Do you believe in the climate change and the disastrous implications of it?

HAARP niggers are melting the norther ice caps for maritime commerce. The good thing is it freezes in Antarctica keeping sea levels from getting to high. Nature seems to have a built in failsafe

Attached: B776D6EE-13D5-4124-A71A-104C555CC508.jpg (750x601, 492K)

>pic
What a way to go.

During the time this thread lasts, China and India will have polluted
the planet enough to match the entire western world's monthly waste.

Cleanse the planet of subhumans.

mutts will do and approve of anything if it pisses off the "enemy team". this is because they are all brain damaged from american """football""" and more importantly from being raised in a two-party system. they cannot think outside of their democrat-republican liberal-conservative binary. they are incapable - physically. the mutt's neurology is completely unadapted to it. that's why americans cannot comprehend true political discussion. they will support the most obvious dumbshit if they get even a whiff of the idea that their "political enemies" say something bad about it. hence the conservamutt's pathological obsession with the climate change ""debate"", hence why liberals who supposedly care about the working class adore mass immigration like its some intrinsic moral good. even their "commies" and their "fascists" are actually just democrats and republicans doing edgy cosplay. you can bring a mutt to water, but he cannot drink.

Attached: 1509924115522.png (400x309, 9K)

>China and India will have polluted the planet
This is a big part of what the leftist seem to miss. Rather than force the US and Europe to cuck itself in hopes that China/India will obey is foolish. China/India does not give a shit beyond tongue service for international audiences at a press conference.

All global warming/climate change activist need to buy a plane ticket to China/India and get themselves arrested for causing civil unrest over there rather than attempting to force us to cuck ourselves. Maybe a few weeks/months in a Chinese prison will wake these leftist out of their delusional nightmare.

The sun is all that really matters. Solar Cycle 24 was one of the weakest cycles in a century and Solar Cycle 25 is predicted to be even weaker. I believe we will see a mini ice age within the next 30 years due to weakened solar activity. Then what will (((they))) say about the warming predictions?

this is why I hate non-Americans. They think they can understand us but they just do not.

>I am able to understand when Im being bamboozled.

This. I'm willing to believe whatever, but those peddling this theory are throwing off flagrant criminal indicators only an introvert could suck so bad at hiding. The failed models, predictions, browbeating everyone into silence with a statistically laughable study, and whistle blowers don't help either.

If their shit is so solid, and they've got nothing to hide, then they should stop pretending a "peer review" consensus is some kind of standard above reproach. Testify under oath, have an army of lawyers shoved up your ass going over your data, get cross examined, lay it all bare for review. They won't because of the perjury traps and where the truth would lead; who made the decision to place this temperature sensor under an AC unit, who decided to alter this data, why was it altered this exact amount, why did you deviate from scientific standards to push xxx assertion, this sensor has had concrete built near it over the years- why wasn't the data altered down, what are your sources of funding, what communications have you had with them, how do you explain the failure of your models.

Unlike that other user, I am qualified to evaluate scientific data and statistics, and it wouldn't be the first time a climate scientist tried to bamboozle us. Everyone's hero Carl Sagan did the same shit with his nuclear winter theory. Rather than examine how shit works and coming up with a theory, he started with a theory and shoehorned/lied until the math worked. An example that even a layman would grasp, were that he only accounted for nuclear war to occur in the hottest two months of the year. Weird right? Why would he do that? Perhaps because at any other point soot from the firestorms he assumes will happen (which is another rabbit hole of flawed assumptions and bullshit) cannot reach the stratosphere, and without that his theory doesn't work. His theory had dozens of high school level flaws like this.

disastrous losses to this scam by taxpayers across the globe maybe

problem?

lol pic was actually somewhat funny but yeah, regardless of whether or not global warming is 100% real the way they go about “fixing” it is really just a way to extract money from people. I do believe we should look into cleaner though energy particularly nuclear. If only for the sake of having a more sustainable independent source

Cute

It's real if the raw data is real, which it probably is. Too many fucking newfags accept the neocohen "climate change is fake" agenda simply because the kikes are pushing it. The problem is that carbon credits and wind/solar energy scams are not a solution. Just because the kikes are using it to appropriate shekels and redistribute global wealth doesn't mean it's fake. Actual solutions would be orbital powersats and sunshades but that's not happening so who gives a shit.

I hope it's real and forces all the stupid monkeys to finally invest in space colonization once this planet is fucked.

Attached: 1510823741459.jpg (600x600, 55K)

Checked.

Attached: 8789576948756.jpg (1086x1200, 678K)

I have my suspicions about the whole thing.

