U.S...

>t. coalnigger

Even africans in mud huts can use combustion-based energy sources. It's unfortunate your negroid brain can't comprehend any source of power beyond that.

the climates are increasing huh? I'm glad you see it that way.

Reminder that earth's natural state isn't to have humans either, 4.5 billion years of earth's history says hi.

Geologist here.

You would not survive the Eocene

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

still mad over your failed scam?

If you ignore it long enough, it will get bored and go away.

go be 13 somewhere else

Remember when the Pentagon said that climate change was a clear and present danger to national security?

Remember what happened last time we had a dipshit republican president that ignored threats to national security?

I don't know about climate change but it smells like bullshit to me and always will.
Either way, climate can and will change regardless of anything we do.
So, I don't give a fuck.

>totally wrecks

Yeah, because the planet was never hotter/colder than this, right?

>my feelings are more valid to me than facts
well as long as you acknowledge that you're retard all is good

>My hypocritical ""interests for the greater good"" are more valid than your realistic expectations

Earth's natural state isn't to have humans, or complex life, that is if you look at the entire geological history of Earth. Humans evolved during a time in which ice existed at both poles, as did most life that lives under the current climate conditions. Expect mass extinctions when the climate shifts grow more severe in the future.

Climate change is natural and man made. Mankind's effects however (anthropogenic) are far larger on the current trend than natural forcings. In fact, if you took out all anthropogenic effects, Earth's climate would be slightly cooling / stabilized.
nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

The blue area on the graph shows if only natural forcings existed on the climate, compared to anthropogenic forcings.

>tighten control and discourage dissenting views.
>dissenting views
>leftist propaganda distributed using tax money and the official stamp of government approval

>Really making America great again there!
Exactly.

Conditions during 'the great dying' bordered on triggering a runaway greenhouse effect, such as that which boiled away the oceans on Venus. CO2 was at about 800 ppm at that time. It took about a million years to get to that level (a fairly quick change on geological timescales). We're already halfway there in a little over a century.

>Geologist here.
Calling bullshit on that.

>You would not survive the Eocene
Now here's some retarded scare-mongering. Even the warmest part of it would have been very friendly to human life, more than today's climate.

A warmer world is a world with less extremes of temperature and less extreme weather events, because it increases the water vapor in the air, which increases the heat capacity, stabilizes temperature, and enables long-range heat transport. It's a world lacking a Death Valley and a Hurricane Alley.

Anyway, cold weather is much more dangerous to humans, furless tropical apes, than hot weather. Heat waves kill a few sick old people who aren't used to the heat.

>climate change isn't real
>but it's actually a really good thing

This is the problem with people like you. You are so far up your own ass in identity politics, that anything that "leftists" latch onto, like climate change and other scientific issues, you immediately discredit simply because a majority of leftists understand that it's occurring.

Maybe, just maybe not every single idea supported by liberals is bad, just like maybe, just maybe not every single idea supported by conservatives is bad. I'm anti-immigration, anti-importing refugees, and anti-globalism in many respects, yet at the same time I'm a scientist and I understand and agree with the evidence for climate change, because it's not a political issue, it's a scientific one.

The mistake is that the majority of liberals, or as you say "leftists" that "understand" climate change, really don't understand it. They have about the same grasp of the issue as any other normal person with no formal education in the matter, and parrot things they read in the media, instead of looking at the scientific literature. That said, much reporting in the media on climate change is fair, depending on the source.

Climate science is as its core, a scientific, not a political issue. Of course there are many divisions within the field; you have economists for example that do nothing but study the economic impacts of climate change, or physicists who study the greenhouse effect, or chemists who study radiative forcings and climate sensitivity. The evidence stands for itself, however it's an issue with political and economic ramifications, which is why it has become so politicized by both sides of the field. Climate scientists in general don't like to politicize their research, but the media and politicians love to.

