Muh 97% of scientists believe in global warming

>muh 97% of scientists believe in global warming
>if you don't believe in global warming you are a racist conspiracy theorist

I believe global warming is happening naturally but its unstoppable and we can't do anything about it but adapt.

So I'm so glad you smug global warming fags and treehuggers got eternally BTFO.

Other urls found in this thread:

scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/
science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/stable.html
fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html
youtube.com/watch?v=iAHJCPoWCC8
youtube.com/watch?v=ZEQxYnrqxQM
ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>believe
Remeber to sage!

Good for you. But the scientific consensus does support the idea of man-made climate change. Sure it does happen naturally, but we've drastically accelerated the process.

>(((scientific consensus)))

You mean a group of people refusing to consider any alternative research to the mainstream climate change narrative because they're too scared to lose grants and tenure.

Give it a generation or two and climate change will be replaced by another theory.

Fuck off with this shit. How many threads do you need to prove you're a fucking retard?

But global warming is FALSE. DO you really REALLY think that having 200 parts per MILLION more CO2 in atmosphere (literally 200 parts in a million) will KILL US ALL? DO YOU THINK THAT YOU RETARD?

If I go into your room RIGHT NOW, and RELEASE a fistful of CO2 IN YOUR ROOM right NOW, WILL YOU DIE? WILL you die in your sleep? WILL YOU DIE`?

Consider this, if you had a thoery that was able to dis-proove or at least provide a better alternative to man made climate change. Wouldn't it gather a lot of attention? I'm pretty sure that's what scientific journals look for on the whole. The only reason why there arent any is because they aren't credible with the data. You people are just scared that your precious little fossil fuel industry is at risk and are completely willing to deny anything fust so you can be happy with your pathetic little world view. You're not better than the creationist fags. Scared of the truth

Global warming nutjobs belong to

>97% of people who's job it is to study their subject in depth agree on the same conclusion.
>one fat billionaire 0 scientific background disagrees because he wants to make more money
>half the country now believes him
holy shit, no wonder 'Murica is still the laughing stock of the world.

>97% of the cherrypicked "scientists" papers behind a paywall echo the same thing with zero consistent evidence.

Fixed that for you.

Kill yourself denial-fag

Your delusions are flaring up again

It's not the carbon dioxide that will kill people, you twat.

>cherrypicked "scientists"

lol, someone is mad that the Heritage Foundation has shit all over its credibility so much that it is no longer taken seriously by academia.

>ebin paywall meme xxddddfddd
scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/
How new are you?
You clearly have never been interested in getting around them or you'd have found scihub by googling. Or maybe you're just a neurasthenic imbecile who sees a problem he can't solve and promptly declares victory.

>I believe global warming is happening naturally but its unstoppable and we can't do anything about it but adapt.

Go actually kill yourself. Nobody cares what you believe. If you aren't somebody who has studied climate science in depth, then you aren't qualified to have an """"""""opinion"""""""""'' on the matter. Guess what, retard? This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of FACT! It's fags like you who speculate about "le quantum physics xD" and "I just proved God is irrefutably real with SCIENCE!!" No. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Shut the fuck up, you bumbling hick.

>Wouldn't it gather a lot of attention?
No it wouldn't.

Look at those scientists who are not in the "concensus". Who pays attention to them?

Climate science isn't a science, it's a "the majority is right" game for scientists who need funding.

Climate change blackmail is what it's called. Just like when criticizing israel means you get tagged as "antisemitic" etc

scientists don't publish or get reviewed/advertised on scihub you fucking moron.

>climate change circle jerk

>we're the only ones with a valid opinion

Sounds like scientology to me

>You mean a group of people refusing to consider any alternative research to the mainstream climate change narrative because they're too scared to lose grants and tenure.

If they actually did find evidence that climate change was in fact not happening, then they would be relieved and would be happy to share it with the world.

but they can't afford to look for it, because they wouldn't be granted the money in the first place.

How is this not getting through to you?

>I believe global warming is happening naturally but its unstoppable and we can't do anything about it but adapt.
Nice belief there, do you have any data and calculations to back it up?

Godd job posting the fake time cover, are you sure it's not the global warming denialists that are gullible sheep?
science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

And how exactly would you look for evidence against climate change? Oh right, the very same way you would look for evidence supporting it, you dumb shit, because there is no direct way of proving a negative.

>So I'm so glad you smug global warming fags and treehuggers got eternally BTFO

I'll be having the last laugh when your country is overrun by refugees from shitty 3rd world nations

>but they can't afford to look for it

Look for what? Negative evidence?

