Climate change is a myth

>Then why do 97% of scientists say that Climate Change is real and is a man made phenomenon?

The 97% “study” was an IRL Australian shitpost.

>Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!
>Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.

>Australian SCIENTIST John Cook
From the skeptical science website, ran by the great Australian scientist John Cook:

>This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade

web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

Attached: Endenhofer.png (907x587, 415K)

Why would I vote for an asylum?

Attached: Democrats ufos.png (1896x414, 229K)

And yet many still don't know this is what the actual argument has always been about.

ya know only 120 years ago 97% of scientist thought disease was transmitted from"bad smells" and "night air"

even if it was a man-made global effect, you have absolutely no way to stop it. actually the best possible scenario IS if its a man-made phenomena, if not then get ready for a hot summer because we are on an elliptical orbit around the sun while being pulled and thrown by celestial bodies in or own solar system while or whole star and solar system is accelerating 500,000 MPH thru space

The guy that insists he could have totally got his science degree but dropped out instead.
That's the guy that got our media to chant 97%.
The state of our media.

Attached: cook.gif (560x219, 33K)

hmmm

Attached: 2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png (1449x1088, 316K)

nice post

You guys are literally, unironically, retarded.

>120 years ago scientists were wrong
>they were corrected by political hacks and did not correct each other through the scientific method
>the answer is to cut all funding to climate science and every other science of that matter

oh fugg
quick, adjust the data
ADJUST

Attached: Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png (798x542, 42K)

Attached: proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png (720x237, 19K)

youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY

Attached: Fucking Leaf.png (1090x1087, 312K)

>Peer-reviewed
>Marxist dicksuckers

its probably a huge disinfo psyop established so geoengineers can deny any extraneous effect of their research.
>oh, all these record breaking hurricanes in one season? musta been climate change

True. Climate change is like the 1000th LARP invented by nihilists want desperately what the world to burn. The data was tampered with and the prediction models are scientifically laughable because of complexity.

It's just one aspect of the more general trend of the natural world being raped and destroyed by humanity, due to a massive population and the technology of the Industrial Revolution. Even if anthropogenic climate change wasn't happening (it is), the situation for all humans is depressing and bleak, as thousands of species go extinct, vast ecosystems are destroyed, and oceans are overfished. Most who rail against climate change as a myth are the types that want no responsibility for the truth of what's happening. They want to persist in ignorance and enjoy the fruits of capitalism while the planet is poisoned.

Are all those articles even on whether global warming exists or not? It could be a small fraction which even deals with the issue.

ACID FUCKIN RAIN GOYIM!

oh yea, I'm going to trust this sleazeball who doesn't give any credentials, who clearly isn't even talking to a crowd, and has muzak playing in the background. lmao you must be sub 90 IQ to even post that shit

Attached: studies_consensus_med.jpg (500x281, 24K)

The problem with this is that if you're wrong, we're all fucked. As in your apology won't matter because we're fucked.
And with the amount of evidence suggesting that humans are indeed having an impact on the environment, it's best to not take any chances.

Yup and we are making bank off this conspiracy. Im a reaearch assistant and ive worked on climate date before using linux. I make fucking 16.67 an hour. Thesr fucking plebs wish they were as wealthy as us climate scientists. I even bought mcdonalds the other night for dinner. We dont even have to write grant proposals or defend our findings. I just send a letter to the feds that reads: climate res: gibs plz. And im set for another year. I tell you its the life. But these Jow Forums users make me worry they're gonna expose us frauds. Fuck these guys are smart

Fun fact: leaked e-mails showed the Climatic Research Unit and the University of East Anglia automatically rejecting any study which did not support anthropogenic climate change, regardless of quality or evidence. Man-made climate change is so true and so proven that studies continue to be done on it to this day, new research installations on land and in space are still being produced, and any findings which go against the narrative are silenced.

Attached: 1531417845675.gif (333x358, 1.83M)

yes, I much prefer the opinions of anonymous posters on Jow Forums or the cocaine addict bro in this moviegood post, pic related
abstracts of peer-reviewed scientific articles on the Web of Science published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.”

