Why is "but its cold outside" not a valid argument against climate change

If you want to consider whether or not people are causing climate change, go to WUWT.com and do some reading.

tl;dr climate change is constant, and driven by the sun.

If you're an average to slightly above average intelligence you should listen to and parrot this comment when people ask you. He's completely correct, succinct, and understandable.
Do you have any evidence of this? What governments have been caught doing this? Has anyone not done huge amounts of lsd and believed this? No, oh ok.
MSM is a relatively well produced propaganda.
Saying "it's cold outside so climate change is fake" is a fallacy. If there's any other reason for it to be cold outside than that isn't a true causation. Also points out the mind boggling complexity of our little blue marble quite well. Instead point out stuff like whistleblowers being fired for pointing out that climate change has "paused" (amp-washingtontimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s). Everytime a scientist looks at the data and says "huh, this actually looks normal. Why the doom&gloom" they end up fired.
Finally I'll give my own opinion. Green house gases are poorly understood, but they probably won't affect the environment in the ways many predict. Earth has had both larger and smaller ghg concentrations than today, and humans could survive both easily. That said it's never contained this much plastic, and the huge trash pile in the Pacific scares me to the point of regularly recycling and avoiding consumerist bullshit. Make your own informed decision.
(Pic related is garbage island, note the low concentration but ridiculous size)

Attached: 636572386247113311-032118-great-garbage-patch-Online.png (700x600, 93K)

the climate science is settled. it was settled in the 1970s ffs. no it's not a giant conspiracy. yes if someone could show cooling or no warming they'd win a nobel prize and millions and millions of dollars from fossil fuel companies.

the deniers are just useful idiots of the merchant of doubt admen which big gas and oil hired in order to sow the seeds of discord in the population, hoping to stall out policy makers until the 2050s when they've run out of oil.

If your argument is based on 17th century science, you are already wrong.

It is like trying to disprove quantum mechanics by pointing to Newton's writings.

How many people on the coast have lost their homes to rising sea levels?

>WUWT.com
Domain's for sale.

Great Chart. Now post one from 1950-2010

I know this is a difficult concept for inbred hicks to understand but the extreme highs and lows are the product of severe climate change. "Global warming" isn't what it's called and the propensity with which people use it really underlines the general public willful ignorance of the matter.

Let me put this as simply as I can. The planet won't die, but you will.

No, they would be fired from their job, blacklisted from all media, and very likely hunted down under false pretenses.

Ok? We had record highs.

post one on a ten thousand year time scale

AL GORE WAS RIGHT WE NEED TO TAX EVERYTHING BECUZ THAT WILL MAKE THE BAD THINGS STOPPPP!!!!!!!

"The liberals say that the Titanic is sinking, but this end of the boat actually went 200 feet in the air!"

itt: retards who don't understand statistical noise

yes, climate science is highly politicised and it's virtually impossible to get good scientific critique of it as a result. Yes, the extent to which we're affecting the climate may be (and I think is) overblown. But this doesn't mean we aren't having an effect, and your inability to understand it cannot change hard physical principles, which predict warming effects, potential cooling effects in some regions and certain times of the year, etc. You will just have to learn to be more discerning.

except this isnt the case ballsno. every fucking person in the field is extremely alarmed because the data projections for agriculture will mean in the next 25 years 4 billion will either starve or leave asia and africa and there will probably be a nuclear war.

i get that you already live in third world hellfire and you could get shot by an 8yr old speeding by on a motorbike at any moment, but for white people living in safety and peace this is alarming.

There is literally no motive to falsify climate change. There is no money to be gained, no territory to be acquired, no positions to be secured. There is, however, a deep interest in attempting to deny climate change by the inconceivably wealthy oligarchs who pol stumbles over each other to lick the shoes of. It is the duty of the white race to prevent the death of your planet. Blood and soil, you corperate little cucks.

Attached: 1545231782136.jpg (720x915, 382K)

>no motive to falsify climate change. There is no money to be gained
this better be bait

Name one.
Hard mode: no "da joos"

Large chunks of ice from the arctic melt and fall into the sea, cooling it down.

carbon tax which is handed down to the end consumer. Literally everything will be more expensive to line the pockets of those that propose the tax. Not a penny of which is even guaranteed to go into new green technologies.
You're a special kind of stupid.

t. brainlet

>lol immigrants arent bad look at all these intelligent Mexicans!!