>I'll be having the last laugh when your country is overrun by refugees from shitty 3rd world nations

No way, José! Trump will protect us from the Mudslimes!

this can't be real

Honestly most people don't know jackshit about global warming and are only going by the scientific consensus. So you're just as ignorant (perhaps more ignorant than the """conspiracy""" theorists who do lots of research even if incomplete and biased)

Damn, I forgot about that guy

And the sky's blue. What's your fucking point?

The consensus is not important. Individual scientists may have their pet theories or individual opinions that are not in line with the evidence.

This is why instead we create scientific institutions which together agree on what's happening. They are groups of scientists, not individuals so pet theories and opinions get smothed over by overall scientific understanding.

So I challenge you, instead of talking about consensus, talk instead of institutions and name one. Go ahead, name one single scientific body that does not support man made climate change.

>go to Veeky Forums
>/pol/tard threads about jewish conspiracies

>go to Veeky Forums
>/pol/tard threads about climate change

>go to /int/
>/pol/ 2.0

Has there ever been a more cancerous board? Remember how Veeky Forums used to be able to discuss somewhat intelligently before stormfags arrived?

It's not fake

>fake TIME cover

Yeah um NO.

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

God.. It's cancerous elitists like you with the "I know know more than you because I'm intelligent" attitude, who convince people that global warming is a hoax

Not him, but you clearly didn't read the article linked in >people basing their beliefs overridingly on their insecurities
>anyone else's fault but their own
wew

Science is always like that
>Look X is true because Y
>No look at Z it says X isn't true cause B
>But B isn't a proper proof and if you know science Y makes way more sense B is very likely made up bullshit
>But B is true and I don't know science
>Just shut up 97% of scientists that know science agree with X

that person claimed sci-hub is a replacement to the classical publication channels, while it only gives free access.

>And how exactly would you look for evidence against climate change? Oh right, the very same way you would look for evidence supporting it, you dumb shit, because there is no direct way of proving a negative.

No.

You test a theory by trying to falsify it. If it doesn't work, you succeeded in showing another experiment that didn't disprove that theory.

Anyway this youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q applies to climate science more than anything right now.

2:17 is where you want to start watching btw, it exposes the problem clearly with publications as they currently work.

Literally the only argument there is for global warming is "muh consensus." The belief in anthropocentric climate change is 100% based on authority, not science. These are the same people that would have had you hanged for saying the Earth revolves around the sun because "the scientific consensus.'

>that person claimed sci-hub is a replacement to the classical publication channels
No he didn't. He was responding to the complaint that all the papers are behind paywalls.

ok, I didn't understand it that way

They get plenty of attention. They get debunked by real scientists. The awful quality of work by people who believe AGW isn't real despite the evidence does not somehow show that real evidence against it would be ignored. That's like saying evolution isn't a science because no one will publish intelligent design papers.

Do you understand the legions of firms who would be willing to fund a scientifically rigorous paper which disqualifies human activity as the primary source global warming? This is quite literally the wet-dream exxon mobil and related oil firms. The scientist(s) who can prove the latter, will be showered in grant money from every conceivable agent of the global free-market. Your argument that legitimate denial-science has no willing investors is vacant of any reason. It is not a lack of funding that de-incentivises papers against human-caused climate change, it is that the evidence for it is absent, and does not exist.

I'm just raising concern at the way this issue is treated, I'm not taking positions since I don't have much expertise in climate science.

I'm just saying scientists are reluctant to investigate the other side because of how well established they think this is, and governments might not give proper funding or incentive to investigate it for the same reason.

No, you're thinking of reddit.

Faggot.

>You test a theory by trying to falsify it.
That doesn't respond to the point. You falsify a theory by failing to find support for it or finding evidence that could not be true if the theory was true. Scientists did not come up with AGW and then look for evidence for it, they collected data about the climate and then figured out a theory that explains that data.

>it exposes the problem clearly with publications as they currently work.
There aren't thousands of hypotheses in climate science. The theories underlying AGW have been tested in many different ways and are all supported by many different sources of data and theory. Every single part of AGW has been reproduced again and again and again. The video is talking about theories that fail to be reproduced or supported by further research, that's how we know they're wrong.

>Literally the only argument there is for global warming is "muh consensus."
Yeah it's not like there are entire textbooks devoted to explaining how AGW works and the evidence for it. They just say "consensus" over and over again.

