might permanently damage the earth in irreversible ways!?

>what are you a GOMMIE!

But in all seriousness, do you really want to allow a few globalists to destroy the earth forever?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ
scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=papers on climate change&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1
aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm#s2
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>he fell for the global warming.. oh wait.. """""""""""climate """"""""""""""""""""""change"""""""""""""""""" meme

kek, a sucker is born every minute

> record ice formation > core samples show temps went higher by a large margin in the past showing that temps vary over time > all scientist not on gov payroll don't believe it exist > but global warming exists perfectly legit

Do you have pictures comparing the south pole as well? How about a more recent image, say from 2015 or 2016? Why such a large gap in years? Why not an image from every year taken at the same date in the year?

I'm of the opinion that I can neither confirm nor deny climate changes existence because other than "X amount of scientists say it exists" I have yet to see consistent evidence of either position.

I never understood why the average conservashit so vehemently denies global warming.

Like it makes sense when some right wing think tank does it because Exxon Mobil paid them to, but what stake does the average guy have in it?

Is it just contrarianism against "dem crazy liberals"?

>he fell for the environmental jew
LMFAO, i actually didn't think that there were people that stupid still

>>he fell for the global warming.. oh wait.. """""""""""climate """"""""""""""""""""""change"""""""""""""""""" meme

He fell for the global warming.. oh wait.. """""""""""climate """"""""""""""""""""""change"""""""""""""""""" meme Meme.

Here's a tip big boy. The ONLY people calling it global warming were uneducated normal people and pop sci bullshitters. I'm sorry you misunderstood

Global warming is used as an excuse by leftists to impose more government control on a population through regulation and taxes

I'm not your average conservashit, but I lean that way. I've never understood the whole "lalala *fingers in ears* its a conspiracy!" mentality. Show me evidence and if the logic follows then I'll agree. Regardless of climate change or not, I mean I'm old enough to remember when "we'll be in an new ice age by 2010!" was a thing, I still believe it is wise to cut down on any pollutants we produce. I mean hell, look at when the Olympics were held in China, they had to shut down factories a week prior for the bullshit to disperse from the air.

>ice takes up more space than water
>"if the ice melts, the water levels around the world will rise!"

Yeah nah

>I never understood why the average conservashit so vehemently denies global warming.

Because modern day """CONSERVATIVES""" aren't really conservatives at all.

The only thing they want to conserve is the 1%'s money and power. Even if it's at the cost of the American envirement and the middle class.

The modern """conservative""" loves the rich and the modern """liberal""" loves the poor.

>Global warming is used as an excuse by leftists to impose more government control on a population through regulation and taxes

I agree partly.

The left will ABSOLUTELY use this to their advantage. They ABSOLUTELY will blow it out of proportion and distort the facts if it is beneficial for them to do so.

BUT, that does not mean it is all a lie. Don't let liberals or conservatives worp things out of shape.

Liberals will say it's 100% mans fault and that we will all be dead in 40 years, et cetera.

Conservatives say it's 100% Not mans fault and that we will never affect the climate in any significant way.

Both of these are false.

hottest summer nights since 1895 caused by man yeah sounds legit

>hottest summer nights since 1895 caused by man yeah sounds legit

did you even read what I've said in this thread

>X amount of scientists say it exists

>Scientists
>Not Politicians with degrees

Wew lad.

OP still kinda makes a good point, we're being manipulated into taking this risk by a bunch of greedy sociopaths who put the earth at risk to line their own pockets

Doesn't seem like a good gamble

>do you really want to allow a few globalists to destroy the earth forever?

Do you want dozens of them to act like those oil barons are going to stop global warming by paying more taxes?

>BUT, that does not mean it is all a lie. Don't let liberals or conservatives worp things out of shape.

Take a step back.

Let's say global warming is real, and proved to be caused by humans.

So what? At the end of the day, we need to consider if the effects of a higher average temperature are really worth the massive economic costs of fixing it*. And it's not just for the 1% and major corporations; it effects anyone who uses electricity and will suffer from the massive costs of meme renewables, or who buys goods made with those products.

At the end of the day, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that it is.


*And the military costs of forcing China to comply with the correction, but that's another story.

And diverting the issue by making it into a political one is being used by people currently profiting from the system

Since when has the oil industry ever gave a shit about anything other than making a profit? They aren't our friends and it's foolish to think they won't do everything to keep that money flowing into their pockets

>They aren't our friends

Okay, sure.

I mean, I was cool with paying the Saudis $4.00 a barrel.

>Mom n' pop spending lower amounts of their income on petroleum and all the resulting positive externalities = a few globalist billionaires
Yeah, shame on everyone for wanting lower inflation and a higher disposable income!