Attached: image.jpg (640x694, 93K)

Solid feedback user. Well argued. I always get nervous when I hear “settled science”
I simply think that man-made climate change is a hoax
>and yet it moves

This is why I don't masterbate

Here, you are a non-American so I should speak to you like one. We've gotten an theory by people who have a severe conflict of interest. A degree in "climate science" what useless in the 70's, just good for getting a meteorological job and was no way glamorous (weathermen aren't meteorologists, deal with it, they're actors told what to say), got poor pay for the effort you put in, and were few and far in-between. Enter "climate change," you're degree goes from being pretty much worthless to hot shit. There is jobs everywhere and the degree is well in demand and the pay is great. You see how much they benefit from this? Is it wrong to question it? Let's say we go through with it and the theory is proven wrong. We just destroyed our economy over literally nothing. You see, this is the problem with literally all non-Americans, questioning authority is unbeknownst to them and this is why you cannot have any sort if dialogue with them. It is always ''EVERYONE ABOVE ME IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND IF YOU SAY NOT SO YOU ARE STUPID AND A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!" And then you wonder why you country is going down the shitter.

I made this to try to give an outline of current research on Antarctica.

Also note that the skeptic contribution to the cryosphere usually stops at "Al Gore said we would have drowned by now" which, incidentally, isn't even true.

Attached: fate-ice-min.png (3145x3504, 1.35M)

Inhouse scientists on Exxon-Mobil's payroll still endorsed the anthropogenic climate change theory, even when when it was at its hardest shilling against the idea. Your skepticism about the value of climate science degrees and the self-serving nepotism of a particular field is not all that objectionable, but it's hardly a cogent explanation for the dearth of endorsement the hypothesis has from just about every field that's done active research on the topic.

I believe our climate is dictated by that big yellow thing in the sky called the sun like it has been for the last few billion yeas or so. We have just been through one of the most active periods in solar activity regarding sunspots , solar flares, cme's etc and now the big fella is going to sleep. Sun spot activity has totally diminished the last few months which just happens to coincide with the uptake in hurricanes and winter storms this year and also the weird behaviour of the jet streams. This period is called a Grand Solar Minimum and we have just dipped into it. Be prepared to see record shattering weather events this year, record number of tornadoes, trnadoes in rare places, increased hurricane numbers and crazy lightening storms. Remember this is just the beginning, next year will be far worse.

You see, you are still trapped in your little bubble. What are those scientists going to do? Say it is false? Loose their job and so will all their friends in the same field. They'll just go back to being a boring old meteorologist with no career path. WikiLeaks revealed that the science is mostly false with exposing Anglican College's lies - theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese It will fall apart like a house of cards once people realize the truth. Too many people benefit, the scientist benefit with higher wages and job security, the politicians benefit for getting a rallying call, colleges benefit for getting something to waste taxpayer money on "studying," too many people benefit. It is all false. We've been farting methane and burning wood for as long as their is been life, and just now it is effecting us? Call me a doubter but I think not.

Pointing to who benefits from this or that is fine, but not in itself enough to say that everything is spurious. It is obvious that gas and oil companies who shill 'climate change skepticism' benefit from that as well. We cannot discover if some claim is a truth or lie merely by the fact someone stands to benefit from it. My point about the Exxon-Mobil scientists stands because it shows people reaching conclusions against their own financial interests.

The climate change hypothesis would not have been a dogma at the beginning. It gained traction through research in multiple fields and, because of the controversy spurred by financed opposition, gained a certain taboo unquestionability.

>Do you believe in the climate change and the disastrous implications of it?

Yes, but I will do nothing about it since it will be non-Whites and progressive dystopian commies that will have to deal with it. Not me.

tfw you find out where the largest volcanic region on Earth is.

Attached: Antarctica-91-newly-discovered-volcanoes.jpg (604x600, 85K)

hah I remember this. It was funny watching his penis wiggle around on a time lapse.

CME events actually increase during solar minimums, and earthly temperatures drop. So the weather can be more severe AND much colder. We only know about the easy-to-see 11-year solar cycle, but there are other deeper cycles at work that we haven’t discovered yet. Maybe funding for solar studies will increase when the Thames River freezes over again.

Yes but I don't believe it will affect the first world at all, we'll be able to engineer and science our way around it therefore I'm not concerned in the meantime the herd needs thinning, if we lose a few billion in the 3rd world, we'll ultimately be better off.

>other countries can do whatever the fuck they want with their industry
>but we have to cripple our own because we're just that much more enlightened
>nevermind that it'll hurt us both economically and work force related

>Those little patches of green poking out
There's something...under...

