what are your sources to support the claim that it is a hoax?
Redpill me on climate change
Kayden Gonzalez
Other urls found in this thread:
thegwpf.com
joannenova.com.au
youtube.com
wattsupwiththat.com
forbes.com
stevengoddard.wordpress.com
quora.com
bloomberg.com
climate4you.com
snopes.com
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov
twitter.com
Ryan Lewis
CO2 levels are not a hoax.
the effect it has on global climate is what is up for debate, but any criticism of the "established" correct opinions is derailed or deplatformed.
Tyler Watson
Who cares. Nothing the west can do will ever offset India and China's growing pollution. We should just let technology develop and use it when it becomes economically efficient.
Logan James
also it's important for some perspective
Noah Powell
They’re making the Australian data up
thegwpf.com
Mason Moore
CO2 levels =/= climate change
And, mostly
Climate change =/= anthropic climate change.
Ayden Perez
Not only that, they used totally useless and wrong data to build models for decades.
joannenova.com.au
Aaron Taylor
further, there are dozens of catastrophic things we're doing to the environment, including the oceans and how we terraform and grow agriculture, which is monumentally unforgivable
sadly, what to do about this other than neutering our productivity is a problem. information and transparency is key, i heuristically believe the free market can solve it due to the general good nature of most people
Christopher Campbell
10,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered by glaciers
now it isn't
the climate changes
trying to stop it from changing is futile,gay, a global money redistribution scam and most likely deadly to the environment
Owen Murphy
There is little debate about temperatures rising anymore.
The argument is how much of that is caused by humans, versus natural cycles of the earth, solar cycles, etc.
Also, most people screaming about climate change don't actually care about it, true or not.
It's a Trojan horse for socialists to control other people.
Wyatt Evans
Brandon Morales
It's a hoax that exploits the ignorance of the masses and the modern sickness of attaching one's own sense of knowledge and self-worth to the statements of experts, and it has many goals, among them surface level redistribution of wealth, moneyed interests in various technologies that are too expensive to have innate market value without government subsidy, which many politicians are coincidentally investors in (look at who got rich from post 2001 climate hysteria, Elon Musk is a good example), and control over the academic narratives.
Climate change, the literal climate change, is all too real and evidenced by all of history. We move on a cycle that is remarkably predictable and repeats regularly. We are at the tail-end of an interglacial period that has lasted for about 12,000 years, and will not last for even 2,000 more. It may end tomorrow, it may end in 1,500 years, but it will end, and the planet will cool, not warm.
Which is why the elite have such interest in northern Africa and Mesopotamia, which will be relatively fertile. 80% of people will starve to death, which is why they don't care about overpopulation and use it as a tool.
etc, etc., it's all to much to unpack.
tl;dr: it's the kikes.
Bentley Taylor
I believe humans have contributed, to a degree, to the acceleration of climate change.
What the I Fucking Love Science cringelords fail to acknowledge is that believing in climate change and how we go about combating it are two different conversations.
Just because it may be a thing doesn’t mean we need to gimp ourselves economically while the third world plays catch up. We also need to demonstrate how mass immigration makes climate change worse, and show leftists the lack of consistency of their positions related to this part of the debate.
Lucas Morgan
"most people" are not in charge of the market
Jonathan Flores
these threads are always a good example of stupid people saying stupid things.
Juan Carter
That chart is just another bullshit peddled by liberal atheists and their studies about time when humans didn't existed.They have nothing
besides some fosil pseudo-science that ''proves'' how first Swede was a Nigger and first Brit too that they named Chadder man.Fucking kek
Ryder Torres
But it is safe to claim that CO2 creates the green house effect, as it is absorbtive to energy from infrared waves, meaning it retains a lot of heat. So if we increase the levels of such green house gas, that means we are inevitably warming the planet. However, I'm still questioning whether or not the whole "apocalyptic" narrative is still real, because that is happening at a very slow rate and I don't know if 2 degrees celsius more on the earth's average temperature will mean the end of the world. This is why I'm asking because maybe someone built a model to debunk this shit.
Matthew Long
But enough about your contributions to the thread
Thomas Parker
>he says, as he starts his contribution with 'i believe' and rattles the dogmatic talking points of the oligarchy
unironically i read your post before i made that comment
Thomas Hughes
>But it is safe to claim that CO2 creates the green house effect
no it isn't. CO2 is a ridiculously small portion of the atmosphere. Greenhouse effect is driven almost entirely by water i.e. clouds. You already know this, a clear winter night is freezing, but overcast it can be quite warm.