Wew lad

Wouldn't as much blame, if not more, rest at the feet of partisans against AGW who publish flawed research and taint the real skeptics by association? There are real skeptics by the way who get funding and publish respected papers. They simply have failed to form a better theory.

What a shitty argument. Being shunned for being in disagreement with the 97% is not the same thing as being debunked. You can't debunk climate science because it's all data manipulation without any true experimentation or falsifiability.

>What a shitty argument. Being shunned for being in disagreement with the 97% is not the same thing as being debunked.
They are debunked though. So your counterargument fails as it is simply a strawman.

>You can't debunk climate science because it's all data manipulation without any true experimentation or falsifiability.
There are several ways to falsify AGW. Show that the greenhouse gas effect isn't real. Show that CO2 is not increasing. Show that global temps are not increasing. Show that the infrared spectra from CO2 is significantly lower than previous experiments have shown.

The ideas that climatology is not based on experimentation, that statistical techniques cannot be debunked, and that it's not falsifiable are all monstrous lies. You are incapable of touching on any real argument involved in the science so you resort to these broad statements. There is not a single argument against the actual science in this thread, just emotional and political puffery. You're an imbecile.

>Baiting this hard

>Literally the only argument there is for global warming is "muh consensus." The belief in anthropocentric climate change is 100% based on authority, not science.

I guess creationists have a point when they say evolution is fake and Earth isn't billions of years old.

>Go to /pol/
>Nothing but the same 5 shit post threads day in and day out

Go the fuck back to pol and stay there you fucking moron.

It's really sad that laws of physics don't care about how people vote or what they believe, isn't it?

>Remember how Veeky Forums used to be able to discuss somewhat intelligently before stormfags arrived?

Nope.

Literally the only argument that ever works with authoritarian idiots like you is muh consensus. You and people like you don't actually care about any other reasons unless they agree with you, and then you'll stick to them no matter how incoherent they are. This is one of the sturdiest findings in psychology but you'll ignore it because it doesn't have anything nice to say about you. Nobody expects to convince you of anything. The only reason to waste time on people like you is to steer other susceptible minds away.

Is there even a shred of evidence for manmade global warming?

There are mountains of it.

In some cases, actual fucking mountains.

Can you show a few that proves if mankind stops their contribution to CO2 emission, the globe will stop heating? I'm also expecting an answer to how with zero manmade CO2 emission the ice age ended and all the polar caps melted drastically.

I appreciate the effort but show /pol the door instead of replying.

too bad this entire board is """""/pol/""""" since nobody wants to buy your bullshit with no proof :(

Only mathematics have proof.

This entire board is telling you to fuck off. There is a place to discuss batshit insane conspiracy theories and its not here.

>this entire board is /pol/
>this entire board is telling you to fuck off

But you're right. Nutjob conspiracy theories like AGW meme belongs to

Milankovitch Cycles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Current warming is not being caused by Milankovitch Cycles.

Other things that can alter the climate:

Relative position of the continents. Such as when Australia broke off from Antarctica thus creating the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (the world's strongest current) plunging the entire world into an ice age.

Relative positions of the continents have not changed in millions of years.

Solar Output. Which we've monitored by satellite for decades. Current warming is not caused by solar output.

Aerosols: Aerosols are mostly responsible for cooling the planet and come from forest fires, volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts and industrial output.

Current warming is not caused by aerosols.

CO2. CO2 is well correlated to global climate. Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have a direct link to global temperature and explain things such as Snowball Earth and Hothouse Earth and how we got out of those cycles.

Current warming is well correlated to industrial CO2 output. Arguing against it is anti intellectual, unscientific, uneducated garbage.

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/stable.html

Well, I didn't start the thread here, did I? Feel free discuss laws of physics being "BTFO" on if you like.

>Doesn't know what evidence even means
Also correlation isn't causation. You don't belong belong to Veeky Forums with your church of AGW worshipping if you don't know basic scientific terms

Back to your nutjob containment board

>x is not because of y coz I say so not because I presented the evidence for it.
>this has some vague unproven correlation so its science

Oh look. Correlation here too. If someone doesn't believe in global warming with mountains of evidence liek this, they are truly hopeless. God bless their souls.

Wow, wow, if only there was a theory about how CO2 causes warming. Well, I guess there isn't. Thanks for clearing that up.

CO2 does cause some warming. I hope you didn't think your job was over just because you proved that.

fuck off to /pol/ unsupervised child

Educating you people is absolutely impossible. Carbon isotopes IS the evidence.

