Why don't you believe man-made climate change is real...

So you conclusion is that it's too complicated to understand and the scientists can never be trusted. So given this framework, how can you ever establishment facts about the climate? Or anything for that matter? At what point would you be comfortable saying that we now "understand climate"?

The polar caps are melting on mars. Explain that. I can wait

The most leftist MSM source is pro-nuclear. What are you talking about?

youtu.be/poPLSgbSO6k

You can see the bleaching yourself though.

>Why don't you believe man-made climate change is real? Do you have a collection of scientific sources that say otherwise?
t. doesn't understand burden of claim or basic logic

We all know governments lie. Corporations lie. Politicians lie. Everyone lies. That not the point.
How do you go about designating someone as an expert on a subject? Knowing that people lie, how do you determine facts from lies?

The evidence is plentiful. The issue is that you believe it's all fake. You don't provide proof that it is fake.

No, but you have to understand the climate before you can do statistical prognostication on it. That just stands to reason. Just because we're not advanced enough doesn't mean we should accept bad scientific methodology to compensate. You have to be able to test a hypothesis before you can attempt to formulate it into a proper theory. How do you suggest this should be done when it comes to this? Perhaps over millennia we could accumulate good enough statistical data, but today we're pretty much clueless about how the climate works. This must be admitted if progress is to be made in the field. Pretending and jumping the gun helps no one.

>At what point would you be comfortable saying that we now "understand climate"?
Well, the models should at least be able to predict the climate to some degree, but more importantly it should be able to reconstruct the climatic past as per the data we have. As of the moment the climatolologist models does neither.

Yes, I have s collection of sources that say otherwise. And, in spite of jewgle fucking up search engines to promote fraud you could actually use it and find some too.

well it is much better to make money on made up bullshit than actually providing goods and services you never run out of bullshit

The data has been manipulated, and even if it is changing, the sun is also. You want blind acceptance while ignoring our own senses.

Also even if its true, the solution of carbon tax isn't going to fix anything when for example Canada creates 2% of the global carbon output. Then politicians will say its about "leading by example" as if China or India gives a rats ass what we do.

It's one thing if you don't trust models that try to predict climate from centuries ago, but what about data from just the past two decades?
We know for a fact that the hottest years on record occurred within the last 5 years and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest ever in human history (which we can determine from mineral deposits and composition in the Earth surface). Even if the models are incorrect sometimes, we know for a fact that a planet's temperature doesn't change this quickly unless there's a cataclysmic event like a super volcano or meteor strike.

>Everyone lies
>The evidence is plentiful

70s: ice age is coming
80s: acid rain™
90s: global warming™/hole in ozone layer
00s: rising sea levels due to global warming™
10s: climate change™

I mean...it could be the history of climate hoaxes through the decades that makes me skeptical.
It could be that everyone knows that scientists are denied grant money if they don't follow the herd.
It could be that the only way to end any disaster trend on this planet would be to stop all travel, all production of goods, and stop all future science endeavors.
We would need to rewind to even before the first industrial revolution (which I assure you was much worse on the planet and that didn't set the planet on fire), live off the land with sticks and bows.
We would have to eat our meat raw because it would be illegal to chop down trees for firewood.
Humanity's weakest would disappear and be bred out.
Those not smart enough to survive would die out even more quickly.
Then the strongest and smartest would rise out of the ashes and remember when you faggots laid waste to the modern world because you wanted to control it.

No, you don't get it. Obviously you'd need some sort of overview of how the climate functions to explain why it changes. Let's take all the geophysical data vi have, sparse as it is, over a very long time period. Why are there some periods with exceptionally higher CO2 concentrations than now, and why does these periods both coincide with hot and cold periods? Obviously there's a climatic geophysical mechanism at work here, that somehow makes the Earth behave in a fashion that doesn't directly correlate with a greenhouse per se, even though the greenhouse effect is real enough. In other words, there are feedback mechanisms at work here that we don't understand. We don't have any proper data on them and we can't really travel back in time to observe why and how they occured.

I could provide several other examples, but just from this we can see that there are important geophysical mechanisms that lack from our understanding of the climate. Now, you can create a statistical model on a complex system where the parameters are unknown, but what you're going to get from this is borderline random data at best, but probably biased junk data. Which is what most of this is.

Attached: 1557245882759.gif (500x395, 1.85M)

NOAA has been caught multiple times manipulating climate data and hides behind known Soros funded propaganda site Snopes

Apparently it’s cyclical
breitbart.com/politics/2018/05/20/climate-skeptic-professor-fired-for-telling-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef/

The burden of proof for an absurd claim lies with those who make the claim
So neither should anyone waste their time with this hoax, nor is any "proof" necessary, because it's a lie

>pic
They don't use the same measurements for the last 100 years as they do for previous dates. It's useless to compare yearly mean temperature variations with variations of mean temperatures over thousads of years.

Because it's the middle of May and in the 40's.
Just as it has been every year for decades.

