Climate change in about 20 years

climate and weather
there is a difference

>5/10 for making me respond to your troll post

There is a difference between climate and weather

That's why CO2 toll

Also,

giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_03/

solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

nytimes.com/1998/05/29/us/autos-converters-cut-smog-but-add-to-global-warming.html

faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/global_warmingNASA.pdf

thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(05)77777-1.pdf

pop.org/global-warming-not-health-threat-2/

brookings.edu/research/a-better-way-to-slow-global-climate-change/

euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html

>niwa.co.nz/education-and-training/schools/students/climate-change-global-warming-and-greenhouse-gases
I didn't see any of those predictions here

>fee.org/articles/global-warming-hot-problem-or-hot-air/
I still don't see any of the predictions mentioned. Also, you should know Adler is now convinced AGW is a serious problem.

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/14/what-does-it-take-to-convince-libertarians-and-conservatives-that-climate-change-is-a-problem/?utm_term=.4f78c988b9aa

>fee.org/articles/global-politics-political-warming/
And again, not a single mention.

I thought it odd that you would need more than three links to source a few predictions. Now I'm beginning to think you just posted a bunch of random links in the hope that I wouldn't actually check them to see that they supported your argument.

Question: Why do you feel the need to lie about it if you actually believe that AGW isn't correct?

All right.

A long, long time ago, Europeans decides to force the local Jewish population into ghettos, and that made the Jews very, very mad....

>we can't predict how weather will be like
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

This.

“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” - June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor

“It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” - 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist
“In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.” - March 29, 2001, CNN

“The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.” - October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan

“Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.” - July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post

“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.” - April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet

If you can't find this shit on your own, you aren't even trying.

>Christian Science Monitor
>Fucking Lubos
>CNN
>Some pop-sci faggot
>The Birmingham Post
>ABC

Not a single credible source, scientific """"""""""communication"""""""""" is not a credible source of information, it never has been and it (probably) never will be.

nigga why do u exist if we can't model ur dad's sperm interacting with your mom's pussy? hoooow?

t. retort

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>Carl Sagan
>Some pop-sci faggot

kys.

Also,

>Not a single credible source

1) nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html
>The IPCC: A View From the Inside," by John W. Zillman, August 1997
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change

2) geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html
>Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
>June 10, 1997

3) worldhistoryproject.org/topics/global-warming/page/1
>United Nations
>2009

>He thinks Sagan isn't a pop-sci faggot.

Fucking kek, and you expect me to continue reading your post after that?

Who do you think the masses get their news from? This is the media the alarmist have used to promote this crap. Alarmist say stupid shit and everyone applauds until it just becomes painfully obvious they are talking out their ass. Then the next group of alarmists simply throws that group under the bus yet repeats the same shit claiming more certainty. Rinse, wash, repeat. Literally the problem with popsci and popularizer as a whole. They offer no room for skepticism when they make such pronouncements. No admission to the limits of their knowledge. So where were the "real" scientists telling them they were wrong and cut that shit out? Same place they are now, not given a voice. Same shit, different day.

youtube.com/watch?v=f4G2dvtgVaY

>skepticalscience.com/argument.php
You know what really grinds my gears? People who will make ad hominem attacks against every conceivable source that is against their argument yet will post a source that is literally a cartoonist who didn't graduate. Who removed his accurate biography out of embarrassment and have since had it burnished by some bullshit artists so he wouldn't look like a complete train wreck. That source you'll run with.

you need to understand that the people who report this to the public are trained (often not even) in journalism and that some journalistic norms is to exaggerate things scientists tell them for viewership. on top of this you have the fact that they don't understand any science and they don't properly weigh the things that come from journals.

