Why do the retards on /pol/ think climate change isn't real?

Why do the retards on /pol/ think climate change isn't real?

The pseudo-science circlejerk mixed with batshit conspiracy theorists is palpable.

Other urls found in this thread:

thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/264767-poll-70-percent-believe-in-climate-change
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
wordnik.com/words/disingenuous
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

burden of proof is on you

climate change is too politically motivated for people to believe it straight up, people learned after the fake news about WMDs and won't fall for it again

why are you even here?

I absolutely hate that it has become a partisan issue. I can't help but feel this impending sense of doom.
Do you think there's hope for it user?

for the math (im a graduate student)

>Do you think there's hope for it user?
considering how little the boomers have cared about preserving anything for the future, no

"burden of proof on you"
>go into a library for natural sciences
>search for the recordings on climate change or just ask
>there are articles and so on about this

>every free citizen is enabled to educate themselves and should do. eveen more so if he wants to be a politician.

>im a graduate student
Wow. Grad students write like they are twelve now? How the education system has fallen...

this is Veeky Forums, not an english class

im certainly not writing to impress anyone

deferring your argument to a library is not very convincing

Well, it's not just the way you write but what you write that gives away you're in high school.

This is a good point actually. People are afraid to read to book just in case they're proven wrong.
Right, all science should passed down via word of mouth.

like i said, graduate school

>Right, all science should passed down via word of mouth.
now you're just making up implications/putting words in my mouth

if you're going to try and convince an entire country to pour tax dollars into climate initiatives, you might want to be more direct than 'go to the library'

>deferring

proof if given only in recorded data. It is clear for the scientific community that climate change can cause a serious problem. If you want a real proof you need to look at the original Data and not only at idiots and news faggots trying to affect you. thats the proble, you cant trust them cause politics. loook at trumpo its post factual the society.

You are entitled and responsible to and for your own education and beliefs. that comes with a democracy and free will.

where is that not convincing ?

So let me ask this then, does it not bother you that North American citizens, and the population of /pol/ has a borderline hatred and distrust of scientific institutions?

Because they're idiots, it will probably take outbreaks of disease before they'll listen and believe in climate change.

>like i said, graduate school
I'm going to need to see some proof. The burden of proof is on you.

You are pseudoscience. If you have nothing to offer for proof than meme data-analysis then go to hell.

At this point it's just pure ego -- they simply don't want to admit that the hippies were right and they were wrong.

>where is that not convincing ?
you first of all need to convince people that it's happening (currently 70% of americans believe climate is changing)

then convince them that it's a serious problem (63% of democrats, 18% of republicans)

and that humans are causing it (only 27% believe)

and that their tax dollars will do something to fix it (while government mistrust is at alltime high)

thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/264767-poll-70-percent-believe-in-climate-change

> does it not bother you that North American citizens, and the population of /pol/ has a borderline hatred and distrust of scientific institutions?
i dont care what /pol/ thinks, and mischaracterizing climate skepticism as 'hatred and distrust' of scientific institutions is disingenuous

pic related

>mischaracterizing climate skepticism as 'hatred and distrust' of scientific institutions is disingenuous

I don't think it's a mischaracterization at all. The only reason people wont trust science institutions is if somebody is telling them otherwise. When you build your party's ethos and ideology on how the other side is fucking you, it breeds a very VERY toxic relationship.

Climate skepticism (at least vehement denial of a problem) *is* toxic.

>The only reason people wont trust science institutions is if somebody is telling them otherwise.
[citation needed]
you're still conflating climate skepticism with distrust of all science

i'm sure even rednecks believe in gravity

>When you build your party's ethos and ideology on how the other side is fucking you, it breeds a very VERY toxic relationship.
what does party politics have to do with it? there's deniers on both sides

science runs on skepticism

Astroturfing

does your mom know you troll people on the internet in your spare time

where in any of my posts is there trolling?

>Why do the retards on /pol/ think climate change isn't real?
Climate change is a meme. I'm not even a pol hitler/kek faggot. They're cringe material.

