Is Sup Forums redpilled enough to take global warming seriously?
Is Sup Forums redpilled enough to take global warming seriously?
Other urls found in this thread:
There is literally no solid science that even points towards global warming. It's just Marxist propaganda, vote Trump you cuck.
97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS believe that humans are responsible for the earths temperature rising. You are dumber than the niggerest nigger on earth.
>theory =/= reality
In theory it seems to make sense but it kind of fell apart when all of the hypothesises they were making about future issues never came true.
It's like a failed experiment, but instead of focusing on the results, all they want to do is convince people that the method makes sense. Even though nothing happens.
(((global warming))) is fake and gay
> the hypothesises they were making about future issues never came true
Yes they did, earths temp is rising faster than ever.
Climate Change? More like Climb up the ladder and change the light bulb.
>97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
This isn't about Newton's law of gravity but something supposedly very, very complex. When I read 97% agreeing I don't think of science but Best Korea.
That number is wrong, but I agree that he is a dumb nigger.
So you're saying that there is some big conspiracy of every climate scientist from all over the world, all funded by different governments to pretend that global warming is real? Even NASA?
My mistake, it's 95%. Still an overwhelming consensus.
>climate scientsts aren't all marxists towing the line
hahahhahahahhahaha cuck
Unless you have a valid argument with a single piece of evidence you still sound like a dumb nigger.
First of all no there isn't a conspiracy of all scientists. Just take the time to research the ones who don't tow the line. Second there isn't a 95% consensus, molymeme and others have debunked this. Third even if there was a consensus that's not how science is done, I'd imagine 99.99% of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth but Copernicus proved them all wrong. Lastly, have you ever noticed how nobody in the media says global warming anymore? Now everyone says climate change instead
>the global warming - climate change semantics argument
Where do you draw the number from?
I know which paper it's in but you can easily read they weren't the only field asked.
Might as well use one person that agrees so they can bullshit 100%
It's not wrong but it ignores everybody else and other research
I don't know, man.
Leo was pretty convincing when he showed those melted ice caps.
1. Agreed. Although the ones who don't tow the line are the ones being paid by oil companies to provide damage control for all of the environmental devastation that they cause.
2.
> Molymeme and others
So just molymeme then? unless you count fox news as a reliable source of information
3. That 5% who denies climate change are being paid a fuck ton by oil companies to do so. Also it was proven by the greeks that earth rotated around the sun loooong before Copernicus did. People just denied it for religious reasons, and because they didn't want to believe it. Just like you're doing right now with climate change.
4. That's because it's a taboo subject, so the language changes. People don't like hearing that the world is warming up.
>let's call him a conspiracy nut, that'll show him
Heh. No I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it looks, walks and quacks like mass hysteria and colluding interests. Somehow I think people in 2150 might view all of this like the children's crusade.
Of course climate change is real. It has changed for millions of years. The issue is whether it is man's fault and to what degree.
I call bs because volcanos spew out heaps more carbon than man could ever unintentionally achieve.
I also disagree that CO2 is the bogeyman it's made out to be. I'd much more be concerned with the ozone layer, magnetosphere, and coronal flares.
This is what is causing it. And will be the cause of the very abrupt weather changes that we will be experiencing in about a month. That is all.
>Is Sup Forums redpilled enough to take global warming seriously?
Of course we take it seriously. It's obviously a serious economic and political threat.
Cont
Climate Science is also very politicized. The Australian climate change minister Tim Flannery was the majority share holder of a geothermal power plant initiate. He stood to make millions. It was the toppest of lels when that basin flooded and instead cost him millions, while ruining his predictions and propaganda.
The corruption of legitimate science with the political process and easy money has completely bastardized any transparency and trust most rational people have with climate change.
As always, follow the money.
nibiru still?