Attached: 38367696292_2f59cacbe4_o.jpg (980x784, 158K)

>implying scientists who don't toe the line would get funding
hey guys, we have an apocalyptic scenario on our hands, but instead of researching and deploying groundbreaking new energy technology, i've found a much better solution
we let all non-western countries keep emitting co2, and we let all the big emitters in the west keep emitting so long as they pay a tax or have credits
then what we do is, create a global co2 credits system that is run by goldman sachs and all the big banksters who will then be able to control economies and "print" credits of out thin air
finally we ban small energy companies from operating, but we let the large multinational oil monopolies drill for oil and we exempt them from the carbon tax

isn't this a great plan to fight against the apocalypse that is happening literally tomorrow?

kek

Attached: 1530844310098.png (800x750, 482K)

If climate change exists, you know what the solution is, you leafy faggot? It's exactly what nobody wants-- we go back to a pre-industrial world. Renewables aren't efficient enough so all these liberal faggots who "work" for these environmental NGOs would need to stop using their fancy phones, computers, cars, air conditioners, etc.

If anthropogenic climate change exists, there's nothing you can do about it. You either collapse your economy by hard switching to renewables or you turn back time 150 years.

Thank you. As a PhD chemist, it really gets my goat when people think I get a ton of money for grants. I get research equipment to... Do more work... God damn the public is raytarded.

first off, if you want to play the monetary incentive thing, then you have to at least address this:
fortune.com/2015/09/16/exxon-climate-change/
and this:
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/05/documents-show-shell-foresaw-climate-change-three-decades-ago-and-knew-how-big-its-own-contribution-was/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.84fa19a9f20b
and this:
theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
also you realize that you're conflating two different arguments;
1) the climate is changing and human beings are a major factor in that
2) the best or most practical way to deal with that is a carbon tax
Even if 2) is wrong it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of 1).

Attached: TimeSeries2017.png (1596x907, 263K)

yeah, no

Even China realizes its real you Somali mutt

you're right, it is a difficult task.
>what is international cooperation?
something that burgers seem incapable of

>The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.
is it demoralizing to know that the editors of the journals you're so desperately trying to get published in think that more than half of all studies are wrong/corrupted/shit etc?
scientists in academia are among the most bluepilled useful idiots in existence

>Most who rail against climate change as a myth are the types that want no responsibility for the truth of what's happening. They want to persist in ignorance and enjoy the fruits of capitalism while the planet is poisoned
They're called boomers, user.

this is deep

>you just gotta work together!
Nice deflection, but you didn't answer anything I said. Modern society requires a tremendous amount of energy to function and renewables don't fit the bill.

isn't it odd though that the most vociferous climate alarmists are also the ones pushing for the insane and useless global carbon credits "solution"?

Thanks, you too.

Or just use nuclear power and continue researching fusion reactors. Just need to discover a magic battery that isn't compete garbage and we can even keep our cars.

I think it's poetic that a Canadian was the one who first blew the lid off this whole thing.

Yeah but normies don't like it because "nuclear" means scary and liberals also seem to constantly rail against it for some reason. reee it should have been the energy of the future.

how come they adjust so much of the historical temperature data?
how come they adjust data for only some years, and not others, even though the sensors have remained the same?
how come we keep getting reports and leaked emails from whistleblowers who are exposing the fact that the IPCC data is being fixed and tweaked for political purposes?
how come even in the best case scenario, the Paris accord was only projected to have reduced the global temperature average by less than one degree? (useless)
how come all the predictions by climate alarmists are always hilariously wrong? including those of major (((models)))?

I accepted your point: It's a very difficult task. Maybe it is impossible. It may be too late to avoid the worst (it is). Too bad there are so many shills who still don't want to even acknowledge what's happening. If we were to make a good go at it, it would require international efforts and cooperation. It would require rapid changes in lifestyle as well as technology. Certainly it would require not easing regulations on coal. It might require putting restrictions on immigration from countries with high birthrates in order to pressure their governments to do something to keep populations from growing so much.

They rally against it because their commie masters fucked up and the noble Japs were retards with one of their plants. Decently built and maintained nuke plants are safest shit in the world for mass power and it's a shame normies are incapable of researching things they don't understand.

support this claim with evidence please. also, I'm happy to engage in a thread discussing carbon credits (and other potential solutions) once people are willing to acknowledge climate change as being caused mostly by humans

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You publish GC yields and call them isolated.

they realized it so much, i guess that's why the Paris accord lets them keep building coal power plants for the next 20 years?