James Murphy
It's fucking real. Denialism is mostly just restricted to the US and their culture of retardation. Republicans themselves used to be on board with it and even warn about it, until the lobby started pressuring them with all their money. Really fucking stupid for pol to be all contrarian here, since this shit will cause waves of displaced climate refugees. As always, their retardation never ceases to amaze me.
Alexander Flores
The global temperature is rising and co2 levels are rising. The impact of human activity on that rise is what is not clear.
Thing is most people agree on reducing pollution, recycling, renewable energy regardless of whether humans are causing it or not. But the left seems to be hellbent on forcing those who don't fully agree with them to bend over and kiss their asses to say the words "climate change is man made" rather than trying to reach agreements that everyone already agrees on.
This power obsession with them is preventing anything from happening
Oliver Ward
Odd how you have no actual counterpoints to the “stupid people saying stupid things” or the “dogmatic talking points of the oligarchy.”
You’re just spouting buzzwords, sweaty.
Cameron Hernandez
Yes. I'm not saying it is highly significant. but it will warm up even if the increase is negligible. Now the biggest question is, we know that the earth has warmed up by about a little less than 1 degree celsius in the past 300 years. Is there a model to determine how much of it is human caused?
Jeremiah Stewart
CO2 is not pollution, and focusing on it displaces real concerns about acids, toxic chemicals, plastics etc.
Daniel Gray
I said co2 levels are rising, not co2 is pollution you uneducated mongaloid
Isaiah Peterson
If the heat absorbtion and heat explusion mechanisms overpower the heat retention then it actually will have no effect whatsoever. The earth is balanced by many factors and there is no real model for it. It's too big.
Aiden Mitchell
Oh look, it's a chart that claims to know how much co2 was in the air A MILLION YEARS AGO.
A fact that is literally impossible to know, unless a time machine is invented and someone goes back and samples the actual air.
Chase James
It's not a debate, it's just trying to muddy the waters to keep some people like yourself confused. What do you think is up for debate at this point?
What if it doesn't?
7 billion humans weren't on the planet 300 millions years ago. The problem with the current changes are also that RATE at which it's increasing right now. When fast increases similiar to this have happened in the past (it's never been THIS fast), we also know there have been mass extinction events that correlated with it.
Nope. They made corrections to old data to account for things that weren't before.
>So I admit it!
Those changes actually make the change in temperature less than had they not been introduced. It also doesn't change the fact the recent (past 40 years) of data is still showing warming.
Nope, models have got it right. Also LOL at that title "first audit of temperature data" - do you know how many competing places are measuring and finding the same results?
>i heuristically believe the free market can solve it due to the general good nature of most people
Nope.
That was due to other factors such as an increase in solar radiation. Solar radiation has been steady/decreasing for the past 50 years, what is the cause you believe it is if not for skyrocketing CO2 values?
There is no debate for anything else causing it.
bloomberg.com
It's just people trying to pretend like their is still no verdict when they have no proof of anything else.
>Retard starter pack
Lazy.
Nathan Long
>What if it doesn't?
>Like, what if technology just stops advancing bro
A very poor attempt at trolling by mass responding with poor rebuttals. 3/10
Logan Green
Global Warming is real. Can't wait to go trolling once springtime arrives.
Mason Cook
Kek
Juan Sullivan
>What do you think is up for debate at this point?
get the fuck out of my science
John Gonzalez
>What are your sources
A professor at the Copenhagen University. If I was to find information on the internet he pointed me towards a website made by a Ph.D of his. The website is climate4you.com
Not exactly a pretty site, but it's made by scientists who monitor the weather, not business people.
Gabriel Campbell
Everything is debatable. You claim people try to muddy the waters. So everyone agrees, lets remove pollution, recycle, use renewable energy, etc. But oh wait, I can't agree to do any of that until you except my OPINION as fact.
All you give a shit about is a momentary sense of intellectual superiority. You probably use more energy than a family of five in a shit hole but scream about reducing co2 emissions that you are causing.
Andrew Wood
what's worse is that they think some government/state lead intervention can solve this problem, like it has ever not made a problem worse
Dominic Torres
We will have to learn to cope with climate change.
If we do not burn the available fossil fuels, someone else will, as long as they are easily extractable.
The Alternative would be a world government and a world police, which would be infinitely more harmful than any climate change could ever be.
Nolan Green
The hole in the ozone layer scare of the late 80s was a dry-run for AGW.
ozone (O3) is created by a process involving oxygen (O2) and ultraviolet radiation.
This process cannot occur at night or in polar winters.
This process is further inhibited by cold temperatures (the temperatures required to inhibit (
Cooper Rodriguez
Man made GlobalWarming is real. Wanna go trolling?