>they won't do everything to keep that money flowing into their pockets
yeah, we do expect this. And when thousands of companies are doing it, trying to undercut each other, the consumer wins.
There is a global oil market, so whoever produces the cheapest wins.
Its called the invisible hand, you'll learn about it your senior year of high school.

>all scientist not on gov payroll don't believe it exist

lelno.

>maybe if I belittle them, they'll listen

>But in all seriousness, do you really want to allow a few globalists to destroy the earth forever?

Show me polar ice cap melting is linked to human causes and not natural climate change the earth has always gone through and I'll be willing to consider changing my stance.

I mean I'm willing to believe that 9/11 was done by our government. I'm open minded enough to look at some global warming evidence.

I would personally like to move away from oil and petrol and into using molten salt reactors which use 98% of the material. Lots of cheap energy from tiny objects which is much more efficient than oil and much more powerful too

Let's be honest here, user. If you were provided with real evidence it'd come in the form of pages and pages and pages of reports talking about long-term climate change, changes in the composition of our atmosphere and projected changes. You wouldn't read that shit, you sure didn't before now.

Antarctica is expanding, kiddo, so nice try bud.

Daily reminder Antarctica is a continent.

You say this like you have it but he just won't read it. The reality is that you could probably link to something that's only superficially relevant but in reality doesn't support the entirety of your assertion--but then you'd act like you won the argument just because you posted a link.

Alright, sorry.
The Antarctic ice cap.

>What is rate of change

>it's another "all science is a Jewish conspiracy except for these studies that prove niggers have a slightly lower iq than whites" thread

No we must kill the shill

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

China literally just ratified the Paris climate agreement

>Left pic: winter
>right pic: summer

Burden of proof is on you user. As far as this thread stands, hollow earth theorists at least try to explain their shit, they are currently more credible.

If you want to convince us, many of us are willing to listen. Instead you chose insults.

scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=papers on climate change&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1
We all have it. We can all get access to a brevity of scholarly and peer reviewed papers at any time with this AMAZING internet thing we have. But the problem is that it's up to us as humans to read it, assess it and determine if it's got merit and that's a lot of work.

i can make people believe i have a 10 inch cock then when it comes to proof i show you graphs that say i have a 10 inch cock the for most thats enough but some want more proof and eventually find out i have a 7 inch cock so you see i can make people believe in it without solid proof

Truly, you are a master debater.

>t. exhibit A

Are you asking me to review these articles myself and provide you with some that support my view point? From a debate standpoint that'd be a dumb fuckin thing to do, as the immediate counter will be "You're just cherry picking studies that support your view", it's the natural response.

Rate of temperature change is at an all time record high, but Sup Forums can't into /sci/.

In the 1960s-70s it was all about the Upcoming Ice age, my god look at the ice at the poles!
Now all the chicken littles are talking about global warming. I mean, my god just look at the ice at the poles!

>One of Earth Day’s scientific lecturers was warning about global cooling during the first celebration in 1970.

>“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt told an audience at Swarthmore College on April 19, 1970 around the time of the first Earth Day demonstrations.

>“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000,” Watt declared. “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

This.
Hope all european gay capitals and denmark especially will sink.
And we will have new 2 nova seas here

>Scientists can't be wrong
>Facts are always constant
Good job faggot.

And why are niggers still poor if liberals love them idiot.

I think this is my biggest hang up. People have been predicting the end of the world through the environment for decades. Environmentalism has just had so many wrong claims, it's hard to take them seriously.

Do you think they will follow it?

Gg, be sure to buy that "green" car that runs on batteries! Ignore the fact that electricity mainly comes from fossil fuels and that the batteries themselves are an actual threat to the environment! The important part is that you can virtue signal to all your Facebook friends!

That photo is fake
post some real nasa photo
oh wait you don't have them

All my houses are safe, get rekt rest of the world.

nobody is denying global warming, the debate is wether it's human caused

This is the perfect Europe. How many years till this becoming true?

>expecting this wave of "facts" to be any different

Good job faggot.

>nobody is denying global warming
You'd be surprised

All europeans should drive electric cars so europe's flooding will be faster

>advocating islamig gommunizm

Everyone who gets out into nature like a normal person will notice the effects of climate change.

If you unironically believe it's some kind of hoax you out yourself as a fat american degenerate just cruising from bugerking to maccas and stupid enough to buy into every retarded conspiracy theory.

You're not mistaken in thinking there's a problem. You're mistaken in thinking that the left is offering a solution.

wot

>yes lets just continue polluting at current levels, no no let's pollute even MORE none of those lefty solutions will work
source: your ass

Dont listen to the mountain jew. He's gonna be safe up in his mountains when Europe floods so he can keep all the shekels for himself just like last time.

Those weren't "facts", they were suppositions that were blown out of proportion by the media, it was based on our current understanding which has VASTLY grown as we've become more concerned with it.