Overall though, the solution to climate change replies on policy changes, as well as economic responses, which is why the issue is so damn contentious. Conservatives do not want more taxation, or regulation, even if future benefits of taxes will pay themselves.

fortune.com/2017/01/24/1984-george-orwell-best-seller-list/?xid=gn_editorspicks&google_editors_picks=true

>‘1984’ Is Back on the Best Seller List After Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Alternative Facts’ Comment

Human civilization (70%+ based on coastilnes) didn't exist in the eocene maximum. Our greatest cities / ports didn't exist then. There weren't nearly 8 billion people reliant on agriculture and fisheries (that are collapsing) back then.

You have to be a massive ignoramus to think that climate change is not a significant issue to the future of our civilization. The impacts are slow to observe on a human lifespan, but they are still significant. SLR alone will force mass migrations, and wet areas will see increased rainfall, while arid regions will become more arid, and thus lead to more problems with agriculture. Food + water shortages + mass migrations...

I just hope that we can engineer solutions to these issues. Human ingenuity is important, but tackling climate change is a massive mess.

>BUT you're a fucking retard if you think it's man made
it is man made, everyone affects the climate, especially us.

that being said, trump is the best option to stop this with his china trade wars.

see there's a reason it coincided with something called "the great dying"

You're confusing the Permian-Triassic extinction event (the Great Dying) with the Eocene thermal maximum. Eocene maximum was much more recent in geological time, the P/T extinction occurred on boundary between the paleozoic / mesozoic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

That said, the termal maximum is still associated with extinctions, such as benthic foraminifera.

Even if climate change isn't real (it is), we all ought to waste less, conserve more, and clean up after ourselves properly.

>Conservatives
>Doesn't conserve
An impetus for reflection

No need to worry user, the increased CO2 emissions will be offset by Trump destroying the economy.

Through stimulation by high potential high frequency current it is possible to create ozone, excite the usually inert nitrogen in the atmosphere allowing it to be utilized and also plausable with other elements, such as carbon which essentially means we could clean and repair our atmosphere.
Trump, and a lot of presidents before him know of the methods to do this, and such methods have been available since the beginning of the 19 hundreds. teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-568177-apparatus-producing-ozone
He does not go on to explain in his patent the many other uses for this, including but not limited to the the environmentally friendly production of nitrogen fertilizer.

Tell me again how climate change is not a fabricated problem to boost fossil fuel prices? Don't get me wrong we are doing damage, but only because its allowed to happen for inflation. This is what trump will end. He is actually a lot like JFK, just not as much of a gentleman

>people still think we can revert the damages of climate change
At this point it really doesn't matter if we ignore it or try to deal with it. We passed the point of no return a long time ago and within the next century we will begin the notice the effects at full force.
Bees dying off due to the erratic changes in weather will be biggest blow.

We're just the only major source of CO2, ice core samples have drawn relations between CO2 and temperature as well as lab models and scaled down experiments of the atmosphere.

These are actually as a result of our weakening magnetic field, animals require this for navigation and perception purposes. These weakening fields are a result of global plate tectonic cycles and is a normal cycle. Its just we have greatly sped up the heating cycle

Everyone is overlooking the quantum side of this. Your can let the light in but not through sin and Satan.

Sure the earth will be fine, but we still have to live on the damn thing.

I'm also a geologist.

Here's your guaranteed reply.

Everytime someone brings up climate change nobody makes an argument for it or presents data. It's been around since Al Gore and it's always just a repeated mantra. Fuck off or explain the science and dissolve any counter-argument.

>Everytime someone brings up climate change nobody makes an argument for it or presents data.

More like people never listen or respond back when legitimate arguments for climate change are posted. Instead threads consist of mostly shit flinging about meme tier carbon/sea levels or muh corruption/ fake news.

Protip, climate change concerns more than just muh ozone and muh water. I have on multiple occasions posted with publication links about the ramifications of climate change when it comes to likelihood of pathogen outbreaks.

I have also provided arguments about man's influence on the climate via wide spread land erosion.

What do non-industry Republitards get out of being anti-science?

