How do we convince him that climate scientists do not participate in a grand scale Chinese conspiracy?

Your denial is a meme.

you're so stupid if you think that global warming caused by humans is a "problem" lmao its embarrassing

>The guy literally has access to the necessary resources to confirm climate science is legit.
The guy LITERALLY doesn't read anything besides tweets and fake news. You utter moron.

>he thinks he isn't proving publicly he is retarded

Certain gasses have chemical properties which make them greenhouse gasses. here is a great article about this:
acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

When we artificially increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more efficient at trapping heat from the sun, causing global warming. Global warming is going to have various effects: it's going to harm the growth of crops, raise the sea level, make hurricanes and tornadoes more destructive due to a warmer atmosphere, etc. it's really a pretty serious issue

Also if we don't stop global warming there will be a refugee crisis in Bangladesh because their country will basically drown

Back to /pol/

didnt say black people moron. just 3rd worlders.
Oberpopulation is a meme

>not believing in some very dubious science makes you a racist polack

no, I just don't see any meaningful trends in the temperature of the earth, sorry sweetie

lol. Dumb shits actually believe theyre better by ignoring reality. Overpopulation is for suckers

>Dubious

Let me understand your logic for a second. do you believe that artificially increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is NOT going to raise the temperature of earth?

If that is your belief, you are pretty stupid.

Also just take a look at pic related. global warming is not "dubious science", it's a well established scientific consensus

kill yourself or live up north for two years

One of these days we're gonna crack everything open in the field of chaos mathematics and notice that it was just a series of 3 coinflips that landed on heads in a row and everyone is going to feel super embarrassed about all this

>He actually thinks the president of the fucking United States just looks at Twitter and meme news shit all day.

Shove a cold pipe in your ass you retard. He definitely knows climate science is legit, even IF he didn't at first the moment he got the office he could have easily asked for proof and been provided it.

The problem is he can't convince the majority of his base this because that would mean giving the opposing side a "win".

The entire election and current presidency is about preventing the other side from getting as many "wins" as possible at this point. That's why they've been ham fisting immigration and health care reform because they can't fucking give the other side a win.

[[[[[[[CITATION NEEDED]]]]]]]]
Nice meme image dude. What next, ard you going to cite that "97% of scientists" bushit too?

Back to /pol/, trumpkin

they use 50 different complex models to track temp and ice mass. 49/50 got it completly wrong on ice mass as they thought itd decreasw when it has increased. All 50 were atleast 1.8 decrees C off in temp as of 2017.

this lmao

I live in NYC, or do you mean more north? that is not how the burden of proof works friend

Canada
every year we've been getting less snow
AGW is real

But it was kind of chilly here yesterday

The 33,700 VS 34 stat is originating from an analysis by James Lawrence Powell, from what i understand.

Here are articles about this stat, it was from some time ago:

globalresearch.ca/climate-change-the-greatest-challenge-of-our-time/5360852

dailykos.com/story/2014/10/31/1334180/-Global-Warming-We-are-the-99-99

The site of Powell is updating when new peer reviewed studies come out, which is why the numbers are a bit different now, but it still shows the exact same picture - there is a widespread consensus that climate change is real and manmade

jamespowell.org/index.html

fucking nothing compared what it used to be

Quit taking Trump at face value. When he says dumb shit he is actually smart. When he says retarded shit, he is super duper smart underneath. He just likes pretending to be retarded

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

11 out of the 12 hottest years on record are all in this century, except for 1998 which is the 8th hottest year ever measured in human history

>dailykos

>implying this isn't a legitimate form of economic warfare and China hasn't neglected its Kyoto duties
You know you're on Veeky Forums right? This isn't a place for liberals.

>implying any country has followed through on the Kyoto protocol

Most scientists are liberal, but let's not get into that.

The concept of global warming has NOTHING to do with economic warfare. it originated from scientific research of the atmosphere and the effects greenhouse gasses have on the atmosphere.

Also, i would argue moving towards green energy will actually SAVE the economy, not harm it, because oil is not a renewable resource and we are going to eventually run out of it.

Moving towards green energy will also reduce the dependency of the west on oil from saudi arabia, which is always a good thing

You don't. There is absolutely no valid information or facts that would change his course of action. His arrogance and stupidity would shrug off such trivialities.
You have to convince him that there is money to be made in preventing global warming. Specifically, money *he* could make from the phenomenon. Then he'd listen.

out of the tiny amount of time we have measured them.
>what are solar cycles?

oh god, kys
the solar where the sun gets hotter until we die or the solar cycle where the sun periodically irradiates us until we die?

