Just a thought

You are not a doctor

Actually read what is on them. Climate change is real but is natural.

Isn't it weird how new construction is still going up in areas that are projected to be under water soon? And that these projects can still get mortgages and insurance?

The speed of which is not natural

CO2 is causing green house effect
CO2 concentration is increasing due to humans

=> Increased green house effect due to humans.

Which step is wrong?

The shifting of the North Pole melts the glaciers and thusly affects the world temperature.

>Which step is wrong?
CO2 levels in the atmosphere were higher in the 1800s than they are today.

This is not the question. Which step of the argumentation is wrong? So you say CO2 is not a gas which causes green house effect, or fo you say humans do not contribute to the increasing CO2 concentration?

where did you get those charts, and how do we validate the information in them? What are the sources?

Simply not true, you just see the ones who support it because of the mainstream media. I'm technically a scientist and deny it.

youtu.be/0MkTISjmJXM

youtu.be/0MkTISjmJXM

>CO2 levels in the atmosphere were higher in the 1800s than they are today.
no, they weren't.

But it shouldn't happen this fast

Are there any funds I can invest in that are betting on climate change? Why aren't institutional investors buying up currently frozen waste soon to be prime farm and grazing land in canada?

The sources are literally on the picture.

>This is not the question.
Yes -- is a statement refuting your own. Climate change atm is due to the shifting of the poles. If was primarily CO2 greenhouse effect the change would be more-so in the 1890s than today.

youtu.be/NjlC02NsIt0

Why is sea level one of the main metrics always being talked about then?

So there is nothing wrong with the argumentation. Humans contribute to the increasing temperature, since you conceded that CO2 is a green house gas and humans contriubute to the increasing CO2 concentration.

>The sources are literally on the picture.
source: CIA declassified book. Okay.

lol

God damn you're stupid. I'll link again:

You can practice your global warming religion if you wish, it's a free country.

An no, CO2 concentration in 1800 was lower

sealevel.info/co2_and_ch4.html

What fields are "technically" in?

Isn’t it weird how the solution we have, nuclear power, is completely ignored?

>I'll link again:
you show me a picture, a picture on the internet. Show me the actual source, and proof of said source's validation.

The problem with that is the greenhouse effect is a discredited hypothesis. It does not exist.

Watch this faggots

youtu.be/BA1ia70-oj8

Big Oil don't like nuclear, because it ain't oil, and the eco hippies don't like it either because it's potentially very harmful.

why is it that everyone who claims to believe that humans can control the climate is also an advocate for world government and the abolition of capitalism?

Attached: earth-chan-5-768x677.jpg (768x677, 63K)

This is soon to be Canada btw

Attached: tar_sands.jpg (1400x932, 641K)

That link is for CO2 in ice cores.

>Look I’m more honest about the data than someone who dedicated their life to a science no one would care about without the fear factor, and my livelihood is not directly tied to grant money from world governments who all say the solution is higher taxes on everyone.

Fixed

London was supposed to be underwater by now

Oh, so you also say that the green house effect of steam is also non-existant? Strange, how every calculation of the earths temperature will collapse, if we do not check for green house effects.

cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b00752a000300070001-8

Now stop being so emotional before you go and kill yourself.

Attached: 1558491483559.jpg (512x911, 59K)

DUDE, how do you think we know the CO2 concentration from the past? We look at ice cores to understand the atmosphere composition from the past XD

CO2 near the ground leads to increased plant growth > more CO2 processed into O2 > stasis. This is negatively impacted by air travel, upper atmosphere CO2 can't be processed until weather forces it down. The graph for increased CO2 and the graph for popularity of jet air travel are the same graph. You can see the pollution pouring out of airpanes which have no meaningful emissions control an can't bc of the nature of jet propulsion. If you care about global warming start protesting airports.

Isn’t it weird how a lot of the people screaming about climate change hysteria stand to financially benefit from screaming about climate change hysteria?

Attached: CD74367D-B539-4F64-99A4-F241B1B1E4EC.jpg (554x439, 106K)

>THE ADAM AND EVE STORY
wtf

Attached: 07130462-CE15-4644-A598-4E379EE9B469.jpg (296x314, 17K)

YES we should! Totally! It is just baffling that people still think we have no impact in the changing of the climate.