Is it seriously just contrarianism?

Yes, but there we weren't around for it to effect. The last time there was a "wobble" in the Earth's climate it forced every hominid in Northern Europe die or migrate south.

...

What's the point? 97% of climate scientists agree with it. These are people who have spent their lives going through education and travelling the world studying climatology because they a genuine interest in it. Climate change denialists are armchair "scientists" who have no knowledge about the climate other than some graph Monkton posted and what their favourite republitard candidate told them. And because they're denying it for the sake of politics, they'll never change their mind anyway.

Its easier just to tell you to fuck off.

Money. Not for the whjole economy mind you, but for their special interests and donors.

Not true. I post in most of these climate change threads here, and I routinely present scientific papers, data and quotes from the literature.

See
This is true. Every single time someone posts evidence in these threads it gets ignored, instead resorting to shitty """arguments""" like "IT'S A RELIGION!" "IT'S NOT (((SCIENCE)))!" "IT'S A CULT!"

Every single fucking thread. It's almost as if these people have been brainwashed from reading too much WUWT / Climateaudit.

Climate change is a pseudoscience moneymaker. Remember Al Gore? Yeah...

Not all 'scientificial' paper are worth to read. Even if they fulfill the scientificial standards ie has sources and AIMRAD, they can be full of shit. May climate change papers makes a huge deal about few decimals of a degree

Every time you are asked to think by yourself you just talk about these 'publications'. Climate scientist are sub 110 iq idiot savants whom cant think by themselves

Are you actually in any scientific field.
>citing publications isn't thinking for yourself
As a chemist should I not use established rules and findings to
Further my own ideas ? Should
I discover atomic weights by myself in order to be a clear thinker

You fuckers are more than happy to use scientific papers when it benefits you like supposed IQ differences between populations, and republitards are more than happy to use them when a new oil extraction technique is developed, but when its something you don't like you sperg out and become denialists.

When we pass the tipping point and a runaway greenhouse effect starts taking over the deniers are gonna say "see the climate's changing on it's own!" as we burn to a crisp.

>huge deal about few decimals of a degree

You realize that for a system as chaotic as our planet, a tiny change in global temperature can have monstrous effects?

global warming is a good thing, imagine Canada becoming an agricultural powerhouse.

So basically, you refuse to read anything that contradicts your biases. It's nice to know that you could give a shit about being a rational, skeptical person when it comes to your own, dare I say "beliefs."

I'm not afraid to read contrarian papers, or examine the arguments of denialists, because reading their arguments simply makes it easier to find the flaw in their methodology and debunk their claims. Deniers often use cherrypicking and flawed understandings about how climate models are computed in order to dispute climate change, not rational or scientific analysis of the evidence. They often take quotes out of context from scientific literature, showing how they don't even read the papers they criticize, and instead look for anything that sounds like it supports their agenda, even if the overall argument of a paper had nothing to do with what was quoted. See a few threads ago when some sperg posted a Hansen paper from 1981 and took one quote completely out of context from the paper as evidence that climate change was not occurring.

You would rather remain in your safe space / echo chamber where no one questions your denial dogma than be a true skeptic.

For a short while until other adverse effects catch up.

what is a short while? 200 years?

Until the trans-atlantic conveyor stops circulating warm water because of the fresh water the Greenland glacier poured into it and it becomes uninhabitable.

I'd say on the order of decades if not less than a decade but I'm sure I don't know enough.

WHEN have we--all of us as one society--sincerely started dealing with the destruction of our environment: our air, water and land that is our life.

Look at all the overdose suicides and the suicidal people--suicide walkers--walking across the street, staring mindlessly into a portable idiot box, hoping a texting-driver will kill them with their car or truck. Lots of kids these days suiciding away from their miserable lives and families this way. Of course, the police don't tell us when these kids suicide (when their phone is found beside their dead, mangled body with half an unsent text message); same as they don't release the suicides on subways.

