Ok Veeky Forums so I'm admittedly a /pol/lack and I've increasingly become convinced that all this climate change stuff is a huge hoax being used to legitimize more government regulation, and with the green market becoming a multi-billion dollar industry I'm pretty sure people like Bill Nye are huge con artists.
Anyway you guys should be more impartial and should be and educated on this what do you think?
>youtube >bloomberg this is why no one takes you guys seriously
Aiden Perry
Nah climate change is legit, although it is being used to expand government. The best example of that isn't regulation though, it's "carbon taxes" and in some places, like Britain, the euphemistically called "green levy". It's been pretty well document that carbon taxes don't work, yet they seem to be here to stay. The green levy in Britain is automatically added to household energy bills to subsidise green energy projects, when in reality building a couple nuclear power plants would be a much more worthwhile investment.
So, just so we're clear: >Climate change is real >Human activity is causing it >Governments are using it as an excuse to expand their powers >But mostly though excessive taxation.
Austin Diaz
>implying your hivemind is any better
Bentley Perez
I'm not going to watch an hour of stephen molyneux videos. This is basically filibustering.
Robert Nguyen
You went on Youtube, found the first five videos on global warming, and brought them here, didn't you?
You need to go back.
Levi Young
>Nah climate change is legit, although it is being used to expand government.
Somebody got to pay for all those dykes and pumping stations.
Camden Parker
Carbon taxes are beneficial even if the money isn't being spent on mitigation, since they disincentivize emissions. Moderate carbon taxes will save billions of dollars in damage later on.
Adam Nguyen
Just watch the first one which is only 12 minutes long then. That alone gets most of the main points down.
no I'm a pretty big Molyjew fan so I posted all his vids on climate change. I've watched all of them at one point or another, some of the shorter ones multiple times. I don't expect you to watch all of them or any really, but first vid gets most of main points down about the fact that none of the climate models have been accurate, water vapor isn't going up substantially if at all, and that many people are making lots of money off this stuff which would give them incentive to push this stuff even if its not true.
Lucas Smith
I dont want to be disrespectful, i didnt watch your vids. Yes it is real. There is absolutely no doubt within my mind or throughout the scientific community. We're gonna have an ice age far sooner than expected, whop de doo.
Jose Myers
what is wrong with the boomberg graph? It has sources...
Jaxon Perez
Just follow the money.
Most of the government proposals to combat green house gasses cost them more money than they make, when you take into account revenue losses, and what little money they do make tends to be earmarked for global warming efforts, meaning it doesn't do those in the business of corruption much good.
Meanwhile, the industry who is actually affected the changes is looking at billions of dollars with of investments to comply, with little to no gain, with the possible exception of those who find ways to trade in the commodities, and sell equipment and services to make compliance easier - but they are a tiny minority compared to the existing economic structure.
So, those advocating human induced climate change aren't nearly as financially motivated as those who wish to deny it.
Now, there's political power to be considered, but it wasn't that long ago that the GOP was the party for restricting industrial growth in the name of preventing major changes to the American way of life. At some point, the Democrats hijacked this stance, but at the same time, it's to their determinate to do so, as it costs them, to one degree or another, the support of several industries, including the ever popular petroleum industry.
And, as far as /pol/ goes, the financial interests that would be hit hardest by stricter climate laws, would of course, be those owned by Jews.
Leo Moore
Wew! That's some clever rationalization. The "hoax" label is actually part of the larger fraud for the same reason, if it's all made out to be some sort of joke on the little people they are less likely to start taking a serious look as to where all that pilfered wealth is really going. It is going to enrich corrupt bureaucrats and politicians with some going to enlarge the propaganda bombardment and reinforcement campaigns.
Bottom line is it's a theory that cannot be proven only debunked but this requires waiting for up to 100 years for the computer climate simulations to fail. Should there actually be a rise in temperature it still could be natural as has happened thousands of times through earths history apparently, all the more likely now since we are just coming out of a glacial maximum and in geological time practically yesterday.
