Why do poltards STILL deny climate change?

Attached: kat.jpg (480x385, 17K)

You know what board your on right?
The politically correct thing to do would be to accept climate change. But this is pol, (Politically Incorrect)

both of those are wrong, here's what's really happening:

>retards living in coastal cities trying to convince everyone else to shut everything down and spend trillions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions
>instead of just away from the fucking coast
>the vast majority of people don't give a shit about global warming because it won't affect them at all if sea levels rise

The climate had a warm period like this one during medieval times. No flooding and etc. Actually it also increased agricultural output.

Attached: 09_geo_tree_ring_northern_europe_climate.jpg (1873x726, 804K)

I believe anthropomorphic climate change is real.

I believe that children are out future

Attached: sexualchocolate.jpg (1280x720, 57K)

What if were to say they are both correct?

You missed a bit. Let me red pill you.
Man made climate change is happening. But both sides are conning you. The clue is in the name. Man made. It's connected to how many people are producing the pollutants. It's doesn't matter how strict your pollutant controls are they won't stop it. Until population control is in effect. More people more cars, more forestry lost, more factories needed. Neither side mentions this, neither side tells you the more developed the third world becomes the more damage it does. Until the world population drops, climate change will continue.

Earth goes through periods of heating up and cooling back down. The previous cooldown was the ice age and the earth has been heating up since then. It's possible that humans are affecting it but even if we are the impact we have is not that great.
I will always be grateful to my geology professor for redpilling me on this

How about you recognize and stop white genocide and then we'll join you on the climate change issue? If not, I really don't give a fuck about a bunch of chinks and niggers having a shitty climate.

Maybe it's because your solution is always some form of "give me money" or "give money to niggers".

People lie for grants. Constantly.

How so? What specifically is wrong with what's said in that picture?

It pretends the only actors are hippies and big oil. The state has a vested interest in climate change being a thing because they can use it to justify all sorts of blatent money grabbing schemes that do nothing but inflate state coffers, like carbon taxes, and if anybody balks they can sick the hippie hoard on them for being climate denying Hitlers.

I wouldn't even give a shit about the veracity of climate change if you fuckwits could come up with something better then meme solutions like solar or wind power.

>the state
So there's a single, global state that controls the vast majority of climate scientists and not a single one of them has come out and talked about how an entire global field of science has been controlled by "the state" for well over a hundred years?
If I'm straw-manning here, then do correct me. This whole conspiracy thing just sounds completely ludicrous to me.

>90% of the worlds scientists

citations plz or kys

Remember user. We need to embrace muslims or the temperature will get really hot and really cold sometimes.

kekd

at least you're aware you made a strawman. It isn't a global state, every state just has the same vested interest in keeping the gravy train flowing, with the exception of heavy manufacturing locations like India and China. All they have to do is make it very clear that people who return pro climate change results get fat grants to keep producing the studies they want and people who question the narrative will be lucky to get two nickles to rub together.

>All they have to do is make it very clear that people who return pro climate change results get fat grants to keep producing the studies they want
Okay I'm open to viewing the evidence for this if you can present it.

Having a contrary opinion in academia will get you blacklisted and forever ruin your career. No bribery necessary.

Look up Peter Mitchell and Peter Duesberg

kike forgot his meme flag

Attached: IMG_5240.jpg (1125x2001, 316K)

The eternal anglo

Attached: 1615624767.jpg (500x351, 26K)

Going by this retarded logic climate change is false. Environmental groups would lose effectively all their funding if climate change was proven false. Meanwhile oil companies will continue to sell oil regardless of climate change being real or not, cause the whole economy will crash without them. Not to say oil companies don't have a vested interest in proving climate change false, but they proportionally have less to lose by being on the losing side then environmentalist groups do. Also its not like non-oil based energy companies (like solar, wind, etc) don't also lobby and try to pay people off

As a follow up, imagine a person spends 20 years trying to prove x and think you're close, making many connections with like-minded researchers

I come along and find solid evidence that x may, in fact be untrue

Which is more likely?

