IS CLIMATE CHANGE A HOAX????

One of the main issues is that people on both sides don't understand the issue well. Weather =/= Climate.
But it sounds to me like you just want to win an argument; if that's the case then just call him a faggot, but if you actually care about this issue read scientific studies.

It doesn't really matter if it is a hoax or not. The way you have to look at it is this:

Someone is wanting to shift hundreds of billions of dollars around in the economy. That is, it goes from the people that have it, to some other people. This is done via carbon taxes, changes in where electricity comes from, and so on.

Therefore, this is a big decision that cannot be taken lightly. It is easy to be taken for a fool. So you then have to look at the arguments they are making to see if it is enough to make this giant shift.

The arguments we get are "1600 scientists agree". This is a bit of a problem. Truth is not determined after a certain number of people agree. Remember the false rape accusations tactic? 3 women, 6 women have now come forward. The idea is "hey, a lot of people are saying it, so now it is true".

Truth has nothing to do with the number of people saying something. It is therefore highly possible that this is a scam that is using the same tactics as the false rape accusations.

Then there is the fact that science is extremely politicized. Much of it is a scam designed to extract money from people. For example, industries often come up with shitty studies to prove something and make you buy things.

So basically, all we have is a bunch of shitty line graphs that anyone can draw, and a "just trust us", and "its true because lots of people say it is true".

This doesn't seem like enough evidence to make such huge decisions on, and to me, I feel it may be a scam. Not necessarily that the climate is changing, but all the other variables, such as "is it man-made", "do the proposed solutions actually work", "are the effects as bad as they say", and so on. There are too many unknowns and too little evidence.

Climate changes all the time. The planet is much cooler than it use to be.
Man made global warming is a hoax. Al Gore first set up his climate shekel council then he went to work spreading fear. Save the planet by paying more taxes.
Ever wonder why every politician out there loves this idea? Because they want a seat in big Al’s taxation center.
The planet will do as it will, man be damned.

In which case, anthropogenic climate
change is the only thing holding back
the coming Ice Age. You got a problem with that?

Attached: 51FPGAydeTL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (329x499, 27K)

I lost 5 holmes to climant change, and now my dogs paws are wet all the time.

>but if you actually care about this issue read scientific studies
On the surface of it, the evidence seems fairly weak. This is a great trick though. Science can be used in scams, and it often is. This is because we can't all become experts on a particular topic.

So it then comes down to "trust the scientists". And then "lots of them agree, so trust them". This smells like a massive scam. There is no way I would part with my money based on this trick. It takes advantage of a lack of knowledge, and an appeal to authority.

The tax-funded agendas for it are. You need energy from oil, gas, and coal for every day of your life. Solar energy is currently very inefficient and solar panels require tons of those "dirty" resources to be created. If you want cheaper, cleaner energy sources, you better stop trying to hinder technological advancements with this shit.

Climate change is a real thing, "le human made CATASTROPHE ZOMG HELP US ALL" is not.

Have you actually witnessed this?

>"its true because lots of people say it is true".
You seem confused here. This isn't your typical appeal to majority; the reason why they frame it as such is because they assume that you'll remember that these aren't ordinary people--they all have years if not decades worth of research that they have conducted on the topic.
You don't seem as dumb as the typical tard, so regardless of the outcome please do more research on the issue.

Yes, it's a hoax. They claim they can't predict the weather because it's chaotic and short term, yet they only focus on ~30 or so year 'averages' which is...also chaotic and short term considering this planet is supposedly BILLIONS of years old. There's so many contradictions and obfuscations, you just gotta use your brain. Question everything.

I can understand your skepticism but their research is available for anyone to read and critique. If you have a particular claim as to what is incorrect in their findings that's one thing, but otherwise it seems as though your general distrust of those in power is clouding your judgment.

>IS CLIMATE CHANGE A HOAX????
No, but man made climate change is. If you dig deep enough on the top of some mountains you can find sea shells, and we know that there were several ice ages.

Your arguments are retarded.

Is hoax a climate change?

>You seem confused here. This isn't your typical appeal to majority; the reason why they frame it as such is because they assume that you'll remember that these aren't ordinary people--they all have years if not decades worth of research that they have conducted on the topic.
All you have added to the appeal to majority is appeal to authority. These scientists can be bought, biased, stupid, and so on, just like everybody else.

An appeal to authority is meaningless. It is sometimes enough to buy a toothbrush, that is about it. This is too much money to leave it up to a method of decision making that is extremely vulnerable to being manipulated.