I think in light of peak conventional oil and other serious resource depletion scenarios down the road the powers that be are securing energy and looking for global draconian control before control is lost to nationalization for example. As fossil fuels deplete and population continues to grow I think we are in for a wild ride with regard to pricing and access. This extra burden being placed on the end consumer is simply bringing that day of reckoning about sooner. this also explains why all the attention is on fossil fuels and not some of the largest sources of so called greenhouse gases like livestock production, volcanoes and water vapor. I watched Cowspiracy the other day.
Xavier Mitchell
Global Warming is one of the biggest hoaxes in human history.
Joshua White
>Just watch the first one which is only 12 minutes long then. That alone gets most of the main points down. OK, let's do this.
Skeptic Claim 1: The feedbacks reduce the greenhouse effect.
If this were true then the climatological history of the Earth would be very different from what it actually is. What we see is that the Earth swings between glacial and interglacial periods. Glacial periods end quickly and begin slowly. This is because they end when the orbital eccentricity of the Earth causes it to receive more solar radiation, which evaporates CO2 and water vapor from the oceans, which warm the Earth further via the greenhouse effect, creating a positive feedback loop which rapidly warms the Earth. Eventually the orbital eccentricity of the Earth swings back and the Earth slowly cools back into a glacial phase. If the feedback loop reduced the greenhouse effect, we would see the exact opposite, the Earth would constantly be glacial and only warm slowly, as there is nothing to cause rapid warming.
Actually, orbital eccentricity does not change from year to year. There is a part of the year where the Earth is closer to the Sun and a part where it is farther from the Sun. The same amount of time is spent in these zones every year.
What is thought to cause the long-term fluctuations are the 11-year solar cycles, with periods of higher sunspot activity causing a slight increase in global temperature.
Wyatt Sanchez
>none of the climate models have been accurate not really true, though the climate is a complex system that would be nearly impossible to model with 100% accuracy nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html >water vapor isn't going up not true pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf >monetary incentive to push this stuff The fossil fuel industry is worth trillions and has a definite monetary incentive to deny global warming and has stated in the past that they intended to sow doubt on the subject. The idea that the government is attempting to use global warming to expand its power is idiotic, considering many carbon tax proposals are revenue-neutral
>The idea that the government is attempting to use global warming to expand its power is idiotic, considering many carbon tax proposals are revenue-neutral It's not about tax revenue, it's about government control of industry and of personal cunsumption of goods.
Also, it's a huge UN scam to get America to pay billions of dollars to underdeveloped nations
Nathan Peterson
>Actually, orbital eccentricity does not change from year to year. Orbital eccentricity does change over much longer timescales (tens of thousands of years) and that is what I was referring to, not seasonal eccentricity.
Rather than participate in yet the n-teenth climate denialist thread on Veeky Forums, I'm just glad to see OP admitting he's a /pol/luter from the get go rather than try to hide the elephant in the room. I just wish shit/pol/sters would keep their trash in /pol/.
And for anyone who may wonder, no, I did not bump the thread as is very possible from the options field.
John Sanchez
>Orbital eccentricity does change over much longer timescales (tens of thousands of years) and that is what I was referring to, not seasonal eccentricity. Ahhhhh, thanks for clearing that up. I jumped the gun on that part of my post.
What do you think about the short-term solar cycle effects?
Mason Lee
The UN accords is to help offset the very real loss some countries (e.g. Marshall islands) are experiencing due to rising sea waters or other climatic events. Considering that the U.S. is one of the biggest emitters of green gases, then, yes, it is responsible in fixing the problems it has helped create.
Tyler Lopez
Skeptic Claim 2: Hansen's 1988 predictions are wrong
Yes, they're wrong because they overestimated climate sensitivity (also the three scenarios do not match today's greenhouse gas concentrations). A climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C results in the observed trend. The video fails to point this out because it directly contradicts their first point.
Another thing to point out is that skeptics often claim that the satellite temperature data is "more accurate" than thermometer stations, but they're not. The only reason skeptics prefer them is because they show colder temperatures than the surface. It is important to remember that satellites don't measure the temperature of the surface but of the lower troposphere.
Lincoln Foster
>What do you think about the short-term solar cycle effects? They're a big source of short term variation but they're much too short to explain the modern warming trend or glaciation.