Remember when margarine was good for you and butter was bad? Those scientists were sure too, then new scientists came along and did more research.

In real science you work to disprove theories and then after all testing you can think of to disprove your theory then you state it as a tested theory. And you wait for more scientists to come along and try to disprove your theory. So where are all these scientists working to disprove climate change? Where is the funding for that?

Climate change isn’t real science, if it was people would be working to try to disprove it. Climate change is a tool to make the “rich” American middle class pay their “fair share.”

If you look beyond this board there are plenty of real scientists who say otherwise, many of them former global warming scientists.

We can end global warming by burning Phlogistan.

Not really, you're pretty dumb.

While you're at it try to figure out a way to limit the population increase in South America. Clearing rainforests for farming and ranching land is increasing CO2. Never sending any food aid ever again is a solution that would work but is pretty heartless.

But Phlogistan is VERY expensive and can only be bought from AlGore and AOC.

Attached: 1557500697414.png (2518x1024, 186K)

Isn't it weird how everyone Who claims that climate change is retarded? Because why can't we just take better care of our planet in general? Wouldn't that solve the problem? If I would agree that CO2 is the problem, would that take all of the airplanes out of the sky? Would that take all of the 18 wheelers off the interstates? Would that take all the trains off of the railroads? Would that take all of the marine vessels out if the oceans, seas and gulfs? How many windmills have you see on coastal areas? How many tidal powered generators have you saw? How many solar panels on your house? How many nuclear power plants are there compared to coal power plants? Can I buy an economic electric automobile or do I still have to spend 20k to 30k or more to get one? There is not an effort from any person in our government that I know that is pushing for true renewable resources. Why? You already know why. It's because crude oil reigns. It has for a long time, and it will continue to reign supreme, because that's how they want it.

This debate is fucking retarded, and I'm tired of hearing about it.

It's heartless to increase a county's population beyond what they can naturally support in the first place.

First post, best post.

There’s a Wikipedia article that list some of the thousands of scientists that are skeptical on global warming brainlet
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

You didn’t even try

>Can I buy an economic electric automobile or do I still have to spend 20k to 30k or more to get one?

Funniest thing I've seen was boomers standing around shivering in january waiting for their teslas to charge up.

This. Hitting the 3rd world with an EMP and blockading them for a few decades would be the most humane thing we could do.

This is soon to be the tar sands region after oil is taken and reclamation happens.

Stop having a vagina.

Attached: 2C98A2E4-58D6-436B-A931-54DA3CC6EBAF.jpg (1280x720, 116K)

Isn't it weird that you didn't make a single fucking arugmnt in your post?
But instead you made a huge appeal to authority.
Just kill yourself tho.

Attached: allfields.jpg (600x600, 25K)

My tree got blown over last night. Climate change now give me 96 billion dollars.

Look up tar sand faggot

Of course it's real, but it's not the catastrophic doomsday scenario they push to try and enslave us. Carbon has been slowly removed from the atmosphere essentially since trees formed on this earth and for the last several decades we have been digging it up and re-releasing it back into the atmosphere. The activity of the sun causes some large swings now and again outside of this process but yes we are slowly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which will make it slightly warmer, and so fucking what? Do we need to enslave ourselves to jews to pointlessly try and keep the climate precisely as it was at some point 20 years ago?

Remember the click on a coded CIA link. Holy shit, how stupid do you think we are CIA glow nigger!

Attached: serveimage.png (500x456, 87K)

Do you know how I can tell you've never published a paper?

See
You retard. Why do you think all of Canada is tar sands in the first place?

Attached: 1502206775469.jpg (800x531, 104K)

based

Attached: 1502213396490.png (1045x1567, 162K)

There is a Tesla charging station on my way to work. They built three holes of frisbee golf there to entertain the tards standing around for hours as they charge up. It was hilarious looking at the city hipsters huddled inside a canvas shelter surrounded by three feet of snow this past winter.

Nice, so we need more incentives to be innovative, to get more efficient, so that it is not that expensive.

>real scientists
Anyone can call themselves a scientist.