As I posted in the other thread.
fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

That's the science behind it.

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/stable.html

Is again the proof. Want more? Instead of explaining the evidence, here's the actual sites presenting it for you to personally review:

cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

If you still deny man made climate change you either refuse to read it, removed part of your brain, or lied.

Then why invoke false causation?

Because causation was the only card you had on the table while ignoring the millions of variables that causes temperature shifts and their globally recorded evidence that goes with how none of them caused and warming. proving CO2 causes warming is the very first step towards your 5000 step goal.

See You are trying to reason with people who only pretending to reason. Read Bob Altemeyer. It's hard to accept at first but after a few years the reality becomes undeniable. "Fuck off to /pol/" is as effective at persuading them as anything else and it's a lot easier.

>The belief in anthropocentric climate change is 100% based on authority, not science.

>GLUB GLUB GLUB

>im shitposting like SJW
>why is everyone calling me a SJWtard? I bet all of you are /pol/ !!!11!!

yawn

post yfw people believe a tv show host with baseless conspiracy theories over scientists with thousands of studies done on the issue

>words I don't care about

Fuck off to /pol/ moron

I know. /x/tards believe every kind of unproven garbage from haarp to aliens. Them believing in global warming shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
You're just gonna have to get used to them.

>let me invade this board in peace
SJWtards don't get to call out Veeky Forumstizens newfag. You should go back to /pol/ to continue getting humiliated.

They weren't ignored though. There are many other variables that affect the climate and they have all been studied and cannot account for the warming trend. If I'm mistaken then show me something that has been ignored by climatologists.

You keep coming up with these ridiculous caricatures of climatology. First you said it's all correlation, now you're saying it's all just a single causation. You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop posting.

>conspiracy theories over scientists
Science stands on its own and if it satisfies a demand is applied. Their theory of AGW is a new age religion masquerading as a science, the climate scientist is a priest of climate doom or out of work. The prophecies of climate doom can only be proven over time and they have failed so far in hindsight yet the AGW cult rolls ahead with its taxation schemes.

It's really a first for "science" to be used solely for the justification of a tax that is trying to be global in scope. When you consider the tax is based on carbon, and we are carbon based life forms one can only conclude it is in fact a large fraud perpetrated by elements which seek nothing other than to control life on earth. Everyone wants to rule the world, why this is so hard to believe by some is a mystery to me. Read more fucking history.

Gee I wonder who could go the fuck back you aren't fooling anyone

>It's a communist plot to sap and impurify my precious bodily carbon!

Are you for real?

youtube.com/watch?v=iAHJCPoWCC8

>tries the ol' insider pose
>can't stop calling people SJW

You clowns are not subtle

I told you 5000 times, I don't care about your evasive posts, I want to see your evidence.

I'd like to see your recordings of every known source of temperature shifts that are dated on a global scale. Not just America, I want to see your records on china, australia, middle east, india, japan, and all their contributions listed by subcategories. Then we can start talking.

>SJWtard is getting nervous for being exposed.
Isn't it time you kill yourself for being 100% wrong at everything ?

I've seen this act before

youtube.com/watch?v=ZEQxYnrqxQM

>anyone who expects evidence from me is some irrelevant label ill throw out
It was a much worse copout than I expected. You're doing a horrible job sperging your retarded church of AGW. Your /x/tard friends will be furious with you.

>I told you 5000 times, I don't care about your evasive posts, I want to see your evidence.
I think you're hallucinating again. Where did you ask me for evidence? The fact is, you're the one who has avoided talking about the science this entire thread with your idiotic rhetoric. Here you go, loser:

ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Explain in grown up words why the evidence already given in this thread is not adequate. Quote the texts when you explain your disagreement or we'll know you didn't read them. Quote other sources when you introduce claims or we'll know you're full of shit.

>getting mad at smug people who have lazy brains and post shit arguments/no arguments all is considered elitism now

Well I don't know what Kubrick would have thought of it but if you seriously think the AGW cult wants you locked down into a carbon rationing scheme to save the planet from climate doom you are extremely naive.

Try attacking the argument next time.

Fuck off, you disgusting stormfaggot

>this guy

Different user.

Quit treating climate science like a soft science. What makes you think climatologists haven't taken steps to determine the cause of global warming? You're seriously going to argue based on how worded his reply (i.e., saying "correlated")?

>go to /int/
>/pol/ 2.0

That's literally not true


For the most part