Why are scientists so committed to spreading the idea of climate change? I thought scientists wanted to spread the truth

Why don't you watch this video? youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

It's entertaining and educating at the same time

In order of effort:
1) Get through this playlist
>youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
2) Read his sources.
3) Enroll to a climatology degree at your nearest university.
Have fun

Actually, weather would be a good name for the global warming/climate change effect.

Lets call it "Unnatural Weather."

Fuck off, we need to do something about the snakes.

pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

but you won't get the fuck off my board

It's easier to manipulate people when you can make them feel guilty about something. Whether the actual thing is real or not is irrelevant.

Weather: the actual thing is real.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00087.1

>implying deniers are going to even read that shit

OP youre an idiot.

Are there any other legit science forums that deny climate change as much as Veeky Forums?

even if he's trolling; people like this are the reason Trump won the election

>legit science
>Veeky Forums

>muh coal mines!

Hearty kek when they realize that the coal is never coming back.

and that the jobs that have and are leaving the country are never coming back.

will be interesting to see what Trump does

fpbp

Google 'emission spectrum of the Sun', 'emission spectrum of the Earth' and 'absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide'. There's your chemical proof right there.

>asked to provide proof
>goes on a insulting frenzy
That's how you know you don't have an argument

Pretty sure as long as humans roam earth, coal if accessible will be burnt. Obviously AGW is a literal power grab through a meme by parasitic entities but regardless of the parasitic load, fossil fuels will be burnt. All in all, AGW just seeks to make fossil fuels less efficient in order to feed more useless eaters like climate scientists, politicians and new age enviro priests pushing their inefficient and somewhat toxic alternatives such as wind and solar.

The real crises is not related to climate but will occur when these inefficient energy sources are fully merged with societies draconian parasites. It will be pretty much lights out and a world where parasitic entities typically thrive, hidden from the light, hidden from sight, feeding, engorging themselves, perhaps even multiplying and sucking the life blood from society as a whole while contributing nothing of value themselves.

If climate alarmism was actually knowledge, it could be explained and understood in layman's terms. Propaganda like this pretends to do so, but it misleads from beginning to end. For example, the claim that the models are predicting anything is fantastic: look into it and you will see that no matter how the temperature statistics had behaved in the last few years, there would be claims that the models agree with them. In other words, the models haven't been predicting at all. Yet the models are the lynchpin of claims that if fossil fuel usage isn't dramatically cut, the results will be catastrophic in a few decades.

The final claim in the video, that we should cut CO2 emission but NOT because of any prediction of catastrophe, is quite the spin. The reasonable viewer might notice the illogic: if there is no expectation of disaster, then it makes no sense to cut back on energy production. On the contrary, given everything we know, humans should be increasing energy production. Cheap energy -- which is overwhelmingly the province of fossil fuels -- is the lifeblood of civilization. Where cheap energy is not found, for millions of people, there is suffering and death. To understand the facts is to understand how dangerous and shameful propaganda like this is.

Only 7% of CO2 is from man. The Earth puts out the rest. This Guy made the mistake of believing scientists that manipulated data, and even Falsified data for crooked politicians so they can make money taxing us for everything that causes CO2. If you want to learn the real story and have fun doing it look up "The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies" on Youtube. It is funny and they explain things a LOT better than he does. Veritasium, if you're smart, you would take this post down because most people NOW have found out the truth about "Man Made Global Warming". Fist up, Fight for Truth.

Molecules in the atmosphere absorb IR rays from the sun. Thus, they become excited and start vibrating. These molecules then bump into other molecules in the atmosphere as they vibrate; the net effect is an increase in the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere as energy is spread out by molecular collisions. And the temperature of anything is directly proportional to the mean kinetic energy of the molecules that make it up.

Can't wait to hear your excuse as to why I'm wrong, even though I'm not.

>on the same website as /pol/
>denying climate change

You're actually surprised?

back to /pol/ cunt

We have already done too much damage. We are at a point where it is irreversible. All we can is have the attitude that at least it will not make the human race extinct in our lifetime

On another note, would you like to live in a time period knowing your species is going to die in your lifetime because it fucked up?.

underfucking appreciated

daily reminder to go back to /pol/ with all the other engineers

Fist Up Own Ass, Go Back to /pol/

>believing in chink hoaxes
>>/reddit/

go go go

back back back

to to to

(((pol)))

hey Veeky Forums

Do you ever wonder if biofuels made from global warming denialists could be a renewable source of energy?