Negative part is that if they revealed all these suicides--stopped lying--more people would see the epidemic of kids who hate themselves enough to want to kill themselves and some parents might talk to their children. But if the parents are carelessly suicidal themselves then these children have no hope because their parents will never sincerely talk about suicide cause they won't face their own suicidal tendencies.

So my question back is "When is someone going to do something positive, sustainable? Rather than merely saying what we have yet to do, should do or what we should not still do? Where's and what's your answer to fear, greed, lust, hate and hopelessness?

They have never met a scientist, they are unaware that falsifying data will end your career.

Well there was the Paris agreement recently and what does suicide have to do with this?

You're full of shit. Bees especially don't utilize magnetism at all for navigation. This applies to maybe geese and some fish.

There's enough of us here to have threads about our field

And deep-sea crabs

Are you fucking retarded? You think anyone actually care about the planet or that we have the capacity to destroy it? The only thing we can destroy is our ability to live on it. That's what ecology is about not "dude, like, the earth is a living organism and shit bro, pass the blunt" hippy shit.

>What if we just IGNORE the problem of climate change instead of dealing with it?
absolutely nothing bad will happen if you ignore climate change.

>"Nobody brings up evidence"
>"Yes they do, here are some peer reviewed papers"
>"No, those are untrustworthy because of these (((reasons))) I just made up"

Do you realise how fucking dense you sound

literally nothing bad will happen if you burn the observatory

Heh heh... not bad... kid. Those are some mighty fine ((((((scientific))) (((papers)))))) you got there but... I've got one last Trump card up my sleeve. You see... says we're all gonna be fine so *lights cigar* you can just run along back to your lab now.

youtube.com/watch?v=pCdX_KQloTk
>I just hope medical science can cure me

fake news
thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/316195-epa-spokesman-political-staff-wont-interfere-with-science

He said it only after a big deal had already been made about it.

Need a planet with fresh water and breathable air to have an economy

>climate change data from 1850
>1850
Anyone familiar with the scientific setting and instrumentation should realize that your data is only as good as it's "Calibration" and how well it can be recreated.

Do we really think that common calibration techniques across several instrumentation tech levels, across different measurement processes carried over with accuracy through the decades? I would argue that all temperature data pre-1960 before the advent of climate satellites are unreliable at BEST.

This unreliable nature of instrumentation/calibration is further compounded by the admittedly tiny delta T that is presented (0.5C/1F).

But lets take a step back, does a temperature change of 0.5C or 1F even exist? and if so does it really show in this data set? and if so how do you account for this when there are so many outside factors accounting for this tiny temperature change?

When you recognize the scientific uncertainty associated with this agenda being presented, you cannot help but recognize it overtly political *(and unscientific) nature.

Climate change is real, but the left's solutions to it are garbage. Fining them too much for emissions will just make them move to China and they don't even have to pretend to care about the environment over there.

Doing a reverse image search on the image you posted leads only to links from WUWT and a creationist blog (Cornwall alliance for the stewardship of Creation).

>I don't understand how to read the charts / graphs: the post

Climate data from the 1850s is mostly from surface temperature records, and is most certainly valid data, pretending it doesn't exist simply because you don't understand it does not eliminate it as evidence. Some records go back even further than the 1850s by the way. Thermometers existed back then too, you realize this right?

Anyways, that graph you posted on the right is a complete and utter joke. All you have done is made the temperature range incredibly high as to say that an increase in global average temperature means nothing. For fuck's sake, it goes from -10F to 110F, do you not understand what a massive fucking temperature range that is, and how that completely skews the way the data is represented? Yet you don't question it, so much for skepticism.

The way the data is plotted on the right is most definitely the way you plot climate data. You choose a baseline of average temperatures (~30 years), which you compare the data to, this is a standard statistical analysis and is completely valid, the fact that you don't understand this is baffling and proof of your ignorance. The temperature anomaly is the change from the baseline, either greater than average, or less than the baseline. It's not a "magnified view," this is the way climate data has been studied for decades.

