Is climate change real or pseudoscience?

It's a feint. They are pulling a bait and switch on the masses, trying to get us to disable our industrial infrastructure so we all starve and freeze to death when winter is 8 months out of the year and the productive seasons are jammed into the remaining 4.

Attached: Winter_chan.jpg (1383x864, 378K)

how many other scientific facts are backed up by "97% of scientists agree"? physics, chemistry and medicine use repeatable experiments, not popularity contests

everything the libs shill is for political reasons and only for political reasons

It's like sitting in a canoe in the middle of the ocean. You feel yourself drop a bit as a wave passes, then everyone in the canoe agree amongst themselves that the entire ocean is shallower, will continue to get shallower until it disappears forever and its somebody's fault.

Another problem that I have with the theory of CAGW is that it attempts to model the difference between natural and anthropogenic forcings, and even faggot kikes Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have admitted that it's not possible to know how much of the warming man is responsible for. There are too many variables in the system. We can't even say for sure how much CO2 we are responsible for by counting isotopes any more because 13-C ratios have been shown to have fallen naturally in previous periods of warming.

Attached: 1540630069931.png (799x630, 77K)

Here's another paper that suggests that CO2's residency time in the atmosphere is vastly overstated by the IPCC: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830508786238369

>Studies of the temperature anomalies during the last 27 years show a close relationship with the varying increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions and La Niñas reduce CO2 values and El Niños increase them. This close relationship strongly indicates that ocean temperatures and the solubility of CO2 in seawater control the amount of CO2 being absorbed or released by the oceans. It is therefore likely that the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is due to a natural global warming and that CO2 produced through fossil fuel combustion by humans can not disrupt this balance.

It's all based on poorly curated and/or outright faked data.
robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/

Attached: 1540633781344.jpg (1904x1650, 620K)

how nigger? only taco bell niggers are carbon taxed not me or u

Right. What scientists say =/= science
Science == Science

Additional CO2 is near irrelevant at current concentration.

The Earth's current climate is a bimodal function of the Milankovitch cycles, that incorporates regional variation on the scale of decades to centuries based on solar activity, ocean currents and albedo. Even submarine volcanic activity is semi-cyclical. The only real wild card is asteroid strikes. But there's nothing man can do that is even within orders of magnitude of the forces we are talking about here, and that includes increasing the concentration of a trace gas in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04%.

Attached: 1540634498631.jpg (1280x720, 253K)

the only people who claim it isnt real profit off it directly or dont understand basic science.

I wonder this too. Instead of being able to replicate results, it’s just a popularity contest. I don’t know if you can use the word “science”. Maybe climate religion?

I mean they have dogma, persecute heresy, and interpret their holy data how they see fit.

It's 97% bullshit.

Attached: 1540634994819.jpg (1200x1134, 640K)

Nepotism and institutionally sponsored groupthink are so rampant that every peer review board has to be taken with a grain of salt.

phys.org/news/2012-06-crisis-academic-publishing.html

slate.com/technology/2015/04/fake-peer-review-scientific-journals-publish-fraudulent-plagiarized-or-nonsense-papers.html

The scientific consensus is undoubtedly clear. Sry anti-science fags, but repubs shill for the oil companies

Many researchers apparently don't even BOTHER with the scientific method. This is beyond cherrypicking. They are looking for specific results.

Attached: 1540635513907.png (1278x2300, 1.9M)

Climate change is real but the whole "le human made disaster" is complete horseshit.

Science Redpills: Methane is 25x as potent for heat insulation than CO2, and both having 1 carbon atom are structurally equal. Burning methane makes CO2, so we should be burning methane wherever it comes out of our shit.

Plus: We have a species of archaea-bacteria in the south pole that literally does fuck all except sit there and produce a methane waste product (the ACTUAL source of any kind of heat insulating gas in our atmosphere). You can go do the south pole, drill a hole in certain spots, hold a match up to it and get a jet of fire.

Final redpill: during the Dinosaurs our atmosphere had like 750 ppm of Carbon Dioxide, and life thrived. Today we have like 200 ppm. CO2 is not an apocalypse generating gas. Dont believe the jews who want more control over all factory productions.

Climate change is fake like fake news.

And then there's this: areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

Three researchers decided to do a study to see if they could get academic journals to publish complete garbage. Needless to say, they were successful.

>Another tough one for us was, “I wonder if they’d publish a feminist rewrite of a chapter from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.” The answer to that question also turns out to be “yes,” given that the feminist social work journal Affilia has just accepted it. As we progressed, we started to realize that just about anything can be made to work, so long as it falls within the moral orthodoxy and demonstrates understanding of the existing literature.