Charles Cox
Protip: "Fossil" fuels aren't fossil, but naturally formed through underground chemical processes.
Adam Scott
You think exponential advances are going to last forever? Just because we are advancing now does not mean it will solve a particular problem, some things can't be solved.
I am talking about facts. You can cry all day that we don't have the best solutions and I'm a hypocrite for living in a first world country. I don't care.
But the fact is the "debate" you speak of is morons online regurgitating the same bullshit arguments that have no basis in reality. Look at this thread for example. People pretend to be skeptics when they don't have any idea what's really going on - they just don't want to believe the "narrative."
Ayden Lee
Triggered?
Aiden Peterson
Scientific consensus != scientific fact
Here you go again. We already agree on a number of policies that help the environment but you insist on forcing your OPINIONS onto others instead of just focusing on common policies.
And if the debate is just morons online (which you appear to be one), how would people who reject man made climate change hold so much political power? Last I checked the president of the USA doesn't believe in man made climate change.
And for the record I do think it is man made. But I can respect those who have different opinions and try to work with them on common policies we agrees on
Isaac Wood
I've always found it weird that when someone tries to argue against man made climate change he brings out graphs, papers, data, etc.
But when someone tries to make an argument for climate change it's something like
>hurr science is settled
>all scientists and their mothers agree
>link to a statement of some org with no references
Carson Young
>sources
chemistry?
SAGE
Dominic King
We should ask Galileo about scientific consensus. People thought they were smart and had sophisticated instruments in his time also.
Gabriel Robinson
TRUST THE SCIENCE
Joshua Ramirez
CO2 and Temperature NO CORRELATION.jpg
Hunter Evans
Ryder Gutierrez
Logan Rogers
Easton Peterson
Oliver Perry
Benjamin Walker
remember to
SAGE
Brody Hill
This would be better if you could see the individual bands. These don't have the resolution to show whether or not the stuff that methane blocks is also blocked by water or not. Also, the poles, where most of the warming has occurred, are arid, so one would think that the greenhouse effect from non-water-vapor gases would be most pronounced there.
I'm on your side, I just know there's problems with this specific comparison, unless you get a better resolution on it. (Which I admit I have not)
Jackson Evans
They dont know what high CO2 wil do, according to the prior trends we should be Venus by now but we arent.
We are overall in a warm reprise from an ongoing 2 million year long Ice Age.
Grayson Rodriguez
Ice age = spooky scary oh no!
Ice age = standing glaciers and shit
>Current year
> Ice age
Oh no, the ice caps are melting and sheeet
Caleb Sanders
>what are your sources to support the claim that it is a hoax?
That the data was faked?
Ian Mitchell
I really don't get Jow Forums stubborness with AGW. The data is there, the consequences are being felt, the first ones who questioned global warming were the (((big oil))) companies. Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels would redraw the power relationships among nations. No more rich arab countries financing terrorism abroad, no more Russia blackmailing the west.
Jordan Garcia
>Solar radiation has been steady/decreasing for the past 50 years
I can't find any graphs that line up with this claim. The average over the past 50 years has been slightly upwards.
Kevin Perry
Sunspot activity trended downward over the past 20 years on average due to the most recent two periods being really mild, but that didn't reduce overall irradiance over the past 50 years.
Carson Brown
The ice age went back further then this fucking propaganda graph shows
Jose Kelly
OH NO, WE'RE GOING TO REACH TEMPERATURES THAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE SAW. EVERYONE WON'T DIE.
Luis Torres
Mass immigration and china are the leading factors in climate change
Save the planet
Race war now
Elijah Reed
>I really don't get Jow Forums stubborness with AGW
Look at pic related, it's because the media has been blasting out absolute lies for several decades non-stop so there is no credibility left.
Isaiah Long
Why is the rate a problem? Nature wont keep up? Whatever took out the dinosaurs happened at a pretty fast rate, nature seems to have kept up.
David Robinson
According to that, the temperature should be 130 degrees Fahrenheit right now. Somebody done goofed.
Jackson Watson
Here is another one that tricked everyone a few years ago, millions probably still believe it:
snopes.com
The media just keep making shit up and it's impossible to trust them, and the scientists don't do a very good job (if at all) at correcting the media when it lies.
Jeremiah Johnson
its another jew hoax to promote further taxation via bullshit like "carbon credits".
Jack Myers
CO2 has dogshit thermal insulation properties.
not sure how this whole "greenhouse gas" meme ever started.
