Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

who knew it would be complicated

its a win win situation, either most people die or no one dies.

God is real

There are anthropogenic negative forcings.

Aerosols

CO2 has always lagged temperature and we don't have enough data to know if this time is any different. It could rapidly cool for the foreseeable future and CO2 would increase for a hundred or so years before trending back down. As far as it being a scam goes, no. For the most part it was overhyped and the most obnoxious alarmists had their egos swell way past healthy. Plus it turned into a gravy train they don't want to end. Nobody gave a rat's ass about climatology until Gore created a mega church around it. They'll still be bending spoons with their computer models even if the earth freezes over.

One thing that's never mentioned is the natural CO2 cycle and that it varies annually and is far larger than the man-made kind.

Nor are Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all showing global warming until very recently, which points to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate.

>CO2 has always lagged temperature and we don't have enough data to know if this time is any different.
Wrong. We know why CO2 has lagged temperature, due to the feedback loop between CO2 released from oceans and warming. So if you start the feedback loop with warming you get a CO2 lag. If you start the loop with CO2 you get warming after CO2 increase. Additionally, you are talking about trends over hundreds of thousands of years, while AGW is a much more rapid warming over hundreds of years. In short, you are talking out of your ass.

>It could rapidly cool for the foreseeable future and CO2 would increase for a hundred or so years before trending back down.
How would it rapidly cool?

>One thing that's never mentioned is the natural CO2 cycle and that it varies annually and is far larger than the man-made kind.
What man-made cycle? Natural sinks absorb more CO2 than they release, man does not. The exponential increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is due wholly to man.

>Nor are Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all showing global warming until very recently, which points to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate.
Of course the sun is the dominating influence on the climates of planets that do not have people drastically changing the atmosphere... What are you even trying to argue?

>natural CO2 cycle and that it varies annually and is far larger than the man-made kind
Do you even understand what "annual" means? It means yearly. Annual CO2 variation is about 6ppm while the whole anthropogenic forcing from the preindustrial is +120ppm, therefore anthropogenic CO2 forcing is literally 20 times the amount of annual CO2 variation. I don't understand how people can spout this uninformed bullshit that is absolutely wrong and can be easily proven to be wrong

where can i follow some news on climate change

what's some good websites

That man is full of shit
youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

Haha GLOBAL WARM IS REALL
STUBIT IDITOS >:(

IT IS

The temperature rate always changes before the CO2 concentration rate.

more

Global warming is a meme desu. Any serious applied mathematician can tell you there is no meaningful trend in temperature of the earth atm

>Patrick Moore
>AND CROWDER
Jesus christ, even Monckton is more credible than these morons.
Crowder literally posted an article on a paper (unpublished) claiming that man has no effect on the climate, global cooling is happening and the sun is causing it even though the head scientist of the paper literally said the exact opposite.

researchgate.net/publication/257875187_Comment_on_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature_Humlum_et_al_Glob_Planet_Change_100_51-69_Isotopes_ignored
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891

The paper from whence those graphs originated were met with some strong criticisms.
Among them:
>This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
>Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.

>The temperature rate always changes before the CO2 concentration rate.
No it doesn't. Only in the timescale of the Milankovich cycle does it lag temperature. It doesn't at the timescale of current global warming, over a a hundred years or so.

Your graphs do not show the actual relationship between CO2 and temperature, since they have isolated the noise by removing the dominant upward trend in temperature and CO2. What they show is the random effects on temperature and CO2 of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

I find it funny that people who don't really understand what these graphs mean think they can be used to argue global warming isn't caused by CO2 when they have the entire global warming trend and its cause removed.