Global Warming Deniers

>my feelings are more important than facts

>my delusions are facts
omg noes the aliens are coming :o

>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8464163#p8465554
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470140
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470225
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470199
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8456900#p8459298
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8464163#p8465061
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8464163#p8465127
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8487517#p8487582
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8481351#p8481930
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8440953#p8450707
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8238725#p8238909
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8265008#p8265369
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8268860#p8275160
>>warosu.org/sci/image/P_Udk5kXvtG5HdQ2lq3vjw
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470303
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973224
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973257
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973260
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S7972081#p7973280
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470302
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S7972081#p7974269
>>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8469629#p8470403
>>warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=sjwtard
>>warosu.org/sci/image/O435um6prd2VoH0GM21pjQ
samefag

So, is petrol and coal going to end human civilization?

I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that it could be a hoax, but that would only work if more people in the scientific community were in on it than I thinks possible.

Unless all of science is a hoax too and we're all living in a simulation.

As people begin to feel insecure about their ideas and beliefs, the personal attacks and the name calling begins.

Duh. we're doomed and were all gonna die due to CO2 emission. and I'm not just saying this because I'm /x/

I think the leading science on climate change are absorbed in confirmation bias.

>the average temperature going up is correlated humans burning gas, it must be the cause! Heres some prophecies.

What's the point in trying to convince you of anything? You already admitted you consider your personal beliefs more important than actual evidence.

I would like to hear about some reasonable outcomes, not some panic driven literature equivalent to the 1950s communism boogyman.

Its not about feelings, I just dont believe its as serious as believers make it out to be.

I was seriously /x/ tier for a long time until i went to uni and came to my senses. Now I take everything with a grain of salt, Is that so hard to believe?

>Its not about feelings, I just dont believe...
hilarious, contradicted yourself within a sentence

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

I mean I don't expect much from Veeky Forums, but jesus Christ, you can't even have any sort of discussion on Veeky Forums of all fucking places without massive amounts of shitposting.

I'm typing on a laptop at almost 2am so I won't have time for a detailed response, but climate science is just that, a science, not a belief system. There is empirical evidence to support the claims of climatologists and other earth science researchers.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

inb4
>MUH NASA CONSPIRACY

It's a simple and easy to read article that presents where the data that supports the consensus comes from.

>I proved that the climate changes
amazing. I hope you're aware that's not the argument here.

The prophetic results of climate change and climate change causes are more laughable than your weak response

I studied Geology in college, but I also took quite a few environmental and oceanography classes at the same time. I have a pretty detailed understanding of the past climate of the Earth, and yes I know it has gone through many changes. So tired of having to explain this shit to retards, the changes that are occurring now are not on a geological timescale anymore, the changes that are occurring in rates that we can measure directly from year to year, and are correlated to human activity.

Stop being a fucking contrarian. There is ample room for skepticism when it comes to the impacts of climate change, the models themselves, the projections, what's not debated is that it is occurring and anthropogenic causes are leaded to the increased rates of change.

No one denies that the climate has never changed in the past on Earth. In the past we have had sea levels much higher than today, and much lower as well. The problem is what's occurring now can cause things to spiral out of control, and cause extensive damage to our civilization and to species that are critical and unable to adapt to the rapid changes.

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The worst part is you can shove all the data, all the support for the models right into people's faces and they refuse to take it seriously because it was snowing outside in winter.

Heres a good reason not to take that website with too much credence: one source per claim. One of the sources states "in light of equipment malfunction."

Now I trust that the climate is changing, there is no doubt about it. However, the extent of human contribution and the disasterous results is what Im highly skeptical about.

Yes, let's not trust NASA, who actually is one of the largest climate research organizations out there. Next you're going to tell me we can't trust NOAA, or any independent researchers collecting data themselves.

I'm posting the NASA links because it's so clear how uneducated the average person is on the mere basics of climate change, especially when the information is freely accessible to anyone with a computer.

Based geology user is correct
t. Marine biologist

>The problem is what's occurring now can cause things to spiral out of control
According to what? UN computer simulations? You are obviously wrapped up in the climate doom prophecies generated by the climate priests. If you took geology and geological history you would know the prevailing theory is that ice ages are becoming more common, earth is cooling and out gassing is decreasing over geological time. If anything we are preventing another ice age according to the "science" but the only science in the AGW meme is social science as a means to an ends, voluntary energy reduction because if some global totalitarian energy - AGW board just decided to start rationing civilian energy consumption in the oil age some people might have a problem with that. What needed to happen was have a segment enforce it voluntarily under the guise of "saving earth". Your kind will be remembered, after the lights go out, as the kind who enabled the new age dark ages to save earth. The new age fundamentalists propelled by their spoon fed data points and mountains of AGW dogma. I mean what else could you possibly be enabling? There is no such thing as green energy and all energy is renewable over time.

Well obviously they have proved that CO2 doesn't reflect IR radiation.
/s

>ice ages are becoming more common, earth is cooling and out gassing is decreasing over geological time
Source?
Also out gassing decreasing over geological time would mean that atmospheric CO2 should be decreasing, and yet it's increasing rapidly. Why do you think that is?
>science isn't real because it leads to conclusions I don't like
Pretty much sums up all the counterarguments in this thread.