Dylan Gutierrez
The fossil fuel industry provides something we all use and modern life would become unbearable without these fuels and billions would die quickly. On the other hand, the governments are really parasitic in nature and only write law, start wars that consume enormous amounts of resources, control and restrict people and provide nothing substantial in return.
The UN wants nothing but to be the new age world government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...they have been mired in 1000 wars now with 0 wins, their troops spend more time raping the natives than anything else, this is just the tip of an iceberg should it be allowed to carry on further and expand its control of the world resources and in particular energy resources which it obviously has its eyeballs on.
Orbit schmorebit. We can be pretty sure the earth was formed into a steaming lump of rock and has been cooling ever since, eventually it will become a lifeless frozen rock and its atmosphere blown away as the atmosphere was created by the out gassing of these fused materials in the first place. As the core cools and out gassing ceases entirely as will tectonic activity, that is the beginning of the end of life on earth.
Aaron Jackson
>green market becoming a multi-billion dollar industry The petroleum sector is still much more profitable, and are just as influential in Washington if not more.
Joseph Rogers
>Orbit schmorebit. Yes, don't look both ways when you cross the street because the Earth will be uninhabitable in billions of years...
Anthony Adams
>As the core cools and out gassing ceases entirely as will tectonic activity, that is the beginning of the end of life on earth. The sun will go full American and burn us all alive long before the core is anywhere near cooled.
Jeremiah Lewis
>Implying your god awful political cartoon has any worthwhile merits as a rebuttal
Owen Parker
Skeptic Claim 3: We haven't been measuring ocean temps properly since 2003, so the models are wrong.
Yet another example of cherrypicking. There is no reason to reject previous ocean heat data and ARGO buoys suffer from many of the same issues as previous measurements. When you take all the data into account, the "prediction" is actually just the trendline of observed ocean warming.
Ian Gomez
This. The costs of adapting to climate change will far exceed the money your boogeymen stand to gain.
The Arctic Ocean is en route to perennial icelessness for the first time in recorded history. The Greenland Ice sheet is accelerating toward the sea on all sides.
Are the Chinese faking that too?
Dylan Jones
I seriously doubt a wobbly orbit is the source of ice ages, it is the gradual cooling of the planet and they will become far more common over geological time as the record - the real science - seems to indicate. AGW is pure projection and speculation, questionable data inputs, and highly questionable motives of not just the politicians but the climate priests themselves.
I doubt that as well. We have frozen poles already and the sun seems in the game for the long haul. I mean the entire field of climate change should be treated as a curiosity in the realm of predicting how long our sun will last or better science going into core cooling projections, not to enable a global taxation system, that's fucking ludicrous really. If you have a problem with the environment be specific and address that, AGW is probably the most damaging meme for the environment ever invented for the sole reason it acts as a catch basin and red herring for real, specific and addressable environmental problems. If you have a problem with fossil fuels you better find a good substitute first or out go your lights. then what are you going to bitch about all day on Al Gores internets?
Mason Sanchez
>highly questionable motives
Henry Thomas
>Muh UN conspiracy! I don't know how folks fail to realize that the UN is a puppet of the US, and a key instrumentation for its will. The US makes up all of the UN's real teeth, is the top contributor to its funding by more than double of the next (Japan), and the US has absolute veto power over anything the UN decides to do. Thus, everything the UN wants to do depends not only on US approval, but on its assistance, while simultaneously, the US is completely free to ignore any of its criticisms.
>it's about government control of industry and of personal consumption of goods. A power which every government in the goddamned world already has. Every government regulates its industry, and its economy to boot. That's what governments do. Further. there's been no climate change solution, that I've seen, making demands around personal consumption. The most radical proposals I've come across only require that said already existing industry regulation be uniformed towards a central goal, and the creation of a global market mechanism to help encourage that effort.
And the only industries I see fighting all this so hard are all owned by Jews, so it boggles my mind that the so-called alt-right has jumped so quickly onto the climate change denial bandwagon.