Also, one of the researchers is Peter Boghossian, well known cousin of the Bogdanoffs.

>noone said what is obvious to scientists
this is not a good argument

True, and the atmosphere was much thicker and denser. That's how pterodactyl could fly.

Can't trust consensus, because journals are run by activists

1970 the fake news warned of the coming ice age

The Arctic melting thing is a statistical hoax as well.
Here's a pretty good illustration of the solar cycles and NOAA fraud in action.

Attached: 1540627354168.gif (546x442, 54K)

see
They are manipulating data to favor a certain result, even though it isn't representative of reality.

Nice sources. No breitbart is not an authority over the scientific consensus. Watch things other than fox news

Same science as Big Bang Theory and all of it derivates.

Only question is how much money do we squander on it.

Joseph McCarthy was right. He was factually correct, and what we are seeing here is the result of allowing our scientific and educational institutions to be infiltrated bottom to top by communist faggots.

Pseudo

Attached: hno111xcq -- 0449 -- mla111flc'.jpg (720x468, 69K)

youtube.com/watch?v=YRke9pMnqEE

If they don't support it they don't get paid.

I dont think we really put any money on BBT anymore. Like, the entire POINT of it is that there is no possible way to study the point at and before the big bang.

blessed trips of truth

>you will only get money if you find what I want you to find
your tell us, retarded Canadian

Attached: image(5).jpg (600x450, 508K)

I posit a new position: the climate is fake.

>no possible way to study the point at and before the big bang.
Why do you think this is false though? The universe is very bizarre at the extremes of existence.

Fallacious!

Attached: firefox_2018-10-29_23-35-00.png (246x171, 70K)

A consensus of scientists is different than appealing to popularity. Much of what the scientific consensus is very unpopular if you take the religious majority of the world into account.

Ninety seven percent of the people who make a career and living off saying the sky is falling agree that the sky is falling. Shocking.

Excuse me, that thought is heretical and should be compared to denying the holocaust.
Something something 500,000 hiroshima bombs

They’re using it to cause fake anxiety the same way they used North Korea. They make everyone worry about fossil fuel, but then just as joke, they tell everyone nuclear power is dangerous too so we have no recourse but to worry needlessly. This is despite the fact that no one died of radiation poisoning in Fukushima and judging by the scare stories everyone living in Hiroshima should be a cancer ridden genetic mutant. So there is no man made global warming and nuclear energy is safe

>how many other scientific facts are backed up by "97% of scientists agree"?
All of them actually. That's how the system works. Who is doing and verifying the results of experiments? Scientists who then publish their research in journals. Same goes for climate.

>This is despite the fact that no one died of radiation poisoning in Fukushima
Seems like worrying 'needlessly' saved lives. Chernobyl serves as a very great example of what happens when you're not careful enough.

>climate change
Real.
>man-made
Nope, we just came out of an ice age it's supposed to get warmer and warmer.
>can we stop it
Not at all.

Global warming is real and partly caused by humans. However, the danger is greatly exaggerated, and the impact completely reversible.

Are we on the verge of a massive ice age?

All the geological indicators suggest it.

If they were right about climate change back in 2004, we'd be dead right now.

If this interests you, ya’ll gotta read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Basically about the politics and nuances of climate change figures (all real world figures) neatly woven into a thriller (fiction) with environmental terrorism and stuff. Fucking good book, and a straight redpill. Greenies hated crichton afterward - though all he did was state facts, fully referenced too.

Attached: temps.png (700x309, 72K)

And this is the current warming people are freaking out about.
You know it's a scam to make you buy CO2 licenses.

Attached: gisp2-ice-core-temperatures_1.jpg (1280x720, 127K)

i love it when people post graphs out of context as if lay people have the background knowledge to analyze and understand them

And the South Poles ice is melting because of volcanic activity not global warming.
theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

Many scientists are but lay people who have been indoctrinated with the highest level of kike propaganda.

>everything is a jewish conspiracy
gettin real tired of this meme boyos

It used to be very hot in the past.

Attached: ice_ages1.png (810x317, 115K)

It's true, but that shouldn't be the question. The question should be to what degree are humans influencing climate change as opposed to natural climate change and whether those changes would benefit us or not?

But to even ask this question will get you labelled as some sort of climate denier by any NPC.