Climate change alarmists are literal leaders of doomsday cults that frighten people into paying money or else risk the end of the world.
Very similar to Indulgences fees the Catholic Church would charge people so that God would forgive them of their sins.

You guys gonna act like Futurama didn't answer this one for us years ago?

youtube.com/watch?v=6cjx4gJFME0

It used to be called global cooling in the 70s, go figure

Because Jews

Attached: 1547650817812.png (503x730, 275K)

Climate change means the climate changes, not that it never gets cold. Also, I agree that "global warming" fags; it's not only warming, it's getting fucked in both extremes.
But this is just retarded, no one's calling it "weather change". Of course the weather changes: one day it's sunny and the next it's raining.

Because it's a matter of averages, which are going up. Data points being more extreme isn't a contradiction. In fact, it fits in just fine.

leftists believe this is an island you can walk on

This is a lie. I am old enough to remember when they were pushing "we are entering in a new ice age" narrative, and then suddenly the polar caps started melting and everyone just started talking about global warming like nobody ever mentioned "ice age" on the news.

And now we have record ice on polar caps, and they are all talking about climate change and how some regions will see extreme cold and some will see extreme heat.

This was done in a span of around 60 years so if it shows anything is that they can't predict shit and you are retarded to believe them.

>And now we have record ice on polar caps
The Arctic is losing ice faster than Antarctic gains it.

Because local cooling does not necessarily mean global cooling. Average global temperatures are what you should be looking at, and even the climate change deniers admit global average temperatures are rising, they just dispute what is causing it. If you say “I dont think average global temperatures are rising” you are just outright wrong, and can be immediately dismissed. If you say “I dont think humans are causing average global temperatures to rise”, then you have an argument.
>tl;dr: Nobody disagrees that data shows global temperatures are rising. If you dispute an increase in average global temperatures, you are retarded.

Except it is not. It has been going down for at least a decade and a half.

Climate change is caused by God. He is punishing us for allowing our country to be Israel's bitch. We must gas all the jews in order to fix the climate.

>we were experiencing global cooling the last 15 years
Care to cite your source?

Global Warming is describing the avg temperature on earth rising.

With a rising average temperature, weather systems like pretty much everything that sees an increase in temperature, from atoms to animals, becomes faster, and more extreme.

This means that cooling trends in the atmosphere are more extreme, that air pressure is more extreme etc.

This results in increasing global average temperature producing extreme weather in all seasons, including winter. Not all areas will stop having snow, but the areas that do will be reduced, and the areas that keep it will have it in more extreme fashions.

Mate, architectural sciences go back to the dawn of cities, much of what was discovered then isn't wrong.

Maybe you need to hop onto League and ask for more Moni so you can buy a book to read.

No one denys climate change just the cause. Climate change has been a phrase that has come to be specifically associated with man made CO2 induced climate change, not the natural climate changes that have occurred for all of existence.

seething

And the loss has been steady in spite of ever increasing carbon levels on atmosphere. Almost like the ice didn't care about CO2.

>you can't argue with leftists
This shouldn't be a partisan issue.

I'm right leaning but even I agree that something should be done to slow down climate change.
I look at it this way: Worst case scenario if climate change is a "leftist hoax": We waste money and effort in renewable energies and oil companies get cucked (tragic, I know).
Worst case scenario if it ISN'T a hoax, and 99% of the scientists that actually study this shit is right about how we should fucking work on fixing shit before we're all fucked: We do nothing as global eco system collapses, coastal cities get fucked, and crop yields become unpredictable; causing mass migration and global conflict.
The fact that so many people are willing to just roll the dice on this is fucking weird in my eyes. It's like people are arguing about shit just for the sake of arguing. Looking at the big picture it shouldn't matter if you're right, left, or centrist. This is something everyone should work together on.

Attached: 4_5_degrees.png (664x476, 95K)

No one, absolutely NO ONE in the world denies that the climate is changing. We only deny that mankind is responsible for it.

But why take the chance? Why not work on what humans contribute and see if it helps?

