So what does Veeky Forums do to combat global warming?

I think it's cataclysmic implications and human influince are largely, over-inflated. Grand climactic cycles have already been interrupted for centuries due to stuff like the little ice age so what's 'normal' is really more a question of what's most convenient for modern human society.

That being said I'm white so I'll take long cold winters and breezy autumns over endless summers and monsoon rains.

Anyhow, I've been converting my farm into an orchard/vineyard for a couple years now (wood sequesters so much more carbon and soil than most herbs) while turning the scrub trees and brush into longer lasting biochar using a fairly primitive burn barrel method (repeatedly dousing the fire before it burns away the coals into white ash.) Any charcoal I make will enrich the soil and lock up the carbon for a good couple thousand years.

That's sweet dude, how many acres do you have?

AGW is just a new age religion though.
>End of days prophecies that don't come true
>Climate priests and their UN super computers spewing reams doom propaganda
>Power grab for energy, energy is life, tithes in the form of carbon tax
>CO2 no longer plant food, an evil molecule
>Heretic hunting, cultists in denial they are cultists...

Shiat, the parallels go on forever, read more history. The fact the Pope of Rome is still lurking around trying to covert his billion lemmings over is the biggest smoking gun. Sky fairies from the holy lands don't cut anymore, emperor with no clothes on detected.

>Doctor : You have 6 weeks to live until your rectal cancer kills you
>Six weeks later
>Patient: Hah, stupid fucking doctor, 6 weeks and I'm still alive, his diagnosis didn't even come true, I don't even have cancer I bet and he just wants money from me! I sure showed him!
>Patient dies a week later due to butt cancer
>
>Increasing global average tempuratures matching the rise in co2
>Subsequent monthly record breaking temperatures, higher than past temperatures even when coupled with Ep Ninos
>Larger storms in the oceans and on land
>Boreal forest fires get bigger over the years, which is irrefutable data
>Extreme unprecedented coral bleaching in the oceans
>Mass animal deaths
>Concencus on concenses of climate scientists position on AGW, all saying 97% certain
>
>plants need more than just co2 to grow, also need nitrogen and water to match the accelerated growtg
>We're not dumping nitrogen at extreme levels, and aquafers are evaporating/being used up by ever growing population
>
>Places like British Columbia have proven effectiveness of carbon tax, lowering their emissions and recieving tax breaks to offset the carbon tax placed upon them

Again, this literally isn't up for debate.
Peoplr are dying and our future and our children's future becomes more grim as we push onwards to 2°C average.
If we don't rectify these problems, how are we ever going to get into space and probe ayy lmaos?
What are you going to do to solve this?

I'm going to give more of my paycheck to some 3rd worlder so he can afford more wood to burn

That will surely solve the problem.

>trying to stop Man's greatest achievement, the terraforming of Earth, our Grand Becoming

>concenses of climate scientists
>Consensus of priests who think God exists
Shiat boi, that's what puts food on their table. At least the priests do real world things and don't much believe in their sky fairies anymore, if they ever did.

I would be more in favor of calling it what it is, peak fossil fuels - resource depletion, overpopulation and TPTB are panicking because their control grid is about to go sideways, it's just as scary as a climate meme but problems can be addressed in the context of reality. Pushing CO2 molecules around, real or virtual, will not accomplish anything of value.

Truth be told, relying on any form global governance to make this world a better place is a bit naive, when their shtick is base on lies and obfuscation? Prepare thy anus!

>False equivalence
>Adresses none of my points logically
Tbh senpai I don't even care about the carbon tax, I care about the reality of man made global warming.
Again, what are you going to do to help stop it?

we're at the tailend of an interglacial, you retarded liberal deathcultist, deglaciation is wholly necessary to end this damnable ice-age and permanently forestall the next glacial period

>global warming

lol

Post about it on Veeky Forums

>We need to prevent the next ice age by flodding the coastal cities and igniting the carbon capture forests of the world
Tell me about yourself, what do you do for work, how old are you, what country are you from?

Pretty much this.
Seriously, young people have been bombarded with a lifetime of climate doom propaganda, even the new age climate scientists probably believe! Every day now in the media, climate doom prophecies, no time to act, must convert the deniers...