Xavier Gomez
Cowspiracy makes good points such as livestock are a large source of emissions, but they tweak a lot of numbers. Fossil fuels are the biggest emitters and need to be adressed. And plenty of greenies cry about livestock farming emissions, but denial websites and news outlets don't mention that
Landon Diaz
Skeptic Claim 4: The Tropospheric Hotspot is the most "prominent" feature of climatological theory and its missing
What all of these claims essentially boil down to is a willingness to misleadingly present only some parts of the picture (and exaggerate those parts) in order to argue for a preconceived ideological conclusion. It's not scientific.
Isaac Peterson
>I doubt that as well. So you just doubt every scientific consensus? I don't think there's even a single scientist making the argument the core will cool before the sun kills us in its death throws - during which time it the core get a pretty thorough infusion of heat.
Austin Clark
>I seriously doubt a wobbly orbit is the source of ice ages Oh wow, you DOUBT it. Well then I suppose we'll just have to chuck all the work done on Milankovitch cycles, since you DOUBT it.
>it is the gradual cooling of the planet and they will become far more common over geological time as the record What you need to explain is not why there are ice ages but why there are periods of time which are NOT ice ages (such as the one we are in now) which start with fast warming.
>AGW is pure projection and speculation The pot calling the kettle black.
Easton Garcia
>environmental problems >specific and addressable
The Earth system is a mess of interconnected parts. You're out of your depth.
Grayson Wood
>I seriously doubt a wobbly orbit is the source of ice ages, it is the gradual cooling of the planet and they will become far more common over geological time as the record - the real science - seems to indicate. I've seen this batshit idea put forth several times on Veeky Forums and I'm starting to suspect that it's all just one guy with a babby-tier understanding of planetary energy balance. he basically thinks that because the Earth is slowly cooling, we're seeing more and more ice ages and there's nothing that can be done about it. this idea is only plausible if one remains entirely ignorant of the multiple "Snowball Earth" episodes of the Proterozoic.
Liam Scott
So is global warming real or not? If its real is it proven that man is its cause?
Cameron Long
>So is global warming real? Absolutely and without doubt. Look at basically any surface temperature dataset.
>If its real is it proven that man is its cause? It's considered highly likely that humans are the cause. Most of the studies I've seen attribute 80%-120% of the observed warming to human activity.
Joseph Foster
>Molyneux as a source
Yeah, I think you might want to actually take a look at the data yourself, learn something about cilmate, the basics of how CO2 and other greenhouse gasses work in our atmosphere, as well as learn about past climate of the Earth that we know of before taking anything that twat says for granted. Here is a good, very basic starting point, branch off from there, read Wikipedia articles on climate change which are very well sourced / written. climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
This is the problem, people look at some loudmouthed nobody who isn't an expert, nor does he even understand the science behind climate change, spouting off a bunch of nonsense, creating a web of conspiracy and bullshit over something that is a scientific concept.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of denialists. You cannot argue with them because they don't listen, you try to show them legitimate studies, show how the petroleum industry has lobbied extensively over the years for denial, and they simply ignore it. They don't care about the truth, they just want to be contrarians because it rebels against "muh liberal scientists tryin' to tax muh carbon!"
You guys get wrapped up into this world where everything is a conspiracy, where everyone is out to get you with some secret agenda, it's all a load of horse-shit. You live in a fantasy world.
You've already been BTFO in this thread several times by other based anons, if you refuse to actually look at the evidence, then you can fuck off back to your hugbox on /pol/ please, where you have a full on circle jerk of alt-right autists to parrot your shitty opinions.
Colton Sanchez
youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&index=1&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP Here OP, assuming you actually want to know the truth, this is an excellent series of videos explaining the evidence surrounding anthropogenic climate change (which happens to predominantly support it) and the guy who makes them is a real class act. >scrupulously sources everything he says beyond high school textbook level shit >not only thoroughly debunks denier memes but does the research to track them down to their misconceived origins >doesn't hesitate to issue corrections to his videos when he's shown to be wrong >degree in geology and worked for years as a science journalist, knows what it's like in the scientific community
vs Stefan Molyneux: >clickbait thumbnails >just stands in front of a camera and gives his opinion for thirty minutes >no scientific training, very shallow understanding of the subject matter >doesn't cite scientific studies to support his views >often fails to even cite specific examples of what he objects to
Matthew Ross
Isn't it ironic that deniers always cherrypick their data to "prove" that global warming isn't real / human caused, when cherrypicking is the exact same thing that they accuse climate researchers of doing in their studies? Those Molyneaux videos are the epitome of cherrypicking. Every single study he uses to prove some kind of vast conspiracy has been discredited.