I don’t. It’s a pretty small area really.

yeah we have to do something, the climate is changing

Attached: climate change.png (558x846, 403K)

Isn't it funny that what you call a real scientist (bill nye, degrass tyson..) are in fact self admitted hollywood actors ? People paying attention told you about them but you didn't listen and now you're stuck with a 14 year old with down syndrom. I find that hilarious.

>gEnDeR iS a sOcIaL cOnStRuCt cLiMaTe cHaNgE iS rEaL
LMFAO

>claims that climate change is real is a scientist or someone who knows how the albedo effect works.
>But everyone who claim that it's a hoax is a random shmuck on the internet who knows next

kek
actualy not
there are many scientists who are against ist.
and those who are proclaiming it are often fake scientists or just leftist activists
or some kid with fetal alcohol syndrome

It's especially funny when peoople appeal to authority rather than making any actual arguments

He can’t help it. It’s what they keep telling him.

Athiests have turned science into a religion. They now demand that everyone praise their God, and their preachers, even though they've been proven wrong over and over and over, and have a tendency to blow things out of proportion.

We need to invent technologies that haven’t even been invented yet.

I was replying to the smug dane.

if you planted one tree that lived as long as you do, you’ve effectively balanced all your carbon output. Funny how this is never mentioned as a solution to the problem

>it shouldn’t happen this fast!
based on what metric?

>Isn't it weird how everyone Who claims that climate change is real is a scientist
>But everyone who claim that it's a hoax is a random shmuck on the internet who knows next to nothing about it
Isn't it weird how people who claim such bullshit are never scientists themselves and usually propose an economic unviable and scientifically impossible "solution" for the "problem" of manmade climate change such as electromobility or "regenerative" energies?

Meanwhile, actual scientists write papers like this:
fau.eu/2015/11/10/news/research/idea-of-slow-climate-change-in-the-earths-past-misleading/
disproving the idea of manmade climate change. If you search, there are many more. But that's not what you're paid for, right?

Plenty of scientists have found devastating flaws in Global Warming. Alarmist claims, especially, are uniformly debunked.

Conseratists are legit fucking dumb

For us /oldfags/ who remember the crap they shoved down our thorats 20 years ago, dont believe scientists is what i learned at an early age.

Al gore was a big pusher, the man who said polar bears would be extinct by 2000, that the polar ice would be all melted by 2005, that New york city would be underwater by 2007. He had "scientsits" backing him up, the worlds best.

Go back a little farther, we had in the 1980s and 1970s magazines, tv nightly news anchors harping about the "hole in the ozone layer" that would heat us to 150° and kill all life.
>Then they told us small ice ages would happen, killing people who lived to far north.
Whoops, they changed that to "GLOBAL WARMING" within a few years, now we are all going to burn up, not freeze.
>Whoops, now ita climate change, and we might burn up, or freeze depending on the weather outside.

Look into Al gores climate businesses stock market, where he made a ton of $. Look into these "carbon credits", & the selling of them. Its a busniess model worth 100's of BILLIONS, if they can convenience the normies. MSM is behind it, partly because they are leftwing ideologs, and mostly because they will make a killing in advertising.

Look into that solar company Obama funded for 500 MILLION, that went belly up. That shot would be happening ten fold, if the green new deal passed. The "friends" the cabals would have 100 "climate businesses" up and running in 1 year that ALL got goobermit funds (like the 500 million one that solar company got) and like that company, they'd all fail. Not fail as in lose money for the cabal, they'd milk it dry, WE THE TAX PAYERS would be on the hook.

Its a giant suckling pig, climate change. The fat cats want to fleece eveey last dime from us.
>Why would Al gore buy a beach front mansion if he believed it would be under water in 20 years?

Attached: 1556692090956.png (1040x445, 168K)

Isn't it weird how this is supposedly the most important issue ever but still nobody cares enough to explain it except repeating the basics of the albedo effect which everyone understands anyway?

CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses. The idea is that our sustained global release of CO2 "forces" the system that's now in equilibrium into a feedback loop of increased warming. There are an infinite amount of currently hidden factors that could invalidate this model, betting the planet on models that have not predicted anything correctly so far is not scientific. All scientists agree we shouldn't pump CO2 into the atmosphere, none of them agree on the consequences of doing it.