Attached: Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg (1082x496, 54K)

>State of Fear by Michael Crichton
Unabridged torrent, thanks ausanon
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:333e8c0c4cda071dbb302a3226b128c654220c5f&dn=State+Of+Fear+-+Michael+Crichton++%5BUnabridged%5D&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fzer0day.ch%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969

It's all about where you zoom in.

Attached: gta2000.png (803x577, 75K)

Go away CIA.

>Do climates change?
Yes.
>Are humans the driving factor in climate change?
Unlikely.
>If humans were proven to be the driving factor would they change their behavior.
Absolutely not.

Energy usage is the top correlate to economic growth in the past 100 years. Nobody would get rid of that. Carbon credits just provide for a larger regulatory state and economic investment into third world sustainability scams.

Global warming is just a way to tax the west and redistribute money to china/india.

If the left ACTUALLY cared about solving global warming, they'd be advocating for the return of industries to the west - where our environmental regulations prevent them from polluting the Earth, and for the mass adoption of nuclear power, which produces zero greenhouse gas emission in operation.

They do neither of these things. They only advocate that we tax our own industries to death and pay billions to china/india for no reason.

Yes, I'm with the NZ branch of the CIA trying to harvest the IPs of people (((stealing))) a 15 year old book

What are you talking about, OP
Global warming?
Man-made Climate Change?
Climate Change?

Climate Change is real, climate has been changing since the beginning of time. On all planets.

The other two are hoaxes to tax the public.

Back in 2006 97% of scientists were against global warming because they were allegedly payed off by big oil companies.
I'm glad to know that they don't like money anymore since now they've all gone straight.

It's not just about repeatable experiments, but testable predictions.

And so far the predictions from climate science are completely out of wack with the observations. The models are wrong and they can't seem to get them right.

>If the left ACTUALLY cared about solving global warming, they'd be advocating for the return of industries to the west
Hillary literally campaigned on training coal workers to work in sustainable energy
businessinsider.com/clinton-energy-policy-2016-10

Attached: 57f6e0999bd9781c008b564f-960-539.png (960x539, 142K)

ye but not man made

economic diversity is our strength

>Is climate change real or pseudoscience?
Difficult to say given their models are incomplete and incapable of make reliable short and mid term predictions.

Attached: 20181018005258.jpg (674x761, 360K)

It literally is though. In Canada and the US, the notion of ghost towns from mining or resource excavation projects are common A city or town based in one economic activity will be a victim to changes sooner or later

75/77=97%

It's all fake. There's no such thing as climate

Unreliable power sources like solar and wind are not sustainable.

Sustainable energy isn't enough. The only real option from coal/oil is nuclear. Not wind, not solar, not hydro or geothermal.

N U C L E A R

Get it through your dumb and rotted lefty brain already.

EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVES IT, BELIEVE IT TOO!!!
Seriously I believe our presence has an impact on the planet but "climate change" is being used to bolster the NWO plan.

The problem with climate change studies it that they haven't been going on nearly long enough to record whether or not it's simply a part of earth's natural heating/cooling phases or the results of the greenhouse effect. At least the future generations will know 200 years from now.

*2000

See
>not hydro
that's where you're wrong buddy. Dam energy is very sustainable. You're right about wind and solar to an extent though, I am a supporter of nuclear to fill in the gaps (away from fault zones).

You'd see it less if it were less true.

Attached: HonestJoe.jpg (640x360, 38K)

Thanks based CIA cuz

this, gimme dat LFTR

Attached: LFTR+Breeder+Design.jpg (1280x720, 86K)

The sad thing is that it is true sometimes. Like when Bibi gets investigated for corruption by his own AG. But alas moments like these are lost by the right because they all want to virtue signal about the JQ instead of picking meaningful battles or leveraging bipartisanship.

Are you kidding me? The IPCC and U.N. are full of communist kikes. Not to mention the academic and media propagandists that push this shit.

>muh not long enough yet
>muh natural phases
imagine being this much of an NPC

Attached: 1534690235754.jpg (237x271, 28K)

hydro and geothermal are only applicable in certain regions, and there's actually lot of push back against hydro these days due to the effects it has on wildlife

>do humans effect climate?
Yes, everything effects climate.

>SEE, HUMANS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING
Wait, we didn’t say that, we said humans effect climate, just like cows and everything else

>REEEEE... HUMANS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING
>REEEEEEEE
wait
>REEEEEEEEEE
okay, fuck it, whatever

This is so-called “science”.

Dude it’s pretty simple to understand them. Maybe you are just used to hanging out with shitskins in Toronto.

Nuclear will save us from global wa--
uh oh.

Attached: shutdown.jpg (625x961, 110K)

No they were not! What are you 16?