It's an appeal to authority.

You do realize that they publish the data in these studies? What do you think has been manipulated?
You could make the same argument for anything a group of experts has claimed. So you just don't trust people with experience? Would you rather make policy decisions based on gut intuition than scientific data?

>but their research is available for anyone to read and critique
There is way, way too much evidence, way too much research that is required, way too many things I would need to actually verify. It would take me years of full-time work to fully verify everything.

This isn't a minor decision. The marketing line is basically "just trust us". The same line used when America invaded Iraq. Nobody trusts any of these people.

If you want people to change their ways, governments to part with billions, you are going to have to come up with something more than "you can go spend years looking at the research".

You already know that nobody can or will do it, which is just another scam. "Look, if you don't believe us, dedicate 3 years to figuring it out yourself".

Wrong. Oil, gas and coal are way less efficient than direct solar.

Trump shouted (as always) "MY HANDS ARE H-U-G-E! My brain, not so much..."

>You could make the same argument for anything a group of experts has claimed.
Yes you could. As the ramifications increase, there must be an increase in the level of evidence.

Decisions in government are made all the time based on the advice of scientists. This is distinctly different in the massive amounts of money involved.

By asking that question, I imagine you would not be convinced by evidence in any case... right?

WTF? Who is "hindering" development of renewable tech?

No I would, I just want to know if you've actually seen it in real life. Because we all know the media would never lie right?

So funny!

Things that have been manipulated
>average temperatures because NASA "corrects" for atmospheric pollution
>meta studies that claim "80% of scientists agree"
>confirmation bias for studies approving climate change
>just replacing old failing models with new ones and claiming it's true now
For every climate change scientist clown you can find one dude bringing up good counter arguments. There was a good hearing on this in the US senate in 2013 I believe

>You do realize that they publish the data in these studies? What do you think has been manipulated?
That is a pretty simplistic way to look at science. First there is the question of whether the data is accurate, then there is the question of whether it is appropriate, then there is the question of whether it was interpreted correctly.

Science has many stages that can all go wrong, and usually do, resulting in the wrong conclusion.

But you refuse to verify the evidence yourself. What could someone tell or show you to convince you?
And while I don't know how your fucked up nanny state works, I hope that your government uses scientific data for all of its decisions. The amount of money on the line regarding climate change is nothing compared to the data we use to manage our economies.

considering the fact that the average temperature of the globe has only increased a fraction of a degree Celsius over the last 150 years, i would say so.

Sort of, but global warming is still better than a fucking ice age, and anyone who says the ice age wasn't coming back is a liar or a moron.

Right. So then I ask you; how is the data inaccurate, how was the data not 'appropriate', and how do you believe the interpretation is incorrect?
But you have no answers, because you won't read studies, or even watch video of testimony by scientists to our governments. Instead your argument is essentially that science is too complex to be correct.

>But you refuse to verify the evidence yourself.
I have looked at the evidence with as much time as I could reasonable devote to doing so.

I found graphs such as co2 levels, which are supposedly rising rapidly in modern times, theories I already know about such as co2 trapping heat, the largest emitters of co2, and so on.

None of this really lead to strong conclusions. Much of it involved lots of little adjustments and tricks and simulations and trend lines to smooth over things.

I couldn't come away from it with any confidence.

>The amount of money on the line regarding climate change is nothing compared to the data we use to manage our economies.
Not at all the same. When you present to the people "hey, I am going to be stronger on trade negotiations with china", which is a recent claim we had to evaluate, it is absolutely nothing like "hey, we are going to spend billions on climate change".

The trade negotiations tactic is pretty obvious. I know enough to know the position china is in and the position America is in, and what bargaining power each has and so on.

Absolutely nothing like this climate change thing.

There is nothing someone tell or show you to convince you, you have already made up your mind.

>because you won't read studies
except I said I have read studies. I have gone through the evidence as best I could.

There is no actual proof of a bunch of things like whether temperate will rise exactly in line with co2 changes, how much damage will be done by the changes, and so on.

There are all kinds of complex models and predictions and so on.

>or even watch video of testimony by scientists
Only fools will fall for this. This is marketing bullshit. "1000 scientists agree!". 1000 scientists are fucking morons.