>how come you can't answer my general questions that treat scientists from various institutions as "they," and which I don't support with any evidence?

Attached: 1017_ZH_CB_Graph_8.jpg (680x340, 33K)

>if you don't submit to the anthropogenic climate change cult, i won't consider your arguments against anthropogenic climate change
i guess i'll have to get up, turn 360 degrees, and walk away

climate scientists need to own al gore
he is you

lol, you're argument is that climate change data is all falsified and concocted so that carbon credits can be brought in. The argument is so ridiculous that there's no point in discussing it. If you want to talk about the existing science on climate change then fine.
>turn 360 degrees
you're still facing me user

We came out of an ice age. Ice caps are melting like theyve done multiple times before because its a natural occurrence.

the real issue is the Sun no longer rising in the east and setting in the west.

>you're still facing me user
newfag shill detected

lol. The issue is rate of change, that's what differentiates this from expected patterns. climate science 101; you haven't even bothered to consider the basic arguments have you?

Attached: icevol.gif (1242x1317, 855K)

>incomprehensible post
avoiding the argument

Attached: 1529414513020.jpg (645x729, 81K)

Attached: 1880-2017.png (1484x787, 500K)

>climate scientists need to own al gore
How in hell are they supposed to do that? He's free to spout off about whatever he wants like any politician. Last I checked literally all of them are hypocritical af.

This thread is getting me down...

This.

Attached: the point of no return.png (2000x4458, 2.52M)

>being this retarded
How are you even using a computer?

Attached: abandon_thread.gif (360x270, 1.63M)

we have passed a tipping point tho. there are others ahead.
ecological catastrophe is the true redpill of our time

Attached: ExtinctionAndPopulation_102609.jpg (430x325, 65K)

he's not wrong tho. see

>hurr durr
everything I said is true

You'd need to be living under a rock to not see it. Even just surfing google earth you can see the massive amounts of damage humans are doing.

Same reason the food industry in the 60's published studies saying fat was the worst thing to your health. Last year or so they came out with news that those studies were largely influenced by big business to take the blame away from sugar, which was actually the biggest contribution to bad health in the food industry.

10/10 argument, would give you an A+ if you were my 3rd grade student.

how is it a myth when there's ice ages and shit nigga please

>believe me, goyim, a leaked e-mail said
No sources, no data, no evidence, stfu or bring the facts forward. Man-made climate change is a myth and you'll need info to convince me of the contrary
>No sources, incredibly short time spans
user, as I told the other faggot, bring real evidence, start defining things, and only then we can discuss

>18 posts by this ID and counting
>Passed a tipping point, but more tipping points ahead
Just give me 100 trillion dollars, I'll remove 0.2% of the climate change effects for you :^)

Attached: 1481758637496.gif (350x346, 1.99M)

seeand address

Attached: widllife-population.jpg (960x684, 156K)

>Man-made climate change is a myth and you'll need info to convince me of the contrary
Did you even read my post? Because very little of it was about anthropogenic climate change.

>conservatives six months ago: "haha look how cold it is, climate change isn't real checkmate al gore"
>conservatives now: *panting* :c-climate ch-change s-still isn't r-real." *sweats*

>short time spans, showing how rapidly things are deteriorating
sources available here: academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229
pic also related

Attached: 8fc1b7d5d97a32925afe0ad075cd9190.png (600x1060, 303K)

nice strawman faggot. I haven't said anything about how to solve it, because faggots like you don't even want to admit anyhting is happening

Attached: spiral_aug2016.gif (931x986, 918K)

Big oil covered up leaded gasoline being an issue for a very long time. Think about who has the motive. Ill give you a hint, it rhymes with shmoil shmarons.

Your worthless images don't deserve arguments.

Attached: argument not optional.png (266x190, 13K)

>consensus is a valid measure of scientific validity

lmaoing

therealnews.com/stories/the-doubt-machine-inside-the-koch-brothers-war-on-climate-science

Yup, money is more important than the planet though. Its not big deal.

>not understanding how scientific paradigms work

People like y'all will be the end of the human race.

