Why so many denialfags?

I mean I can tell you that manmade global warming exists and provide evidence, but then I'll get called out for being "liberal" and sucking climate scientists' dicks. Honestly I don't understand how the smart people here ignore the climate problem.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=joQoshnRa20
youtu.be/HD2zixRoBP8?t=8m
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

...

hi sockpuppet

No you can't.

>the smart people here ignore the climate
They do not, it's the head-in-sand Faux Noise
fanboiz who ignore climatic data, which are
easy to obtain online, yet they demand "proof".

left-handers do not deserve it better

All it takes is one or two dedicated shitposters to create the illusion of a large number of people denying climate change. Meanwhile the people who might argue with them properly are so tired of having to do so over and over again with no results that they go relatively unopposed, creating even more of an illusion that denial is a common opinion.

I try not to get involved in these threads because there always ends up being 2 or 3 on each side that don't listen to reason, the threads fall apart and descent into name calling very quickly. Any actual debate is rendered meaningless.

I'll admit, I'm not a climatologist, but I'm well equipped to read and interpret temperature and co2 data and notice trends on my own - saying these trends do not alarm me tends to trigger the bootlicker though.

I mean, if trillions of dollars of damage and significant loss of agricultural production isn't alarming.

Blame the pol fags that come here making fucking shit race baiting threads. Climate change is real but pol faggots will just call you shill and a kike.

Your main problem is you feel the need to raise the alarm, sound the bell, scare the shit out of everyone. I've seen the trends, they're barely there, I consider myself not scared on solid ground, and it's not because i'm being paid by big oil. Why don't you try not embellishing, say something we can agree on like "hey's there's an anomalous bump in the temp, it's only 0.5C over the last century and a half, it could be something or it could be nothing." We'd agree - if you tried that, but instead you magnify reality and embellish like an overly dramatic grandmother. Leading to an entire thread of you getting btfo by your own data and bias measurement techniques and interpretations.

so let's just not, here's to wishing for the mods to quickly delete this cancer of a thread.

>advocate solutions that don't solve the problem
>wonder why people don't believe you

Maybe everyone denies it because the unemployed SJWtards and libtards are the representative face of climate change and they are pretty much delusional about everything.

but the science just isn't on the leftists side, just like with how the science is on their side with abortion or gender identity. Yet, they'll be the first one to hohum about the Bible/Religion and claim they are scientific purists at that point.

*just like how the science isn't on their side with abortion or gender identity.

>trigger the bootlicker
Bingo. It's always the same climate Gish. He suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Anthropodoomism (OCA), a new variant of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

>its only trolls that don't believe the massive consensus
>nobody could seriously disagree with our settled science
and smug idiots like you wonder why Trump won.

Climatology or Scientology. Which one is more cancerous ?

and honestly is it surprising that there is so much overlap on /pol/ and Veeky Forums ? It's like questioning why there's overlap on /k/ and /out/ or overlap on /a/tv/r9k/s4s/

cancer grows and replaces formerly useful cells with wasteful cells that just suck resources.

The second is a way to steal money from richfags in hollywood. The first is a way to steal money from everyone.

that's actually a legit conundrum. They're both insane cults striving towards world domination.

Nobody will take you seriously if you are unable to differentiate between two different things.

Nobody gives a shit between two scam organizations who's followers are more retarded than each other.

>hey's there's an anomalous bump in the temp, it's only 0.5C over the last century and a half, it could be something or it could be nothing
It's more like 0.8 C and it clearly is "something" according to climatologists. Remember you're the one who claimed to have looked at the data.

I'll admit I started out on /pol/ before coming here, there's nothing left but a half-informed middle school circlejerk. I'm a unifag now and Anthropogenic climate change is real. Its time to address it.
You can disagree. Clearly no one can stop you from disagreeing, but you're just not correct.

I used to post like you, typing provocative things and fishing for (You)s while insisting I'm not trolling. After long enough, it burns you out. Calling strangers on the internet big fat faggotinni felt good, but it shined a light on the big fat faggotinni inside my heart.

