Isn't it time to admit that this is a religion being force fed to children in schools? A religion complete with apocalyptic scare mongering to induce behavior changes in children. There's an alarmist thread here on pol right now with greentards trying to push their apocalypse meme here.
“I kind of feel sad, because some animals are going to extinction. There are some animals that are pretty adorable and they’re going to extinct. I like polar bears.” >Polar bears have increased their populations
“I have fear for climate change because there might be more extreme weather like lightening or tidal waves or tornadoes or hurricanes, and a lot of people are going to die from those.” >the opposite has occured including 11 years of no hurricane making land fall
>Polar bears have increased their populations >one animal species increases their population >this means no animals are going extinct
Also: There is data. What's about to happen is speculation and people are idiots about it, but climate change IS happening. The question is to what degree.
Cameron Miller
Isn't that the Tuck Frump kid?
Ian Jackson
Why would anyone care about polar bears going extinct?
No one ever sees them anyway
Dominic Anderson
Protip: the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Jose Johnson
It's not a religion, it's a cult
I went to a debate club at University, and they all agreed that climate change was the biggest problem facing humanity
The most subversive thing about climate change is how efficient it is at pushing for socialism. If anyone asks you why are you skeptical about the current (((solutions))) to solve climate change, just bring up the fact that the only solution they are giving you is socialism; which has killed more than climate ever could.
Bentley Cook
I don't agree with man made CC but this has nothing to do with it, the argument is that it is pushing for a change in climate faster than wildlife can cope with it
Jaxson King
It is in the best interest of whites to cool the planet back to around the levels of 1800 or so. The last mini-Ice Age was our peak.
Michael Wilson
...
Cooper Walker
Not this fucking fast it hasn't.
Aiden Clark
Data shows that the change between interglacial and glacial climactic periods transitions in 10 to 20 years (at most).
So far, AGW had changed the climate less than one degree in the last 50 years.
Try again.
Robert Wood
Fucking look at this and the sources. That's the actual data. I have no idea where you get the notion that transitional periods only last 10-20 years.
Oh and by the way. All of those transitions (o matter how fast) were coupled with mass extinctions. Which was fine when we were living in caves and hunting whatever came along, but if a mass extinction happened today we'd be fucked.
Ian Rogers
If you don't like religion why are you on a Christian board?
>you must accept climate change without question >you must believe nothing exploded into everything for no reason and magically formed sentient life >lalalalala can't hear you
Why is climate change bad? It's not man made, and nothing is outside the historical norms.
Luke Bell
>why are you on a Christian board? AHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAH
XKCD has the sources in the picture.
Us trying to get you to listen to reason and data instead of your gut is not us shilling. It's us trying to make a world where people don't fall for shills.
The rate of the change of the temperature is outside of the historical norms. FAR outside. And it *could* be man made, and that's a risk we can only take once, because if it is, and it continues this way things will get fucked up and there's a chance civilization won't survive that.
Gavin Garcia
You posted nothing that is actual proof.
Reminder: >Doubling preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C. Everyone agrees on this point because it's a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere.
>Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).
>The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
>Warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather.
>Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high.
>In the late 90's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
>There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth's history with an assumed +H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth's atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction, and does not amplify them.
>If there's no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.
>The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. To them it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."
The more you know.
Nathaniel Lee
>reason and data More like feels, hype and poor methodology:
noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html >The most important difference globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures. In the past, ship measurements were taken by throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck and putting a thermometer in it. Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake — this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data does.
Actual testing shows that most of the reason why bucket temperature is different than engine intake is that engine intake is actually .5 degrees hotter when the engine is running. differences between bucket test and an idle engine intake are statistically insignificant.
(before you go >1952. It is unfortunately the most recent study done on the topic; people still apply data to this day from a 1952 study that does not even differentiate between levels of insulation in various bucket materials)
So yes, the US data literally adjusts everything .5 degrees higher by ignoring engine heat.
Henry Sanchez
>look Hilary isn't dying >it's a climate change Who the fuck care right now? Sage
James James
Have you checked the references in the xkcd thing?
Lincoln Reyes
Did you?
No direct links are provided, and (of course) the IPCC's data was used.
After all, it's not like the vast majority of scientists are largely dependent on government grants to conduct their research or anything, what possible interest would those scientists have in continuing to justify their funding by fearmongering?
Connor Scott
Same could be said about you, basement boy.
Joseph Stewart
>IPCC's data are only wrong in projections. Also, i happen to know one of those scientists. My father was her prof in uni and together with algore they got a nobel price for their research. Their predictions were not as false as the current IPCC projections.
>But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
>Al Gore And that's meant to make me take this seriously? >A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. >Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was senile and refused to debate. >John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years. youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U
(cont.)
Christopher Campbell
(cont.)
>Their predictions were not as false as the current IPCC projections. Older predictions by the IPCC et al showed we would have global temperatures increased by 5 degrees or more by 1990... which never happened. Worse than current predictions.
Luis Cooper
>climate change IS happening
When is the climate on Earth not changing exactly? Is there ever a time when nothing on Earth is changing?
(no)
Austin Foster
You conservatives gave up control of education; what did you think would happen? The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Jose Richardson
not this fast it hasn't changed
The manipulation of climate data was a scandal, and it was bad, but the unmanipulated data is still there. Also, you're being very US centric. No one cares about what the NOAA consider to be official.