Attached: 1450623502422.gif (170x127, 2.12M)

Incidentally, it is true. When gore was vice president, he claimed 2014 would be when sea levels were high enough to flood new York. It's also laughable that ice already underwater is going to raise the sea level or that the relatively miniscule mass of ice would "compress the ocean floor" as claimed a few months ago to explain why sea level isn't really rising beyond natural erosion. The Netherlands and Denmark would be flooded already if their predictions were true, but find me a jew who won't give a mortgage for ocean front.

dumb victim card mutt. everyone else is doing this shit, you're the one running away like little baby. cry cry.

Our main goal should always be efficiency. Pollution/ waste is inefficiency so we should be doing everything we can to stop that. If we don't figure it out we deserve to be slow roasted

there are pacific islands being wrecked by rising sea level already.

It was an agenda from the start, I lived through it. Taxes were the only way to fix it at any point.

Climate change? Yes
Man-made? No

You would be a fool not to believe in climate change. It has changed thousands of time since the Earth hosted life and will do so again thousands of times. The effects can indeed be disastrous and can wipe out upto 90%+ of all life on the planet.
There is no doubt humans are having an impact on the climate and changing it. The question just remains how much?

>erosion only occurs because of global waboo

the climate has barely changed (less than a degree in over a century), and people that claim to know why or if the trend will continue are full of shit

I don't think you read the image I posted. Ironically, neither you nor Al Gore seem to understand the difference between sea ice and land-based ice sheets.

>GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL EARTH
>Al Gore buys several beachfront properties
>ERRR I MEAN IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!? SRS ISSUE
>Planet is scientifically proven to cool and heat in a cyclic manner
>NO THATS NOT RIGHT THE CYCLES ARE CHANGING HERES 400 YRS OF TEMPERATURE PROOF
>mfw using 400 years of data to model billion+ year old system
>mfw lib scientists havent taken basic statistics class

Attached: Charlie.jpg (470x626, 43K)

Yes, but not in the way that has been told to us. Humans do not have any effect on the climate, not even in our wildest dreams. The things that we are seeing now is caused by endogenic forces, not exogenic. The climate is "changing" to restore the equilibrium.

You're right, I didn't read your bullshit graphic. Basic physics dictates if the ice cube is already in the water, it melting has zero effect on overall displacement. Try it yourself with an aquarium. Even throw some sand in there and make little islands if you want under the ice.

Anyone care to tell me why 80% of Canada and all of Antarctica becoming inhabitable is a bad thing while liberal coasts get drowned?

>Do I believe in climate change?
Of course, climate has changed many times in Earth's history

>Will it be catastrophic?
No, at worst it'll be mildly inconvenient. But if it is worse I still firmly believe that humans will adapt.

>Do humans cause it?
Probably some of it, sure. But people should be much angrier at China and India than the US. We've actually already done quite a lot to minimize any potential negative effects, while they don't.

Attached: possiblewhyyes.gif (480x271, 2.05M)

yeah amazing how those islands existed untarnished for millenia until a very short timeframe during which certain industrial developments altered atmospheric conditions... pure coincidence...

OH BILL

Did you attend school?
How does it make sense, to consider the opinion, of a climate ALARMIST?
You shouldn't even consider the opinion to anyone, really. All you need to do is to look at the research done on the topic. The data is PRETTY clear, and I can promise every single brainlet in this thread, that whatever argument they have against global warming is stupid, and probably falls into:

>1: Not really about the science, but more about the politics and people promoting the politics (aka lad I replied to)
>2: Already been delt with, probably a lot of information out there about how your "argument" is wrong
>3: Argument that is just completely misleading, aka the "earth hasn't been warming for 18 years"

>yeah amazing how those islands existed untarnished for millenia
Citation needed. They're mostly made by underwater volcanic eruptions and wife constantly with every lap of the waves, retard. Like a jew and his untended gravestones tipping, you blame whites.

Erode constantly. Erosion didn't begin in the 1890s.

So then why don't financiers refuse mortgages for ocean front? They'd never approve a mortgage that won't be paid back.

The whole CO2/climate change bullshit is being used for various things.
>Be Dutch
>Sit on huge gas reserves
>Don't use Gas fired central heating goy
>You must now use this heatpump system which costs 7000 euros more
>use efficient bulbs
>ingore that incandescent bulbs, while being inefficient, are far cheaper and don't contain any plastics and nasty metals. And that, at least for large parts of europe, during the time they burn the most, you also want heating on anyway, reducing the waste.

cmon guys lets justify 400 years of temperature data to model 4.5 billion year temperature fluctuations

inb4 muh trapped CO2 (gasses diffuse bitch even frozen ones)

I believe in climate change, but the "disastrous implications of it" is just concern trolling by lib politicians to get more votes and steal more money.