>I'd trust my doctor more if he stopped trying to make this "cancer" sound like a big deal. I've looked at the data, and it's only a tiny clump of cells. Plus, there's a whole bunch of other people who claim cancer doesn't actually exist, and it's just a symptom of an acidic diet. If there's still that much debate, why should I pay thousands for chemotherapy?

This.
The amount people doubt the ability of earth science professionals to do their job far exceeds what's normal. If climate change wasn't a hot-button issue do you think they would be under so much scrutiny?

Intelligent people do not deny climate energizing (warming) or weather extremes (both hot and cold, though mostly hotter): Ignorant, irresponsible, useless people deny responsibility because they don't care, because they are irresponsible and negligent. It is reasonably likely--sane--that society changes--affects--the environment: dams rivers, increases CO2, poisons and radiates our air, water and our food. All the heat energy from using energy from the ground (oil and gas) must go somewhere. Conservation of energy on an ~8 billion people scale. There has to be serious consequences awaiting society, on an exponential scale, when society CAN'T and WON'T stop burning and using energy irresponsibility, greedily and lustfully as lazy whores. Kids these days can't open a door without pushing a button. I remember when they were for physically handicapped. This level of lazy is our next gen of workers, not doing their jobs and dragging society down same as their ignorant and arrogant parents.

Threads like this make it clear to me just how much /pol/ think has infiltrated this board. The entire collective intelligence of Veeky Forums is in a death spiral, not that it was that high to begin with.

Someone once told me to go back to /x/ when I explained Milankovitch cycles to him. You just have to accept that some people aren't interested in debate or education; they've induced a state of mind in which they must evangelize about their worldview or feel pain.

Bastards are even hobby boards and adult boards. I cant even fap without seeing race relations or Trump posted somewhere.

Im just hoping they get nuked off the site /fur/ style so we can move on with our lives.

>Unironically sliding Veeky Forums

>Milankovitch cycle
go back to /x/

It's the same guy, he's in all of the climate change threads and makes these long, drawn out posts ridden with fallacies and stupidity. He gets discredited every thread and eventually stops replying once he realizes he can't win. Then you have the standard /pol/ drones that are here just to shitpost in these threads with the standard non-arguments.

Climate science is actually really interesting to discuss, but every time a good thread gets started it's immediately set upon with shitposts like "believing in (((climate science)))," or "fucking globalist kikes," or "fucking libtard leftists," and other such nonsense which belongs on /pol/, not a smaller slow board like Veeky Forums.

I mean let's be honest, there's a lot of shitposting here on Veeky Forums too, but it's gotten so bad recently. Last year, before the election really started, Veeky Forums was a nice, slow board with a low amount of off topic shitposting. Now it's just gotten so fucking bad.

I used to like coming here just to discuss whatever new scientific news there was, and the discussions were often pretty educational, but now I don't even know why I come here anymore. The entire quality of Veeky Forums has taken a dumpster dive as soon as this current election, and the upsurge in /pol/ popularity began.

>guys for real any moment now things are going to really get bad
>we have to do something now I swear a disaster is going to happen
>nobody does anything
>15 years of this shit
>nothing happens
>GUYS FOR REAL ANY MOMENT NOW

lol if you don't have at least some skepticism at this point
modeling climate is not a hard science and has been infected with political bullshit

You apparently have a lot of trouble understanding just exactly what climate change is, and the timescales over which it operates.

It's never been about "any moment now," there's so much conjecture and bullshit around the notion that climate changes are supposed to be instantaneous, or that SLR is supposed to occur over a few years, rather than decades to centuries. It's mostly just hearsay from vague things you read elsewhere about climate change, likely not from actual climate scientists themselves.

There's so many people exactly like you, who have no understanding of the actual science behind climate change, or what climate scientists themselves. do. Climate science most definitely is a "hard science," atmospheric physicists, chemists, mathematicians, statisticians, glaciologists, oceanographers, geologists, biogeochemists, etc. all collaborate within the field and study different aspects of the phenomenon. It's a multi-disciplinary field, like all Earth sciences are, and it's definitely a hard science. Saying that it is not does not make it so. Last time I checked, the Earth sciences were a natural science, and thus would be considered a "hard science."

>modeling climate is not a hard science and has been infected with political bullshit
[citation needed], no your personal opinions and beliefs do not count as evidence, nor does the way climate science makes you "feel."

