We are witnessing the full retardation of everyone over this global warming anti-science thing

youtube.com/watch?v=H0evs5MRtD8

Why is THIS allowed?

>god dammit, global warming was a lie and we made the world a better place for nothing!

look guys im OP am i being profound yet

well, potential polluters made the world better for nothing. you just memed at them until they believed you and took credit

The Chinese made global warming. Trump said so!

You must not be searching very hard. The fact that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas is proven. The fact that humans contribute large amounts of CO2 without reabsorbing it is proven. The fact that the second largest source of infrared heat radiating towards the earth carries the spectroscopic signature of CO2 is proven. If you calculate the radiative forcing of all human sources, then you get a quite shocking result; humans account for more than 100% of the observed warming. In other words the planet would be cooling without our contribution.

...

Source on any of that?

>In other words the planet would be cooling without our contribution.

Aren't we in a glacial recession?

...

Google it. Or get a climatology textbook.

Pfft, I didn't need "global warming" to discover sex with penguins.

Nobody is denying that global warming is happening.

It's whether the cause is anthrogenic that is the issue of debate.

So, no source then.

No, we're at the end of an interglacial. According to milankovitch cycles we should be cooling. Solar irradiance is low.

I'm on my phone. Do it yourself.

Ok cool.

Ok, so no sources. Thank you.

>shows retarded pop sci instead of an actual scientific publication
>SEE GUYS?! GLOBAL WARMING IS RETARDED!

CO2 absorbs a pretty wide range of infrared light, preventing Earth from radiating more heat.

Looking at data from ice cores, we see that CO2 has always been a significant driver of climate change throughout Earth's past.

The climate has been warming over the last 100 years despite steady solar output.

People say "likely" because science doesn't deal with absolutes. Scientists go by the best working model, like how Newton's theories were likely to be true, we have found them to be false (though they are still useful in most practical circumstances) and they were replaced by Einstein's theories.

>It's whether the cause is anthrogenic that is the issue of debate.

Then what is causing it?

As far as I am aware, other major factors in climate change have been pretty steady. Of them, only CO2 output has been changing.

>Is there any evidence implicating humans as the cause for global warming?

Yes.

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

sockpuppets going in circles

>ITT: a bunch of Ameridindus and libcucks.
We will not be missed.

>The climate has been warming over the last 100 years despite steady solar output.

Ok, thank you.

>Newton's theories were likely to be true, we have found them to be false (though they are still useful in most practical circumstances) and they were replaced by Einstein's theories.

That's just plain wrong, user.

Newton's laws are as true today as they ever were.

GR didn't replace them, it merely provided an alternative paradigm.

>Newton's laws are as true today as they ever were.

>GR didn't replace them, it merely provided an alternative paradigm.

>Newton's laws are as true today as they ever were.

No, Newton's laws are false in plenty of circumstances, especially on larger scales such the orbital mechanics of our solar system. Einstein provides a much more accurate model.

>Newton's laws are as true that today as they ever were
You completely missed his point.