>No journalist people

The first link you posted does not support your position that
predictions were 'the ice caps will melt and we'll all be wearing swim fins'

The second link you posted is Dr Lindzen ... sigh. You should become better informed of your sources
planetsave.com/2012/03/08/how-richard-lindzen-screws-up-climate-science/
huffingtonpost.com/climate-nexus/lindzen-cites-debunked-science_b_6812356.html
thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6

The third appears to be a report on what was known in 1995, that was 22 years ago friend, we've learned a lot since then. It also fails to support your position about predictions

Enjoy my response
youtube.com/watch?v=ox5hbkg34Ow

This
OP is mixing up climate and weather

No shit, Sherlock. And because alarmists exploit this fact, each generation needs even more extreme levels of shocking bullshit fed into the popsci machine. Governments exploit this too and incentivize it. Which is one of the key criticisms against the alarmists. They tend to be on the government tit and governments think like this:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” - Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996
“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” - Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” - Maurice Strong 1992

These are ideologies pursuing "Science™" as a means to an end. To make an appeal to authority based on the reputation of science that they are then willing to risk ruining.

>The third appears to be a report on what was known in 1995, that was 22 years ago friend, we've learned a lot since then.

>tfw 'it was like twenty years ago man we learned much since then'
>every time
>each 20 years in a loop
>impossible to fail
>if you don't remember what they said, great, we can continue saying
>if you do remember, great too, we learned a lot since
>so anyway we spread bullshit no matter what
>you stupid no matter what
>stupid now if you believed them then
>stupid forever if you didn't and you don't
>smart now if you spread shit because who cares
>you can learn a lot too from now to twenty years

skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php

Climate and weather are two different things, moron.

The weather everyday has a much wider spectrum than climate does over time.

Climate=average.
Weather is like one spin of roulette,
climate is the essential probabilities of the game.
And now the game is changing.

nice cartoonist you got there. Bet he doesn't explain why they reinterpreted past data. Which was good enough to form the hypothesis but apparently not good enough to maintain it.

Nature doesn't conform to the theories of probability because randomness lie on a spectrum.

...

You just proved my point by using all colors of the spectrum.

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#123

Nice trips, but
>pic related

...

Because jurassic climates are what humans thrive in best.

Sorry, but no, more like

Absolutely wrong, as and point well.

>cherry picking an ice age before animals walked on land on a scale of millions of years ago to disprove a trend in the past few hundred years

btfo climate shills

"In summary, 'C3' is an anonymous, opinionated average person-pundit who primarily reports on, and sometimes analyzes/investigates (see examples here), climate science issues that the traditional mainstream press fails to report on or misrepresents. 'C3' personally funds the blog's operating expenses (damn, no outside funding sources - c'mon Exxon, cough some moola up!)."

I can barely read this image

The deniers always use the RSS dataset, its old version which was admitted to be false in march 2016.

youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

This is simply how statistics work.
You can't predict if a coin will come up heads or tails, but if you flip your coin a million times you can predict with great accuracy how often you will get heads and tails.

So CNN predicted in 2001 what the earth will look like in 2000?

Never mind I misread that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

>b-but t-they did it for no reason!

>>climate change in about 20 years
Stupid nigger, it's not in 20 years, it's all the time

Ahem.

C3 comes from NASA.

fyi

But again, nowhere in the paper does it say

'the ice caps will be melted and we'll all be wearing swim fins'

If you can please show me where your prediction comes from.

Climate Change is real.
Climate Alarmism isn't and should be a criminal offense.

dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler#

1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.

One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the "father" or "grandfather" of the climate change myth, as it was his "Model Zero" that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying "to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming," according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the "background data on which their findings and temperature records were based," even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear "any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work."

(Cont.)

3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. The Washington Times reported in 2009: "Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler."

Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted "that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit," reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.

(Cont.)

4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that "2014 was the warmest year on record" and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it's clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.

5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. As The Daily Caller highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the "the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific" that "occur on average every two to seven years," according to NOAA – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere.

(Cont.)

6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.

7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the "average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade," according to Paul Homewood. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models.

(Cont.)

8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry.