As for climate models, it actually does involve a lot of mathematics and statistical experience in order to develop the models and get accurate results. Climate models are not perfect, as is any scientific model, but they are useful and they allow us to make predictions, like any other scientific model does. There's a wide variety of climate models too, from measuring projections of sea ice, to Global circulation (GCMs). Models have gotten better and more accurate as computer systems have continued to improve as well.

>If climate change wasn't a hot-button issue do you think they would be under so much scrutiny?
the question is why it is a hot button issue, and the answer is: oil.

now go to bed everyone. nothing is more depressing than "debating" with /pol/tards about AGW

The fossil fuel industry is doing what it needs to do to defend itself, at the cost of the future of human civilization. We know what the problem is, we know what we can do to alleviate the damage, but the oil industry has been incredibly successful in the US at sowing doubt and distributing misinformation through the media and the political process itself about climate science.

The fossil fuel risks losing over TRILLIONS in revenue if the world started to switch over to alternate energy sources. They will do whatever it takes to defend their interests, which is why they have dumped millions into the pockets of conservative politicians and special interest institutions that spread climate misinformation, just like the Tobacco industry did. They have a whole army of shills and pseudo """experts""" willing to distribute their propaganda. The industry itself is worth over 4.65 Trillion dollars globally. Exxonmobil alone is worth nearly 500 billion, they have personally pumped in millions to climate change denial over the years.

Climate change will occur no matter what we as a species do, but the geopolitical crisis that will be ignited in the future because we refuse to do anything conclusive about the issue could have drastic impacts on our civilization. It's not SLR that really scares me, it's mass migrations, it's crop failures and food / water shortages in vulnerable countries, which will cause migrants to trickle over into Europe and North America, causing a lot of stress to a system that is already stressed internally due to migrations within the first world itself due to SLR.

The economic implications are extreme. I think our civilization will survive and adapt, but there's just so much at stake, and there's just too damn many people on Earth that want a first world standard of living.

They aren't actually interested in evidence, they choose to remain willfully ignorant for whatever reason.

youtube.com/watch?v=joQoshnRa20

This video is a bunch of 4th graders testing it with fucking jars and alka seltzer tablets for fucks sake.

It's not hard to get a bunch of CO2 in a jar and heat it up, and measure shit, no matter how far you are in conspiritard lala-land.

...

found the newfag

You realize that if /pol/ is nuked, this site will literally become unusable due to NatSoc threads, HAPENING threads and just /pol/-type threads. /pol/ may be shit, but it's preventing the whole site from becoming /pol/

Nah.
I mean yes, the first month or two after /pol/ was nuked would be like that, but they'd pretty quickly find some other site to infest once it became clear that their board wasn't coming back.

>you feel the need
>I know what you feel

Just go to a forum that isn't inhabited almost exclusively by Americans.

>they'd pretty quickly find some other site to infest once it became clear that their board wasn't coming back
You don't know how adamant /pol/aks are m8

It's because ''climate change'' is not real. It's a literal hoax.
People see trough your bullshit. You don't have any arguments so you result to shaming tactics by saying things like '' I don't understand how the smart people here ignore the climate problem.''
The implication here is that people on Veeky Forums are dumb. You're not dumb, are you Veeky Forums? I thought you guys were smart.

This is nothing but kindergarten shaming tactics.

I'm likewise baffled by the pol/tards, but not at all surprised why big oil does it.
They are simply using the same playbook as the tobacco lobby, it was a huge success, kept the dollars flowing in for decades.

youtu.be/HD2zixRoBP8?t=8m

>You don't have any arguments

>This is nothing but kindergarten shaming tactics.

Exactly, because you're behaving like a kindergartner.
If you're too lazy or stupid to understand the science, the best we can do is tell you "Don't stick your finger in the electrical socket dumbass" over and over until you stop doing it.

>People see trough your bullshit. You don't have any arguments so you result to shaming tactics
Every time a denier shows up on Veeky Forums and starts blowing their load of conspiracy theories, "u cant no nuffin" and WUWT graphs there's a bunch of folks falling over each other to explain in great detail why you're wrong.
Seriously, look through the other thread: EVERY SINGLE POST that even resembles an argument against AGW (save maybe two?) has gotten at least one decent response explaining what's wrong with it. You'd have to try much, much, much harder if you want to see us run out of arguments.