It seems obvious enough to me what is going down, a new age religion and literal power grab. The tragedy is real problems are not being addressed, why is the Pope of Rome not allowing birth control measures and education to be adopted in the third world instead of hobnobbing around with Chinese UN dictators fear mongering over ridiculous computer simulations?

It also taints real science with such an obvious agenda afoot. Everyone associated with the AGW religion is tainted and just as dangerous as your typical fundamentalist Semetic cultist IMO. Everyone wants to rule the world. Fuck 'em!

>Agrees with me that the denialist doesn't have an argument
>Proceeds to talk about 'muh dümsday religun'
Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it

why is that of any interest for you?

Veeky Forums is about anonymity, being able to say what you think without the burden of people judging you for who you are.

I feel you don't have a counterargument for what he claims and you're trying to set up an ad hominem.

Global warming is a smokescreen. The algae is dying - we won't have air to breathe.

>muh coastal cities
yeah, I'm sure the big apple will fare better under a mountain of ice

Stasis is a falsegod, you fool.

We are in a highly abnormal period, climatologically speaking, the options are not "the last twelve-thousands years" vs. "deglaciation". The options are "deglaciation" vs. "glacial period"

Honestly, the logo for SkepticalScience says it all, the liberals greatest fear is life finding a way.

I don't do anything other than try to reduce my overall consumption tbqh.

Eat less meat, drive my car less etc.

I don't think this is a problem that can be solved any other way than individuals being educated, because if you let the government try to "fix" this, it'll only be corrupted and used as an excuse to limit people's liberty.

It takes 50'000 years for earth under normal climate conditions to reach base ice age tempurature.
It will take 200 years from start of industrial revolution to put earth at a catastrophic global temperature average. Which one is more manageable?

What are the locals like where you live, pretty on board with the concensus or on the fence about the man made cause?
I know where I live that only less than 40% believe that it's a serious threat, and 40% thinks that job security and government transparency is more important, while climate change is at the same level as education reform

But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

Abrupt clime change isn't just common, it's the rule.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379104003245
>We revisit the portion of (Nature 391 (1998) 141) devoted to the abrupt temperature increase reconstruction at the Younger Dryas/Preboreal transition. The original estimate of +5 to +10 °C abrupt warming is revised to +10±4 °C. . .Three quasi-independent approaches employed in this work all give the same result of a +10 °C warming in several decades or less.

ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html
>Climate during the last glacial period was far from stable. Two different types of climate changes, called Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, occurred repeatedly throughout most of this time. Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were first reported in Greenland ice cores by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger. Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades

pic related. To put Younger Dryas/Preboreal transition into prospective, the warming at he end of the 8.2ky BP event was similar speed and magnitude as the projected warming over the next century.

I live in Norway, and most people here are literally doomsday tier when it comes to global warming, which tends to be pretty annoying.

>fucking retard
Why are the climate cultists so hostile?

Contrary to the massive propaganda bombardments for decades now, it is just a theory based on some of the most ludicrous computer simulations of doom ever manifested from a wanna be world government apparatus, the UN and its enablers.

The largest smoking gun it's not science, because science speaks for itself and theories tested. AGW has produced nothing but energy ignorant climate zealots and martyrs. If they want to solve imagined problems that's fine so long as they keep their ideology to their own and mittens off my money. Take your climate communism back to the lab and come back with something concrete that speaks for itself.

Most american post in this thread so far

you must be a blast at dinner parties

>revised +10±4 °C magnitude of the abrupt change in Greenland
>Regional weather =/= Global climate
James Inhoffe, is that you?!
>Look guys, I found a snowball, I disproved global warming!
Solar activity is decreasing and co2/temp is rising, you cant disprove this

...

>propaganda bombardments for decades now

>Global climate matters for any species anywhere ever
The Global nature of the current warming is an indication of the CAUSE not the EFFECT. The effects of climate, and climate change, are wholly regionally, the effect of the arctic becoming warmer is the same regardless of the climate of the Sahara. The effect of a fucking HEMISPHERE undergoing abrupt climate change (which has happened about 30 times in the last 50,000yrs) is essentially indistinguishable from the effect of the planet undergoing abrupt climate.

>Solar activity is decreasing
No shit, you cuck. What part of "tailend of an interglacial" don't you understand?

>muh debate is over
very scientific of you

It goes back to before google and the internets itself.