Join mean in supporting research into this important new fuel source.

plase lave

\pol\

plase

>Only 7% of CO2 is from man.
That man is you.

>It was global warming, but then they changed it to climate change meme.

global warming causes climate change. scientists never did stop saying that the earth stopped warming.

Why are non-educated people so committed to denying it?

Easy peasy lemon squeezy

From the American Chemical Society:

acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

What did she mean by this?

youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M

please kill yourself.

she meant you should kill yourself

>Prove to me that "climate change" is a real thing

I don't need chemistry to do that.

Notice how one day it might be sunny and fine, and the next it rains? The climate has changed between those two days. You see? One day the climate was one way, the next day it's a different way. Change took place. In fact, it's always changing. Have you noticed the seasons before?

Damn, even the Weather Channel are done with these people.

climate is not weather, go the fuck back to /pol/

New topic: Prove climate change will harm any given user more than all the annoying regulations

Yes, climate does involve the weather.

climate
ˈklʌJmət/
noun
noun: climate; plural noun: climates

the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

>of course it exists!! prove it doesn't ahah XDD
t. religionists/psychologists

oh a semantics argument how enlightening

lets all pretend that when we talk about climate we mean the climate in North America, or on Mars, or in the sun because we never fucking specified

The Climate in Climate Change refers to the Global Climate you autistic piece of shit, and it is not the weather

climate is not weather and don't you ever go around pretending that it is on this board again

go

back

to

/pol/

you

insufferable

faggots

Remember, Veeky Forums, climate change deniers are the same people that reject ideas like evolution and think the earth is 6,000 years old. Why do you respond to these threads?

You're literally too autistic to live my man.

>The Climate in Climate Change refers to the Global Climate you autistic piece of shit, and it is not the weather

If the climate changes spatially and temporally, on the scale of hours, days, weeks, months and years, then it is reasonable to assume that it could change on the scale of tens of years, hundreds of years, centuries and so on.

Don't act like you read the discussion and have any idea what my argument actually is.

>climate is not weather

It is, it literally is, climate is prevailing trends in weather you stupid fuck.

Because unlike the stupidity of YECs, denial of AGW is pretty clearly linked to harm.

...

No, because the climate doesn't change spatially and temporally on the scale of hours and days. When a tornado knocks down a mailbox in Tennessee it doesn't change the jetstream. When a thunderstorm happens in New York, it doesn't change the amount of CO_2 in the atmosphere. When a stray group of clouds obscures the sun in southern China, it doesn't nudge the global mean temperature a bit.

Climate is the totality of the things that make the weather. Weather is the part, and it gives them such different properties that referring to them as the same object is ignorant at best. One of the more important ones is that the climate is damn-near closed, whereas weather systems are as open as your mother's gaping vagina.

>It is, it literally is, climate is prevailing trends in weather you stupid fuck.
"Prevailing trends in weather" Isn't "weather" though. The average US family has 3.19 people, do you think they need a whole room for the 0.19th person to sleep in?

>do you think they need a whole room for the 0.19th person to sleep in?
on average yes

ᎩᏅᏌ ᎻᎪᏙᎬ ᎢᎧ ᏀᎾ ᏴᎪᏟᏦ

I think I have bingo!

>If climate alarmism was actually knowledge, it could be explained and understood in layman's terms. Propaganda like this pretends to do so, but it misleads from beginning to end.
o I am laffin

>annoying regulations

That sounds like something ExxonMobil would post.

$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

Thank you for helping us take on the world's toughest energy challenges™

-ExxonMobil

>weather is happening
Ok

The question isn't is the climate changing. The question is does it matter.
And if it matters.. what's the best way to go about changing it without crippling your economy with retarded regulation and carbon taxes.