>Climate change alarmists are literal leaders of doomsday cults that frighten people into paying money or else risk the end of the world
Well put.

Attached: 1517966657701.gif (235x240, 1.93M)

Water can lose and gain a lot of heat while still remaining water. Doesn't mean it can't become ice or steam. You don't understand how change works, if you assume that it will remain steady forever.

It is funny that it is called greenhouse gas...

Here is a little secret you will never hear in the media...Plants absorb more CO2 as the temperature rises....As the temperature rises linearly, the amount of CO2 plants scrub rises exponentially. Global warming is impossible on a planet with plant life.

We literally have to buy tanks of CO2 to add to our greenhouse in the summer because there is not enough in the atmosphere for them to reach their full potential.

This is the most retarded shit I've read all day. Good job. You're literally comparing your actual green house to the whole world. Amazing.

Why do you ask that about "climate change" but then switch to "global warming" when you talk about the cold? Why are you unable to differentiate between the two? Global warming hasn't been used in 20 years by any one except those who deny climate change. Why do you deny that the climate is changing but acknowledge that it's colder than ever, snowing where it usually doesn't snow because the climate in that area usually doesn't allow for snow, places that usually dont get hurricanes because of their climate get hit by hurricanes, more hurricanes in general, etc? Do you know what "climate" means?
The only thing up for debate is how much humans contribute to it, and how much is just the earth changing its fucking climates again, like it did many times over billions of years. Either way, regardless of who or what's at fault, its happening and you need to prepare for cataclysmic events and a complete toppling of everything you know and understand about living as a human. Any one still burying his head in the sand is retarded and going to die faster than the majority of we who prep (a lot of us will die too).

It only sounds retarded to you because you are stupid. For every 1 degree over 85F, plants practically double the amount of CO2 consumed. Doesnt matter if they are in a greenhouse or not.

Sure, so let's start with curbing the population growth of Africa, India, and China. Better yet, we should focus on wiping out at least 70% of their populations. I think that's a sufficient start.

Or would you recommend we (in western countries) continue paying new, exorbitant taxes which will never actually go towards environmental initiatives or lowering emissions but instead into the pockets of the elite?

>palm trees at the poles
>bad
WE'LL GROW ORANGES IN ALASKA

>stupid DRUMPFTARD thinks weather = climate
>how ignorant
>etc

I always just say weather is how we experience and interact with climate much like an LED screen is how we interact with our computers

I then deride them for getting all bent out of shape over something we cant really control and for the coup de gras, ask if they REALLY think raising taxes or limiting human enjoyment of life is worth it in light of the futility.

Liberals are fucking morons though, so I'm wasting my time but it's fun making them feel stupid

Attached: 1550115339407.jpg (680x616, 73K)

I love how the fact you recently renamed it somehow makes it more correct. We've also had extreme highs and lows before. Was that not climate change? And short of polluting the air with barium and aluminum compounds to geoengineer is there any actionable solution to fix it? How do we fix something we failed to even predict btw? Do we know where it is breaking? If the opposite if climate change is climate constant, do we want constant climate? Will that have any negative impacts? I'd really like to see some research on the later. Do you have any available? We have researched it right?

I think we should move from fossil fuels to renewable energies. The technology exists for it. But I don't think the average citizen can do much to actually combat climate change. You have to go after the companies that contributes to the pollution. Regulate them somehow.

I'm honestly not sure if this is something that is fixable before it passes a point of no return. I actually think governments should start spending more to prepare for the crisis that will follow things like rising sea levels and crop failures instead of trying to "reverse" climate change since people are idiots and won't believe something until their stupid fat asses are affected by it (plenty of examples in this thread).

They stopped calling it "global warming" because retards couldn't fathom such a thing when "they were chilly that winter". But like I said, it's too late to try and change the minds of the general populace this late in the game.

Idiots have been thinking dumb shit since the dawn of time, you can't stop them

>pol
>dumbass trying to concern troll anons using black sun symbolism but disregards the esoteric information that the poles are shifting and that will of course affect weather and climate

Climate extremism

People used to think they had to conduct human sacrifice or ritual dances to change the weather from bad weather to good. When bad weather happened they always assumed this was a direct result of their actions and had to physically do something to rectify things.