The problem with that line is obvious, how can you install a communist world government and tax fossil fuels if the world is cooling? Also, only a 33% chance it might get cooler, it could stabilize for a bit or get warmer. With "climate change" you raise the odds to 66% your bombardments can at least jive with the propaganda and tax hydrocarbons globally, since it's a global meme.

>how can you install a communist world government
Let this man be your advisor.

This is all a bit too blatantly obvious to me, giving the planet itself a personality like it really gives a shit what happens to it? Neo-Paganism.

Too many monkeys, not enough bananas. Despotic communist governments will rise as surely as the sun in the land of tomorrows promising to 'save earth', and will employ all manner of fear mongering to get er done but they work best with the lights out, like any dark age.

>Why are the climate cultists so hostile?
Because they have to deal with your bullshit.

>Contrary to the massive propaganda bombardments for decades now,
Peer-reviewed science is propaganda now?

>Contrary to the massive propaganda bombardments for decades now, it is just a theory based on some of the most ludicrous computer simulations of doom ever manifested
Computer modeling isn't necessary to show the existence or the (rough) causes of current warming. Simple observation and physics is sufficient.
The models are used because they give more precise predictions.

>from a wanna be world government apparatus, the UN and its enablers.
I don't think you understand how science works. The IPCC reports are descriptive, not prescriptive. And climatologists are hardly restricted to working in only a few countries - there's a pretty global agreement on this.

>The largest smoking gun it's not science, because science speaks for itself and theories tested. AGW has produced nothing but energy ignorant climate zealots and martyrs.
Thats... not how anything works.
AGW is wrong because you don't like the people who are talking about it? What the Fuck?

>If they want to solve imagined problems that's fine so long as they keep their ideology to their own and mittens off my money.
Fuck no, we're in this together. You helped make this mess, you're gonna help clean it up. Trying to pretend it doesn't exist just to get out of fixing it is something a toddler would do.

What are you trying to show?

You realize that cover is a well known fake, right?
science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

>Neo-Paganism.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now?

>Despotic communist governments will rise promising to 'save earth',
If you really believe that, why aren't you offering better solutions?
Wouldn't that cut off the demand for those dystopias?

I really do wonder if these are shills paid to spread FUD or if people this stupid actually exist.

>Peer-reviewed
Is now tainted. The source data is suspect along with the climate priests and their "peers". It's big business and politics, it's called fascism and its done gone global.

>predictions
All climate doom prophecies have failed. It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Garbage in garbage out, let alone simulating every CO2 molecule on earth and their effect on climate, it's fucking asinine. Do they even factor in Volcanoes? Predict them too?

>The IPCC
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations...
The UN. Spawned from 2 world wars, it literally rapes innocent people everyday since, involved in 1000 wars, 0 wins. Will save planet earth by carbon taxation? No. Do not enable, nothing good comes from it or ever will.

>AGW is wrong
It is a theory that can never be proven since its virtual lab is planet earth itself and the theory is simply predictions of impending climate doom, nonsense. Regardless energy poverty legislation is being passed at all levels and in all corners? It's a power grab, a hydro carbon control grab, if you think Rockefeller was ruthless, wait until you see what a communist global despotic dictatorship does with an energy cartel!

>You helped make this mess, you're gonna help clean it up
lol, I'll go down burning on a climate meme cross my friend!

I know you'll be in line to sign up for the climate crusaders when they start recruiting! Good luck with that!

Muh, tack high frequency data on the tail of low frequency data. When will these warmists get a statistical clue?

What happens when you look at high frequency data in the 19th and 20th centuries? Instead of relying on ice core bubbles where the time range of the air inside those bubbles. is 70+ years? Pic related.

Put that hockey stick end through a 70 year running mean and it will completely disappear.

>>Contrary to the massive propaganda bombardments for decades now, it is just a theory based on some of the most ludicrous computer simulations of doom ever manifested
>Computer modeling isn't necessary to show the existence or the (rough) causes of current warming. Simple observation and physics is sufficient.
>The models are used because they give more precise predictions.
Look at those more precise predictions! Pic related.

>nb4 Schmidt and Nutter.
Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>Peer-reviewed Is now tainted.
>It's big business and politics,
Funny, because big business and politicians both seem pretty keen on people NOT trying to avoid AGW. Big business benefits from the status quo, and funds FUD groups like Heartland. Most politicians don't give a fuck outside what gets them votes, and that's generally somewhere between "AGW is a communist lie!" and making vague promises they don't keep.