Arguments presented: 0

/pol/ shills

People ignoring decades of research should be completely ignored. Arguing with them is a complete waste of time.

>i-its all pol guise
Is that why you pathetic retards call %95 of the people you see /pol/? Could it not be because you were wrong and full of false predictions for over 25 years ?

Even the people who push climate change admit that their goal is to redistribute wealth globally.
It's the most honest scam in history. They tell you they're scamming you.

You might want to look up what an argument is.

>i-its all pol guise
And yet whenever I press on any of the deniers that show up in these threads to find out why they believe that stuff, they inevitably fall back to conspiracies and politics.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...

>Even the people who push climate change admit that their goal is to redistribute wealth globally.
I'm getting kinda sick of having to deal with this same stupid quote-mine in every thread.
Ottmar Endenhofer didn't claim that AGW was a scam, he pointed out that there's no way to address AGW globally without dealing with the economic impacts. This is plainly obvious to anyone who has read the full interview.

Why didn't they diversify their products/expertise then? It seems awfully dumb of them to just rely on fossil fuels as their only trade. Had they invested on alternate tech they'd probably stay on top and be pioneers of alternative energy technology. I guess greed blinded them

>redistribute wealth
How much are loans coupled to import of foreign technology?

Do you not understand how many trillions upon trillions of dollars are invested in fossil fuel assets, whether it's refineries, the drilling rights to certain locations, the actual fuel reserves within the bedrock itself / stored petroleum / coal. They don't want to invest in new energy sources because what they're already doing is exploiting an extremely cheap resource. This is why it's so hard to get billionaires to divest from fossil fuel investments, they're very profitable, and renewable energy simply can't match them with equal investment opportunities.

Of course this industry will do whatever it takes to maintain itself and its growth.

Everyone knows warming exists. And everyone knows that humans contribute to it. Obviously. We are part of the same fucking ecosystem.

What people don't believe is that it fucking matters at all.

Global warming is something only those with low IQ seriously worry about.

It requires you to use the following variables/states

1. Nothing will change except climate over the next 200 years and every other variable is static.

That is the experiment environment and prerequisites used to justify climate change fears. That is simply not a scientific way to determine Earth's state in 2100.

Please kill yourself.

he's not wrong

Climate Change cultists then say the only solution is to make humanity suffer through austerity and DE-industrialize. Usually this means them prescribing other people suffer while they continue to use huge amounts of resources on private planes, mansions, and useless entertainment trips.

It's a cult of virtue signalling not based on science whatsoever.

>I don't understand how the smart people here

Intelligence and rationality are orthogonal.

Smart people, often, are just better at rationalization.

Show me the study showing that de-industrializing and slowing down the world's economy while rising instability will help solve climate change in the long run as compared to a booming economy that invests heavily in technology.

>Show me the study showing that de-industrializing
That's funny, that's really funny. Give me another one.

I would wager that if anyone was serious about solving "future existential problems" they would rather invest heavily in genetic engineering and eugenics to create higher IQ generations of humans. As such a higher IQ generation would naturally be more adept at problem solving than us and more resistant to existential problems like "climate change" (which is a very minor one).

I've never seen a shred of scientific evidence that the proposals offered by things like the paris agreement even are good or solve the problem in any way. So even if you did believe in climate change and are scared. How do you know that austerity and instituting collective economic suffering is the positive way to solve it?

I'm simply stating that most "solutions" to climate change are simply people calling for suffering to increase. I guess we could solve poverty too by killing the poor. That seems morally in line with climate change cultists.

>I'm simply stating that most "solutions" to climate change are simply people calling for suffering to increase. I guess we could solve poverty too by killing the poor.

Conservative estimates put tech singularity before 2100. Which is going to be a bigger thing? 2 inches higher oceans or exponentially increasing cognitive power?

How fucking retarded is this guy? Sound like a full on retard lolbertarian "MUH FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT!" moron.

