It's hilarious to me how triggered NPCs get when you express doubt about climate change, even in passing.
Is there even any evidence for anthropogenic climate change?
Also, this country is conformist and NPC as fuck when it comes to this and many other issues. Mostly it's women making noise about it, even protesting about climate change.
Zero evidence. Negative, actually. Ecofags are just alarmists who want to turn everything into communes.
There is a lot of evidence for it, but there's also a lot of Jews who are trying to make money off of being alarmists.
How about we just stop using the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer? Why should we NOT be focussing heavily on battery technology and fully renewable power generation?
Can snow niggers who live in cold climates stop denying climate change? As a white guy in a tropical country its too obvious. I didn't know pol was this stupid.
Whats funny about that is it shows temperatures for millions of years ago in the earth, of course temperatures varied a shit ton and rose and fell millions of years ago. There were still tons of volcanic activity and until recently for the past 2 or 3 million years has it settled down.
Now heres the thing, Carbon levels have increased significantly though, higher than the past hundreds of thosands of years, that doesn't happen naturally unless there's multiple volcanos erupting all the time which their isnt.
That user is just using shitty psuedo science to shiw global warming isnt real.
Yet in reality our ice caps are receding, glaciers are melting, temperatures are rising. Last year there was a whole heat wave across the globe that broke record temperatures, theres been hurricanes every year sometimes two or even 3 times a year when they used to only happen once is every 3 to 5 years.
If your not stupid, you can already feel the effects of global warming and climate change, the summers get hotter and the winters get colder.
>There is a lot of evidence for it
Cite some.
>Why should we NOT be focussing heavily on battery technology and fully renewable power generation?
I'm not talking about issues like that. Development of sustainable technology is good. My issue is that there is going to be a tax introduced in Finland over wrapping cucumbers in plastic in stores. Ultimately you, the consumer, will pay for it, in the name of "climate change". The NPCs are clapping like morons. How the fuck will this reduce emissions and do anything other than funnel more money to the government?
Can dumb thirdies learn to read? I said anthropogenic climate change. What evidence is there that it's man-made?
>If your not stupid, you can already feel the effects of global warming and climate change, the summers get hotter and the winters get colder.
But why is that so bad, we know what the planet is going to look like post-climate change; it will be mostly tropical.
>Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).
If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovička 2006).
>Is there even any evidence for anthropogenic climate change?
yes
I recommend potholer54
Overpopulation Deniers
First cry about global warming, then when it gets cold cry about climate change.
Meanwhile the civilized white population is twice the size it used to be and the only problem is the third world is now billions more of angry stupid lazy mouths to feed and shelter.
That doesn't say anything about it being man made.
It's a status signifier. Agreement with agw signals that the person is in the "smart" tribe. Disagreement signals that the person is in the "stupid redneck" tribe. Doesn't matter if you don't know what a nonlinear differential equation is because you can get the same status cheaply just by signalling correctly.
Denying global warming, along with fake moon landing, and flat earth theory, are three topics that normies are the most primed and condition to react with psychotic, almost violent rage over, besides of course things like racism and antisemitism. Try even entertaining the idea that either one or even playing devil's advocate and see how normies lose their fucking shit over it. There isn't even any other subject matter you can broach that would cause the same sort of reaction since killing little kids and pedophilia are becoming normalized now, so you can't even compare it to anything.
>Yet in reality our ice caps are receding, glaciers are melting, temperatures are rising. Last year there was a whole heat wave across the globe that broke record temperatures, theres been hurricanes every year sometimes two or even 3 times a year when they used to only happen once is every 3 to 5 years.
You know that none of this is evidence for AGW, right?
People deny overpopulation because every jackass that starts talking about overpopulation is doing it in the context of 1st world nations.
>Legalize abortion? Sure, there's too many people anyway
>Sterilize people for X reason? No problem, the world's overpopulated
>Give condoms and birth control to middle schoolers? Of course, there's too damn many people already
Every fucking time. Their solution to the reality of 10 billion chinks, pajeets, and niggers by 2100 reducing birth rates in 1st world nations.
>summers get hotter and the winters get colder.
Nope. The recent warming has been almost entirely in the north of the northern hemisphere, in winter, at night. Daytime temps have barely budged. This isn't controversial - that's what the official temperature records say.
Yes, there is evidence.
Yes, you are a retard.
However... no troposphere “hot spot” as predicted by the climate models; endless “tipping points” which have come and gone without anything changing; the ever growing list of failed predictions including highways that were supposed to be under water nearly a decade ago, the end of winter snow, and disappearing Arctic sea ice; lack of any acceleration of sea level rise; Pacific islands that were supposed to be swallowed up by rising seas that are instead GROWING; no increase in extreme weather, no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes, falling climate-related deaths; the continued widening of the gap between climate models and observations, DESPITE all the "adjustments” to the so-called “data”; the fact that the climate models run in pretty good agreement with “reality” ONLY when you TURN OFF any sensitivity to CO2 which is programmed in.