It's more specifically called 'green meme' formerly 'global warming' bc the earth stopped warming and there's no hype currently. It's also used to spread the 'globe earth model' to very young minds because we were all taught that 'the earth is gonna burn just like venus' so draw earth and peace logo stop cutting trees trash etc.etc.
>inb4 someone thinks im flat eather

The buzzword global warming or climate change is tailored by UN politicians to impose their shit among several countries.

Climate change is a meme and it's been discussed here many times. It's just fucking retarded statistics. Even your 'whale and cow farts' produce more GHGs

(narrative)temperature rises up and down:
>hurr the climates changin we so scare
(assuming scenario) temperature is constant:
>hurr the climates aren't changing we so scare
Retarded science shit.

>no one mentions water pollution ever
>not knowing about the Fukushima meltdown leaks into the ocean
>not knowing about Fukushima Water (tm)
seriously it's a trademarked product now so there's nothing to know about it if you look at the search results, news about it were also deleted by now ;)
>not knowing how every country or how the entire humanity landfill system works
>ecology is a dead word
>no company wants to recycle anything except metal junk and nokia
>muh climate muh ozone muh globe earth bubble in a vacuum feat. blackhole obliteration

did you accidentally click on Veeky Forums? you have to go back

Oh fuck off. People have things to do. Not everybody has the time and stress threshold to have the depth necessary to know just enough to assume a fucking based political position on that issue. Also suppose scientists are faking data(which did happen, climategate). Tell me how a person, who has a 9 to 5 stressful job and wants to fucking relax at least some hours of the time off, is going recollect all the ice caps, reproduce all experiments and computer simulations and study enough to make sense out of this?
>ohhh user but if you have a peer reviewed based papers from a scientific community with enough people doing all that, Iam sure the info would be credible.
Yeah suppose now i pay a good amount of them to lie, enough to have them gaslight the honest scientists.
>oh user but that wouldn't happen. muh scientific mehod. Muh neil de grasse and bill nye. Scientists are perfectly moral decent people just like the rest of huma...
Oil is a fucking huge industry, and it spins a fucking lot of very dirty naughty money. It's not doubtful at all some cunt like al gore and company would want to sneak his finger into tapping that. People already don't like it, saying more bad shit about it is not that hard on people's ears.

So why instead of being an arrogant cunt who needs to diminish "those stupid normies who cant spend all their time on the internet being cunts because they are productive members of society" you don't move your ass and try to find the truth about this shit honestly and exposes it for what it is without caring what your liberal crush who friendzoned you will think.

Not him but while I personally side more with you, I will say this has less to do with inate politics and more to do with the sheer lack of first hand experience and understanding.

You need to remember the demographic in question does not on average spend their entire working career monitoring the change of temperatures in an ecosystem, follow the migratory behavior of various animals, analyze weather patterns, study the erosion of soils and rocks, measure the constitution of the Earth's atmosphere or perform test on the acidity/ toxicity of fresh and salt water. Without this first hand experience or deep investment into understanding it is logical that people would underestimate the issue because they are not afforded the opportunity to "connect the dots".

I will however say it is likely that various conservative political groups are using financial retention as a way to manipulate the public into not taking man's involvement in altering the environment as seriously. Since it is clear that anyone who is invested in a major business has a lot to lose with heavy regulations on environments.

not the guy you're trying to one-up, but i once pity-dated a one-armed girl.
she pointed out that I used "funnier", told me it wasn't a real word. So I corrected myself.
She was in her 6th year of highschool, and tardraged her brother out of the house.

You remind me of her.

Which brings me to wonder... do inferiors tend to criticize grammar?
Such a reliance on structure can only limit your mind.

So your one of those people who extrapolates man made climate change to imply every environmental issue and as a means to fixing those issues?

There is only one environmental problem, too many humans consuming too many resources and shitting up the joint. When those resources deplete the problem fixes itself. Empowering some of the largest hypocrites, crooks and liars in the belief they will somehow fix anything is naive and why the man made climate change meme is so dangerous. As dangerous as any pop religion or more so since it flies under the flag of authoritarian science. A red flag if there ever was one.

>So your one of those people who extrapolates man made climate change to imply every environmental issue and as a means to fixing those issues?