Newsflash retard, no one says that we need to "de-industrialize" anything in order to solve climate change. The solution is to invest heavily into alternative energies that are low emissions, or zero emissions, in order to reduce a carbon footprint. This means investments into solar, wind and hydroelectric as primary sources of energy, with some people advocating for nuclear as a solution too (such as myself). This does not mean all fossil fuel usage stops overnight, but it means that instead of opening a new fucking power plant that burns fossil fuels, instead, a new power plant would run off of renewable energy instead. The main issues with renewable is energy storage and transmission, issues that can be solved with R&D investments.

Stop being so fucking hysterically delusional. All you do is paraphrase and make shit up about what "leftists" say on the issue of climate change. I'm sure there are some retards out there that believe we need to embrace mother Earth and all go live in forests in peace or some shit, but that's an extreme minority of people, most economists and scientists that study climate change believe in much more rational and reasonable approaches to solving the problem.

>Conservative estimates put tech singularity before 2100
>tech singularity before 2100
>tech singularity

the goal is control

I don't get it. What exactly is the graph measuring?

It's just a retard that has taken physical temperature data, made the Y-axis extremely exaggerated so that the increase in temperature looks negligible, it's basically manipulating the data to confirm his own biases, you know, the same exact thing people like him accuse climatologists of doing.

Climate data is measured using temperature anomalies, which means you construct a baseline of average temperatures, and then compare the data for a specific year to that dataset, if the anomaly is greater than the average, it results in a positive peak, if less, a negative trough.

ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

Also source for my image:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

It measures how stupid the person is who posts it.

>you know, the same exact thing people like him accuse climatologists of doing.

yeah thats the point. if you legit think that climatologists aren't scaremongering with the scientifically illiterate, you are wrong. the way data is being presented to the public is insincere and absolutely has a political bias behind it.

if you seriously want me to believe everything the climatologists say, then the only viable option for our survival is to inject chemicals into the atmosphere and create a multi trillion dollar carbon control infrastructure.

or maybe, just maybe, when push comes to shove with a decision like that the climatologists will rub the backs of their necks and say "ahhhh maybe its not THAT bad".

Take your meds, nutjob.

Have you seriously seen a single public argument on climate change? It is 100% doomsday bullshit and nothing like you are talking about.

>WE"RE PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN GUYS!!
>THE ICE CAPS!!

i'm crazy for believing the opinions of the 97% you hold to be infallible?

i thought disbelief and skepticism made me crazy. yet here i am believing word for word, and i am insane?

the only way back to the way things are is to cool the planet with chemical injections (something we figured out how to do in the 70's) and use hundreds of nuclear reactors to fire carbon capture machinery. that is literally the only way to get back to pre industrial levels. the climatologists say we will all die if we don't get back there.

He's right

the public discourse on climate change is literally "scientists say we will all die soon"

Even Obama said the fucking oceans would boil if Africans got air conditioning.

They would actually invest in nuclear if they gave a fuck about climate. They don't give a single fuck. All the climate change stuff is 100% nonsense extremism aimed at governmental control and political aims.

You're a shitty liar. Try again.

>You're a shitty liar
maybe. when you actually dig and look for the facts and have an education to decide for yourself.

but thats not how the information is being presented. its doomsday friend, didn't you hear?

The way I see it is if most people are this stupid to deny one of the biggest threats to humanity, then we deserve to suffocate in our own filth, and we should also probably die out as a species.

The entire concept of a tipping point refers to the climate state chancing from one stable state (as in stable ice sheets on the poles) towards another stable state in which polar ice is reduced (aka the ice sheets melting and positive feedbacks increasing the melting). It's not about doomsday, it's about a point at which even if we stop using fossil fuels completely, or stop warming of the atmosphere beyond a known threshold, such as ~400ppm CO2, that the system will move towards a new stability regardless. We have already passed that threshold by the way.

The point is once you get on a path to changing the climate system on a global scale, it's virtually impossible to reverse the direction that climate is headed. You can cease all emissions, and it the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere and oceans will still contribute to warming. The real problem is the effects of global warming are amplified at the Earth's poles, especially in the arctic, which means that regardless of what we do we are likely to see a lot of glacial and ice sheet meltwater seeping into the Atlantic, causing global SLR and potential disruption of AMOC, something that has happened in past interglacials. This does not mean Greenland or Antarctica are going to melt overnight, it will still take centuries, if not thousands of years to completely melt the ice caps, if that even happens, but even a small portion of them melting has severe repercussions of human civilization, which is based in coastal regions.