From wikipedia

>For at least the last 100 years, sea level >has been rising at an average rate of about >1.8mm (0.07in) per year.[8]Most of this >rise can be attributed to the increase in >temperature of the sea and the resulting >slightthermal expansionof the upper 500 >metres (1,640 feet) of sea water. Additional >contributions, as much as one-quarter of >the total, come from water sources on >land, such as melting snow >andglaciersand extraction of groundwater >for irrigation and other agricultural and >human uses.

Tldr if the water levels are rising at a rate greater than 1.88mm a year, then Climate change is real.

Short answer..
>Does CO2 cause warming?
Yes.
>Is it the end of the world?
No.
>Are the retarded energy policies of the EU justified?
Hell no.

>Only fools will fall for this. This is marketing bullshit. "1000 scientists agree!". 1000 scientists are fucking morons.
That's not what they're saying. They cite the data and provide evidence and arguments. But I'm done trying to argue with someone who has already made up their mind and distorts logic as much as you do. I feel bad for your potential children, please don't reproduce.
Have a good one, user.

No, I haven't made up my mind at all. People who have made up their minds and are willing to part with their money are people who easily part with money, or are serious experts in this field and genuinely believe what they have figured out for themselves.

If I said "no I don't think there is enough evidence to invade Iraq", you would have used the exact same line. "Hey, you have made up your mind already. They have given us the pictures and 5 intelligence agencies all agree".

Do you remember that? Exactly the same scam.

OK well I will cite you the pictures of the intelligence agencies that showed the weapons sites, and I will say all 5 intelligence agencies agreed.

Here you go guys:
cbsnews.com/pictures/powells-photos/2/

That is the weapons of mass destruction site. That is the evidence. Do you have any questions? What exactly are your questions? I have shown you the data. It is there for you to inspect. Little circles drawn around boxes.

Now 5 agencies agree. Please stop being a dumb retard and let us invade Iraq.

Nobody is falling for that shit again. Find a new scam.

Here you go. A squiggly line. Hand over the billions.

Attached: 203_co2-graph-021116.jpg (1280x800, 289K)

Manbearpig is not real.

Attached: usa-flag.jpg (2162x1486, 1.72M)

World turns and changes, once it was filled with dinosaurs, now it has people.
Next it will have _____

>setting my house on fire is the only way I can think of to stay warm this winter

We can't all become experts, no. But when one side says "Global warming is a commie hoax. The proof is [easily debunked fraud] [crappy argument] [economic theory]", it's pretty obvious they're bullshitters or morons.

Pictured: Trofim Lysenko. His theory of evolution was chosen by Communist scientists because they felt it fit with their economic theory. It formed the cornerstone of Mao's agricultural policy during the Great Leap Forward.

Attached: Trofim_Lysenko_portrait.jpg (300x450, 20K)

No, but I wish it was.

Most intelligent user in this thread.

It IS good to be skeptical. Any information before you that you can't independently verify should be held up to a magnifying glass if its important to you. That goes for people's statements, articles on the internet, and even books. Obviously there are silly rammifications for this where people will say "oh so you dont think gravity is real, because you didnt do the tests yourself?" But its important to have reasonable doubts and use your brain to discern the legitimacy of people's claims. We may have centuries of human history behind us, by liars are also part of that history, and there are just as many liars today. Judging who you should trust is your job as an individual.

Attached: 1537817497458.jpg (1041x1548, 323K)

Skepticism is useless if you don't have a logical process for verifying truth.

In other news, the existance of natural rocks proves that the 'anthropogenic concrete' theory is a hoax. A skyscraper is a naturally occurring rock formation; the only part of it that's human in origin is the carpet.

>These scientists can be bought, biased, stupid, and so on, just like everybody else.
I can't help but notice that you're applying a much higher standard to scientists than everyone else. Bloggers, shitposters, corporate CEOs, and politicians can be bought, biased, stupid, and so on too. The potential personal gain for people falsely claiming that anthropogenic global warming isn't real is significantly greater than the gain for falsely claiming that it IS real.

Attached: alfred-header-3.jpg (767x360, 46K)

I think it's not that simple. We see the results of our Globalist Private-Banking Crime Network's narrow interests on China and India's manufactured bubble economy on a sunny day. This said, how could their projected Climate Change Catastrophe™ benefit our Global Bankster Cartels, i.e., give them one avenue of total control over all Earth’s resources, industry and Human Goyim endeavour? That's easy: Use Climate Change™ to usurp National laws thru the proverbial backdoor...ass fuck the Goyim into believing a Global Central regulating Authority, that usurps their national laws in combating the Climate Change Hype, is the only way for them to spend hopefully another century joyfully swimming in their shitty poverty and lovingly serving their Celebs and our corporate Banking Pharaohs they speak for.