Mann, one of the scientists mentioned earlier for his role in the Climategate scandal, received nearly $6 million in grants from the federal government. The sources of funding for scientists like Hansen are unknown, the federal government has been resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to reveal them.

9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change. Not just because of the aforementioned reasons, but because as Marco Morano points out at Climate Depot, "The data show for the last 10 years we have had an unusual drought of landfalling major hurricanes (Category 3 and higher) on the continental U.S."

scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-threshold-for-co2/

If we don't completely stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables in the coming years we are doomed. Venus is a planet caught in runway greenhouse effect. This picture doesn't do it justice, but it's hell and worse one than what the christiantards imagine.

newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/29/the-catastrophist

(SCENE PREMIÈRE)

"A few months ago, James Hansen, the director of nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in Manhattan, took a day off from work to join a protest in Washington, D.C. The immediate target of the protest was the Capitol Power Plant, which supplies steam and chilled water to congressional offices, but more generally its object was coal, which is the world’s leading source of greenhouse-gas emissions. As it happened, on the day of the protest it snowed. Hansen was wearing a trench coat and a wide-brimmed canvas boater. He had forgotten to bring gloves. His sister, who lives in D.C. and had come along to watch over him, told him that he looked like Indiana Jones.

The march to the power plant was to begin on Capitol Hill, at the Spirit of Justice Park. By the time Hansen arrived, thousands of protesters were already milling around, wearing green hard hats and carrying posters with messages like “Power Past Coal” and “Clean Coal Is Like Dry Water.” Hansen was immediately surrounded by TV cameras.

“You are one of the preëminent climatologists in the world,” one television reporter said. “How does this square with your science?”

“I’m trying to make clear what the connection is between the science and the policy,” Hansen responded. “Somebody has to do it.”

The reporter wasn’t satisfied. “Civil disobedience?” he asked, in a tone of mock incredulity. Hansen said that he couldn’t let young people put themselves on the line, “and then I stand back behind them.”

The reporter still hadn’t got what he wanted: “We’ve heard that you all are planning, even hoping, to get arrested today. Is that true?”

“I wouldn’t hope,” Hansen said. “But I do want to draw attention to the issue, whatever is necessary to do that.”

(Cont.)

(SCENE DEUXIÈME)

Hansen has now concluded, partly on the basis of his latest modelling efforts and partly on the basis of observations made by other scientists, that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he had suspected. Carbon dioxide isn’t just approaching dangerous levels; it is already there. Unless immediate action is taken—including the shutdown of all the world’s coal plants within the next two decades—the planet will be committed to change on a scale society won’t be able to cope with. “This particular problem has become an emergency,” Hansen said.

Hansen’s revised calculations have prompted him to engage in activities—like marching on Washington—that aging government scientists don’t usually go in for. Last September, he travelled to England to testify on behalf of anti-coal activists who were arrested while climbing the smokestack of a power station to spray-paint a message to the Prime Minister. (They were acquitted.) Speaking before a congressional special committee last year, Hansen asserted that fossil-fuel companies were knowingly spreading misinformation about global warming and that their chairmen “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” He has compared freight trains carrying coal to “death trains,” and wrote to the head of the National Mining Association, who sent him a letter of complaint, that if the comparison “makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should.”

Hansen insists that his intent is not to be provocative but conservative: his only aim is to preserve the world as we know it. “The science is clear,” he said, when it was his turn to address the protesters blocking the entrance to the Capitol Power Plant. “This is our one chance.”

If it comes to this we can just nuke the shit out of third world countries and have us a nuclear winter.

...

>Bernt Balchen (23 October 1899 – 17 October 1973) was a Norwegian pioneer polar aviator, navigator, aircraft mechanical engineer and military leader.
>It's another "don't trust scientists because look at what this non-scientist said episode"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

>1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist
Is this a joke? Lubos Motl did not even exist in 1969, and the guy is a climate change denying crank. You are so woefully misinformed you can't even source your bullshit ad hoc properly.