Nuke Sanfrancisco.
Problem solved.
>Yet in reality our ice caps are receding, glaciers are melting, temperatures are rising
You do realize that having any sort of ice cap, at all, is an anomaly, right?
Aou are all iditos. Research the Flat Earth!
>this country is conformist and NPC as fuck
This would ve so much more fun, if it wasn't the exact same situation I was in.
I'm not even a clinate skeptic, but this shit is all consuming. Our latest fucking elections were ruined by climate politics.
Does the IQ gap and other facts about the races fall under racism?
>Is there even any evidence for anthropogenic climate change?
Only manipulated data, hence the term "man-made climate change"
>CO2 levels are rising so sharply
1) Yawn
2) It's unknown whether they've actually risen
not really
To say that all the shit that we put in to the air and the oceans has no negative effect is bullshit.
You just have to walk on a beach and see dead birds with their stomachs filled with plastic. To see that humans are killing nature.
or you stop packing cucumber on plastics.....
Stupid nigger. Do your homework on NOAA and NASA manipulating temp records
I never see dead birds when I go to the beach. Maybe Brits haven't learned to clean up after their niggers yet
Lol, as if your graph contradicted anything I said.
>has no negative effect
It has positive effect
>NASA manipulating temp records
This
2/2
It’s funny that you say it’s women making noise, I would also add that if it is caused by humans it’s primarily women’s fault. They are 80% of consumer purchases. Their materialism drives industrial output.
My opinion on it is that if it were really killing the planet the bankers and titans of industry would just make the changes because it's not like the people actually ever have a say.
explain this then
Increased CO2 in our atmosphere increases the acidity in our oceans. Killing off coral reefs and killing of marine life.
>claims NOAA has been tracking temps for 140 years
>NOAA was formed in 1970
the hysteria is just a way to get people to accept a lower quality of life
...they can use old measurements
Nuclear > renewables
The purpose shouldn't be making just ends meet by fucking up the electricity system and consuming as little as possible.
The purpose should be total abundance of energy which would make the price near zero and give birth to new generation of industry.
Climate change is real, but I'd rather focus on kicking the muslims out my country atm.
>Killing off coral reefs and killing of marine life
Unproven lefty bullshit. Court case was won.
The worst part is that all these NPCs are unable to distinguish between the climate and the environment, so they muddy the waters between environmentalism and climate hysteria. Clown world tbqh.
so much this
don't post breitfag, we all know it's owned by the (((mercers)))
>doubt
The facts are that Co2 acts as a fertilizer for plants and trees , they grow bigger , produce more leafs and as a result produce more oxygen and bigger crops. Which with a growing population is vital to support it. Funny how nature balances itself.
The world has actually gotten greener due to increased co2.
Tell them that and watch their minds break.
Well, the rate at which animals are dying out is decent evidence that something is wrong, even if it’s not temperature per se
the movement for anthropogenic climate change is just a globalist/bolshevik wealth redistribution and pacification scheme. This is why they get so fucking mad because this is their great big plan - to control all sovereign nations and to keep every person under their thumb. They've been actively preventing and sabotaging space exploration and travel for decades, they want a bolshevik prison planet.
>don't post breitfag
adhominem. Court case was won anyway. Lefty climate hysteria is just hysteria.
That's because American beaches are commercialised and owned by private companies where you can't even walk your dog because it is banned.
If you ever visit a beach on the west of Scotland, you will see dead gannets who fish out in the atlantic ocean dead and decomposing caused by their bellies filled with plastic rubbish or entangled with fishing net
i love these graphs that show a 10% increase from ~280 to ~310 but the y axis is zoomed in to exagerate the difference
That's why I just tell them I don't care about climate change. It makes them even angrier and there's no way for them to "win" any debate because I can just keep not caring. You've got to beat them at their own game.
pollution is a serious issue. climate change is not
>"white" guy
>moves to tropical country
>"sure is getting hot in here"
By the way, CO2 is a cooling gas.
I’m interested as to why some of these effects would be expected, such as the rising tropopause. Can someone explain?
Additionally they move the y axis up and down to make it overlay with temperatures.
>2004
>2003
>2003
Dude, these are old studies based on a period of quick warming. There has been no warming for 20 years.
he won that he was unjustly sacked, not that his since is correct
>Increased CO2 in our atmosphere increases the acidity in our oceans
Long term pH changes are dwarfed by natural seasonal and annual changes.
Ive stopped denying it and switched to saying genocide is the only answer. One day the climate change zealots will march on Africa and eradicate all pollution from there.
kinda, but not really
>he won that he was unjustly sacked
Exactly. They tried to oppress his objective statements to push a "reefs are dying" narrative.
They have no science to back it up. Now the Trump admin is considering FORCING climate hysterics to debate climate realists, because hysterics only win by suppressing others and by not debating
Not this shit again. forget about climate change.