Preach

>blah blah blah I'm not going to discuss real evidence but go on a rant about conspiracy theories blah blah blah

Boy I love how people these days feel that their opinion is the only reality that could be true, simply because they came up with it

>mfw I see the amount of denial and skepticism even when confronted with evidence multiple times.

I remember back in the early 2000s when the polar caps were meant to be all gone by 2012 due to "global warming", then when the predictions never happened (ice levels actually improved) they (((revised))) the numbers and now 2016 is the hottest year ever.

Also
>what evidence do you have for for a global warming being a hoax?

That's not how proving works, user

That's really interesting, do you have a scientific paper supporting that conclusion? I honestly didn't know this was mentioned in scientific literature.

Yeah man. I remember when cartoons in the 60s used to show man living on the moon. Clearly science is bullshit and we should stop wasting our tax dollars on these eggheads and their obviously stupid predictions.

When Watergate happened they actually had to present evidence to prove it happened. Now all it takes to "prove" a conspiracy is the amount of time to write it out on the computer and upload it online. If there's actually a hoax going on there would be tons of evidence.

ncdc.noaa.gov/bams

I trust this, but I dont trust the equivalent to climate wikipedia (NASA).

>what is the burden of evidence

Same applies when making claims that any scientists presenting evidence you don't like are in on a hoax. Prove it with evidence. If you can't prove that then actually use evidence to explain why the earth is warming and why atmospheric CO2 ppm is increasing.

>correlation is always causation
>there is evidence of human caused global climate change

Great memes pal

So then what is causing the earth to warm? What is causing the rise in CO2 levels? Surely you have answers to these?

When can we expect 800ppm? My plants want to know.

CO2 increases plant growth to an extent but there are more important factors when it comes to crop yield. For one thing CO2 is rarely the limiting factor for growth. And if you studied biology or chemistry at all you'd know that the limiting factor is everything. No water = no growth, too much water = flooding = asphyxiation = death.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827

The earth isnt warming, its climate is changing.
cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/
People are causing the increase in co2, but theres no evidence that co2 has anything to do with global warming.

>the molecule that plants get all of their carbon from does not seriously limit growth
>b-but m-m-muh red herring-g!!!!

>I would like to hear about some reasonable outcomes, not some panic driven literature equivalent to the 1950s communism boogyman.
Then read the actual papers they cite instead of getting information through the filter of the sensationalist media.

In the 1950s communists weren't 'bogeymen', they were real. McCarthy was basically correct, he lost because ironically he underestimated the influence of what he was up against.

Great non-argument, why don't you try growing some plants in 800 ppm CO2 but no water and tell me how that works out for you.

Nobody was discussing the importance of water in plant growing, you red herring-pointing-to autist.

I control their climate.
I record experimental data.
I want to know when 800ppm.

>The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.[7] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896

You are because the availability of water is influenced by the climate, and the climate is influenced by the concentration of greenhouse gases.

>the earth isn't warming
Source? What you've given discusses el nino/la nina, it's not discussing global average temperature at all.
Not only is there evidence that CO2 increases temperature, there are clear cut equations that predict the warming effects it has.
globalwarmingequation.info/calc temperature increase.pdf

I never said CO2 doesn't increase plant growth when all the other limited factors are satisfied. I was pointing out that increasing a non-limiting nutrient will not increase growth which is what he was implying.

And ... I win

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

icecap.us/images/uploads/argodata.jpg
argo.ucsd.edu
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS Essay/Argo_Heat_Content.jpg
climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nasa-sea-level-data-satellite2.jpg
podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/content/GMSL_TPJAOS_199209_201206.JPG

Even if there was any form of evidence the earth was warming, you still don't get to magically causate co2 to the temperature change. Stop parroting shit you hear on the news, its not complementing to your aspergers.

>a bunch of unlabelled graphs from denier websites without any explanation whatsoever
>doesn't understand the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect

You tried

>extrapolating the final 1/20,000,000 of earth's oscillating climate change
Follow real scientists.

>the creator of the graph doesn't know about Milankovitch cycles and feedback loops
top pleb

Makes this point no less valid
>extrapolating the final 1/20,000,000 of earth's oscillating climate change

>being this desperate
How does it feel to spam the same awful meme and be wrong every year for over 25 years schizo ?

And what is his point exactly? What "real scientists" am I supposed to be following? What does ">extrapolating the final 1/20,000,000 of earth's oscillating climate change" even mean? His graph says we don't understand long term climate cycles but we actually do.

climate change denial is a hoax in itself.
More that 90% of all scientists are fucking sure about it. The rest is fucking paid by lobbyist.

>Makes this point no less valid
You're an idiot.

>hay guise i don't know what rectangular form is but you should check out my paper on the riemann hypothesis... its totally legit

>you still don't get to magically causate co2 to the temperature change
Purposefully ignoring the greenhouse effect and all the science that explains how CO2 causes warming is pretty scummy.

reptilian denial is a hoax in itself.
More that 90% of all scientists are fucking sure about it. The rest is fucking paid by lobbyist.