>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations...
Yes, that's what I said.

>The UN. Spawned from 2 world wars, it literally rapes innocent people...
So what. Like I said, the IPCC's role in this is descriptive.

>It is a theory that can never be proven since its virtual lab is planet earth itself and the theory is simply predictions of impending climate doom,
I suppose you think Geology isn't science either?
Observation science exists. Get over it.

>Regardless energy poverty legislation is being passed at all levels and in all corners?
"energy poverty legislation"?
And no, the legislation getting passed is generally weak as shit and non-binding.

>It's a power grab,
Yeah, I've noticed you're a conspiracy theorist by now. Thanks.
None of that actually matters though - the climate literally doesn't care about politics.

>I know you'll be in line to sign up for the climate crusaders when they start recruiting!
The fact you've done nothing but speculate about people's motivations is kinda telling, actually.

>lol, I'll go down burning on a climate meme cross my friend!
Yeah, I thought so.
Have fun with your persecution fetish, I guess?

How much do they pay you to post misleading FUD?

>>If they want to solve imagined problems that's fine so long as they keep their ideology to their own and mittens off my money.
>Fuck no, we're in this together. You helped make this mess, you're gonna help clean it up.
>Trying to pretend it doesn't exist just to get out of fixing it is something a toddler would do.
>Trying to pretend that data tampering is a good excuse for U.N. thievery is something a shill would do.
ftfy

> Look what shills from the past have said when they thought no one else could read it!

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Source: di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
>nb4 SkS bogus article explanation. That paper talks about explaining away cooling. Not the same subject.

Those emails were taken out of context and you know it. You're just blatantly shilling at this point.

>IPCC temperature (C).
>(stations, IPCC 2001)
Oh boy, that sure looks like a credible graph.

>What happens when you look at high frequency data in the 19th and 20th centuries?
Not... whatever the fuck is going on in your image. (Seriously, where did you FIND that thing?)

That image has been shot full of holes in so many threads here I don't even know why you bother posting it any more.
Taking the mean of model runs with different assumptions destroys any meaning those runs have. And balloons aren't really a top-notch dataset, and generally underestimate trends. Also, the divergence is partially attributed to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991.
So no.

>climateaudit.org
>wattsupwiththat.com
Cute blogs.

>Trying to pretend that data tampering is a good excuse for U.N. thievery is something a shill would do.
The UN has no control over the data gathered by climatologists. If climatologists found out that AGW wasn't happening tomorrow, there is literally nothing they could do about it except start another round of talks.
Your conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense.

>Climategate emails
Jesus Fucking Christ.
No-one cares about your cherry-picked contextless private emails. That shit died years ago, let it rest.

>
Source: Fig. 12 from Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>
Source: Dr. John R. Christy, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
>How much do they pay you to post misleading FUD?
Afraid you wont get your piece of the annual $100,000,000,000? pic related.

What the fuck is AGW? Is that what retards call climate change?

Does Exxon outsource their reputation management to India? Is dedicating your time to this really worth the rupees?

Ok, so your data is only Tropical Mid-Troposphere (It even says this). This is like saying 'Hey, it's not warming in this tiny village in the alps, therefore global warming is a myth!'

Second. We already discovered that the data was flawed because we were measuring the stratosphere along with the mid troposphere which is cooling at such a high rate it threw off our numbers.

You would know this if you paid attention, but no, you're only interested in sensationalism that seems to support your narrative when in fact looking even just beyond skin deep proves you know absolutely nothing.

Source
nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6987/full/nature02524.html

>Energy & Environment
Top notch source. Why not interview the board of directors at ExxonMobil directly, you'll get less bullshit.

>Afraid you wont get your piece of the annual $100,000,000,000? pic related.
Oh boy, more contextless quotes. You're on a roll here.

>What the fuck is AGW?
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Unless you're being incredibly precise, the names all mean much of the same thing.

>Does Exxon outsource their reputation management to India?
No, Heartland is still US based.