>Well, the rate at which animals are dying out is decent evidence that something is wrong, even if it’s not temperature per se
Fake news
>A closer review of the most recent information dating back to 1870 reveals that, instead of a frightening increase, extinctions are actually in a significant decline. What is apparent is that the trend of extinctions is declining rather than increasing, just the opposite of what the new report claims. Also, according to the IPBES report, we can expect 25,000 to 30,000 extinctions per year, yet the average over the last 40 years is about 2 species annually. That means the rate would have to multiply by 12,500 to 15,000 to reach the dizzying heights predicted. Nothing on the horizon is likely to achieve even a small fraction of that.”
>Well, the rate at which animals are dying out is decent evidence that something is wrong
>do bad research
>get sacked
>sue your university,
>win because sucking at your jobs doesn't mean they can fire you
winning a wrongful termination suit has nothing to do with the science
OK, then please tell me the science. Tell me how reefs looked like in the 15th century.
the "research" linked in OP
this.
All things considered, refugees and mass migration is so much worse for the environment than any amount of coal or plastic
we obviously don't know what it looked like 600 years ago,
however, the notion that there is no bleaching going on is ridiculous
>the notion that there is no bleaching going on is ridiculous
It's natural and cyclical and compared to much lower/higher pHs it's irrelevant. That's the point.
I thought pol was about common sense.
You are aware that Russia benefits from climate change right.
It's so obvious to see the changes caused by man not just with co2, but also with deforestation and plastic pollution. You can see it with the permafrost melting, the species dying out.
I hate that conservatives don't won't to conserve nature. This is a cause to get behind because these climate refugees are only going one way and Europeans are too cowardly to annihilate them
Amerimutt will destroy Europe with massive heatwave.
NPC is always an NPC, some NPC's just listen to different sources of information.
Don't assume pol is smart just because it's right on sutff like immigration jews and niggers
1 scientists says its cyclical, and no problem
9 999 says it's not.
I'm not trusting the person who is obviously suffering from delusions.
This.
Tornadoes, melting temperatures, constant rain with hail as big as my head?
Yea there's no record of such events in Romania for as long as cameras exists.
>as species go extinct, fewer are threatened
Wow that really convinced me
It’s bad enough to suggest the temperature measurements going to 1870 are totally accurate, but speciation and extinction is a whole new ballgame. Bees are a great example of an observably disappearing species necessary for the ecosystem our economies are based on
Even if climate change occurs like they say it’s going to who the fuck cares
Durr more water oh no
exactly, who dosen't like water?
what is her name so i can do a google-n-fap?
Cute feet
Congrats, OP. Your post gathered 90 percent of all globohomos and roboshlomos into one thread.
The global warming theory is based on a series of faulty assumptions, each one predicated upon the last.
1.) Earth surface temps are rising extraordinarily fast
2.) The climate apocalypse is nigh
3.) You may repent for your sins by paying extra taxes
4.) Leftists can literally save the planet from certain destruction
> scam is based on biased "computer models" programmed by leftists
> temp data is bullshit
Everyone on Jow Forums appears to be convinced that the premise is true, and that the earth's surface temp is spiraling towards self-destruction.
>The temp data set is:
>not old enough to establish a trend,
>not complete enough to establish a trend
>focused on surface temps
>reliant on old surface temp stations, often times located on hot rooftops and/ or near sources of heat, such as AC condensers.
The urban heat effect is real. Global warming is not.
nvm, riley reid
>It’s bad enough to suggest the temperature measurements going to 1870 are totally accurate, but speciation and extinction is a whole new ballgame
Tard.
>“Re-assessing current extinction rates” by Neil Stork in Biodiversity and Conservation, February 2010: Cites the overwhelming peer-reviewed research evidence that claims of mass extinctions occurring today are exaggerated or false, and explains the reasons for these errors. Conclusions … “So what can we conclude about extinction rates? First, less than 1% of all organisms are recorded to have become extinct in the last few centuries and there are almost no empirical data to support estimates of current extinctions of 100 or even one species a day.”
you know we use temp proxies, like icecores, sediments etc, so we can go back further.
>reliant on old surface temp stations, often times located on hot rooftops and/ or near sources of heat, such as AC condensers.
explain this then
you're obviously from the region of that goblin midget troll Thunberg.
Before that, there's a huuuuge downside from CO2 exposure on crops to begin with.
This video presents some studies:
>hurrrrrrrrr 99.9% of scientists say it's true
You're a retard and this is not the case
>Analyst Kenneth Richard: “During the last few hundred years, species extinctions primarily occurred due to habitat loss and predator introduction on islands. Extinctions have not been linked to a warming climate or higher CO2 levels. In fact, since the 1870s, species extinction rates have been plummeting.” – “No clear link between mass extinctions and CO2-induced or sudden-onset warming events.”