It means you cannot predict the future based on a miniscule snippet of evidence.
Humans have a negligible impact on "global warming". Your trend would've happened with or without humans.

>It means you cannot predict the future based on a miniscule snippet of evidence.
No one is predicting the future on the scale in the graph you posted, so this point is nonsense.

>Humans have a negligible impact on "global warming". Your trend would've happened with or without humans.
Post your evidence for this or fuck off. Humans are responsible for all of the current warming trend observed, and there would be more warming if natural sources didn't have a net cooling effect.

that scale wasn't all-inclusive dumbass. It was a picture to help you brainlets see just how small this "global warming" tend is.
Climate oscillation. Google it. It's more than "just a graph someone posted".

My evidence is the graph (petit et al), among with many others en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation

You'll have to do better than just saying its wrong because "I said so".

What is it being small relative to the timescale of mikankovich cycles supposed to show? If anything the rapidity of the warming is a cause of concern, not a reason to think AGW is insignificant.

And milankovich cycles are not evidence that humans are not causing current warming. Again where is your evidence that contradicts the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing measurements? Mikankovich cycles cannot explain current warming because they are on a completely different timescale, not to mention that we are at the end of an interglacial period, not the beginning when warming occurs. So you are just spouting nonsense and hoping no one will notice.

>muh greenhous effect
>muh illiteracy

why are the oceans cooling and the polar ice caps not melting at an accelerated rate, user?

Until evidence is provided to support the conjecture that humans influence global climate change, the default position is to believe the climate of earth is natural to earth.
Also, why is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?

>hy is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?
>what are milankovitch cycles
get the fuck off this board

>oceans cooling
woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/trend/plot/hadsst3gl

>polar ice caps not melting at accelerated rate
nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

Why are you lying?

>straw man XD lol idk how to argue
The earth is literally the coldest its ever been right now, milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with this.

>Until evidence is provided to support the conjecture that humans influence global climate change
I already posted the evidence, the radiative forcing measurements which proves the greenhouse effect from CO2 accounts for all observed warming. You just keep ignoring that the greenhouse effect exists. You have no argument, lose.

>literally the coldest its ever been
You do realize that the earth has been much, much colder than this, right? Or do you think the earth is only 65 million years old?

\
>Also, why is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?
It's because of that thing you keep pretending doesn't exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Climate

argo.ucsd.edu/
You linked the blog of a "British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist".
>muh biased cherry picking

Argo found a rapid decline in ocean temperature after 2003.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027033/abstract

coldest it'sever been during the existence of humans*

So since we're allowed to skip across scales, I'll one up you and disprove your statement by saying that the last two decades have been warmer than the two before that.

Humans have lived in one paleoclimatic period. It makes no sense to say 'the coldest it's ever been' in this context because the scale is arbitrary. Get educated, faggot.

Land surface station data is 100% fake, and thats what they base their global warming meme on

H2O is the dominant heating/albedo effect, and its totally ignored by these warmists because they can't model it

All in all, these are political entities pushing a political goal, science is just a side issue.

>You linked the blog of a "British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist".
Actually I just linked to a graph automatically created from HADRUT data with no input from any blogger. Nice try though.

>muh biased cherry picking
This is hilarious considering the study you posted was corrected a year later by its own authors:
oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/heat_2006.pdf

>Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

You are a massive hypocrite.

>Why is the earth significantly cooler than it was millions of years before the first known homo sapiens existed?
>coldest it'sever been during the existence of humans*
Watching you lie and contradict what you just said a few posts ago is entertaining. Keep going.

>radiative forcing proves greenhouse effect from co2 accounts for global warming
what warming lmao? you're very dense.
gisp2 found that earth is as cool now as it was during the coldest point of the most recent ice age. your greenhouse gases do not causate global climate change, as is evident.

>coldest it'sever been during the existence of humans*
That was 26,000 years ago, not now.

>government funded studies about a government movement that stands to make hundreds of billions off taxing the flow of energy is 100 percent correct and if they say any scholarly independent body of peer-reviewed research is wrong is must be.

This warming

>ids frum de gubberment
Not an argument. You lose.

Funny how you had no problem posting the (((government))) study when you thought it supported your conclusion (but actually was just incorrect).

>surface station data
>don't even have surface stations over most of the world

Junk graph

Wow, it's like you can't stop lying.

Argo is not government funded.

Anyone notice that all the deniers in this thread have no real argument, but rather resort to attacks or fallacies?

>makes a positive claim
>has no valid evidence to back claim
>hur durr deniers r BRUTES! btfo dummys!!!!

>Argo is not government funded.
Wrong again. ARGO is funded completely by government dollars and is overseen by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Not to mention that the researchers who made the study you posted are employed and funded by NASA and NOAA, you dunce.

search.sciencemag.org/?q=Climate change

Literally hundreds of studies

You're just pretending the evidence doesn't exist. You keep claiming the globe isn't warming even though all measurements show it is. You keep pretending the greenhouse effect doesn't exist even though basic physics and chemistry show it does. You keep saying the effect is negligible even though direct measurement through radiative spectroscopy shows it is. All of these have been posted in this thread, you liar.