>CNN
Fake quote, non-scientist

>“The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.” - October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan
Fake quote. The only part he said is the part in the middle. The rest is an incorrect paraphrase.

Again, why do you feel the need to lie and use fake quotes if you actually believe you're right?

Average behavior vs local behavior

>No shit, Sherlock. And because alarmists exploit this fact, each generation needs even more extreme levels of shocking bullshit fed into the popsci machine.
The massive irony being that the only one exploiting this fact is you in order to claim that scientists predictions are inaccurate. You haven't accurately represented a single climate scientist's predictions. You are scum.

Stop lying scum.

youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg

If climate change wasn't real then a carbon tax would be objectively bad for society and the economy.

>2009

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-fake-global-warming-dat

>2017
>But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an IMPECCABLE REPUTATION, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

>pic related

You are so fucking gullible to believe a tabloid. Literally everything you post is a long debunked meme.

youtu.be/kQph_5eZsGs

Who were the scientists that were telling the media they were wrong or overhyping? How were they treated for saying so? Are they given more credibility now that they turned out to be right about the overhype? Who were the ones that sat on their hands and said nothing or even encouraged the overhype? Do people still listen to them? I know Hansen was sabotaging congresses air conditioning in 1988 to get the room hotter for his presentation. I'm guessing he wasn't standing up to the media or attempting to put anything in perspective. Climatology just isn't on par with real established sciences.

>If we don't completely stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables in the coming years we are doomed. Venus is a planet caught in runway greenhouse effect.

I only hope you're trolling. That's not how Venus's atmosphere got that way, fool, and that's not what humanity is at risk for.

>baaww tabloid
>posts a youtube video

lmao

not him but how did venus' atmosphere get that way

>...Early Venus may have had a global ocean. As the brightness of the early Sun increased, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increased, increasing the temperature and consequently increasing the evaporation of the ocean, leading eventually to the situation in which the oceans boiled, and all of the water vapor entered the atmosphere. On Venus today there is little water vapor in the atmosphere. If water vapor did contribute to the warmth of Venus at one time, this water is thought to have escaped to space. Some evidence for this scenario comes from the extremely high deuterium to hydrogen ratio in Venus' atmosphere, roughly 150 times that of Earth, since light hydrogen would escape from the atmosphere more readily than its heavier isotope, deuterium.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

tl;dr: the sun did it.

Oh look, another gulluble retard believes anything he reads on TDM and doesn't bother to fact check it.

Another dumb """""skeptic""""" who fails at being a real skeptic in every single way.

Your news is months old and was debunked the same day that Bates made his claims. By the way, direct quote from your "IMPECCABLE REPUTATION" Bates.
>The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.
>I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

Blown the FUCK out yet again by your own previous sources. I don't expect you to reply to this after getting annihilated yet again, go ahead and leave the thread in embarrassment, and fuck off back to your echo chamber at where you can post things like this and all the gullible idiots lap it right up without question.

The absolute best part about that shitty TDM article is that they don't even understand what a baseline is, and compared two datasets on two different baselines to manipulate the graph, typical climate change denier tactics (see pic related).

abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/major-global-warming-study-questioned-defended-45328903
sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science
bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

Maybe if you actually bothered to watch the video, in which the author provides sources for all of his claims, you would realize what a stupid gullible idiot you are.

>youtube video
>sources
ayy lmao

Do you need to be spoonfed, or are you genuinely an autistic retard?

Nice job ignoring
as well since you have no rebuttal to your stupidity.

>DUDE MUH YOUTUBE VIDEOS ARE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Go to a university research department and tell them that.

>List of climate-skeptic people disappeared in very strange circumstances

>John Daly
>Michael Crichton (whom also attacked genetic studies in his book "Next" and "Fear State")
artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/michael-crichton-dies/?_r=1
>Thomas Landscheidt

>List of people who believes in global warming that got killed to not letting your suspect about the death of above people and whom Peter Wadhams says they died in 'strange circumstances because they know too much too' (lol)

>Seymour Laxon (died by stairs)
>Katherine Giles (died by truck)
>Tim Boyd (died by lighting ray)

>List of people that left IPCC due to alleged inside-fraud and malpractising

>Zbgniew Jawaroski
>Hal Lewis
>Vicent Gray
>Mohaf Latif

Completely missing the point, and moving the goalposts I see. What does this have anything to do with the John Bates story, or TDM article?