Skeptics are the ones who keep changing the names and they've pushed them so much to the point that they've become common
Call it global warming and random people will tell you its climate change because they've been indoctrinated to by constant media exposure to that term spouted off by people who don't know what they're talking about
Look up who coined that term as being the same as global warming

You can tell when a thread is a genuine troll thread when the best post here was outright ignored by the OP

>who coined that term
I think 'climate change' was officially (EPA, NASA) introduced during the regency of the Lesser Bush because 'global warming' was deemed to be too ominous. Now climate change = shifts in climatic norms (includes global cooling). Unless brainwashed.

pollution, heavy metals, nuclear accidents, deep water horizon-like disasters and the like are still bad, right? or just a little price to pay for the trumptopia? brb, getting cancer just from breathing

I'm going to die in 40-70 years and not planning to have children. I want to benefit as a consumer right now because I'm poor. If GDP growth would be higher with less environmental regulation and carbon taxes, and if this outweighed the short term negative externalities, then I don't really care about climate change even if it is true, which I assume it is

Oh shit a political cartoon you sure showed them.

After reading a bit, it seems like the consensus among economists is that climate change is hurting economic growth and that a cap and trade system on carbon is the most market friendly solution with the least worst tradeoffs. Make the cap high enough to appease the right and there you have it. The left can't organize politically for shit so it's moot anyways

Look who coined that term. He's a known skeptic.

ITT : dumbfucks who can't distinguish "climate" and "weather"

Weather designs the physical phenomenons that bring us rain, snow, and sun. Weather is not disrupted or changing, or at least not enormously, because otherwise we would die instantly.
So of course there's going to be cold days, rain, and even some peak cold in some areas.

Climate on the other hand is the study of all these phenomenons in the medium-to-long terms. When weather is about how hot tomorrow will be, climate is about why the hurricanes have been so deadly, why it is almost never snowing in Western Europe any more, and why 40°C are now common occurrence in the Summer when before they were considered abnormal.

Renewable energy, recycling, and landmark protection provides much more and enrich the country more than blind resource mining.
A city that spends big amount on staying clean and recycling waste will see its tourism revenue increasing, as well as a rising standards of living. Not to mention how combatting pollution by favouring commuting also reduces traffic, improves quality of living for tourists & residents alike.

Antonyms of 'skeptic': adherent, believer, devotee, conformist.
Do we not have enough of these?
>almost never snowing in Western Europe
>40°C are now common occurrence
That is still considered abnormal.
How long have you been living here?

Why do you faggots think threads like this are welcome here? You have an entire fucking board dedicated to discuss nonsense like this. FUCKING USE IT.

>literally arguing semantics

>I thought scientists wanted to spread the truth

Scientists are just people after all. Prone to virtue signaling, forming tribes, shitting on the enemy etc. Plenty of infamous shitstorms in math, physics, etc. Remember the "Science advances one funeral at a time"?

Now add that in this day and age science is increasingly centralized, depending on government funding, basically a monopsony. Not a good recipe for objectivity.

>I put all my savings in oil companies and am seeing the benefits for the first time in months because of the temporary market euphoria and cognitive dissonance surrounding the new president elect's self-contradicting use of the phrase "free market": the thread

These are the very same arguments anti-vaxxors and anti-gmo advocates use.

Why do you post on /pol threads /sci?

Why is consensus considered proof now? I can get loads of people to agree that race is not real, but we know that they're wrong.

You've convinced me. I'm getting all my information from /pol/ and Breitbart now, so we can both see the world objectively.

queerbait is queer

The problem with that statement is climate change is interdisciplinary now. You either must believe that nearly all scientists are in on some actual conspiracy together (which is ludicrous) or they know something you don't.

>Antonyms of 'skeptic': adherent, believer, devotee, conformist.
>Do we not have enough of these?
People use different words to mean different things. "Skeptic" can also mean "non-believer", which has entirely different implications.

>Why is consensus considered proof now?
It's not.
People talk about "scientific consensus" because it's a very useful tool for gauging whether or not something is true. Obviously, looking at the evidence yourself is the best, but learning enough about a field takes time and effort, and there's a real danger of fooling yourself because you don't know the subtleties of the subject. Asking an expert would make sense, except that for basically any question you can find experts who disagree with each other.

So we appeal to the consensus of experts. If the majority of people who have dedicated themselves to studying X say that Y is true, it's probably a good idea to believe Y.

It's not perfect, but the alternatives are much, MUCH worse. See for example, politicians "debating" AGW.