They find one article, one study that says for example, sea ice is not declining in Antarctica (which is probably isn't) and suddenly they ignore all the evidence showing sea ice having a net decrease that is accelerating worldwide.
They only accept "science" as real if it supports their conclusions, oh but any other scientific study that comes out disproving / discrediting their study and that's fake, junk science to them.
Real scientists want to be skeptics, want to question the consensus on climate change because that's what science does, it seeks to understand the world to our best ability using empirical evidence. If there is a paper that comes out challenging the accepted view on climate change, scientists pay attention, they read this paper because they want to understand what data has caused that person to come to this conclusion. They study it and often find flaws in the paper, things that the authors didn't take into account and whatnot.
That said, there really isn't much skepticism over climate change anymore, because the consensus shows a trend of warming that is well documented and supported by ample observations and data worldwide by tens of thousands of scientists and scientific bodies. This is why people that deny the consensus aren't really skeptics anymore, they are denialists.
Ethan Thomas
I wish we could build a wall between pol and sci
Jaxson King
AGW is real, and only the tip of the iceberg (heh). Feel free to deny it all you like; it's too late to stop it.
Isaiah Price
>it boggles my mind that the so-called alt-right has jumped so quickly onto the climate change denial bandwagon But user, caring about the environment and accepting ((((scientific consensus)))) is for leftist cucks!
Aiden Sanders
I guess we'll see in 50 years when New York City isn't underwater (kind of hoping it does though).
Gabriel Jackson
Go back stormfaggot
Caleb Bell
the biggest true about climate change isn't if its real or not, it is how much people contribute to it
naturally the climate fluctuates over many years, and when it was noticed in the 80's, scientists/government lackeys jumped on that real quick like they blame carbon emissions and aerosol for the majority of it, in Nov 93 the passed a regulation to change A/C fluid, that was on the list of causes
>some stupid regs: even though the fluid was only minutely changed, went from CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) to HCFC (hydrochlorofluorocarbon), it 100% no longer affected the ozone, but the new fluid was still illegal to disperse into the atmosphere shitty government fines are $10,000 per incident per day
Samuel Thomas
>70+ years of climate observations >real quick like
Find a different planet to ruin, we like this one.
Jace Russell
Ofcourse global warming is real! I mean just listen to this distinguished environmentalist telling you how things really are youtube.com/watch?v=5vS1l2X_G9Q
Eli Sullivan
nice rebuttal weeb sensei
Brody Young
>I mean just listen to this distinguished environmentalist But don't listen to the distinguished scientists... Do you really think you are fooling anyone?
Blake Smith
>it's about government control of industry and of personal cunsumption of goods. This predates global warming by like four hundred years.
Jason Morales
Climate change is very much a thing, and humans have been shown to be the predominant source of heating though the emission of greenhouse gasses. I'll just leave this here, for those of you who are actually interested in the science behind this claim. >inb4 /pol/e waxers cannot into paywall Use sci hub.
>sea ice is not declining in Antarctica this is actually true, but the reason Antarctic sea ice is holding steady is because there's more ice flowing off the landmass due to higher temperatures near the coast. but yeah, deniers like to cherry-pick statistics that, taken out of context, can be twisted into supporting their argument. they especially like to post graphs showing a downward trend without paying attention to what those graphs represent; I once had a denier show me a figure showing a decline in the estimated error of a temperature series and claim that it showed a decrease in temperature (rather than an increase in accuracy).
Cooper Jackson
So, since the start of the industrial age humans have put out 500 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is CO2 that has no natural sinks. It goes up and stays there (a percentage of the extra does go into the ocean where it turns into Carbonic Acid, which isn't good either)
That is not debatable.
An increase of 500 billion tons of CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
That is not debatable.
Climate scientists call this the smoking gun. If you hear a gunshot and you run into the parlor and the master of the house is dead with a bullet hole in the chest and the butler is standing there with a smoking gun what are the chances he just murdered the master of the house?
