Good arguments against climate change

Climate change means anything now, even polluting the oceans. So, yes, there is "man made climate change"

Attached: EED5DF39-1EA2-4E95-8172-CBE016EF24FB.jpg (795x398, 85K)

>I don’t know anything about climate change therefore it must be a mental illness. Gibs me info that supports my confirmation bias the thread.

What you retards don’t understand is the oil industry has way more money invested in keeping things the way they are than the climate scientists do from seeing them taken down.
You fuckers act like climate scientists are these oligarchs that have ties to alternative energy giants when 90% them are in debt up to their eye balls.

Do you realize how large the Earth is? Do you understand that producing a model interlocking these innumerable natural systems and humans effect on them are down right impossible?
Climate change is more than “stop driving cars lmao”, climate change encompasses forest fragmentation, ocean acidification, the creation of tropic cascades, fertilizer run off and dead zones, the list goes on and on and the majority of problems facing our world today don’t actually have anything directly to do with CO2 emissions.

Stop letting dumb ass liberal politicians speak for scientists and read a fucking text book rather than trusting some study / article written and funded by oil shills you god damned autists.

The argument is not the climate change it is what they want to do about it.

This show’s the problem areas

Attached: 8B1D8CC9-6253-4557-9FEC-FF1320E22D8B.jpg (660x302, 21K)

The ocean is also the worlds largest carbon sink, genius.

The main one is the data set. There are using 100 years of data to represent a 5 Billion year old planet. I would be like finding a single brick from a building and trying to use it to draw a picture of the entire building. Or a single hair from an animal and using it to draw a picture of the animal. It's retarded.
And I say 100 years of data loosly because the points where temperature were actually recorded represent less than 1% of the planet surface and 0% of the oceans where actual heat content is stored.
It's literally basing a theory on no data and saying the "science is settled"
A complete fabrication and manipulation of the masses to push a profit- driven agenda to have developed countries redistribute wealth to undeveloped countries.

Because it's obvious bullshit aimed at getting grant gibs for marginally intelligent scientists. Just like the whole HIV/Aids BS.

Climate change is about more than CO2 emissions friendo. Do dead zones in the ocean happen naturally?

You might like this user
corbettreport.com/openscience/

>scientists never ever lie for political or financial reasons

Attached: 0F9FCBC6-983F-4FFF-B3AD-85A7D04FFAF8.jpg (1024x576, 69K)

Where is this fantasy coming from? Phytoplankton are a sponge of carbon if they aren't dying after a bloom. Show me links to papers

Attached: IMG_20190331_093906.jpg (300x226, 16K)

If real, its going to effect shitskins first, lets thin the herd a tad before doing something about it as apparently only white people can.

Look, all these autists like you on Jow Forums understand that most of the arguments claiming climate change are bullshit. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be reducing incentives for large polluting corporations and encouraging more advanced and efficient technologies.

Co2 levels were far greater at times when humans weren't alive friendo

Attached: flucatuations.jpg (2725x1964, 835K)

Literally everything that happens on earth happens naturally, do you believe humans are “supernatural” or something

Whose more likely to have political sway? Some Ecology professor or the head of Exxon?
You tell me.

I’m all for this.

google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/amp/

You tell me. We still havent mapped the oceans, im sure you can tell me conclusively what they looked like 3 billion years ago though.

summers here are longer and hotter than before.
that is a fact.

what mental illness are you talking about?

Best one seriously is. We all die anyway nothing matters.

I’m not even talking about CO2. You don’t need CO2 emissions to form an argument in favor of climate change. There are innumerable factors but for some reason CO2 emissions is the only one critics seem to care about.

That’s a fair point. I tend to make the argument that everything humans do is “natural” since we do it after all. Let me rephrase my question, how did the creation of dead zones in the ocean occur before the industrial revolution?

solar forcing?

A single volcano eruption can produce more of an effect on the climate than the entire industrial revolution happening in an instant. All but two of earths mass extinction events have been caused by periods of intense volcanism, the outliers are the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs and most likely a local gamma ray burst that killed everything on earth that wasn’t a little pubic lice or shrimp scratching around on a sea vent.
Do you have a plan to stop the volcanoes? Because they have turned the earth into a fucking ice ball a dozen times at least.
If you don’t have a long perspective on this shit just shut the fuck up, you have no idea how hostile to life this universe actually is and you think the “natural state” of the earth is somehow correlated to bad things not happening to humans.