Oh, I see, you've just been BTFO yet again and continue to deflect and try to obfuscate your stupidity.

By the way, I do read the literature, and this is the paper that the Bates story is based on, which passed peer review, and was reviewed for 2 months longer than the typical paper published in Science, a thorough vetting process.
nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

Bates claims that the paper was "rushed" to influence Paris 2015, but that is simply not the case and is not based in any EVIDENCE, you know, the same evidence that you apparently care so deeply about. Funny enough, climate change denial itself has no basis in the scientific literature or evidence either. For example, all the projections made by climate change deniers have been wrong, meanwhile the actual projections in the literature have proven to be quite robust compared to the observations:
realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

You care so much about evidence, but you, much like Bates, fails to bring a single shred of credible evidence to support your story.

By the way, for someone that cares so deeply about the credibility of the scientific establishment, you sure do seem to be a massive hypocrite, considering your autistic screeching over a youtube video that is well sourced, while posting a link to TDM that is riddled with errors such as a failure to understand what a baseline is in statistical analysis of climate data.

Go on, continue to reply and show what an illiterate imbecile you are.

Shoo shoo, back to your conspiracy echo chamber.

CO2 DOESN'T CAUSE HEAT; IT'S HEAT WHAT CAUSES THE INCREASE OF CO2

>potholer54 is an unreliable second hand source
???

do you have downs?

xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0707.1161

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Institut f¨ur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universit¨at Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstraße 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany

Predicting the temperature of next year from last 50 years is like predicting tomorrow's weather from last 50 hours.

>youtube video """""""""""""""""""""""science"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

lmao how stupid can one man POSSIBLY be?

Again, failing to respond to a single point I made here
or here
>The Daily Mail Article """""""""""""""""""""""science"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

lmao how stupid can one man POSSIBLY be?

Climate change is a hoax.

t. autistic /pol/ crossposter that has never read a single piece of climate science literature / research (or any other scientific paper for that matter) in their life.

this

Ice started melting much before use of oils

>Again, failing to respond to a single point I made here
>dude YOUTUBE VIDEOS count as points and arguments

my sides

First of all, there are plenty of scientists who the the media to tall for misrepresentation, even though is not their job. Second, this has nothing to do with whether climatology is a science. Third, your entire movement is based on misrepresentation, as you've illustrated in this thread.

Increase of temperatures is dependant of Sun activity
and not on use of hydrocarbon products

Oh wow, you mean to tell me that the Earth WARMED after we came out of a glacial phase into an interglacial, and that ice sheets receded worldwide?! WHOA, REALLY MAKES ME THINK!

But oh my shitty inforgraphic that I got from some shitty source says the slopes are similar, therefore CORRELATION EQUALS CAUSATION! YAY SCIENCE! Learn to be a skeptic of the things you read from questionable sources you dolt.

By the way, the relationship between interglacials, ice ages and Milankovitch cycles is well understood, the current warming trend IS NOT A PART OF THIS CYCLE, and there is an immensely high degree of certainty that it is almost entirely anthropogenic. Back to /pol/ with your shitty arguments, unless you actually want to stay here and get educated kid.

t. autistic sperg who cannot see the hypocrisy in using a DAILY MAIL article as a "scientific" source, while sperging out when someone posts a youtube video that is WELL SOURCED with sources for everything the guy states, including PEER REVIEWED PAPERS inside the video description.

You genuinely have autism, seek psychiatric help.

>oils
the point is it coincides with the industrial revolution

climatologists 100 years ago already suspected that this would happen

>baaaaw I have no response to the argument
You lose again.