I may have to disagree with you on the cme events increasing during a solar minimum , less sun spots equals less cme's unless releases from solar filaments increases, but I've not seen any data that would suggest that, please post sauce regarding increased cme numbers please.
Ah the good old Maunder minimum when the Thames last froze over, people seem my to realise how may people starved to death during that period due to crop failures around the globe and that was a time when people were more self sufficient and didn't have just in time deliveries and let's not mention the solar minimum the was in effect at the end of the Roman empire.

>hockeystick.jpeg
Did you know that the ocean was 40 meters lower only 10.000 years ago? That's only 5000 years before the pyramids were built. You could walk from Scotland to Norway in a straight line.
But please, show me the temperature graph of the last 250 years, you know, the one that begins after the little ice-age. Very convincing stuff

This is probably hopeless but I refuse to give up. We literally caught them red-handed screwing with their data and ignoring data that contradicts the established theory.
Links -
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Further_release,_2011
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Climate change spurred out of the "Ozone layer depletion" crisis. Where we had actual evidence to back it up. After that the scientists got a taste of what could happen.

Muh oil and gas companies are shilling against climate change is a meme and a straw man. You admitted it yourself that the Ex-con went against its own interests, proving it is false.

There is no doubt the temperature averages are changing. You would have to be a complete fucking brainlet to deny this.

But I think something worth while debating is whether or not the temperature change is man-made.

It's got nothing to do with blame. Industrial development is a causative factor, and yes, white cultures did develop this sort of industry first and foremost. That's not a moral indictment though, just a simple brute fact. Racial politics has nothing to do with this - especially since developing countries such as India and China are the biggest contributors to global emissions currently. Of course you get all neurotic about it though.

This is "erosion" on an incredibly short time scale. The erosion is so dramatic because the water level is far above what it would be naturally.
climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/pacific-islands/

The ozone layer depletion stuff is not the same topic. You're retarded. The scientists working at Exxon-Mobil supported the hypothesis, not the company itself. They didn't publish their conclusions. Exxon, despite what their own scientists said, was one of the biggest shills for climate change denial in American history.

Scientists in every field and associated with every theory will have fuckups and selfish biased retards. This isn't a smoking gun that ALL CLIMATE CHANGE IS FAKE

How's the weather with you Ausbro ? Ive heard rumours of early frosts and snowfall in your neck of the woods .

Netherlands is already underwater, they found a way to survive and thrive. if they cant their civilizations aren't worth preserving, they're not the first to disappear they wont be the last.

Still waiting for somebody intelligent to say, without talking out of their ass, how 400 years of temperature data can be used to model 4.5+ billion year old system.

You kids are smart I'm sure one of you can do it. Come on. Pretend you're in 4th period. Hit me!

Not related to global warming, but probably because rising sea levels will take a while, so they don't care atm

Yeah, things were different before and have changed before. Well observed, doesn't mean we don't have man made change today. Doesn't mean this man made global warming will and is causing us a lot of problems, that we could potentially avoid / limit.

>Ive heard rumours of early frosts and snowfall in your neck of the woods
It must be down to global warming

You're right that the melting of ice already in floatation doesn't raise sea level (this is explicitly mentioned in my "bullshit graphic"). Anyone who isn't functionally braindead must see that the concern in regards to sea level is with the ice that ISN'T in the ocean already but is rather land-based, i.e. Antarctica, Greenland and alpine glaciers.

I've never seen snow in my loife.

Yep didn't think so.

Everybody with half a brain knows that the temperature sample size is EXTREMELY LOW.

Like... there's-no-point-using-it-because-it's-too-small-and-will-continue-to-be-so-for-several-hundred-million-years-low.

Fuck off climate change/global warming faggots.

Here's an easy one, let the globull warmest only rely on renewable energy sources while the others who believe in natural cycles of the sun rely on coal , gas and oil. If they are that convinced about their convictions let them live by them with no opt out.

>The erosion is so dramatic because the water level is far above what it would be naturally
That's impossible to prove as there's zero data to how the earth naturally leaves an ice age since we can only get ice from the last time it formed.

>high enough to flood New York
Hurricane Sandy did just that. New York recovered, at great cost, because it is "too big to fail", but if another Sandy comes in the next 10 years there could be permanent damage, especially to the outlying areas of the urban complex.

It must be, obviously it's getting warmer because it's getting colder, how silly of us not to understand

>Not related to global warming, but probably because rising sea levels will take a while, so they don't care atm
Mortgages and commercial debt last decades and financiers tend to make the most accurate risk assessments because a new and his shekels are never parted.