There's actually a small but growing conservative movement that accepts climate change and wants to take the necessary steps against it. The key to their argument is that even if the predictions are overblown, the problems that will be created if they are right are ones we cannot mitigate or fix. In business is called an "undiversifiable risk" and in risk management settings these are weighted even against more likely outcomes. Businesses will spend a lot of money to avoid an undiversifiable risk even if it is not a likely outcome because if it comes to pass, there's basically nothing they can do.

>How do we convince him that the scientific consensus about the impact of humans on global warming should be taken seriously?
Because there is no scientific consensus that it should be taken seriously, just that it's happening at some rate.

>How do we convince him that climate scientists do not participate in a grand scale Chinese conspiracy?
good try chink.

Dude stop. Citations and scientific research do not work on deniers. They will always dig deep to find some idiotic reason to discredit any thing you throw at them. These are the same people that buy into the "fake news" bullshit that Trump spouts.

You ok hillary?

Hillary has nothing to do with this.
What he is saying is true in many cases. look how many evidence i gave to support man-made global warming in this thread, and people who deny it just keep denying it because they are partisan hacks who would rather believe a republican politician over the majority of climate scientists

You can't convince him about anything unless you convince him that he can make money off of it

Or because the evidence isn't damning on any kind of geological scale, and anybody over the age of 30 has been hearing about this eco-climate-global-meltdown for their entire lives, with "the next ice age!" just around the fucking corner, and then it was "shit we're all gunna melt!" and now its just "well some places are kinda changing in climate".

Hippies burned themselves super fucking hard with this one and you're not going to be convincing anybody who has seen how that happened because supposedly reliable studies "proving" it before weren't true then, so why should we think they are now?

>he
You mean me
The consensus is there's some manmade warming at some rate. Everyone agrees. Your opinions is that it's important enough to actively harm the economy to do more to prevent it compared to other countries. This is a controversial opinion for obvious reasons.

Moving to green energy will not harm the Economy, it will save the economy. Oil is not a renewable the source, the sooner we move to green energy the better.

Furthermore, moving the green energy will reduce the dependency of the west on oil from saudi arabia - wouldn't this be great?

Probably samefag trying to bait

You are straw-manning the shit out of your argument. no one claimed that we are going to melt or that we are going to have next ice age within our lifetime. and also, current global warming advocates do not say that "oh, some places are kinda changing in climate".

Please quit the strawmen arguments.

The studies from years ago predicted that the earth is warming, and guess what? 11 out of the 12 hottest years in human history were all in this century.

The studies weren't wrong. they gave estimations of the rise in temperature and not exact number because there is always a degree of error in climate science, however we do have a strong grasp of the overall picture

>putting arbitrary restrictions, penalties and fines on certain materials and energy sources will not harm the economy
You dont even know the argument youre trying to have. All there is in your mind is "climate change is bad so stopping it is good" and you have no idea what that implies or what's currently being done about it

I actually know exactly what is the argument i'm trying to have.

Green Energy is a growing industry with a huge potential to benefit the economy. in the other hand, the oil industry is slowly running out of their oil reserves - this is maybe not a problem right now, but if you are young oil reserves running short is going to be a serious problem within your lifetime.

If the oil reserves run out BEFORE we make a transition towards green energy, you do understand its going to crush the economy, right?

And also, another benefit of green energy is that it will reduce the dependency of the west on oil from the middle east. wouldn't it be beneficial if the western world stopped being dependent on saudi oil?

>lets force everyone to use new and unreliable tech that costs a shit load to produce
>"it wunt hurt da economonies!"
Oh my god youre seriously fucking retarded

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

Germany increased the production of Green energy from 6.3% of the overall energy consumption to 34% of their overall energy consumption, and this has been nothing but beneficial to their economy

In one year alone roughly 300,000~400,000 new jobs are created in the green energy industry. This honestly kills your argument

It was this moment that /pol realized they fucked it up.

>B-B-BUT MUH PRESI-DENT!
This means nothing you asshat. Trump is Trump, an idiot.

>He definitely knows climate science is legit
So he's a liar, great! And no he doesn't know shit.

> even IF he didn't at first the moment he got the office he could have easily asked for proof and been provided it.
But he didn't. If you weren't a faggot you would not be a faggot. But you are.