Attached: Total Gore.jpg (300x168, 9K)

Climate change is real, its called seasons. Global warming however is a hoax.

A rapidly climate change is happening.
However, the various explanations of the climate change are hoaxes, or focus on what's not really the main "fuel" of this control climate.

After all, academia has been built so nobody can know any shit. So, at the end of the day media word is the truth.

Like in 911, people should pay more attention to see the big picture under thermodynamics optics.
Earth is a colossal soup. The CO2 ppm records indicate that all buffers are saturated.

Technology for altering climate has been there for more than half of century. If you don't know anything about it, is because they do not want you to know.

I'd bet that from some years ago (more than 50 or so), the climate change has been engineered by the elites. The same ones who are playing both sides: denying climate change (such as trump) or blaming people for the climate change (such as gore).

In 2020's the elites will pay this card in order to further push global communism.

>they all have years if not decades worth of research that they have conducted on the topic
Pretty sure most of "le 97%" were all random scientists from many disciplines, most having nothing to do with studying climate, and they only know as much as any other retard.

>The same line used when America invaded Iraq.

The POLITICAL leadership's consensus was that invading Iraq was a good idea because WMDs. The EXPERTS were divided, but the majority opinion was that there was no hard evidence for the theory Saddam was obtaining nukes. How the hell can you forget the argument that gave us the pedobear meme?

Now, the POLITICAL consensus is that AGW might or might not be real and very little needs to be done, while the EXPERT consensus is that it's definitely real and a lot needs to be done.

You're saying to trust the people who brought you the Iraq war to get it right on a question of science, while arguing that it is unreasonable to expect anyone without a multi-year climatology background to understand what's going on.

EU energy policies are not nearly aggressive enough. We need a full electric economy by 2030, and net negative carbon emissions. Once we do that we can start billing the petrochemical producers for the damage they're doing.

It's real.

Attached: 1540893580331.png (1891x4901, 689K)

A bunch of 'experts' many of whom have clear political agendas. Fuck off nordfag.

No we don't. We'd be absolutely fine up to about 600ppm CO2 and by that time solar will be competitive with fossil fuels anyway. If we actually followed the political recommendations of the so-called experts we'd end up plunging the world back into an ice age and die off. The current interglacial is just barely staying above the glaciation line as it is, and it a total shit show compared to the majority of previous interglacials.

Even at 600 ppm it would take 100,000 years for the ice caps to melt, and they wouldn't be a loss to us one way or the other. All the flooding scare mongering is also bullshit that ignores the huge amounts of land that would become habitable if they weren't buried under miles of ice.

We just have to see where the budgets come from and all is revealed.

>People have already lost homes to rising ocean levels.
GIVE ONE SINGLE FUCKING EXAMPLE OF THIS ABSOLUTELY BULLSHIT STATEMENT.

Attached: 1539007412812.jpg (600x398, 91K)

This.

Bullshit, nobody's lost a house to rising global average sea levels. Subsidence, tidal surges, earthquakes and hurricanes don't count.

>many experts have political agendas
ALL politicians have political agendas; most AGW denialists also have clearly visible political agendas.

>plunging the world into an ice age
We can start burning fossil fuels again if the world starts getting too cold, it's not that hard. Unless we burn them all up because idiots like you insist that we can't worry about the future, of course.

>look at this new habitable land

At current warming rates we're going to expose a bunch of it by the end of the century. Probably sooner. Now, Finland has been deglaciated for thousands of years. In the north, there's nice fertile soil. Nice fertile soil that any idiot with a shovel can dig through in a few minutes. Newly deglaciated land is NOT going to have the nice thick soils of Finland. It will be rocks and gravel. You're going to have to ship in all the good soil from somewhere else.

>raises the sea level so storm and surge damage moves further inland.
>tells everyone that we can't count storm and surge damage as having anything to do with the raised sea level.

That basically means the sea can go up a hundred meters and you'll still insist none of the damage had anything to do with global warming, because the storm surges will always get there before the main ocean does.

Meanwhile rising TEMPERATURES are chasing an awful lot of people out of their homes in Yemen, because Saudi Arabia is not ruled by complete idiots and they're aware a lot of THEIR best sand is going to become uninhabitable by 2050.