Caleb Morris
It’s not that it’s a “hoax”. It’s just s flat wrong hypothesis. The hoax accusation is from the fact that too many went too far in promoting it as well as their attempts to use it for politically expedient purposes. The risks are way overstated and the doubts are way understated. 30 years of alarmist predictions that failed to materialize hasn’t exactly helped the cause.
Jace Reyes
it is all bullshit scare tactic to drum up vote.... oldest trick in the political book and sheeple still fall for it. Only the dems can save us. Blame everything on climate change while reps in office/
Carter Clark
Jose Garcia
barrier reefs are fine...
Bentley Sullivan
hockey stick chart was debunked.
Joseph Powell
Jacob Cooper
why did liberals try to pass this bill banning any research. If it is the most important thing we face as a species, wouldn't you want more research?
Andrew Gutierrez
why do you never see climate change risk disclosed on bonds. If the world is going to end don't you think bond holders deserve to now? Because it devalues the bonds and when money counts liberals will gladly testify in court that climate change is not real. Just look at SF.
Carter Peterson
Julian Rodriguez
CO2 is not pollution
Jordan Myers
trees love CO2
Jordan Myers
Chase Rivera
Daniel Campbell
Trumps USA is better than all Paris Accord signers.
Ryder Nguyen
just scare tactics... old tricks
Luke Hernandez
>muh CO2
Is not the cause of global "warming". Correlation is not causation. Me growing older also correlates with earth growing warmer, not causation either
Nicholas Perry
Luke Richardson
temp and CO2 do not even correlate
John Roberts
Kayden Collins
We are not running our of fossil fuels
Easton Foster
>i heuristically believe the free market can solve it due to the general good nature of most people
Andrew Scott
OK, here's the redpill:
1) it's real
2) we as a species could probably do something about it
3) it will primarily impact countries that don't have access to an extremely diverse geography
4) the four largest countries with such geography are, in order, Russia, Canada, the US, and China
5) nothing will be done about it because the RELATIVE power structure of the world will not change based on climate change therefore it is a prisoner's dilemma for the main four nations I just listed, cooperation is best if and only if the others cooperate
6) those forces in the US and Canada which want to "do something" invariably are captured by crony capitalism and represent yet another wealth transfer from those without property to those with property (which is typical of leftist regulation but nevermind)
7) because if we discussed it on policy, (6) would be transparent and therefore rejected, and because of (5), we have the propaganda of least resistance we see today where one side rejects the "science" (whatever that means) and the other side pretends it's about stupidity when in fact their motives are as already stated and this is just bullshit for the masses
Gavin White
banning straws is stupid
Grayson Robinson
I read a blog and this guy said carbon dioxide can't trap heat and human civilization is fucked without oil as there is no alternative
Cameron Perry
there is no alternative to hydrocarbons in practice
even in a hypothetical basedscience free fusion power future, we'd use that power to generate hydrocarbons to burn
Xavier Mitchell
>made corrections to old data
That's called cooking the data user. When you change the method of measurement like switching between ice core sampling and atmospheric measuring you don't adjust the old data to fit the new measurement. The rapid increase in co2 measured is a result of switching instrumentation. Strange how the old temp data got adjusted down while the co2 data was just tacked into the earlier set of measurements. Also
>actually measuring the mean atmospheric temp od a planet
Sure would like to see the margin of error on those measurements. Also
>predicting a non-linear system using extrapolation
We can't even predict laminar water flow in a heated 1 cubic centimeter container
You are an absolute fool if you're taken in by this bullshit
Luke White
This. The CO2 levels are indeed rising. Now, let's take a look at the Ice Core data. As you can see, the earth warms, CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere at "alarming (read cyclical)" rates, and then the earth decides to have a cooling spell for a few thousand years.
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov
So, to reiterate:
Earth warms.
CO2 from the oceans rises
Earth cools
CO2 levels drop
Earth warms.
CO2 from the oceans rises
Earth cools
CO2 levels drop
What we have now is unprecedented high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, introduced by man. These CO2 levels may or may not be a disturbance in the normal cycle the earth already has in place. If we are to think too simply about this, we'd presume the earth is a greenhouse, and we're going to melt outselves in about 12 years. Again, that's if you take the simplest models of greenhouses and the theory about how greenhouses themselves work.
As has been exemplified in the million+ year data of ice cores, that's not how the earth works. As a matter of fact, it appears to be the opposite. I wonder why the records of temps recorded on Mars are so hard to find?
David Cook
>but its the rate of change that's important
>the correlation over the last 200 is the whole story
>please ignore the other 4 billion years of data that dont support this, we're still cooking
Global warming in the new y2k with no end date. Pay the tax goy
Ayden Watson
CO2 in purple
>