Then there is concerns about the positive feedbacks from increased global average temperatures due to such rapid (geologically) warming, such as trapped methane and CO2 deposits within permafrost, as well as methane clathrates on the ocean floors. There are actually quite a lot of reasons to be concerned about these impacts.

It's almost as if you get all of your information about climate change and climate scientists by listening to political pundits on tv.

This is what I use:
"The same science that makes your car go and your phone work and your food safe and your house warm is the same science that is telling you you are fucking up the planet."

..Shuts up all except the flat earthers.

Those you kill in their sleep later....

The suns gonna explode and kill us.

in a few billion years, yes, it will, but Earth will be a barren wasteland before that happens due to the expansion of the sun.

>doesn't give a fuck about anything or anyone else as long as he can keep his money
who's the jew now?

hopefully once we use up all the easily accessible oil and cause massive environmental catastrophes that kill nearly all of us, we can go back to being happy little apes, or even better maybe we will literally all be dead

>insane cults
>mfw when people who cant accept facts call us insane

>arctic ice almost gone
>bangladesh flooded as fuck
>animals going extinct faster than ever
>"NOTHING IS HAPPENING CHECKMATE LIBERALS"

So your argument is literally just "I can't provide an ounce of rigorous scientific evidence for my claim, so I'm just going to call you a denier"? This is the same argument I hear all the time from the retards who still believe in global warming. I really can't blame them though, they're still clinging on to an unproven hypothesis that's been thoroughly debunked and hasn't been relevant for years, it's not like they can come up with better arguments.

So your argument is literally just "I can't provide an ounce of rigorous scientific evidence for my claim, so I'm just going to call you a denier"? This is the same argument I hear all the time from the retards who still believe in evolution. I really can't blame them though, they're still clinging on to an unproven hypothesis that's been thoroughly debunked and hasn't been relevant for years, it's not like they can come up with better arguments.

>if you legit think that climatologists aren't scaremongering with the scientifically illiterate, you are wrong
I've not seen that at all. Do you have any examples?

>the way data is being presented to the public is insincere and absolutely has a political bias behind it.
Generally scientists aren’t in charge of presenting their results to the public. If you read a newspaper with a political bias, then of course you're going to see that bias in the things they talk about.

>if you seriously want me to believe everything the climatologists say, then the only viable option for our survival is to inject chemicals into the atmosphere and create a multi trillion dollar carbon control infrastructure.
>or maybe, just maybe, when push comes to shove with a decision like that the climatologists will rub the backs of their necks and say "ahhhh maybe its not THAT bad".
What?
What the fuck?

>i'm crazy for believing the opinions of the 97% you hold to be infallible?
Well you definitely don't seem to be terribly good at listening.

>the public discourse on climate change is literally "scientists say we will all die soon"
Which public discourse? And by who?
If you're reading crappy newspapers, that's your own fault.

>So your argument is literally just "I can't provide an ounce of rigorous scientific evidence for my claim, so I'm just going to call you a denier"?
Mountains of evidence has been presented, but you've put your fingers in your ears.

The US as a country is very anti-intellectual and anti-authority.

Liberals hate GMOs, "chemicals," vaccines, and nuclear power to name a few. Conservatives hate things like climate change or the truth about human genetics and evolution.

Modern people no longer believe in debate as an exchange of ideals and a way to reach the truth as a goal. The modern person hates the debate, and they don't want the goal. Debate is now about "winning." It's about the appearance of making the other person look wrong, where right and wrong are decided by spectators. That's how Trump won the presidency.

Obviously you wouldn't tell a doctor or mechanic how to do his job. The places where you find the most denial of science and authority are things that regard the general discourse of human life and politics: human health, raising kids, what we should do about problems that face us. In the US we're taught that freedom is all that matters and you can believe in whatever you want, so it's just become anarchy and rule by emotion. Get used to it.