>69
checked
where can i find these mongrels?

theres a few videos on youtube that document how the other planets in the solar system, (particularly mars and the gas giants) have had similar earth-like fluctuations of polar changes during the same measured period, implying the cause of surface warming has always been the sun and it's radial output.

C02 is also not a heavy gas, and the effects of solar bombardment on C02 at the upper atmosphere release an unmeasured amount of 02 and 03. Because it is unmeasurable, the global warming experiments are bunk.

If you seen what gas and pressure does with electrical storms in volcanic eruption, the C02 might also be amplifying electrical storms globally. Lightning is bridged by a n equal resonance between charged gas in the air and the magnetic field closer to the ground. C02 no doubt is a factorable variable.

>They had to change the name because retards didn't understand how if the globe was warming there was still snow in December

>In the 1960s-70s it was all about the Upcoming Ice age

Except it wasn't.

The vast majority were predicting man made global warming in the 1970s as a result of greenhosue gases.

A small number of scientists (about 10% of them) predicted that pollution in the form of smog would block sunlight and cause a cooling effect that would be greater than greenhouse effects. Those scientists also believed it would only be a minor cooling trend and not an actual ice age.

The cooling theory was similar to how the concept of "nuclear winter" would work. Every city on earth burning at once would put so much soot and contaminants into the atmosphere that it would block sunlight.

Essentially both sides of the debate believed in climate change, but could not agree which was the greater effect: blocking sunlight or trapping solar heat?

The media jumped on the cooling trend theory and ran with "scientists predict impending ice age!" resulting from pollution and/or nuclear war because it was sensational. The media have always been irresponsible

tl;dr

By 1980 very few climate researchers stuck with the cooling theory. They realized that CO2 warming surpassed any minor cooling trends caused by smog, combustion, volcanic activity, etc.

You're wasting your breath OP, for some reason Sup Forums hates environmentalism even though many nationalists (Hitler included) thought it was incredibly important to protect the natural environment of their lands.

Even if you think climate change is a scam, OP's other points are incredibly valid. Supporting high oil consumption for inefficient purposes is enriching both Islamic extremists and globalist (((bankers))).

The global warming chief faggot in oz
( well before based Tone gave him the boot) bought coastline property after telling the public we were gonna drown LoL.
What past generations ever gave a fuck about future generations.?

And if we pay our carbon taxes like good little goys and we save the nigger children 150 years from now , so fucking what !
Are they going to build a statue to us the poor white taxpayers who saved the fucking earth ??
Fuck no the cunts won't. They will blame any whites left and the kill them akkbarr style.

>Winter and Summer comparisons
wew lad

It's actually cooling now not heating up, and it's not manmade it's caused by the sun and how we move through the spiral arms of the galaxy.

>dude we need to stop global warming what do we do?
>tax middle class car owners, obviously!

It is obviously a scam

Nice sources

Like it or not shitlords, man made climate change is real and will destroy us all if we don't nuke ourselves.

Go ahead throw the whole muh 97% myth.
Sure, that's a statistic misreported and used without context by political stooges who want nothing more than to push their own energy agendas.

That doesn't change the fact that most climate scientists believe climate change is a problem.
>but muh special interests
Of course scientists who work with climate want to have more money and have relevant jobs. But guess what, they could say everything is fine and dandy and still have a job, hell, they'd probably make more money.
You want to talk about special interests? How about the fucking Koch brothers? Big oil has way more money to throw around than climate scientists. So who should I trust? The scientists whose job it is to tell us when we are fucking up, and clearly not as corrupt as their opponents? Or am I going to trust the guys who have waged wars in the middle east for over half of a century?
Which to pick which to pick, I'll go with the industry that literally profits from human greed and misery.

>muh solar cycles
No shit, again. The sun has way more power over the climate that we do, but when we promote warming while the sun is also in the process of heating, it's going to get a lot worse. The temperature rise we are experiencing is 8x faster than normal.

If fucking beavers can change the environment, we cant?
Are you fucking autistic?
Research the rate of global heating.
Research the effects of fossil fuel fertilizers and their use in excess (oceanic acidification).
Research the effects of human land use.
Research the current rate of extinction.
Research fucking fukushima.
Fuck carbon.
Methane, and water vapor are the true culprits.

No there isn't some grand study linking all of these effects together.
No I won't provide sources, buy an ecology text book.
If you can't use your critical thinking skills to see how we are fucking our planet, KYS man.