I guess some things never change.

Attached: Rain Dance.jpg (641x400, 42K)

>takes heat to melt the ice enough for it to lose it's solidity
>SOMEHOW the heat doesn't cause the ice to melt and lose it's freezing temperature while doing this
>"science"
People like you make me a misanthrope.

Why not instead focus on population control in problem areas? Africa, China, and India together have almost half the world's population. And by renewables, hydro, and geothermal, correct? Do you actually think wind and solar are feasible? Also, do you rule out nuclear?

Peak oil is more or less a myth

How will we know we have defeated climate change; storms stop happening is the requirement?

No they stopped because the average temp (climate) dropped and they looked like the retards with their data. It was to save face.

You are the useful idiot for big energy and oil as “climate change” is a way to hard limit those industries and cement the oligarchy into place by outlawing competition.
You need to research how all the oil companies merged in the 90s, then spent big money on “climate change” for the next 20 years and profited billions and billions of dollars off of it.
ecomagination.com
It is a big energy scam and useful idiots think they are fighting big energy as they support “energy star” compliance regulations GE designed so no one can compete with it.
Fuck you shill.

Why have you never heard Trump say "climatedepot.com"? a web page with links to data and everything. Trump doesn't care about us. It's all a fucking fixed ass joke.

If idiots don’t know they are idiots you should make sure to check yourself.

>why hasn’t trump linked to my propaganda site???

Then post the one from 400,000 BC to 1950

>it’s a website with links and everything, to data!!!
Holy shit you are easy to trick. I’m a wallet inspector I need to check yours.

because they no longer claim global warming but the unfalsifiable "climate change"

>Why not instead focus on population control in problem areas? Africa, China, and India together have almost half the world's population.
Maybe we should. I don't know honestly. I'm not a climate scientist. But it's clear that we need to do something.
>And by renewables, hydro, and geothermal, correct? Do you actually think wind and solar are feasible?
I think so, yes.
>Also, do you rule out nuclear?
No. Nuclear is probably our best option. The new generations of nuclear plants are safe and very effective. It pisses me off when I see my government trying to move away from nuclear because "muh fukushima", and in a misguided attempt to completely rely on renewables, even though our power plants are later generations and work extremely well.
Within scientific journals Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
Yeah I'm pretty stupid but I still trust the scientists and academics that actually study this shit, and looking at the evidence that's available they seem pretty fucking reliable.
>inb4 they're all jews! Conspiracy shills!
If you're gonna say that shit show me some actual fucking evidence that can be backed up and not infowars-tier shit.

Swede leaning right is like hardcore left-democrat in U.S.

Argument is a Pascal scam. Diverting money to "green" efforts in a hope to stop climate change that may be a hoax means taking opportunity cost form things that may actually be far more pressing.

Because the Earth has had ice ages in the past, as well as periods of extreme heat. Unless you are willing to defend the idea that mankind's effect is so significant as to override the Earth's natural cycles, mankind is much better by focusing on studying those natural cycles and how to survive them.

Look for it with a search engine. Watts up with that dot com.

tl;dr the internet is hard! Good thing climate change is easy to understand.

Then post one from 1950 to 2019

>>the climate science is settled

You don't understand even one word in that sentence. Not even 'the' and 'is'.

Anyone who says "not a valid arguement" about anything is just another grandstanding faggot. Not worth my time.
You could easily convince this generation of Warming Hoaxers of anything

>honestly one of the scarier parts about it

It's not that scary we global warming has happened 7 times in recent history (interglacials) so we have a good idea of what happens during warming events. Additionally, we have plenty of data from prehistoric times that tells us the planet isn't that bad during a greenhouse phase, the US would become tropical and Canada / Russia becomes the new temperate zone.

The only people who are scared about global warming are retards who were tricked into believing the planet is going to turn into Venus.

The climate always changes.
Pollution is bad for the environment 90% of the time.
Climate change doesn't cause every weather event. Not every tiny storm or Tornado is "wacky and weird" because it happened when you were alive.

No prediction about the destruction of the Earth has come anywhere near true. Floods are not rising seawaters.

Every time it rains or snows or the temperature changes by a degree, everyone just yells "omg climate change!" People haven't been alive long enough to know that before climate change was a thing, the weather also used to change.