Educate yourself. Every single time I think you denier retards can't get any dumber, you outdo yourselves.
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/absolute-temperatures-and-relative-anomalies/

So to recap: your sources are shit. The graph is nonsense and makes no sense, and you are in general a blathering moron who will eat up whatever nonsense is posted at WUWT without question.

This. Only solution is human extinction.

>Do we really think that common calibration techniques across several instrumentation tech levels, across different measurement processes carried over with accuracy through the decades?
Do you really know nothing about climatology?

berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

>I would argue that all temperature data pre-1960 before the advent of climate satellites are unreliable at BEST.
The satellite data suffered from several large biases which made it useless until recently. Once the biases were corrected it has been shown that they are in high agreement with the temperature record. The reason you claim it's more accurate is because it confirms your pre-conceived beliefs. You are not arguing honestly, let alone scientifically.

>This unreliable nature of instrumentation/calibration is further compounded by the admittedly tiny delta T that is presented (0.5C/1F).
This is not tiny in its effect or when compared to the changes in the paleoclimate record. But of course you probably think that's unreliable as well, since it isn't convenient for your ideology.

>But lets take a step back, does a temperature change of 0.5C or 1F even exist? and if so does it really show in this data set? and if so how do you account for this when there are so many outside factors accounting for this tiny temperature change?
Again you show your ignorance of climatology while attempting to pretend that you have enough knowledge about it to judge its accuracy. There is plenty of research that shows the accuracy of the temperature record, and plenty of research that determines the effect of the various factors on temperature.

>When you recognize the scientific uncertainty associated with this agenda being presented, you cannot help but recognize it overtly political *(and unscientific) nature.
I cannot help but recognize that your lies are politically motivated.

IT'S A WEALTH TAX, CHINA IS GOING TO DO IT AS WELL!

Industry will move to the next cheap labor country on the list, and make them rich!

Is China/India going to accept losing it's wealth or tax the new guy?

Your argument does even less than the person you're refuting!

He at least provides reasoning for his skepticism
>small temperature range
>potentially imprecise instrumentation
>margin of error compounded by many variables across shaky models

You just said, "Wow you know nothing obviously!"

Way to go.

>pretending temperature data from 1850 doesn't exist
That's not what I'm doing, I'm actually considering it more than you have. Have you ever been responsible for calibrating the instrumentation of an entire lab? What records do exist for the processes used with the rudimentary instruments that did exist at this time, makes the entire data set from 1850-1960 suspect. It does have it's usefulness don't get me wrong, but by blindly ignoring this perspective you have outed yourself and your agenda. You pretend as though there isn't evidence post-1960 that doesn't show slight temperature gains... but you give it too much importance. +0.5F is the best you can show, and even then it doesn't account for all possible reasons for this. Adhere to your own scientific principles or discredit yourself user.

>Thermometers existed back then too.
From this statement you clearly haven't understood my point. Data is nothing with out methodology and calibration. NOTHING.

>how that skews the data is presented
You seem to have a problem with your own data, it doesn't look scary enough for you when presented normally? hmmm.

>this is the way climate data has been studied for decades
Starting about when the politics took over huh?

>you are a blathering moron
So the person who doesn't understand how calibration and methodology impacts a data set isn't? For the purposes of this debate please restrict yourself into only using the valid data that exists post-1960.

>educate yourself
Why does this give you political capital to destroy the 1st world life style?

>He at least provides reasoning for his skepticism
What skepticism? All I see is denial and misrepresentation of the scientific evidence. Skeptics accept evidence.

>small temperature range
False, as I've already explained.

>potentially imprecise instrumentation
The research we have says that it is precise enough to determine that the Earth is warming rapidly due to human's greenhouse gas emissions.

>margin of error compounded by many variables across shaky models
The models have been accurate for decades.

You just ignored the actual arguments I made. Why do you need to misrepresent and lie if you are actually arguing rationally?

Not him, but define "Normally."