Attached: cartoon.jpg (500x505, 42K)

If I read correctly your argument is just:
>humans deteriorating the environment cause, animals extinct, climate change, etc.
Which is false, correlation does not mean causation and CO2 only makes up 2% of the atmosphere meaning any change in it is neglectable. Yes, ecosystems are destroyed, but later rebuilt differently which is almost what we would have since deserts are in constant expansion. Finally, animals go extinct as they should, for not being properly adapted, but we'll keep those who benefit us and fuck the others or we can engineer animals to be more resistant to climate change, we have plenty of options.
>shory time spans showing how rapidly things are deteriorating
>the shorter time spans may have more pronounced slopes, not really showing the general trend, like: (pic related)

Attached: 100_century_time_record(2009).jpg (530x318, 34K)

the graphs I directed you to were not about climate change. I've posted longer time frames for the climate in this thread, for example here, where the rate of change is clearly alarming, and here, which shows something similar. also pic related

Attached: 1530839166818.jpg (1918x559, 243K)

Stupid gonna stoop.
Picrelated is actual historical athmospheric CO2 levels + temperature. Several fun fuckts:
1. Temperature NEVER goes above ~22 C even when CO2 is 40 times (yep 40 TIMES - not percent) higher than current levels.
2. Cambrian era is known for "cambrian explosion" - the fastest growth of biodiversity. It is also known for the highest level of CO2
3. As atmospheric CO2 slowly gets converted into coal/oil by carbon-based life, it reaches its lowest levels around the boundary between permian and triassic periods. As a rather funny coincidence this period also had set a record: "permian-triassic extinction" aka "the great dying" - the biggest extinction event in the history of Earth.

Attached: 6temp.chart.n.co2.jpg (550x353, 53K)

>CO2 only makes up 2% of the atmosphere meaning any change is neglectable [sic].
saying it with certainty doesn't make it true. watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA

>shitty fucking graph with no error bars or indication of uncertainty
please share source of graph.
we're in the midst of a mass extinction event now. your anecdotal correlations mean nothing. rate of change of co2 (and temp) is what is cause of alarm.

Attached: co2.gif (1249x1288, 596K)

Consider the following, where on earth are most of the largest cities? The answer is clear, near bodies of water, then where on earth is the most amount of useless people? The answer = cities. Worse case scenario Greenland's glaciers melt, the water level rises, effectively destroying most of the largest cities on earth and killing many people I don't like, effectively halting the economy and life as many know it would cease to exist, but those who are self-sufficient AKA who should cause the least "damage" to earth would remain, ergo being good for the earth and since there are fewer people, the CO2 emissions decrease, demand for protected species decrease, everything "bad" for the environment would decrease. My argument is, if what you're saying is true, then why care for a problem that solves itself?

>any change in it is neglectable
You can't argue greenhouse gasses by fraction of atmosphere alone. Gasses have coefficients of absorbtion and re-emission of radiation energy, depending on the wavelength. Certain gasses absorb a certain amount of heat energy, and contributes a portion of that back to the Earth's atmosphere that would otherwise radiate back into space. The amounts of energy and their effects on atmospheric and ocean temperatures are the crucial numbers, not simply amount of gas, although amount of gas is roughly proportional to effect. There are a host of other contributing gasses that have significant greenhouse effects: water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide from fertilizer decomposition and animal manure, CFCs and other refrigerants, sulfur hexafluoride and other gasses used for certain industrial proceses, etc. The greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon and corroborates the observed increasing temperatures.
>Yes, ecosystems are destroyed, but later rebuilt differently which is almost what we would have since deserts are in constant expansion.
Massive species loss is taking decades, and species evolution takes thousands or tens of thousands of years at the least.
>Finally, animals go extinct as they should, for not being properly adapted, but we'll keep those who benefit us and fuck the others or we can engineer animals to be more resistant to climate change, we have plenty of options.
Wow, that's a really idiotic argument for killing off all the animals that took millions of years to evolve and will take millions more for nature to replace.

Its real, but man's contribution is overly exaggerated. We are actually coming out of an Ice Age, so the warming is natural. Man's contribution to the increase is slight compared to the natural warming. Also, man's contribution is reversible, i.e., CO2 dissipates in the atmosphere over time. The warmth isn't by any means unprecedented. Polar glaciation is actually a very rare thing in the long history of the earth. In short, democrats are full of shit.

Sorry, user, I made a typo there, I meant to say