Are there any books or articles which persuasively argue skepticism of man-made climate change?

Are there any books or articles which persuasively argue skepticism of man-made climate change?
The only side of the argument which I continually see voiced is the liberal side.

Other urls found in this thread:

rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-greening-versus-global-warming/
youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q
amazon.co.uk/dp/B00INIQVJA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
wattsupwiththat.com/
youtu.be/sDTvt1jVVDg
youtu.be/ppQl6KYyMqA
youtu.be/UGqcweY1a3I
youtu.be/MxRk-9o9QOA
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
weatheraction.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ae4DES9z8
twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's real and isn't mutually exclusive from Republican ideology, don't let the fools on here tell you otherwise.

Cant believe I'm saying this but no. There aren't. Because global warming is a thing

>The only side of the argument which I continually see voiced is the liberal side
That's because reality has a liberal bias, user.

Then why do virtually no Republicans support climate change legislation?

in israel it didn't start raining yet
is it abnormal?

No. Its real.

Look I know this is hard to swallow. But just because man made ecological disaster is a thing doesn't mean everything else you believe is false.

Economy is not the same as ecology. They effect eachother. Society is not held to the same rules as nature.

rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-greening-versus-global-warming/

Best one I've seen senpai. The TL;DR is that climate change is happening and that it is manmade, but that it's a good thing that will increase crop yields and not melt any ice.

...

Probably because there is no real way to legislate it. No one can agree on a model and there aren't any good strategies for dealing with it that don't put humans in a bubble which isn't very freedom oriented.

Because at best they can legislate and outsource 20% of the world's carbon input which kills American jobs and sends China to do even more carbon commissions than if the jobs were never made in the first place. Climate change legislation is pure "Pat myself on the back" legislation that is net neutral at best of actually reducing carbon emissions on a global scale. And for a fact it lowers employment.

>increase crop yields
You should be highly skeptical of these claims. Researchers like Idso are funded by Exxon-Mobil.

Adaptation is the biggest issue. Different crops are going to grow in different places now as micro-climates change. We will have to switch (in my area) to growing less wheat and more crops that are easier on water.

Because (((climate change))) legislation are just thinly disguised taxes.

Because they're in the pockets of big oil

It's really happening, I'm super right wing, but climate change is real. Climate change denial is to the right as anti gmo sentiment is to the left. Both are BS.

No because it would require decades worth of research and study and the whole climate change shit hasn't been around long enough to draw any logical conclusions. No one gave a shit about it until long too long ago

>persuasively argue skepticism of man-made climate change?
IPCC reports
there's no fucking science in them, no fact-checking.
just a bunch of people with computer models that have nothing to do with reality
i'm not even kidding. it's fucked up.

also, the burden of proof is on them to be convincing. i'm not nearly convinced by the shit they've put out there.

furthermore, it's just about impossible to prove their hypothesis.

They need the evangelical vote. Evangelicals don't believe in climate change because God promised to never flood the earth again after Noah, so admitting climate change is real is basically admitting the Bible is wrong.

non-scientist detected, you don't prove hypotheses

??

How are you going to legislate a few billion Indians Brazilians and Chinese?

Even if Climate change is man-made(not yet proven) nothing we do will ever stop it.

Brazil has been chopping their forests for decades and you're not going to stop them or the Chinese resource grab thats occurring right now.

There's a movie called Climate Hustle that big governments are trying to get banned because it doesn't agree with the current pro-climate change echo chamber.

youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q

>You should be highly skeptical of these claims. Researchers like Idso are funded by Exxon-Mobil.

I'm curious as to why researchers who receive funding from fossil fuel corporations are considered biased, yet researchers who are funded by grants from governments who stand to profit from carbon taxes are not.