Ok, sure, he may have died of a heart attack. Maybe you think the chauffeur did it. But then you've got to explain the obvious question. What do you do about the butler with the smoking gun? You can't just ignore it and try to come up with other ideas.
So stop ignoring the question and explain to me this. If mankind isn't causing climate change, what is? And you can't ignore the 500 billion tons of CO2. You have to explain to all of us what it's doing there. Don't get all dodgy with uneducated garbage blogs and videos. Answer the question.
Julian King
It produces something of tangible value as opposed to basically terrorist climate doom prophecies coming from bureaucratic parasitic organizations. Choose wisely if you must!
>Jews Da Joooos! Are you aware the UN is going to be headed up by a devout Roman Catholic soon? In any case the Abrahamics are attempting to roll with a new age technocracy and the UN is an obvious proxy, not to be trusted and certainly not enabled in any way. The most nefarious aspect of their operations is they infiltrate on all levels of government, from global right down to municipal and so called grass roots voluntary movements.
Well all the numbers are questionable and mysteriously they all come to these nicely rounded enormous sums. It is safe to say the data lies and is biased from the source every time these days. I thought the flick was interesting in how the director came to the self realization Al Gore duped him. The world is a business Mr. Beale!
>scientific consensus Yes, it's either science that is repeatable through the scientific method or it is a consensus of opinion. I don't believe in cloud fairies but there is consensus among half the worlds population they exist. Your argument carries the same weight.
Overall the historical geological record indicates ice ages are becoming more frequent over geological time. We know the earth has a molten core as we don't have to even drill down very far to feel the heat. I was just making a point it seems to be ignored in all climate calculations. I am more than happy to investigate wobbly orbit theory further if it makes you happy! I think the point is AGW is entirely theory, unpossible to prove and the only evidence is suspect computer simulations coming from highly suspect sources. The mountains of data suspect, the sheer quantity of variables suspect and all in all, fucking ludicrous to base a tax on at this juncture.
Chase Martinez
Jesus fucking Christ, have you tried learning from anything other than poorly-edited youtube videos?
>terrorist climate doom prophecies coming from bureaucratic parasitic organizations >the Abrahamics are attempting to roll with a new age technocracy and the UN is an obvious proxy >they infiltrate on all levels of government, from global right down to municipal and so called grass roots Stop. Really, just stop.
>Well all the numbers are questionable and mysteriously they all come to these nicely rounded enormous sums. Have you never heard of rounding?
>It is safe to say the data lies and is biased from the source every time these days It is most definitely NOT safe to assume that. You would actually need to demonstrate it.
>Yes, it's either science that is repeatable through the scientific method or it is a consensus of opinion. It's a consensus of experts based on research and study. If you have reason to think that they are wrong, you are welcome to submit it to the same peer-review systems that they use.
>I was just making a point it seems to be ignored in all climate calculations. You didn't make a point though, you just asserted that they had ignored it.
>I think the point is AGW is entirely theory That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
>unpossible to prove and the only evidence is suspect computer simulations coming from highly suspect sources. That's complete and utter bullshit, and you would have discovered that with a 5 minute google search. The evidence for AGW doesn't depend on computer models at all, it depends on observations and basic physics. The computer models are for making better predictions of the climate in the future. Also: "impossible".
>The mountains of data suspect, the sheer quantity of variables suspect and all in all, You're still asserting shit without supporting it. Why should I believe you that the data is "suspect"?
Gabriel Green
>Yes, it's either science that is repeatable through the scientific method or it is a consensus of opinion. Um, what a "scientific consensus" basically is is when everyone who tests a hypothesis gets more or less the same result, to the point where all or almost all of the research on the topic is in agreement.