>do you really know nothing about climatology
>Proceeds to manipulate data when you're not looking
You realize that you have invalidated all this data that was at least partially usable? Let it be what it is - out dated and unreliable as collected with nonstandard methodology and uncalibrated and antiquated measurement apparatus.

>Once the biases (in the data) were corrected
Do you not hear yourself? Leave the data alone, stop putting political spin on it... and stop literally changing the data to suite your political agenda. It is truly baffling how you consider data manipulation to be credible. Imagine kiddo if you were in your senior science lab and you just erased all your data because "it didn't work for you" and filled in your own data that allowed for the pre-choosen conclusion you arrived at prior to collecting any data at all?

>a delta 0.5F over 15 decades isn't tiny
yes it is.
>it's effect isn't tiny
you have been unable to show causation in this regard.
>paleoclimate record
It's even tinier when you want to start bringing in data from tens of thousands to millions of years ago.

>it isn't convenient for your ideology
what ideology is that? Requiring you to stick to the fucking scientific method? wow.

>There is plenty of research that shows the accuracy of the temperature record, and plenty of research that determines the effect of the various factors on temperature
Here you show your ignorance of data collection, instrumentation, calibration, and methodology. It's very clear you've never stepped foot into a laboratory.

>I cannot help but recognize that your lies are politically motivated.
>lies
What lies? I've made very few authoritative statements limited to my areas of expertise, one of which is data collection.

The politics manipulation tends to be among the crowd that is pushing for "MAJOR" life changing laws and regulations purposely molded to change the 1st worlds lifestyle for the worse. It is you who has the agenda.

>small temperature range - False
0.5F over 15 decades

>earth is rapidly warming
>rapidly
the speed of this 0.5F "warming" trend hasn't been shown, I think you are just unable to turn off your scarmonger language even for a second to discuss the actual data set like an adult. It's tiny, and barely provable, and it certainly isn't 'rapid'.
>b-but nobody will care if we don't embellish and scare them
be accurate and precise in your wording with unassailable data and you will have your audience.
>due to human's greenhouse emissions
causation? How many factors of ten is your average supervolcanic event greater than man's use of fossil fuels? These events are geologically frequent, yet here we are.

>the models we changed are accurate
you changed them, you manipulated them to your own needs, these are not valid data sets for this reason.

Oh look, it's this "everything is a conspiracy" faggot again that always shows up, can never refute the evidence, and relies solely on conjecture to present his arguments.You refusing to look at the evidence I posted yet again? Why don't you read them, gain an understanding of temperature anomalies and how the data is processed, then get back into the discussion?

No, you won't though. You use mental gymnastics and conspiracy to prevent yourself from having to question your biases. How convenient. I mean if you're so confident that you're right, surely you can automatically refute everything that Gavin Schmidt, an actual climatologist who studies the data, has to say, right? Surely you're not afraid to read an actual scientific source if you're so confident that your dogma is the correct position, right? You and your "cult" of denial are full of useful idiots like themselves that just parrot whatever bullshit you read on your blogs, instead of actually looking at the evidence, or seeing what climate scientists themselves have to say.

>Why does this give you political capital to destroy the 1st world life style?
More standard delusion that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, hardly surprising given your history of getting BTFO here every thread you shitpost in.

It's people like you who cannot in their mind separate the science of climate change from the economic impacts of climate change that are delusional. You have no evidence of your grand little conspiracy scheme, such that all you can do is cherrypick scientific information that you lack a basic understanding of, or claim that researchers are actively manipulating everything they publish, again, without evidence, because you have nothing else to go off of, no real arguments. You constantly bring up policy in discussions that have nothing to even do with them. Talk about politicizing a scientific idea? You're the one actively doing it.

he took issue with the 'normal' view in the pic. Can't have normies looking at our lifes work and not being scared shitless from our fear-mongering.

>Doing a reverse image search on the image you posted leads only to links from WUWT and a creationist blog (Cornwall alliance for the stewardship of Creation).

lulz

>Expect mass extinctions when the climate shifts grow more severe in the future.