A. The person and their peers acknowledge their last 20 years spent reasearching were down a false path and somewhat wasted

Or
B Nitpick and attempt to discredit what I do, meanwhile making it clear to your peers that I am not a person to associate with. Virtually blacklisting me from the field.

Yeah because they openly announced they're only going to fund the right opinions. Also now that we're demanding evidence go back and supply 20+ peer reviewed papers supporting the op pic. I find it interesting how you never responded to every climate change initative being a cash grab at the end of the day, or ultimately being a pointless gesture like solar or wind.

Well Moishe We're waiting for your next attempt at kosher argumentation

I'm still waiting for evidence of an active global conspiracy. I mean, I can actually point to oil company founded organisations that push climate change denial.

You know how the far left replaces actual arguments with buzzwords like "racist" and "sexist" in order to just dismiss people out of hand. Yeah, congratulations on being just like your enemies.

I don't deny it. It's real and that's a good thing.

How come some of the same people that are so worried about climate change have absolutely no problem at all with placing manufacturing facilities in areas without any environmental protection laws? Then we get to ship these goods across the ocean in bunker oil burning container ships. Anyone who brings up climate change and doesn't address these issues is a charlatan.

And I'm still waiting for you to prove the op pic and respond to why climate change initiatives are blatent money grabs. I feel like I'm going to be waiting a while.

>ignores inconvient parts of opponents argument.
>suddenly starts demanding evidence while supplying none of his own

This kind of shit is what Hitler was talking about regarding arguing with jews, but it fits leftists in general too. You'll be back tomorrow with the same OP spouting the same shit and you'll act like this never happened.

If the left continues to ignore the Muslim threat id rather have the world end.

>asks to prove something that's a matter of opinion

You've not presented anything that wasn't pulled straight out of your ass as far as I know. I'm sorry you're such a fucking retarded twat that you resort to "I' don't need to have evidence for my arguments because you don't don't address or debunk my other, tangential points" the moment someone dares to ask for evidence.
You made a specific claim and I even said I was willing to entertain it (unlike you, I'm not a blind ideologue), but no, wanting "evidence" is some kind of leftist jewish tactic apparently.

>fits leftists in general too
Sorry buddy, I ain't a leftist, but I guess making shit up and assuming it to be true is just par for the course for an utter moron such as yourself.

-You made a specific claim-
The guy I was responding to did.

>REEEEEEE I DON'T HAVE TO SUPPLY EVIDENCE ONLY YOU DO
>REEEEEEE I DON'T HAVE TO ATTACK THE PARTS OF YOUR ARGUMENT I KNOW I CAN'T BEAT

you know resorting ad homs is a good sign you're losing right?

>why do poltards STILL deny climate change?
because global warming is bs that only anti-science s-o-y-mutt libtards believe.

Attached: climate_change1.png (623x873, 263K)

You don't really need to bribe 90% of the world's scientists. You need to bribe just 1%, and then the rest will simply quote them and spread the lie.

That said, the atmospheric CO2 does increase as a result of burning fossil fuel, there's no denying that.

You may have noticed that I'm not making any claims here. What exactly should I be presenting evidence for? I was responding to a claim and I was curious if there was any evidence to back it up. Apparently asking for evidence means that you're the kind of person Hitler warned about... okay buddy, you're definitely not completely retarded. You just keep believing that. This is pretty damn funny right here.

Attached: 1526448367024.png (460x360, 217K)

Funny how that graph ends in the year 2000, just before the two started diverging. It's almost as if you're presenting cherry picked data in order to lie to people

Attached: TvsTSI.png (2889x2209, 396K)

False graph, more like foreign Industry and resource extraction is trying to make it impossible to perform such industry in the west so that they have no competition and can monopolize those industry's overseas where there are no regulations regarding pollution and no labor laws so that they can produce those things very cheap for export. Tldr the regulations only effect the west because they are the only ones that would follow such ridicoulous rules.

I want to destroy the planet in order to make leftist faggots mad.