Ryder Brown
>Overall the historical geological record indicates ice ages are becoming more frequent over geological time. Not Actually True. Keep clinging to that meme though, it's funny. >We know the earth has a molten core as we don't have to even drill down very far to feel the heat. We know that the outer core of the Earth is molten (the inner core is actually solid) because of the P-wave shadow zone. The fact that the deep crust and the mantle are hot has very little to do with rocks melting. (In fact, when rocks melt to produce magmas, they usually COOL while doing so.) >I was just making a point it seems to be ignored in all climate calculations. You're demonstrating your ignorance. You really think the slow cooling of the Earth's core influences 100-year trends in temperature at the surface? Let's say that 10 million years' worth of cooling causes temperature to drop by 1 K. That's pretty gradual, right? In fact, over the course of all of human prehistory, we'd only see a change of 0.2 K. Well, that super gradual effect would imply that in the Cambrian period, when animals really made their big appearance, the surface would have been 54 K hotter than today, hot enough to fry an egg. And 2.2 billion years ago, when the Great Oxygen Catastrophe was getting started, the temperature would have been 220 K hotter; things would be literally boiling hot for another billion years still. And yet we know from fossil evidence that liquid water was abundant at the surface, that there was plenty of aquatic life, and that there were even major glaciation events. CLEARLY, therefore, the Earth's cooling cannot have a noticeable effect on climate on the timescales of interest. See, we can predict the future by studying the past. And if you'd only had the sense to realize that, you wouldn't have made that retarded-ass post. But you did.
Oh wow, the professional deniers are even less skilled than the shitty amateur AGW deniers were get here. How the hell did the Seirra guy resist the urge to call him a fuckface? >Yes, we get it. 1998 was a warm year. Now shut up you pompous twit.
Wyatt Perry
Its happening, but the whole hoax accusations are coming from the layman that eats any conspiracy theory up. The government IS trying to use global warming as an excuse to get more power and government jobs. However theres plenty of US politicians who have fed off the said idiots above who buy up any conspiracy and pander to them harder than a democrat in a room full of illegals.
Jeremiah Carter
Hasn't stefan already been proven to be full of shit, and a cult leader at that?
Grayson Morales
If you go to The Royal Society (national academy of science for the UK) page, you can search for several documents signed by the national academy of sciences of pretty much every first and second world nation attesting that yes climate change is occurring, yes is is human caused, and yes the IPCC does represent the scientific community in this area. I'm sure you can find similar documents on other sites like NASA's, but the royal society was the easiest for me.
There is a scientific consensus and it is that anthropogenic climate change is real.
William Stewart
Why is it so hard for people to differ between man made global warming and climate change. Fucking retards.
Carter Reed
>Ted Cruz, in congress, actually quoted the 'no warming in 18 years'
You have got to be joking. We should have congress shot.
Jayden Davis
Everyone's an expert these days.
James Green
>Overall the historical geological record indicates ice ages are becoming more frequent over geological time. That depends what you mean by "ice age" but it's probably wrong either way. Ice age is a generic term and you probably mean glacial periods. It's also entirely irrelevant to AGW, which is on an incomparably smaller timescale and is mechanistically independent from the core of the earth cooling.
>I think the point is AGW is entirely theory, unpossible to prove and the only evidence is suspect computer simulations coming from highly suspect sources. Well that point is demonstrably false, since the main evidence is and always has been direct empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect and direct empirical measurement of the sources of incoming infrared radiation via spectroscopy.
>The mountains of data suspect, the sheer quantity of variables suspect and all in all, fucking ludicrous to base a tax on at this juncture. It would be nice if you could actually point out how the data or conclusions are scientifically incorrect, instead of just calling anything you don't want to be true "suspect." Conspiracy logic is not an argument.
Juan Evans
Here's a hint: current climate change is man-made global warming
Easton Ward
So now that we've fucked up and the icecaps gonna melt, what kind of shit should I do to prepare my family for the future of no food and mass immigration?
Matthew Jones
hey listen maybe he just likes shooting corpses
don't kinkshame
Nathan Watson
A better question is why people consider them to be different things.
My theory is that most people think that "warming" specifically means an increase in temperature (when latent heat accounts for much of it), and more specifically air temperature increases (the heat capacity of the atmosphere is rather small compared to that of the oceans).
Caleb Gray
I have a phd in geology and i can show you climate change in a continuous sequence of rocks representing several millions of years.
the shorelines have moved back an forth like waves over the millions of years
this time it may not be like a wave since it is not related to the same cycles as in the past
We have shifted the balance by taking material that was in a slow part of the earth sysstem e.g. erosion mm per year of specific energy rich deposits and put it back into the earth system.