Here's the thing. Physics prof in universities all around the world, some of whom are working in fields only marginally related to climate change (and as such have no conflict of interest) say that the effect is observable, also in private without them having to fear being ostracized (so public pressure is not there) Now you either claim that they are all wrong Or you claim they are all part of the conspiracy.
Landon Baker
> you're being very US centric Because most of what i can access is US-based or of US origin.
>No one cares about what the NOAA consider to be official. The IPCC does. Read it again: > The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). The IPCC bases it's data in the US from what the NOAA provides from its weather stations. Where do you think the IPCC gets its data?
>public pressure is not there I don't think you realise how peer pressure works. And if by "conspiracy" you mean: "they don't want to be ostracised by the noisy minority and lose funding", then I guess yes, that's what I said.
Ryan Reyes
>The IPCC does. But all the other organizations researching climate change don't. >three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rel
I doubt this.
>they don't want to be ostracised by the noisy minority and lose funding Ask one of them in private. Seriously do it.
Chase Torres
>Ask one of them in private. Seriously do it. Can you even into psychology? You realise people rationalise things and justify themselves internally, yes?
They find reasons to not hate themselves for the choices they make, whether it's blaming the j00z for their lack of interest in political action or jumping on the "everybody says" bandwagon on AGW.
Easton Price
>You realise people rationalise things and justify themselves internally, yes?
Hm. I'll need to reevaluate the available data. But it seems to convenient to me for people who have been awarded a nobel price to be wrong and subsequently the industry having to have no constraints.
You realise that the same people who own the oil and coal companies own the solar panel and wind turbine companies, right?
Green guilt is just a way to make people accept paying more for electricity, despite solar panels (for example) creating just as much pollution in their manufacture as coal (per kW/h).
Aiden Harris
And if you wish to REALLY reduce CO2, why refuse to embrace nuclear, which is the safest and least polluting method of power generation bar hydro?
The modern Green movements are not against "climate change" they are against civilisation and any form of advanced technology.
And big solar projects are exploited to milk the public of taxpayer money which then goes into the pockets of the executives.
Logan Lewis
Can we NOT go full retard and deny climate change?
Even if it's fucking horse shit it still scares industry into sources of fuel that arent fucking finite
DONT YOU WANT SOLAR/FUSION/WIND POWER EVERYWHERE?
>fusion >let me dream while I meme
Ayden Parker
did you know that half of the worlds greenhouse gas is methane, a byproduct of livestock production? it's also the primary reason for water pollution as well as the destruction of the amazon? ain't that just quacky?
Logan Smith
>DONT YOU WANT SOLAR/FUSION/WIND POWER EVERYWHERE?
No. Because they pollute even more per kWh than coal does.
Fission is the future, until fusion becomes practical.
Brandon Brown
Citation needed, but I do know that the environmental costs to produce some types of clean tech outweigh their relative minimal impact, regardless if your claims are bullshit
People are terrified of fission, and are not going to utilize it unless it's far as fuck away from them
Angel Hughes
Subversion of children to parrot ideology should land you a death penalty
>People are terrified of fission Then they need to be taught it is not what the media tells them it is.
There is a reason the "hurr durr nukular baad" message is pushed, and it's not because it's in our interests.
Logan Jones
>2016 >still a climate denier
Wew
Luis Howard
>>You realise that the same people who own the oil and coal companies own the solar panel and wind turbine companies, right? But this is wrong.
>despite solar panels (for example) creating just as much pollution in their manufacture as coal (per kW/h). I know this. Ground based short lived solar energy plants are awful. Wind/tidal/spacesolar energy ftw.
>why refuse to embrace nuclear, Because green fags are fucking pants on head retarded. That's why. Please don't misconstrue this as me defending greens.
Kayden Wood
Its also hyper convinient. It falls into the exact same line of defense as god.
>w-well you cant prove it ISN'T real!
Luis Ross
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
dead giveaway the poster suffers from autism
Kevin Richardson
How is it socialism?
Aiden Martin
Liberals use Climate Change as a bait and switch. They use Climate Change deniers as boogey men to push through laws that do nothing about Climate Change. The US is a small fraction of greenhouse emissions. The US is projected to be an even much smaller fraction of future greenhouse emissions. Cutting the US's greenhouse emissions by a tiny percent does nothing to stop Climate Change, and most environmental laws that are sold under the Climate Change banner don't even do that. It is a bait and switch.
>Climate Change is HORRIBLE WE MUST ACT >Here is a list of policies that do nothing to prevent Climate Change
Colton Cooper
pay teachers better salaries
now hear me out >teaching becomes a lucrative profession >actual performance reviews due to normies REEEEEing over increased property taxes >pay off the teachers mob run unions >bad teachers get shitcanned >invariably these bad teachers are all women >men take over education >children learn instead of get indoctrinated.
everyone who went to school during the early 2000's remembers how they'd have a few old redpilled male teachers with tenure/a lynch pin on the functionality of a whole department who could never be fired. And how those men actually wanted to you to learn and think. And how at odds that was with the rest of your humanities courses taught by women.
I ended up taking a very redpilled american history and a very bluepilled US government back in highschool. >guess the genders of the two teachers. >guess which class actually had discussions about US history and historical politics/enlightenment thought
Colton Mitchell
Holy shit you actually used a web comic as a source.