Right, obviously, but you are aware that all of that ice has melted and reformed multiple times before people ever existed?

Climate change or global warming?

Back in the Bush 2 era democrats called it global warming and republicans called it climate change

Now that democrats call it climate change

Where they wrong all this time?

>every storm that has happened since 1890 is because of global warming

Upper Midwest has actually had a typical April so far. Foot of snow past 48 hours.

Everybody arguing for climate warming/global change please take Statistics 101.

Learn about sample sizes and variables and lurking variables.

Then, like me, you can tell all those paid scientists to fuck off. Educate yourselves.

Another fun one. North Atlantic oscillation. When its positive, we get wind to power all those nice windmills at sea and a more rainy and temperate winters.
When its negative, we less wind, and colder winters. So no energy to power all those heatpumps.
>Lets import solar from southern Europe.
To top it all off, negative NAO results in a more cloudy southern europe.

Attached: 566px-Winter-NAO-Index.svg.png (566x351, 57K)

Just an example of Chinese dynasties that ended during grand solar minmums

Attached: Chinese-Dynasty-Collapses-and-GSM.jpg (1286x879, 225K)

>Ozone depletion is not the same topic
I know it isn't you illiterate retard, wow you are thick. I was saying all the sudden we have two ecological crisises in a row, the minute one was solved the second shows up? The first one is universally accepted and the second is based on flimsy science. It gave them a taste, there is a reason climate change appears so internal and impossible to get rid of.

>Scientists working at Exxon-Mobil supported the hypothesis, but not the company itself. They didn't publish their conclusions.
Then how do we know of this?

>Exxon is one of the biggest shills against climate change
Liberal straw man.

>Scientists/smoking gun point
What about the hockey stick theory they came up with? It was supported by the entire scientific consensus at first. Then someone said that there was a medieval warm period that grew out of the same rate after examining ice in Antarctica. They were discredited as "muh gas and oil company shills" until someone else eventually got the evidence to support the claims furthermore in ancient trees.

And then there was the Anglican College Climate Change scandal which showed they purposely messed with the data. Anglican College was the LEADER in climate change until then in England.

It shows that their entire basis is flimsy, we never had stuff of the same rate with other theories like tobacco smoking and the ozone layer crisis.

Not above average like it sould be if was actually getting warmer ?

If it was warmer it would be rain. I can't deny it was warmer here for the past decade or so, but not by a lot. Even just last year there was growing grass already at this time and tornadoes further north. Maybe one record broken for heat in that decade. Winter just got more mild rather than summer being worse. We were also in a drought though and a bunch of rich faggots built houses below the water line and they all flooded when it normalized as they were told it would.

That's right. I really suggest you read through my bullshit graphic because it also includes a section on that.

Solar effects as a driver for current warming is unfortunately completely inconsistent with observations of direct solar irradiance, the planetary energy budget and the spatio-temporal patterns of warming.

Attached: feldman2015.png (1006x748, 593K)

Climate changed many times already, what actually concerns me is that resources needed for us to live are getting ruined, like water for example.

Rivers/lakes/ponds or seas near any large urban center or industrial area are literally toxic.

>Do you believe in climate change
Yes.
>and the disastrous implications of it?
No.

I didn't go to school for environmental science, climatology, et. al.
However, anyone with a few functioning dendrites left in their skull should be able to tell that a group of people who throw ad hominems at opposition and receive large government grants for finding certain results aren't trustworthy folks.
Personally, I think climate change is real. I think it can be pretty bad. But I don't think humans have as big an effect as these people would have you believe.

Absolute garbage, it's nothing to do with the sun's irradiance it's do with it's magnetic activity. This subject is only now beginning to be studied and how it effects our jet streams and how the lack of activity from the sun let's in more galactic cosmic rays , up from 9% to 13 % over the last couple of years, and how these rays are connected to increased cloud cover, see svensmarks cloud mystery on YouTube regarding this. Solar irradiance has nothing to do with the activity

>resources needed for us to live are getting ruined
100x this. CO2 is literally plant food. They even inject it into greenhouses to increase growth.
All this CO2 nonsense is hurting actual ecological conservation.
Fuck muh 2 degrees in 2100. The earth has been both way warmer and colder at times.
CO2 is irrelevant if the environment is fucked up with chemicals and garbage.

This

It contains nothing i wasn't already aware of. What I'd like to know is how they think they can claim any melt is faster than before when there's no ice that old to study. In other words, prove it's even mostly caused by people and not the natural processes that would occur had people never existed.