Attached: F5E1E647-4A47-49AB-87C8-C91695FC0BF9.jpg (1087x1761, 765K)

VOLCANOS

>is there climate change?
yes
>is climate change man made?
debatable
>can we stop it
no

The fact that people are so obsessed with whether or not we are causing it drives me up the wall. Does it matter? Shouldn't we be more concerned about what to do with the fact that climate is changing? Feels like people gathering around some dog poop getting into a heated argument about which neighborhood dog caused it rather than just getting rid of it

I agree with that. I will just never agree to paying the redistributed wealth of first world nations in the form of taxes or "credits" to developing nations because they are technologically backwards. That is the endgoal here. Punishing Europeans for being successful. And rewarding niggers for being retards.

You got me there but it seems pretty foolish to ignore the information we do have available simply because “lol we’re you there 3 million years ago? Didn’t think so.”

Attached: D7501D14-8066-482E-965C-4BFF2129CEE8.jpg (1200x675, 88K)

You can't argue climate change, the climate has been change since the earth has been in existence.

I think what you are talking about is climate fearmongering and scientific ineptitude guided as virtue signaling. When some one talks about the farce that is man made climate change you need to ask them what they do to help?

Do you recycle?
Do you use public transit?
Have you thrown away your cell ph and tablets? (These devices use more electricity and have a larger carbon footprint than your refrigerator)
Do you support nuclear energy? (Even with the waste produced 50 years after the reactor is spent, it produces less pollution than coal)

Then get into the data that has only been collected for 30 years. Satellite data is revetivly new, how can you say we are in such dire straits if you don't have past data to go in? If you look at core samples taken from ice and ocean floor mud it shows that there have been much warmer periods in time. In fact we are currently in the end of an ice age cycle so it would make sense that the world is warming.

There you go, now you can write your term paper. But let me warn you, you will get an F, you will never be able to convince npcs that "man made c lo image change" is a lie. The fix is in, media, education, pop culture, and politicians are all in on the conspiracy. We have already lost this war. It will continue to have moving goal post for at least the next 100 yrs.

Why would the (((bankers))) give loans for homes and businesses in coastal areas if sea levels are going to rise 100 feet and everybody knows it?

>can we stop china and india from destroying the atmosphere by rapidly indistrializing
not with shitlibs at any level of political power

CO2 emissions go up in correlation with welfare spending (as unproductive people are suddenly being provided for and consuming, which all invokes the need for transportation of people and resource), but buying votes is more important than 'literally saving the world'

Why would you argue AGAINST it?

>Your enemy literally believes the world is ending in 12 years.
>They do not believe they need to plan for ANYTHING over 12 years.
>You can throw money at solar or Gen IV nuclear and get ANYTHING you want.

They literally believe the world is going to end. Can there be a bigger bargaining chip? You could pass the RAISE act in exchange for a smart grid and a bunch of fucking windmills.

I don’t disagree with this. The argument that “the word is a hostile place so we shouldn’t take measures to try to survive as long as possible” is stupid. We should be using the Earth as efficiently and sustainable as possible when we have the power to, and adapt when we don’t.

Using 99% more fertilizer than we need to is something we can and should control. (The primary cause of ocean dead zones)

Trying to stop a volcano is something we can’t. But I guarantee we’ll sure as hell do everything in our power to adapt.

Climate scientist have promised more ends of the world if we don't give them money and change our wicked ways than Christians have promised raptures, if we don't give them money and change our wicked ways.

If christianity just copy-pasted every end of the world prediction climate scientists made, when the world actually ended religion would have a better batting average than science.

I agree user, ((we)) should really be doing something.

Attached: 35E8CAA8-6100-496B-86AE-75DBFB7E59E8.jpg (221x228, 9K)

Correlation doesn’t equal causation but interesting point.

Those scientists are paid for results in line with dogma

16 ships on the ocean produce more pollution than the entirety of the worlds cars

Attached: 5FE732AD-6D6C-4B54-81D1-675BBE6EF107.jpg (1242x1110, 974K)

Except the dogma of today is still the one pushed by the oil tycoons friend. Last I looked climate scientists weren’t dictating legislation.

my point exactly. You can't do shit about it. Might as well think about how to avoid the consequences as much as possible.

>We should be using the Earth as efficiently and sustainable as possible when we have the power to, and adapt when we don’t.
We don’t have the power to stop China and India from rapidly industrializing without nuclear war which would be counterproductive to stopping their emissions. The modern globalist politicians don’t tell you what a problem these two countries are because the West is experiencing the end stages of a fatal fascination with racial masochism.

This graph could use a label for the y axis

Which is why I tend to ignore CO2 emissions in my arguments. Transportation is literally one of the last things on the list to change.

Look up global greening

They focus on CO2 emissions because it’s the one stick they can beat Americans with for shakedown money. On every other environmental and pollution level we embarrass the rest of the world with our greenness.

I just explained the causation though. People live, people consume, people burn shit. That makes CO2, and they wouldn't be making CO2 if they just stopped existing like the free market intended.

And how many of those ships are going to feed Africa for free?

