Climate Change Fallacies

anyone else notice that the latest wave of climate change news came out EXACTLY as the kavanaugh drama was ending? Like right on schedule they gave people something else to worry about.

>Correlation = Causation
It's weird because predictions are based on statistical models and time series analysis.

>Explain the concept of evolution in 30 second soundbites while being shouted over by a fundamentalist
Right, because Conservatives are evil Fundamentalists who interrupt absolutely everybody.
>It's not an appeal to authority to say "You won't look at the arguments (which are publicly available), so therefore someone who has actually looked at the arguments needs to explain them to you in simple terms."
It wouldn't be if that wasn't basically the entire argument. No one who argues for global warming cites a specific study, because if they did, that study could be criticized. Rather, they rely on stating the quantity of studies that agree with global warming, which basically reduces the discussion from evidence to shitballing pseudo-intellectualism about "scientific consensus."

Best way to slow down global warming is to slaughter all the cows in India

Higher concentrations of CO2 lead to higher temperatures. That isn't to say it isn't cyclical but we are having 'some' type of impact. Scientists aren't as political as the people they're fighting against. Stop listening to Exxon and their lies. We've already lost nuclear power and good trains because of these corrupt corporations.

So why are you trying to explain it in 30 second sound-bites? Also you can totally explain evolution in sound bites, at least the base theory. And finally, you are again appealing to authority without a single argument.
>That's not the argument, the argument is smarter people than you made better arguments!
>So what's their argument
>Its so complex only super smart people like scientists know what it is, I can't explain it!
Here's a hint, once you discover how something works, it becomes much, much simpler. That's why we can teach literally retarded children concepts that took entire lifetimes of effort to discover in a day or two. If you cannot explain something effectively in simple terms you do not have a single clue what you're actually talking about.
And more importantly all their mechanisms and theory are continually proven wrong time and time again because they keep barking up the same damn tree assuming its correct from the start, which is NOT how science is supposed to work.
And moreover, the climate changes naturally with or without us, and what damage we have done to the environment has already been done and its effects need to be studied and dealt with, but instead of that we get this retarded song and dance of 'No, believe us and give us money, THIS time we'll all be dead in ten years, we've made massive improvements to our predictions in the several decades we've been making this exact claim. What you want to know a specific effect...? N-no you don't understand, its only accurate in a vague aggregate sense, we have literally no idea what anything will do on a micro level thus no countermeasures can be proposed to changes adapted to, hence all this data is useless. But give us money! Third world overpopulating? Don't you think its their turn to massively pollute the environment? Don't be so racist.'

>We've already lost nuclear power and good trains because of these corrupt corporations.
You mean the lefty fucks arguing that we have to invest in useless dead-end tech because nuclear so big and scary? The environmentalists are the ones both pushing climate change and arguing against better train networks and nuclear, you stupid fuck.

Who convinced the morons to think nuclear was evil? Oil companies.

>All this retarded obviation

I'm open to the idea that AGW exists, but the whole debate is completely toxic It is just a platform for liberal virtue signaling and smugness.

If AGW is real, the only solution is the complete destruction of industrial society. Any carbon tax that falls short of this is just wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it will enough.

>why is a religion not using sound reasoning
that's how stupid your thread is

>Higher concentrations of C02 lead to higher temperatures.
You know water vapor is more of a "greenhouse gas" than C02, right? What do you think would happen if the entire sky was covered by a cloud? Would it make the Earth become colder, or would it block in heat? Climate scientists would argue the latter, although personally, I wouldn't invest in the farming industry if the entire fucking world was black.

Ocean acidity rising and threatening east bay aquatic wildlife. Roads being deteriorated by rising drought conditions and more spontaneous moisture periods in the south bay. Rising sea levels. Pollution ruining air quality ratings across the state. Plastic being put into the ocean and wildlife areas that isnt bio degradable and harms animals that digest it. Even if you dont believe in climate change you must agree we have a negative impact on our ecosystems and should be mindful of our contributions

AHAHAHA lol man look at this white boi simp, finna act smart!

yes, thank you china and 1/3 world countries

Attached: 1534458320739.png (900x720, 113K)

I'm sure humans have an impact on the environment but not on the levels (((scientists))) claim. In california their trying to get people out of their vehicles so their forced to take public transport so the population is easier to monitor and blast with radiation using x-ray scanners like they have at airports, all for the sake of safety and environmentalism.

Attached: Screenshot_20181009-134656_Chrome.jpg (1536x2048, 973K)

There's always some nefarious reason they do anything. Nothing the government does is to benefit the people.

Attached: Screenshot_20181009-134902_Chrome.jpg (1152x3015, 1022K)

Yeah dude, its obvious CO2 and temperature are intimately related and you can see the near perfect correlation between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature over time...

Attached: CO2 vs climate change - geological timeline.png (851x604, 495K)