Climate change is the worst meme possible

It's the elephant in the room, any other scientific field doesn't resort to false claims like le 97% of researches agree or pictures of sad polar bears

It convinced countless people that the world is LITERALLY ENDING IN 10 YEARS

Do you understand this? Can you at least admit THIS is bullshit?

Why is bill "the end is" nye making TV shows about how the world is ending in 10 years and calling everyone who denies climate change to be charged with murder?

This isn't the face of legit science

The satisfaction of having you climate toddlers throwing tantrums is enough for me. Even if I honestly believed in climate change being manmade, I'd still pretend not to because you're such fucking faggots.

Although it'd be nice if based exxon paid me some.

It's not that ludicrous when a "conspiracy" only requires a money incentive to be followed by adding "and its effects on climate change" to every research you do.

They don't need to attend any secret gatherings, just stay the course

>go back to /pol/ with all the other engineers
isn't that the truth. transitioning from university to an engineering job was like night and day. i have no idea why engineers are so conservative. probably because they've got no interests in anything other than blinkan lights and such. most engineers couldn't care less about something unless it happened on their doorstep.

Naked contrarians have shallow, contrarian motivations, news at eleven.

If you weren't such faggots and made it so easy to rile you up, it wouldn't be happening

> any other scientific field doesn't resort to false claims like le 97% of researches agree
That's not a false claim though. Also, yes, other fields HAVE resorted to that level of debate when put up against people who don't give a fuck about evidence. Look how biologists handled arguing with creationists.

>pictures of sad polar bears
>the world is LITERALLY ENDING IN 10 YEARS
Don't blame climatologists for crappy science reporting.

>It's not that ludicrous when a "conspiracy" only requires a money incentive to be followed by adding "and its effects on climate change" to every research you do.e
There isn't universally a financial incentive to do that, though. Many climatologists are working in countries where the government is pack full of deniers, or at least tries to down-play AGW and delay action against it. On the other hand, you have groups like the (now well known) climatologists working for Exxon, who wrote lots of internal documents talking about the risks of AGW.

Plus, there DEFINITELY is money and recognition in publicly denying AGW.

The fact that almost all of the different scientists are dependent on government $$$ for their livelihood is not to be ignored.

The fact that you pretend that very few of these scientists are specifically investigating whether or not Anthropogenic CO2 is causing catastrophic/disruptive/whatever-term-du-jour climate change appears to be of no concern to you. Must are just looking at or modeling the effects of a warming world; which almost no one denies.

You seem to have no grasp of just how ridiculous your false choice of "Climate Change is TRUE!" or else there's a "Huge Conspiracy" is.

Things almost all scientists believed in that were wrong:

Atoms are the smallest piece of matter.
Phlogiston theory of combustion
Continents are fixed
Space and Time are fixed
Classical mechanics.

By your reasoning, the only possible way all those scientists believed in those theories was because of a huge conspiracy. Get over your ridiculous strawman argument!

And go read up about Lysenkoism. And Deutsche Physick

>The fact that you pretend
The fact that you ignore

>Plus, there DEFINITELY is money and recognition in publicly denying AGW.
Citation Please.
There's truck loads of money funding Climate "Scientists" and literally trillions in the whole green industry. Its very hard for an (non-famous) skeptic to get funding.

Contrarian blames others for his own faggotry, world shocked and appalled.

"If only we pretended to give a shit about him!" says panicking populace

"Oh, how could we have been so arrogant, dismissing his ideas just because they had no basis in fact or evidence!"

Women could be heard wailing and gnashing their teeth in the distance.

I didn't post any ideas or argue here

Just saying, that as long as you keep acting like little princesses, it's going to be fun to rile you up

And I'm saying that you are a shit person and that I'm not interested in convincing you of shit. Go fuck off to /pol/ or whatever hole you crawled out of.

>Citation Please.
Huh? There's definitely a bunch of well-known, well-paid deniers on the payroll of groups like Heartland and CFR. Many of them have training as scientists.

>There's truck loads of money funding Climate "Scientists"
Sure, in total. So what?

>and literally trillions in the whole green industry.
The Green industry doesn't pay climatologist's salaries. Also, it's tiny compared to Oil, Coal and Gas.

>Its very hard for an (non-famous) skeptic to get funding.
How so?

I didn't ask to be convinced of anything