>Carbon is the most abundant material in the universe
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

>>There is literally no motive to falsify climate change. There is no money to be gained, no territory to be acquired, no positions to be secured.

Global carbon tax. How do you assess and collect a tax? With a government. A global tax requires a global government. That is the whole purpose of the AGW alarmist propaganda.

>Global warming
>Why is it cold in this specific tiny location?

>Unless you are willing to defend the idea that mankind's effect is so significant as to override the Earth's natural cycles
Absolutely we are.
>Swede leaning right is like hardcore left-democrat in U.S.
Heh, ouch. But no I'm pretty conservative when it comes to shit like family values and stuff. I just don't think climate politics should be a partisan thing.
>Diverting money to "green" efforts in a hope to stop climate change that may be a hoax means taking opportunity cost form things that may actually be far more pressing.
I disagree with you on this. If anything relying less on things like fossile fuels, and not having to spend money on shit that comes with it (clean up during accidents, health hazards, etc) I believe that cost will be negligible and possibly even profitable in the long run.

The thing that bothers me about politics that involves climate change is that it usually turns into a "leftists are trying to make money from green initiatives!" when there's not really any evidence for that.

Like I said, if climate change can be stopped and we ignore it bad shit will happen to EVERYONE. If it's not real and we work on stopping it, we will waste some money and effort in creating cleaner energy (hopefully). Imo that's a risk worth taking just because the alternative is so much worse.

But like I said. I don't think we'll do anything that will actually be of any help in time. Shit goes fast when a system collapses. Problems compound and eventually it moves out of our control. I recently read that scientists fear that we might already have passed that point so I'm not sure what to do, even if there's anything we can do this late.

I think it's going to play out like with that manbearpig episode of south park. When we really start noticing it we'll already be getting mauled.
youtube.com/watch?v=0AW4nSq0hAc

>Do you have any evidence of this? What governments have been caught doing this? Has anyone not done huge amounts of lsd and believed this? No, oh ok.

It's not a conspiracy. Governments are very open about doing it
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
>snowyhydro.com.au/our-energy/cloud-seeding/how-cloud-seeding-works/

Averages matter user except for iq, crime rate, you get the deal

Attached: 720D5665-0E20-416D-ABC4-CB434910D4FA.jpg (700x499, 60K)

> If anything relying less on things like fossile fuels, and not having to spend money on shit that comes with it (clean up during accidents, health hazards, etc) I believe that cost will be negligible and possibly even profitable in the long run.

Poor countries can't afford to abandon industrialization so that White People can control the environment to make their lives more comfortable.
It's an elitist notion that everyone should stop advancing, so rich countries can spend trillions of dollars making their environments clean and trendy, while the rest of the world rots.

>You could easily convince this generation of Warming Hoaxers of anything
If you only knew how true that is...

Attached: patent.png (955x469, 75K)

carbonate also forms faster if there is more CO2

>Poor countries can't afford to abandon industrialization so that White People can control the environment to make their lives more comfortable.
>It's an elitist notion that everyone should stop advancing, so rich countries can spend trillions of dollars making their environments clean and trendy, while the rest of the world rots.
That's true. And even if they could change and move directly to cleaner production it will probably be too late by then.
Like I said, I don't really have the answers. But I really hope some smart fuckers are working on solving this problem or we'll all be fucked.

Honestly people have been saying climate change/global warming would end the world for a very long time. I remember wham Al Gore was ranting about how New York would be underwater by now if we kept up the same course. China and India upped their greenhouse gas emissions and we have done minimal change to our own emissions and yet new york is still not underwater. Most of us are tired of the fear mongering that will add more regulations to what we do with buisseness. Im a hunter and I want to preserve the enviroment so I can dissapear into the mountains and enjoy a quiet weekend stalking Elk and making sure the wild is clean and safe for the ecosystem to flourish so when I go pick off a bull that I dont have to worry about there being no more elk or that I can eat the fish I catch without worrying if it has crude oil or plastic in its stomach.. But fear mongering is not the way to make people want to slow pollution, it just makes people tired of the talking points.

I'm not joining your cult and you're not getting my money you useless faggots.