Climate change is obviously real, but it's not as big of a problem or priority as our immediate issues like immigration, subdoing radical islam, college debt, taking care of vets, and job creation.

amazon.co.uk/dp/B00INIQVJA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

The reason you see the liberal side voiced is that globalists use climate change as a way to try to gain more power and wealth for themselves. Solving the problem (and it really does exist) is secondary at best, counterproductive at worst. There are a half-dozen large-scale projects we could be doing cheaply, right now, if we really cared enough. But since we haven't subverted everyone's national sovereignty toward socialism, climate change needs to continue to exist and be expensively awareness-raised for the foreseeable future.

if you're a climate activist the worst possible thing would be mass immigration from the 3rd world into the west.

people in the west use an order of magnitude more resources per capita than shitskins do in their own countries.

Because the advocates for it live in giant villas and have lifestyles that produces 100times over the CO2 of normal citizen.

Also they oppose lowering immigration from third to first world countries, which would lower CO2 emissions and would have opposition support.

It's not about saving the earth or mankind, it's about using a narrative to support a political ideology. "The West is bad and has to end."

I don't think you realize how big of a story proving climate change is false from reputable scholars would be--scientists have an incentive to go against the grain.

As a member of a grant-funded project myself, nobody is looking over my shoulder telling me what to write or think about or publish. That's true for my advisor as well.

But scientists like these live in "think-tanks" which aren't real institutions--they live to produce (((research))) which helps oil companies pretend that global warming is awesome.

wattsupwiththat.com/

All the information you could want in order to understand climate and why "Global Warming" or the newer propaganda "Climate Change" are the equivalents of feminism in academia.

Climate change IS REAL.
The issue? Cutting down on emissions without destroying everything in the process.

The US, Europe are working to lower emissions, and what does China do? "LOL fuck you guys, we can pollute all we want here! HEY PEOPLE COME ON OVER!" Also there's the issue of oil and coal companies having tons of money and bribing your politicians.

And you know what else bugs me? I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPENDENT ON OIL! That's fucking right, I would really like for one day to turn on the TV and see those dirty sandniggers duke it out between themselves, destroy each other in the process for all I care... but the prices in my country DON'T go up because of rising oil prices AKA their faggotry! That would be great! Everyone can produce electricity, but apparently only sandniggers can produce oil.

The article makes clear that climate scientists have a vested interest in being alarmist.
Scientific funding panels don't exactly prioritise a field where the conclusions are "everything's fine don't worry".
The more shrill your results, the more likely you'll get more funding. This is a problem for public funded science in general.

Western countries must stop their CO2 emissions, but other countries can increase them. Because only western CO2 traps heat.
And it's totally about the environment and not wealth redistribution.

its not liberal you unbelievable fucking retard, its science! fucking science is not about what retards like you believe, its not about what anyone believes, its about testing theories jesus fucking christ please never vote

Climate change is real, the solutions that liberal politicians introduce aren't solutions, they're designed to solicit tax money to impliment those solutions on behalf of companies that benefit the politicians introducing the bills.

Gore politicized it. Republicans were all acknowledging the need for addressing climate change in the early 00s/Late 90s.

>The only side of the argument which I continually see voiced is the liberal side.

The only side of the argument which you continually see voiced is the side with the overwhelming scientific consensus and numerous independent findings that all point to the conclusion that the earth is not only heating up, but heating up at a rate far faster than what cyclical changes can account for, or ever have accounted for in the Earth's history.

My point of view is that we should pursue alternative energy means. not because of climate change but to end the reliance on saudi oil.

We've made our enemies the richest men in the world.

>As a member of a grant-funded project myself, nobody is looking over my shoulder telling me what to write or think about or publish. That's true for my advisor as well.
This is disingenuous and you know it.
No-one from outside meddles with your results, but you are *self-incentivised* to interpret them in the most alarmist way possible. Because grant funding bodies hate heterodoxy, as grant funding bodies are composed of orthodox scientists and if your results disagree with their prejudices they'll just not give your supervisor new grants out of spite.

also, to sum it up. if you want to make the most drastic impact to reverse climate chang, go outside, and shoot yourself in the face or anyone else.

duh, because they all are fundie creationist morons who truly believe the earth is 6000 years old and would all flunk a 5th grade earth science test, plus oil corporations like kochs fund the 'think tank' pundits who blanket the cable propaganda networks, poltards are so naive and gullible

>As a member of a grant-funded project myself, nobody is looking over my shoulder telling me what to write or think about or publish.