Sure we do. China and India industrializing is a direct result of Western demand. Compare consumption rates of a westerner and an easterner per capita.
Granted, now that the cats out of the bag, perhaps we don’t have the power anymore as the citizens of these newly industrialized are going to want to consume like westerners do, then we’re really all screwed lol.

this statistic only takes into account sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions

container ships produce far less CO2 per unit of cargo and distance than anything else.

Here’s a better question for climate faggots - how will you feel when America has become so nonwhite that none of its politicians give a fuck about pollution, clean streets, or diapers being thrown in the river anymore?

But your hero Elon Musk disagrees. Go watch Rick and Morty faggot.

Supposedly theres a climate model that has been correct on predicting current temperatures: the problem is that it doesn't predict any future warming.

muh Sea Level rise
1/3

Attached: 1551970900548.png (637x506, 210K)

2/3

Attached: 1551971049575.png (632x768, 499K)

It seems pretty foolish to ignore a question of time, considering the subject is climate change, and instead post some uncredited infographic and claim it as an "argument"

3/3

Attached: 1551971160044.png (636x759, 646K)

There has been but it doesn't predict future warming

muh Ocean Acidification
1/2

Attached: 1551973086281.png (635x742, 152K)

CO2 is a fucking meme, water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas by far. FUCKING WATER

Attached: 8A0ABD05-999C-4806-A80F-029A8AD5A791.jpg (1057x321, 200K)

Yes. Though where you’re wrong is the whole “embarrassing the world” part. We’re falling behind on the creation of alternative energy infrastructures.

How do you explain China then? That’s the opposite of a welfare state. They produce more CO2 because people have to work in factories that produce more CO2 than they ever could as collective individuals.

2/2

Attached: 1551972928414.png (638x749, 209K)

Muh Climate Projection

Attached: 1551973959070.jpg (970x815, 255K)

Here you go user skepticalscience.com/argument.php :)

Attached: 1551970390446 (1).jpg (1024x717, 84K)

Alternative energy is pointless as long as we keep innovating new methods of cheaply extracting fossil fuels. The only alternative energies worth looking into are nuclear but shitlibs are scared of it so blame them.

>memeflag
like everything, the issue is the impact we (collectively we) have an impact on our environment
blindly giving money to """""experts""""" is not the solution, kike
we did the same with medicine / healthcare

Muh increase in temperature will literally kill everybody

Attached: 1551978446318.png (634x813, 413K)

>What are some good, well versed arguments against this mental illness?

Climate on this planet is 98+% controlled by water (in gas form in the atmosphere or vapor), not co2.

there is no way to add more water into the ecosystem

but you can add add quite a lot of CO2 by human activity. enough to tip the balance.

Right, because Lithium mining is so great for the environment. I respect the man for advertising by sending a car into orbit, not for the car itself.

Because its a pretense for them to drag western civ further into the shitter, the pretense is that we could as well do stupid shortsighted shit now that feel good.

>there is no way to add more water to the atmosphere
get the fuck out of this thread brainlet

Neat. Do you have a link to the full study for my archives?

Plants need cO2 to breathe, why do you want to kill the plants?

You can argue whether someone believes something they profess:

>"I love her".
>"l wouldn't throw her a life preserver if she fell overboard".
>Pick one.

>"I believe that AGW will cause catastrophes if we don't lower carbon emmissions".
>"I am not calling for an immediate halt to mass population transfer from low- to high-carbon footprint lands".
>Again, pick one.

This is also funny. You had predictions ranging from 1 to 100 meters sea level rise. We would have been able to register at least a 10 cm rise of sea level in the past 10 years; and what do we have on this? COMPLETE SILENCE

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC011066

This is also true. I saw something recently about how some guy claims getting all current vehicles to 0% emissions was possible because he was working on technology that’d recycle gasoline some how? Pretty neat stuff tbqh.

I just don’t quite understand why anybody is opposed to alternative energy though. The sun is the source of it all anyway, why not learn to harness it to the fullest?

Ty.

water vapor turns into something called "clouds". these tend to reflect sunlight away, thus reducing the greenhouse effect

kek, this

if you really cared about climate change and believed it would be fatal to everybody, you would not want so many people increasing their carbon footprints by moving to first world countries

They can't even predict the path of a hurricane 24 hours in advance, let alone temps 100 yrs from now.

Yes but also this

ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

Have u anons seen this
google.com/amp/s/amp.coloradoan.com/amp/533181001

the left
>we believe in science
>but not that kind of science, or actual science, just the idea of science

Attached: 1551970657210.jpg (1754x1241, 470K)

Oops you’re still retarded

Attached: 8F92BE2D-45E4-4939-A33E-57209E41F7D1.jpg (1242x550, 135K)

How about there is no evidence of man made climate change?