>germany shells out massive amounts of money to artifically raise their green energy to stop their reliance on eastern oil
>it cost a fuck load of money, the government did it, the power costs alot but is kept low by massive subsities.
My god you are actually retarded. Almost all of those "jobs" are temporary constuction jobs that were dead before the end of the year you faggot. Your article literally proved my point. Its harmful to do and the only reason germany could is because they sit on loads of cash

>peer-reviewed climate change papers

>49/50 got it completly wrong on ice mass as they thought itd decreasw when it has increased.
WRONG.

>solar cycles
So solar radiation has increased since the industrial revolution? Because it hasn't and is currently at a minimum.

>no scientific consensus that a scientific consensus should not be taken seriously
Are you illiterate or just deliberately misrepresenting what was said?

>Or because the evidence isn't damning on any kind of geological scale
How about a human timescale? Why are deniers so retarded and/or deceptive?

Many countries in europe are making a transition to Green Energy.

Not even one of them experienced economic issues due to the transition, and every single one of them enjoyed economic benefits from the transition.

You get to save the economy and save the planet at the same time. it doesn't get much better than this.

So you would agree that if we can make net savings by mitigating future losses due to climate change, we should? I don't see how that's controversial unless you've decided from the beginning that there are no net savings to be made, which you deniers seem to have done.

So is Germany worse off? Because that was what you argued. I don't see how money being spent inside Germany for green energy is worse than money going out of Germany for oil.

Investing in Green energy actually helps the economy grow
.
According to a study which covered 80 different countries who are making a transition to green energy, there is a link of causality between transitioning to green energy and economic growth:

Have fun reading the PDF of the study:
econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/879/515

"The interdependence between renewable energy consumption and economic growth suggests that this type of energy source is important for economic growth and likewise economic growth encourages the use of more renewable energy source. The presence of causality provides an avenue to continue the use of government policies that enhance the development of the renewable energy sector."

>How do we convince him that climate scientists do not participate in a grand scale Chinese conspiracy?
>How do we convince him that the scientific consensus about the impact of humans on global warming should be taken seriously?
Why should we lie to him?
It is clear that what he said is completely true.

Anyway, I think it is too cold where I live, I would welcome a bit of global warming so even if this conspiracy about (((global warming))) is not just one of (((their))) lies atleast I don't have to freeze as much.

You can't reason with someone who can't be reasoned with

Explain this:
If global warming is a "Chinese hoax to harm the US economy", how come the Chinese themselves are also making a transition towards more green energy?

nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/asia/china-renewable-energy-investment.html?_r=0

Your retarded conspiracy was stupid to begin with desu, and this just destroys it even further

really makes synapses fire

You people always make these assertions that global warming is a meme but not once have any of you linked a study backing up your claim.

>global warming means everywhere will be hotter always

>If he falters on anything his supporters will turn on him.
not really, as far as I can see his supporters don't really hold him to a standard.

>very dubious
where exactly are the holes in the mountain of peer reviewed evidence against you?

Yes this is an appeal to authority but you literally have conjecture and nothing else.

How about the fact that I don't care about climate change?

The /pol/ infection(massive Reddit migration) has ruined Veeky Forums. Just go back to your fucking board.

Not that I disagree, but simplified armcharm arguments usually aren't useful in something as complicated as the economy.

Scientific research can itself be pretty skewed and biased (confirmation bias is EVERYWHERE). They're too often presented as if they're perfect when they're far from it. If more science communicators pointed out the conservative estimates instead of the skewed current belief, it'd be a better landscape.

maybe it's not being taken seriously because it's wrong, or at least seriously flawed

there's more than one way to interpret data

>when the data is so wrong you have to change your hypothesis/predictions/name
>when the data is still wrong so you have to do it AGAIN
>and AGAIN!

climate "scientists", what will they think of next? i would go with "bipedal assisted weather modification"

all kidding aside, icebergs are definitely sexist. keep the papers coming

Since when is climatology considered a science? It's worse than psychology. Those retards can't into statistics and get btfo'd by burned-out stringmen like lumo

>LOLOLOL ITS THE FUCKING APOCALYPSE! WE ARE DOOMED!!
uh no.
>WHERE ARE YOUR STUDIES BACKING THAT CLAIM???

Show him this, that will surely convinced him

First you have to convince him that there's a scientific consensus on AGW meme

Except:
>Arable land will increase as we leave the glacial period, so warmer atmosphere + higher CO2 concentrations will increase agricultural productivity
>Sea levels will rise so slowly that we can real estate on coastlines, and inlet waterways will swell leading to overall more shore + river access by the peak of the warming period and lead to better real estate/trade options
>warmer atmosphere won't make weather worse if the change is as gradual as it's going to be
>etc.
It really isn't an issue at all. Not to mention, leading climate scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions account for possibly 2 percent of current temperature changes at the most. We'll be fine, get over it.