>Nice sources

Pick any study, any person predicting the cooling trend. You will see that in the early 80s they changed their stance. Dr. Mitchell is one of the names that come up the most so I'll run with him:

aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm#s2

>Everyone now admitted that human pollution was growing headlong. While Mitchell continued to insist that humanity was "an innocent bystander" in the cooling of the past quarter-century, in 1971 he calculated that our emissions might begin to cause substantial cooling after the end of the century.(28) Other scientists claimed that the increase of aerosols was important already, perhaps even more of a concern than CO2. But nobody trusted anyone else's calculations, which were in fact much too crude to give reliable answers. Adding to the uncertainty, Mitchell gave plausible arguments that aerosols could produce a warming effect. It depended on how much they absorbed or reflected radiation coming down from the Sun, and how much they trapped heat radiation rising up from the Earth's surface.

They all agreed pollution would affect temperatures, and the debate was between "haze" supporters and greenhouse supporters. Mitchel believed the arctic haze would cause cooling in his 1971 publication and a few years later realized realized it was more likely to cause heating.

Pollution simultaneously causes both cooling and heating and early on it was not know which effect would be greater.

Don't worry the science is settled.

Thanks Doc Brown for the use of your Delorean to make this graph work.

>Big oil has way more money to throw around than climate scientists.
You think that energy companies have more money than governments?

>And why are niggers still poor if liberals love them idiot.

Lol probably because the average liberal loving the poor doesn't do very much and also their leaders don't really love the poor, they """love""" the poor(s votes).

Why so upset idiot?

You know you can hate the stupid poor and currupt rich at the same time right

>global warming will be fixed by taxing the middle class only in first world countries

>There is a global oil market, so whoever produces the cheapest wins.
>Its called the invisible hand, you'll learn about it your senior year of high school.

Hahaha that wasn't even the point he was making.

He never denied the existence of a oil market.

He was saying that oil companies will do nefarious things.

Do you make everyone into a straw man and ignore/misinterpret what they are saying on purpose, or are you really just that stupid?

>>Mom n' pop spending lower amounts of their income on petroleum and all the resulting positive externalities = a few globalist billionaires
>Yeah, shame on everyone for wanting lower inflation and a higher disposable income!

Haha again you do it.

Why are you changing the whole premise of what this thread is about?

>Gg, be sure to buy that "green" car that runs on batteries! Ignore the fact that electricity mainly comes from fossil fuels and that the batteries themselves are an actual threat to the environment! The important part is that you can virtue signal to all your Facebook friends!

This is hilarious.

Can you read?

it's like you looked at what he had to say, then decided to pretend he said something totally different

Believe it or not, researchers get paid the same regardless of the results they come up with.

They get a research grant and they propose to do something like "10 year study to see if migratory Holarctic wildfowl patterns shifted as a result of climate change". At the end of the day they post their results showing a measurable difference or an "inconclusive" outcome and the results go out for peer review. At the end of the day their income is not affected.

The people paid the big money are the politicians and policy makers who receive the research report. If it supports their agenda they can push it, and if it goes against their agenda they can try to discredit or bury the research results.

Both sides of the debate are guilty of this practice. The science is solid but what people do with the findings is where the controversy is found.

>You're mistaken in thinking that the left is offering a solution.

Why do you say that?

When did I EVER explicitly say that the left was good?

They aren't, they're bad. Very very bad

>>dude we need to stop global warming what do we do?
>>tax middle class car owners, obviously!
>It is obviously a scam

HAHA ANOTHER STAW MAN

welp I guess I support taxing the middle class more since this guy said I do? Who would've thought it

Please tell me what other things I don't know I support but actually do

The globalists who own and control the oil based energy companies also own all of the successful green energy companies and is continuing to acquire them OP.

>>global warming will be fixed by taxing the middle class only in first world countries


YEP THATS TOTALLY WHAT EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS SAYING GOOD JOB YOU ARE QUITE INTELIGENT

>The globalists who own and control the oil based energy companies also own all of the successful green energy companies

Very true.

Shell Oil has invested heavily in wind farms. They have a "New Energies" division that manages their biofuel and hydrogen faculties and they will soon be a world leader in wind.

Their rival in the oil and gas industry in Europe is Total out of France. Total owns Sunpower which is the worlds second largest solar energy company.

BP in London is planning on their clean energy division and they will likely just go and buy out a bunch of the smaller solar and wind companies by 2017.

Big oil will just turn into "big energy". All clean and dirty sources will come from the same global corporation.

Forgot pic. One of Shell's windfarms.

Shell is lobbying the EU to triple wind farm output by 2030.

Got this as the banner.
Get fucked

Bump

...

...

...

...

Raw data vs "final data"

...

um its not climate change anymore its "extreme weather" now

>Methane, and water vapor are the true culprits.
good luck banning either of them, nigger

No.
But the money invested into these studies by the government is pennies in the jar compared to what oil companies use.


Stop shilling for your masters you fucking slave

durrr what is "thermal expansion"

bait thread

also

>i believe all pictures on the internet, too.