Will this be in our lifetimes? Are humans going to be part of this mass extinction within our lifetimes as well?

>You realize that you have invalidated all this data that was at least partially usable?
Several different approaches have been taken to testing the accuracy of the temperature record, and they confirm its accuracy. Ever heard of Berkeley Earth? You tried to shed doubt on the record, while ignoring the actual research done on it. Shame on you.

>Do you not hear yourself? Leave the data alone
So on the one hand you claim that the data is not calibrated correctly, and on the other hand you demand that it not be corrected. And of course you just ignore the link I presented which explain why corrections are needed and how they are legitimately carried out. That's really the only trick you have, just ignore anything you don't like. That means you are not arguing rationally.

>you have been unable to show causation in this regard.
Scientists have.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

>It's even tinier when you want to start bringing in data from tens of thousands to millions of years ago.
Oh so you do accept historical data when you think it helps your case? But no, the paleoclimate record rarely shows such rapid warming, but it does show that rapid warming is linked to mass extinction.

>what ideology is that? Requiring you to stick to the fucking scientific method?
The scientific method? Ha, you are simply denying the results of the scientific method you don't like.

>Here you show your ignorance of data collection, instrumentation, calibration, and methodology.
That doesn't respond to what you're replying to, moron. Again, there is plenty of research that shows the accuracy of the temperature record. Does it not exist?

>What lies?
Arguing that the corrections to the temperature record do not account for different techniques and calibrations. Claiming the satellite record is more accurate than the instrumental record and that the latter is unreliable before the former existed. Generally misrepresenting the scientific evidence.

>Oh look, it's this "everything is a conspiracy" faggot again that always shows up
I'm not on Veeky Forums very often, perhaps it makes it easier for you to believe there is just one guy who won't think like you do.

>climatologists are the only ones capable of reading and interpreting data
I always like this argument. I get a chuckle everytime. It's like Argument from authority or appeal to a higher power. You basically are attempting to take away my opinion by saying I'm not allowed to have one. I haven't ventured outside of my area of knowledge, have you?

>literally skipped 80% of the counterpoints i made
hmmm, i suppose you have ceded these points?

>BTFO
ahhh, now i see, you have what is known as a crippled brain, unable to make arguments because your emotional state has consumed your cognitive response. In short, u mad.

>Climate change is real, but the left's solutions to it are garbage. Fining them too much for emissions will just make them move to China and they don't even have to pretend to care about the environment over there.

If that is what you really believe, you aren't even trying hard enough to think of a solution.... its as if you've never heard of any of the political, economic, or diplomatic tools that are used on a daily basis to maintain various shit-storms from developing around the world.

You're just a meme moron with no ideas and no knowledge blabbing about "muh leftists"

doubters of climate change should take leading scientists' word or thoroughly investigate climate as much as scientists have. if they investigate it like the scientists have the will likely come to the conclusion, like most climate scientists, that anthropogenic effects on the climate very likely exist.

trump should continue the support of the research of climate change and support ethical research of geoengineering as a possible method to ameliorate detrimental effects of changes in earth's climate if it seems to be a necessary path of action to use

youtube.com/watch?v=KhdpyCmklUg

youtube.com/watch?v=EZShFq-36MI

>Doing a reverse image search on the image you posted leads only to links from WUWT and a creationist blog (Cornwall alliance for the stewardship of Creation).
Ad Hominem!!!!
> butts guberment money comes with no expectation.

>>I don't understand how to read the charts / graphs: the post
>Climate data from the 1850s is mostly from surface temperature records, and is most certainly valid data,
2/3 of the earth's surface is ocean. And very little of the land surface was instrumented back then. The data back then was certainly valid -- BUT ONLY FOR THE SMALL AREA NEAR THE THERMOMETER.

user even China is starting to enforce climate change policies because their air quality is so fucking bad that not only are their average lifespans going down they have occasional city wide emergencies.

China has no choice at this point, they don't have the luxury to act as if it doesn't affect them.