There is no scientific consensus that it's an extreme danger and needs to be addressed, just that it's happening at some undetermined rate.

Overpopulation is a meme because as humans reach the carrying capacity, they'll inevitably either war with each other, start breeding at a sub-replacement level, or crash as food supply can't keep up. In any scenario, the nation with the highest and most capable population will inherit control of the earth. Intentionally restricting your own nation's population is a losing strategy.

It's not a Chinese hoax, but it will disproportionately benefit the Chinese as Western countries don't allow the refinement of rare earths used in renewables within their borders. This is all outsourced to China. Also, you have to be kidding yourself if you ever take the Chinese at their word for anything lol.

>They're too often presented as if they're perfect
This is literally the antithesis of science. Science is peer reviewed precisely so people can pick holes in it: it offers a plausible explanation. "Proofs" are the realm of mathematics and only mathematics.

>If more science communicators pointed out the conservative estimates instead of the skewed current belief
Please elaborate how the current belief is skewed.

Or am I right and this is hyperbole from someone who actually hasn't read the literature and is spouting feeling based conjecture?

We don't.

They are a stupid dishonest people and they do not care about logic or reason or evidence.

You'll have more luck cleaning up a heroin addict. They are a lost cause.

Who are all these C02 = doom idiot savants? You realise not just /pol laughs at the chicken little's of the world. Why would you need even a single paper to refute this, and why there is no 'proving it' papers either if you care to search. It's political hot potatoe. Reasons to dwell on 1) C02 in the atmosphere exists in a negative feedback cycle due to PLANTS. So we could burn the oil fields day and night the grass would just grow quicker. Green houses operate at 1000ppm C02. Above this plants would evolve to use the abundancy of C02 as it is the integral component of PHOTO-SYNTHESIS.
2) Scale models cannot predict more than 7 or so variables in play at once with any accuracy, this is engineering 101. So how can computer models (scale models in the virtual sphere) with 100's, 1000's+ variables of error compounding shit ever produce anything but confirmation bias???
3) Climate gate 1 and 2, massive fraud and whistleblowing exposed. Alot of smoke! No field of science has ever been so controversial for a settled science!
4) Think about what this means. This is the greatest oppurtunity in science yet! Sort yourself out, get on the right side of history and question everything! Maybe all that is 'settled' isn't! Humility and critical thought is much more liberating than political arrogance, appeal to authority. Makes me choke.

>leading climate scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions account for possibly 2 percent of current temperature changes at the most.
Where do you even find this bullshit? Or are Monckton and Willie Soon "leading climate scientists" now?

>CO2 is good for plants!
>CLIMATEGATE
>All models are worthless!
>Czero2
Oh fuck. This is just getting dumber.

How do we convince you that AGW is a myth?

>Oh this is getting dumber

C02 used for plants is dumb? Inncorrect syntax destroyed my argument? Models that having proven to be incorrect to this date are to not be criticized? Climategate has been debunked has it??? WTF?? MORON

>C02 used for plants is dumb?
Plants are almost never limited by available CO2.

>Inncorrect syntax destroyed my argument?
Yes.

>Models that having proven to be incorrect to this date are to not be criticized?
They've not been proven to be wrong, despite the whining of a small handful of denialists.

>Climategate has been debunked has it???
Multiple times, actually.

Scientific evidence.

The man is mentally ill. He can't help it.

>Arable land will increase as we leave the glacial period
We are not in a glacial period, we left one thousands of years ago. Now we're warming again. Arable land globally will decrease due to warming and population growth.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014014/meta

Additionally there is a high cost associated with shifting agricultural operations to new areas.

>Sea levels will rise so slowly that we can real estate on coastlines, and inlet waterways will swell leading to overall more shore + river access by the peak of the warming period and lead to better real estate/trade options
Yes trillions of dollars in barriers, flood mitigation, and construction costs can be ignored because it's GRADUAL.

>warmer atmosphere won't make weather worse if the change is as gradual as it's going to be
It's already making weather worse. See droughts in the warm season followed by massive flooding in the cold season in California.

>Not to mention, leading climate scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions account for possibly 2 percent of current temperature changes at the most.
Stop lying asshole.