If you think there will be no consequence you are in denial.
John Baker
Dear shit poster
fuck off
sincerely
A Geologist
Ps Just stop talking about bout shit you have no knowledge about.
Lincoln Scott
@ op look here and then consider the thermodynamics of this imbalance
Benjamin Wood
Focus on CO2: 1900 300ppm, 2015 400ppm. The climate changers claim that by adding 1 CO2 molecule to 10,000 air molecules over a period of more than a century they totally control the climate.
They must be suffering from terminal thermocephaly.
John Rogers
/pol/ is an echo chamber where dumb people go to get "redpilled" on bullshit conspiracy crap, then they come out thinking they are geniuses with secret knowledge of the universe. Inevitably they drift in here, get BTFO, and leave.
Mason Taylor
i don't know what to feel about that video. How can the Sierra guy be so badly prepared? The "no warming in 18 years" is a stupid argument easy to counter. Yet in the video it gives the impression that Cruz "won".
DAMN, why did I checked the comment section of that video? Lost all faith in humanity
Nathan Wilson
>he lives near the coast
Hahahahaha
Kayden Richardson
why did it fell to such a low point in c.1950?
Eli Lee
/thread
Dominic Gutierrez
> 1 CO2 molecule to 10,000 air molecules over a period of more than a century You're not on /pol/ now. Most people here will be well aware that a) the absolute concentration isn't relevant (a 33% increase is substantial) and b) a century is effectively instantaneous compared to most of the time constants involved.
Brandon Fisher
>something seems counterintuitive therefore must be bullshit
Where do you think we are?
Noah Hughes
>One factor Look at this brainlet
Jackson Wilson
They got lost on the way to /pol/
Juan Diaz
THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS
Levi Brown
>Jesus fucking Christ When you start a reply off like that and then setup a strawman about goo-tube videos you really do need to stop. I understand the appeal of the new age AGW religion for you, it's OK!
Yes climate scientists are biased because their paycheck revolves around towing the line, why only 97% of climate scientists are in consensus over the meme and not 100% is the only curiosity.
The body of evidence for AGW is entirely simulation and synthetic. Based entirely on projection. Like the biblical end of days prophecies these simply cannot be debunked nor proven. An unpossible conundrum and paradox that seems to garner much traction and attract the cultist mentality.
So you admit the earth is cooling yet this has no effect on the climate in your "timescales of interest". Fascinating!
>I have a phd in geology >this time it may not be like a wave >not related to the same cycles as in the past wtf are you even talking about?
>fuck off >sincerely >A Geologist Wew, the field is in a sorry state today apparently!
Chase Campbell
>typical brainlet response
Gabriel Turner
Is there even a single evidence for global warming ?
Nicholas Reed
Y-you too.
Hudson Gonzalez
Global warming exists, but it causes problems which are more ecological than climatological.
Samuel Thomas
Refer to
Wyatt Cox
From the first link... >Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing
The only science there is social science, that is new age scripture alluding to a prophecy of climate doom as a means to an end, a carbon tithe. It's pure speculation and theory with so many variables, so much massaging as to become a completely meaningless prediction. It would carry more weight if the people who publish this claptrap just admit they do it for a paycheck and their simulations could be wildly inaccurate and for the most part, complete bullshit.
If on the other hand the climate priests had been at it for 1000 years now, with their very specific recordings and very precise simulations it would be slightly harder to refute as many many generations of children would have been well indoctrinated into the AGW cult by then regardless of what was really happening with the climate of earth. To verify this look no further than the Abrahamic religions whose prophecies fail every year yet they somehow garner more followers? Hmmm, how does that work? Well, getting hold of infantile brains before critical thinking skills kick in is one way!
Brody Bennett
You said literally nothing of value. Nothing. These are not arguments, this is a loosely thrown together collection of rhetoric tricks and factual inaccuracies.
For example: >completely meaningless prediction One of the links in the earlier posts already shows this wrong. Now it's up to you to find it, and attempt to formulate an actual argument.