If you depend on those grants to continue your livelihood, their source influences you, whether you possess the self-awareness to recognize that or not.

>I don't think you realize how big of a story proving climate change is false from reputable scholars would be--scientists have an incentive to go against the grain.

I would guess the number of "deniers" who have been ostracized from their communities by people using the same tactics you have to discredit them would disagree with that statement.

This is just like the climax of Team America World Police, where they have an actor try to just EMOTE propaganda into popular sentiment.

Depends on how you see it. You could argue their in the pocket of big oil/coal/etc, and many times you'd be correct.

The way I see it is that yes, we could and should but the issue is the lack of jobs, and many times profit. We can scrap oil production in BC, Alberta and the Maritimes, but where are those workers going to go? You can't have as many people working the wind turbines or solar fields as you can the pump jacks. And you're reducing the income from oil production, which in an economy like this is a terrible move. I would whole fully support green industry if you can find replacements for hundreds of thousands of jobs.

youtu.be/sDTvt1jVVDg

youtu.be/ppQl6KYyMqA

youtu.be/UGqcweY1a3I

youtu.be/MxRk-9o9QOA

and on and on and on

Academia has long been hijacked by the rockefellers and rothschild, doubt you'll find much in the way of a published book.

Most evidence to debunk man made climate change junk science is available online..

That's really not true. Take the USDA. We have a big grant here right now studying the impact of climate change on our region. There's very little alarmism. If you read their papers, they're mostly going over the changes that will happen in our microclimate. Maybe this is true for a small subset of researchers but the majority are truly interested in studying different facets of the problem--the evidence has stacked up and now it's about assessing the impacts and possible solutions.

See above. Most of these "deniers" aren't domain specialists in ecology, some of them are old-ass physicists (which know very little about ecology or climate science), or are blatantly working at "think-tanks" designed to push out bunk science that goes through no peer-review process.

>the scientific fact that is manmade climate change
>the liberal side
kill yourself, science isn't a political dichotomy for you to trivialize

good point on the self-incentivization

I had always been skeptical, but the clincher for me was speaking with my grandfather, who is a geologist, explained that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (trace element) is not sufficient to the volume of the atmosphere itself (farggging enormous) to create the changes claimed by these vampiric politicians.

What is your area where wheat is considered a water intensive crop?

I misspoke. Moving away from water intensive crops like sugar beets and alfalfa and _towards_ wheat.

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

Just watch the video with the former ibm programmer debunking the evidence

You NE Colorado?

Piers Corbyn is the brother of the leader of our opposition party and a very vocal critic of the IPCC and climate change memes. He's been on British political TV shows and some interviews on news networks before to hand out free red pills to audiences, he's a really refreshing voice.

weatheraction.com/ is the website he uses. It looks dated as fuck but it's quite good if only for a few points in the 'Why the CO2 'Theory' Fails' section down the page. He also has an incredibly good record on weather prediction and shows how climate change extreme weather memes have been total bullshit.

youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ae4DES9z8 is a really nice recent video, too. It's pretty amazing he was given so much time. For some reason the uploader edited out the music in the clip.

There are some really big memes that have remained uncontested for so long.

>97% of climate scientists agree
>the world is getting warmer
>CO2 precedes warming
>man-made CO2 is influential

No. I am in the West though.

His twitter is also redpilled as fuck considering he's the brother of an islamic gommunist.

twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn

>Then why do virtually no Republicans support climate change legislation?

What are you going to do? Tax the weather? Make the Ozone pay its' fair share?