I do though, and I want to continue working towards increasing the damage it causes as quickly as possible.

what user?
you mean to tell me that this planet has natural climate patterns?
how old is the earth?
>millions of years? billions?
how long have we been recording weather?
>hundreds of years (let's say 500 to keep it even)
so wait, and before I jump to conclusions, are you trying to tell me that a planet that is over 4 billion years old, that modern climate scientists that have only been measuring the weather patterns for 0.00000011% of Earth's existence may not have gotten it right
surely you wouldn't go against the consensus of the science community

Man made climate change is bullshit. Man made ecological change is some real shit. Gas india, glass China, and send the niggers back to africa on the condition they also stop getting food aid, the environment will be fine in 30 years if we scrub the oceans and figure out how to unfuck fukushima

Every single desert on earth is in expansion, soils globally are growing more acidic due to CO2 absorption, we are seeing widespread ecological regime shifts as climate patterns change, the oceans are growing more acidic due to CO2, vast majority of glaciers are in retreat, statisical freak weather systems are becoming more common, methane clathrate in the Arctic seas are accelerating in their thawing (this one is the real shit), permafrost globally is melting more and freezing less each year.
These are not outputs of climate models, these are data points observed and measured in physical reality. Arguing about model consistency against dozens of constantly updating research teams on small points when they all aggregate agree that climate is warming and human activities are the prime input to this process is intellectually disingenuous as it ignores the scientific underpinnings (your comment on untestable hypothesises is legitimately horse shit as greenhouse effects have been verified science for over 150 years at this point) and real world data in favor of nitpicking over the tiny discrepancies across models.

t. geochemist

Claiming that we've been recording the weather for 500 years would be a gross overstatement. I wouldn't say we have a proper infrastructure for reliable and sound data until perhaps the last 100 years and I'm being very generous with that.

xkcd should know better. Isn't he some kind of computer geek? If a company makes a different project each month, the yearly mean CPU load in a workstation will be almost the same every year. But as each project's deadline approaches, the daily mean CPU loads will increase, because they'll spend more time compiling/rendering/whatever. Some days they could be 10 times the yearly mean. You can't compare daily means with yearly means.

ok 100 years
compare previous
0.00000011% to
0.000000022%

"scientists" have been recording weather patterns for 2.2e^-8% of Earth's existence
but have been delivering climate panic after climate panic for 50% of the time they've been recording it
do people not read "Chicken Little" to their children anymore?

Attached: img.jpg (736x425, 24K)

>These are not outputs of climate models, these are data points observed and measured in physical reality.
You exaggerate certain points, but yes some of it is happening. But why this happens is not known. You claiming it is known is not true.

>dozens of constantly updating research teams
Your appeal to authority is a logical flaw in itself, but even more ludicrous when that appeal to authority is to the consensus of the scientific establishment. If it's one thing the scientific community is characterized by it's being wrong. That's the history of science. The majority being wrong again and again and again and again between every leap of scientific progress. But even if it was a proper argument, it isn't even true. The media and the IPCC likes to throw this consensus metric they've pulled out their ass around, but their numbers is from a completely biased statistical analysis. My faculty certainly never got any survey on this and I don't know of anyone else who has gotten one either.

>greenhouse effects have been verified science for over
No one is denying the greenhouse effect. I'm just saying it's completely uncertain what geophysical feedback mechanisms exist that affect this. I don't know, you don't know, the IPCC and their corrupt institutions doesn't know. No one knows. You can't directly equate the greenhouse effect to the earth without accounting for these unknown feedbacks because then your model would fail to recreate the climatic past of the earth. Which of course all these climatology models do. Fail.

t. geophysicist

Attached: 1557245684071.gif (486x273, 3.48M)

sorry, forgot to convert before adding the % symbol
would be 2.2e^-6%

>do people not read "Chicken Little" to their children anymore?
"The boy who cried wolf" and "The Emperor's new clothes" are also fairy tales who apply directly to what is happening today. Read to your children, don't let them grow up to be plebbitors.

>believe
Im not religious, sorry

Maybe most of what you're saying is true, but how new is this trend? Not long ago (if I remember correctly less than 10k years) everything North from France was part of the North Pole cap.

Ice core data. Our average temperature is not higher than historical maximums. Our current average temperature has been relatively constant since long before industrialization. CO2 levels LAG temperature, meaning that an increase in temperature comes before CO2 build up, not the other way around.

Attached: wpbcb3e8fc_0f.jpg (785x146, 34K)

If you truly believed that the threat was real, that your kids and your grand-kids were doomed unless something was done *now*, you would bankrupt yourself to get the message out. You would run yourself ragged speaking at every opportunity at events big and small. But these prophets of doom fly in on private jets, stay in 5-star hotels, speak for an hour or two, then return to their mansions after a quick little vay-cay and time to cash the check for their speaking fee.

Instead of impoverishing themselves because they care so much, they are enriching themselves because they 'care so much.' Follow the money. If there is profit in it, the motive is greed, not altruism.

As for the climate scientists, again, follow the money. Meteorologists who used to have to bow and scrape for funding are now showered with grants to study this made-up menace and merely have to provide results that toe the already established line. Easy-street for life with a hero-complex on top. "I'm saving the world. It's kind of a big deal."

Those in that field that dare to buck the trend with truth, or merely asking real questions, are thrown out, de-funded, socially ostracized, made to be pariahs. It's all a cult, and the fact that their original deadlines for doom have come and gone, only to be pushed back and delayed is EXACTLY what end-of-the-world cults have done throughout history time and time again. Keep pushing back doomsday while they use the fear to enrich themselves. And that's all there is to it.

Ho, but I do belive it's real, but first you will have to explain to me why I should give a damn and then you are going to explain to me how can I get the 95% of the country world who don't even try to try.

This is what made me not give a fuck. The Swede autist girl is the last generation who could change thing, so am I and so were my parents.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your worldview) it's all bullshit and everything will be fine.

Temperatures have been recorded in Europe for 500 years. It includde a small ice age and a century long wave of heat.

youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

This. Climate change is real, but is not man-made. And for the parts of the weather that are man-made, like earthquakes and hurricanes, that has nothing to do with fuel emissions or the like.

Pollution IS a problem for our health, though. That should be the real argument, because trying to prove "climate change" is man-made leads to some unsettling realities about our control of the weather, that these very same elites pushing the agenda would not want to reveal.

The govt said the ice caps of the North pole would be completely melted by 2013.... They lie all the time.