I'm one of those people who understand that "man" despite being a well adapted organism is still stratified to a finite amount of niches of earth. And that "man" has spent it's entire life investing in maximizing it's species survival rates by manipulating the land, animals and plants to suit those specific niches. In this instance "man" is not unique, social insects, brood parasites and plants do the very same thing too. The difference is that "man" is the most recent incarnation of such natural phenomenon and that "man" has yet to definitively figure out the extent to which the earth will take to it's occupation.

>There is only one environmental problem, too many humans consuming too many resources and shitting up the joint.

That actually isn't the problem, the problem is that those resources are effectively finite due to restriction in the time necessarily to replenish itself naturally and the inability for humans due to finite life spans and energy to wait out that replenishment. This is why humans migrated to other lands and fought wars with each other.

>When those resources deplete the problem fixes itself.

Well yeah, but the point is trying not to let it get that bad.

Climate skeptics barely exists. Almost everyone who denies AGW does so purely for ideological reasons and their arguments can be used to deny any inconvenient scientific fact.

see
thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/264767-poll-70-percent-believe-in-climate-change

i wouldnt call 30% of americans being skeptic 'barely'

tfw human-caused climate change IS a conspiracy theory. Kys op.

>skeptic
You obviously don't understand what this word means. There are many deniers, few skeptics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
>Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views

>Masters

>but the point is trying not to let it get that bad
You seem like an intelligent person. It's already bad as in unsustainable and set to get worse. Consider all the wars and regimes through history when resources were seemingly plentiful, now as depletion of critical resources is on the horizon, not just fossil fuels but access to good land, fresh potable water, fisheries and timber for example, we are all going to pull together, the billions of us, and cooperate for the good of the planet? Wew, lemme tell you one basic fact of life, people will do anything to survive. If you are in a rush to see things "get bad" just enable a global fascist energy regulation board under the direction of some disgusting entity like the UN!

>controversy
Oh look, the site that is great for everything except anything that involves this!

yes?

>Oh look, the site that is great for everything except anything that involves this!
What? i dont see what point youre trying to make

>disingenuous
STOP MISUSING THAT WORD. Disingenuous means pretending to be stupid.

wordnik.com/words/disingenuous
'Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:'

From wiki itself!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies

With regards to something like man made climate change, with taxes already imposed and many more set to be imposed along with very powerful political and religious organizations on board and no gain for "deniers" to get into edit wars, you are going to get an extremely biased view.

Wiki is good for anything that is not controversial. An anonymous shitposting image board like this however is great for all things controversial.

how does any of this have to do with skepticism/denialism?

It's real, but any attempt at addressing it would raise the price of energy and therefore lower the quality of life of people today. Considering even with our attention climate change is still going to suck in the future, I think it's preferable to plan to radically adjust our lifestyles in the future and enjoy cheap energy now rather than radically adjust our lifestyles now and never enjoy that cheap energy, but no one who thinks global warming exists says that, so I let the denialism slide.

The problem with that mindset is that we can't adapt to a moving target. Global warming isn't a binary thing that is either avoided or happens full force, its a spectrum of consequences. Carrying on without reducing emissions won't just make things bad - it will force things too keep getting worse and worse until emissions decrease.

Better we start winding down emissions now, in an intentional and controlled way, than we leave the task up to nature.

You posted the wiki link to climate change denial? You tell me. The page is heavily biased and unbalanced. It even has a section on media driven climate change denial campaigns? lol please...we have all been inundated relentlessly with pro man made climate change propaganda from our media for more than one generation now, almost to the point where man made climate doom is implicated in every storm, drought or weather anomaly.

>radically adjust our lifestyles now and never enjoy that cheap energy
Well the plan is not about leaving that energy unspent, it is about who gets to spend it and I am sure it will be radical. Good thing you believe you are responsible for the climate change though because it will make those radical plans easier to swallow should you find yourself on the short end of that stick. If you are shitposting here I am afraid that's where you will be.

I was thinking the same.

My post didn't appear for some reason and im testing to see if its gone

how do they measure what the temperature anomaly was thousands of years ago?

wtf

Why do a third of meteorologists think climate change isn't primarily caused by humans.
gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

I mean, it's more of a consensus than the 2012 survey when only 50% of meteorologists did, but it seems like at least some experts believe there is good reason to doubt the claims.

Pretty much this.

burden of homework is on you -
don't expect to be spoonfed, fgt pls