> (You)
>That image has been shot full of holes in so many threads here I don't even know why you bother posting it any more.
>And now they're tampering balloon data!
>I don't like it! because it fully depicts the failed predictions of Climate "Science."
Go get yourself debunked
climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

Man, I remember the last thread when you posted a source from Greenland's climatology agency that actually refuted your claims. Many keks were had. Good thing they can never pay you shillbots enough to form a coherent argument.

>Correcting known problems with datasets is "tampering"
>But only when the change is in the direction I don't like
k.

>Look at my shitty blogs.
k.

>climategate pseudoscientists get caught.
> But muh committees with not a single skeptic, only warmists, most of them with a financial interest in AGW said its OK!
>Therefore its OK!
Excusing the contemptible behavior of the climategate "scientists" is unexcusable.

Its what led Prof. Judith Curry to stop slurping the AGW kool-aid.
Perhaps someday, you can be as wise as her.

Cool, now post the gigabytes of emails for context that show just how badly you're cherrypicking. You're talking about decades of emails amongst thousands of individuals, of which you managed to pluck an email out of a much larger conversation and try to spin it in a way that looks bad.

Considering what time it is, either they've expanded their shilling operations to include a nightshift, or you're a filthy Indian.

You know what's funny?
If you read the non-highlighted parts of your image, they actually give a perfectly innocent context for the highlighted parts. I don't even need dig up a refutation for your bullshit, because you just posted it.

>Considering what time it is, either they've expanded their shilling operations to include a nightshift, or you're a filthy Indian.
Australia is also awake and posting.

>Second. We already discovered that the data was flawed because we were measuring the stratosphere along with the mid troposphere which is cooling at such a high rate it threw off our numbers.

What of crap!
>Look at my Pal Reviewed Paper
What did they say? We looked at data from 1979 to 2001
Huh? There was no warming up until 2015!

And look at this graph of lower troposphere temps.
NO COOLING FOR 21 years. So no possible cooling contamination during the pause of 1999 to 2015

>Second. We already discovered that the data was flawed because we were measuring the stratosphere along with the mid troposphere which is cooling at such a high rate it threw off our numbers.

And this is where the crap really gets laid on thick in the abstract:

"global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase"

Yeah, that's right, the satellite temperatures must be wrong because the model is right. Typical warmist. If the data doesn't fit, so much the worse for the data.

Oh, guess what, even Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA GISS admitted that the troposphere is not warming like the Earth's surface. Pic related. Sorry buddy, data tampering excuses ain't going to cut it.

I hope China and Pakistan get together and turn India into the caliphate that it rightfully should be. Hindus are so fucking stupid, believing in their silly make-believe fairy tales. Your wife will be much better off without you and with a womb full of muslim children.

>I've owned a hybrid for 12 years
D-does that count?

Not that user.

Fuck, whose shitpost is it anyways?

edits
"What a load of crap!"

"Graph of lower STRATOSPHERE temps"

>the names all mean much of the same thing
Not really. AGW implies a warming trend which would be natural considering the last glacial maximum was only 20k years ago. Climate change implies every storm, hurricane, forest fire, tornado, heat wave, cold snap...etc. can be attributed to man and more carbon taxation will "fix" these things or at least lessen the carnage they inflict on man and beast.

It's improved dogma spin really and the two can be used together simultaneously, AGW is bombarded through the summer months and climate change year around leading to an amplification effect when the weather is hot. Being an El Nino year is not important, climate doom is all that matters now, think of the children!

Canada is having wildfires. Canada. Think about that for a moment. If this were California, sure you might have a point, but this is now happening in an unprecedented location. Over the last few years the wildfires moved up north into Washington even though we've never had them before, and now they're moving even further north into what was formerly the land of snow and ice.

>What of crap!

What of loos?

You're going to read that much from a one-word reply?

>Climate change implies every storm, hurricane, forest fire, tornado, heat wave, cold snap...etc. can be attributed to man and more carbon taxation will "fix" these things
It really doesn't.

>It's improved dogma spin really and the two can be used together simultaneously, AGW is bombarded through the summer months and climate change year around leading to an amplification effect when the weather is hot. Being an El Nino year is not important, climate doom is all that matters now, think of the children!
And yet you call everyone else the "alarmists".

Do you seriously think forest fires in Canada are something new? There are species of tree in there that need fire to reproduce.

>It really doesn't.
Yes it does, look at the image used to fire up this epic thread of shit posts. Melting ice doesn't cut it anymore?

>Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: