CO2 is not the cause

>lowering their albedo (blackening) and increasing sunlight
Bitch please, decreasing reflectivness and increasing heat absorption if anything.

Wupps, forgot this one.
>there was ice melting in the 1930s, the warmest period we have some consistent data of - and it was met with months-long heatwaves in America (Dust Bowl) and Europe: trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/151159556#
>image: realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-16090548_shadow-768x619.jpg
>another article: newspapers.com/image/89276088/?terms=greenland+glaciers+catastrophic+ahlmann
>image: realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/C3yv-TOUMAALsob.jpg

The penalty for this post is death

t. Executioner

>b-but there's less rain, Hansen said so in 1988: ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/pcp/12/12/1895-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2019
>Hansen's original bullshit prediction: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
>and how it turned out: realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-01-11080638-1024x824.png

>British
>white
T. White man

Am I supposed to post more, or can we all agree to the fact that we have almost no data to work with, that what little data we have is actively tampered with, and that anyone who claims to see anything other than "it's getting cooler and wetter" for the data sets that we have (NA) is denying reality?

Thanks for the input jamal al rasheed. Takbir!

>Obama is a fucking liar, there is only a 52% consensus *at most*, and he should be put on a plantation picking cotton together with his husband and his degenerate daughters: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

>Hey, Americans, can you tell me when the last time was that you had over 100°F in your place? realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/US_0707-141936-1024x572.jpg

Essentially the power elites or at least a good number of those in the power elite have decided that in order to establish a semi-global government under the control of both massive corporations as well as governments needs an excuse to bring it into existence.
Because of muh climate change apparently, we all must.
1. Give up air travel (except for certain individuals who will still have the privilege to fly because of reasons)
2. Accept millions of refugees from the global South the so-called "climate refugees".
3. Give up personal automobiles except for the very wealthy who can afford the massive fuel taxes.
4. Move to massive overcrowded cities.
5. Not have kids.
6. Stop eating meat.
7. Report anyone who is guilty of Speech Crimes/hate speech, wrong think, face crimes, etc.

Attached: nazbol flag.png (225x225, 4K)

How much would it cost to a c c e l e r a t e by applying the soot directly to the glaciers? Should I start a gofundme?

Attached: dredge.jpg (1257x845, 168K)

>a-adjusting temperatures is justified: realclimatescience.com/2019/08/dismantling-the-time-of-observation-bias/

It's a religion. Rinsing and sorting trash is a ritual like thumbing your prayer beads. Carbon taxes are indulgence sin taxes to absolve you of guilt. Original sin is being white and rich even though all pollution comes from 'them'.

What I find funny is that one guy tried to apply to authority ("I'm an engineer, trust me"), claimed that it's easily observable - and then got smashed down by the actual data. And thus far nobody's even *tried* to make an attempt.

You'd think that if some believers had actually something forth they would've done it by now.

It has been said by many a wise man that the red pill has no end. This is true.
The blue pill has two endpoints.
A. Humanity is evil and oppressive. Humans destroy the Earth and oppress other animals. The idea that separate and distinct species exist is a social construction. All humans must die in a final act of revolution.
B. Some humans get to become gods via transhumanism. Some people will use science to improve their genetics and perhaps even merge with machines to become near-immortal gods. After this these chosen few will kill 99.9% of all other humans and figure out a way to travel the universe.
Both of the above scenarios are the final blue pills. This is pure evil.

Attached: pringles.jpg (200x200, 10K)

> take all climate alarmism on face value
still need to make an argument why we shoudln't rape this planet for all its resources and blast off into the stars.

>take all climate alarmism on face value
>"don't take it so seriously, user, they've just been wrong, and then wrong again, and wrong again, and wrong again ... stop taking it on face value"

>still need to make an argument why we shoudln't rape this planet for all its resources and blast off into the stars.
Stop moving goalposts, retard. This thread is only about how CO2 is not the cause. Go up and read it in the title. READ IT!

(Also I've heard one too many stories about how by 2020 there'd be no oil anymore. In reality the only thing that change is that the USA have transformed from an energy importer to an energy exporter, so there's apparently still lots of fossil fuels to be burnt. And for the environmental damage: it's mostly hitting South-East Asia, which I'm fine with)

Nice try with that imagine, but if anything this image exposes people who believe gods over science.
Climate change deniers would rather have faith in god and trust that the world is here for us to dominate. The animals, the soil, according to the bible is for men to use.
As opposed to science, that is saying, guys.. this is the only earth we have, lets take care of it!

But no.. politics is more important and of course not getting in the way or corporate shekels

Attached: 45CDE926-594D-4259-86EE-BE8D4AE306E2.jpg (500x398, 46K)

>redpills; once you pop, you can't stop

>take all climate alarmism on face value

Attached: aoc-backpeddle.jpg (872x1200, 126K)

It is over.

bitchute.com/video/kYPvHxCgwcCJ/

pol music

>Climate change deniers would rather have faith in god and trust that the world is here for us to dominate
I'm an atheist, but it's nice to see that once you can't argue against facts you start arguing against the people who bring them forth.

I'm taking the risk of missing something worthwhile and won't continue reading your drivel.

god i feel like i lost a few iq points by reading this

>climate change is fake and we do something: we improved the world and stopped using fossil fuels before they ran out
>climate change is real and we do nothing : we destroyed the enviroment because we wanted a new tv/car/vacation

Kek

sums it up nicely

>we improved the world and stopped using fossil fuels before they ran out
Both statements are false.
If anything it's not "improvement", but "convenient"; and it wouldn't be convenient at all:
>upcoming solar minimum requires heating
>internet requires electricity
>food supply requires fuels
>agriculture requires machines

And despite what you may believe, we're long not ready to switch to renewable ones. Someday, maybe, with some exciting new techniques to harvest more electricity from solar panels - but not today.

And fossil fuels make no sign of running out. We haven't even reached peak oil yet.

>we destroyed the enviroment because we wanted a new tv/car/vacation
Again, most of that happens in SE Asia, and SE Asia is home to 3 billion people min; I'm OK with them all dying for a new TV.

You’re no atheist.
Stop lying.
What you are is someone who would rather be edgy, than address our impact on this world.
Of course the earth has a natural cycle, we are however magnifying those effects negatively. There is no conspiracy, there is evidence non stop. Piles of it.
But that’s not good enough.

The hilarious part is that every physicist knows the CO2 infrared absorption spectrum is already saturated in the atmosphere at current concentrations. Adding more literally does nothing.

Attached: 1537341675640.jpg (447x438, 17K)

>You’re no atheist.
I'm not? That's funny. Am I not ... like ... in the BEST position to tell what I believe in?

Hey, here's another question: WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER? My believes don't matter jackshit. What matters is the data, and the data doesn't suggest any global warming, just wishful thinking by "scientists" who regret ever taking the academic career path and want to start working at McDonalds.

>than address our impact on this world
So where's your pure, unadjusted data to prove that claim? I'm waiting.

>the earth has a natural cycle
>hasn't even understood what a solar minimum is
And this is where I'm phasing out again.

You heard the man we better bomb china

fuck you

Obligatory reading to understand what a hoax "man-made" climate change is:
manhattancontrarian.com/blog/tag/Greatest Scientific Fraud

>>In the southern hemisphere there's almost no stations at all; the numbers there are completely made up
As detailed on the above site we technically have numbers for Australia, but not only are they (((adjusted))) to artificially lower historical temperatures thus producing a fake warming trend, they did the same trick TWICE in subsequent datasets even though their excuse was that different instruments were used back then. IIRC the combined effect is around a whole 2°C of completely fictitious warming.

Attached: climate change hoax global temperature 2500 BC to 2040 AD.jpg (618x444, 85K)

It's even worse:
>di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt
>For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

bitchute.com/video/kYPvHxCgwcCJ/

1488 my bros

>Former employees of NASA (the ones who worked on the moon landing) wrote a letter in which they asked NASA to stop making up bullshit: huffpost.com/entry/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017

Big / obviously important facts that are never discussed in the official narrative :
- Huge number of other variables like cloud cover (with likely cosmic ray seeding) and solar variation, other "greenhouse gases" that are more potent etc are never meaningfully considered
- Alarmist warming projections come from models that have literally never made a correct prediction, current *average* temps remain well below their curves
- Current CO2 levels are historically LOW, and it's a trace gas anyway. AGW shills quote the figure in PPM (parts per million) since they would look ridiculous if they quoted the atmospheric % figure of just 0.0391%.
- It greatly encourages plant growth and they're still adapted to much higher historical levels, which is why commercial greenhouses use CO2 generators
- A lot of CO2 comes from natural sources like volcanoes and diffusion of "old" CO2 out of the oceans
- A cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature has never even been established, ice core data suggests that to the weak extent there's any correlation it happens the other way around for some reason, i.e. temps go up *then* CO2 increases

Attached: climate change hoax as white genocide agenda.jpg (950x960, 235K)

Eugenics is real, memeflag. The rest is right. It happens but carbon dioxide dindu nuffins.

I don't care if Eugenics are right or wrong. What I care about is that they embraced it at first ("Such a shame that resources are wasted on people that will never amount to anything" - that was also the time when lobotomy was becoming a thing), and now try to distance themselves from it as hard as possible.

Oil companies, and the politicians funded by them, want to deny man-made climate change so they can continue making a profit without caring about the environment.

The vast majority of science organizations around the world agree that humans are causing climate change and that it is a problem. What would be their motivation for promoting this view if it wasn't true? They're just trying to trick people into polluting less?

Attached: climate.jpg (1140x761, 142K)

Attached: Ready 2 Go 3.jpg (1920x2151, 1.26M)

>eugenics bad
Fuck off kike

In fairness that's true with a desktop tube of gas in lab experiments, but the behaviour when you scale it up to the whole atmosphere is theoretically a bit different. It becomes more likely that a photon emitted by a CO2 molecule will be "recaptured" by another one, so the random walk out into space takes longer. The AGW hoax isn't that CO2 actually has no effect on temperature whatsoever, it's the claim that manmade emissions have any significant or even measurable effect (while ignoring all other variables.)

Let me translate for you:
>climate "scientists" have been making shit up
>made-up shit directly conflicts with business interests of companies
>companies show climate "scientists" how it's done
>because in academia it doesn't matter if your shit doesn't work
>but if you're an incompetent engineer you get sacked
>so companies showed that climate "scientists" are full of shit
>climate "scientists" be like: "don't trust them just because we have no idea what we're doing"

Every. Single. Time. C'mon, come up with something new.

Also
>muh consensus
Literally read the OP.

Fuck off, illiterate.

>So where's your pure, unadjusted data to prove that claim? I'm waiting.
I'm still waiting, by the way.

>The vast majority of science organizations around the world agree
>Muh 97% consensus

Nope, that claim comes from a single (((study))) which blatantly fabricated it by cherry picking, ignoring journal editorial bias, then obfuscating the fact that the actual "consensus" level it found was 0.3%. This should have been obvious to you the moment you heard the claim if you knew anything about the scientific method. Scientists don't agree about ANY theory, the very concept is anathema to science, and in any case what they debate are merely models (which hopefully make useful predictions) rather than the underlying reality itself.

Attached: climate change 97pc consensus is a lie.png (630x2340, 445K)

There were serious proposals to do this (and similar crazy shit) back in the 70s, when the supposed "scientific consensus" was that global COOLING was going to kill us all.

Attached: climate change unscientific (((globalist))) shekel scam.jpg (1891x4901, 992K)

>"deniers"
>Trying the AGW skepiticism == holohoax "denial" rhetorical trick on Jow Forums
>Maybe if I mention shekels at the end they won't notice

Attached: dilbert climate change.jpg (1200x482, 247K)

Attached: better_version.jpg (900x439, 175K)

Of course, the hundreds of scientific organizations around the world that believe climate change is caused by human action are all (((compromised))) or incompetent. The oil companies, Fox News, right-wing American politicians, and amateur internet "scientists" know the real truth. They will save us from the horrible consequences of polluting less.

>the hundreds of scientific organizations around the world
There, you're doing it again. Appealing to authority.

Can you have an independent thought for a second here?

>are all (((compromised))) or incompetent
Again, read the OP. There have been consenses in history where smart people believed the stupidest things, and often continued to believe them even though there was no proof. My favourite one is where Schiaparelli observed Mars, wrote down that he observed about a hundred "canali", and the translator fucked up and translated it as "canal" instead of "channels". And no one bothered to check. Tesla even claimed that he communicated with Martians, although you'd first need to learn their language.

Consensus doesn't mean jackshit. Deal with it.

>polluting less

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a trace gas vital for plant life, and it was four times the current level back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we hadn't even evolved yet.

>i know more about climate change than thousands of climate scientists who have studied it for longer than ive been alive
Pretty much everything that get published points to climate change
At this point anti-climate change people sound like anti-evolution people

And another contester for "Who appeals for authority".
>Pretty much everything that get published points to climate change
Buuuuuuuuullshit. Everything that gets published points to temperatures being adjusted, as you could've determined by yourself if you had bothered reading the sources I've linked in the beginning of the thread. The only observable trend is that past temperatures magically get cooler while more modern temperatures get warmer. Magically. Despite also 47% of human's most consistent record getting trashed as "estimate".

Your FUD has no power here.

>At this point anti-climate change people sound like anti-evolution people
I've yet to see an example of non-reducable complexity from the anti-evolution crowd. Until then the evolution theory holds.

I've also yet to see an example of unadjusted temps that show a definitive warming trend that's worse than the 1930s, where we had heatwaves and droughts for months. Until then the CO2-causes-global-warming hypothesis remains as such.

>my links are right and everything else is wrong
>your proffesionals are bad mine are good
Are you a contrarian or a shitposter?

>my links are right and everything else is wrong
My links are data sets largely from NOAA and NASA:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/
ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201809.gif
ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/September-2018-Global-Temperature-Percentiles-Map.png
giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Or freed via FOIA:
di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

Or lots of newspaper articles that show symptoms next to the temperatures.

Just how incompetent are you?

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Take your pick of whatever myth you think is real and watch it get shit on with links to real papers and how deniers missuse data
Also
>Using data to try and say climate change isnt real from foundations saying its real

>Youtube video
My browser has no support for video playback. Can't you link something nice and concise? Text articles, images, PDFs?

>deniers missuse data
Sure, it's denier's fault for pointing out holes in the theory. Just how much more ridiculous can you get?

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

They already got you in their claws bluepill fag, they dilute and obfuscate real pressing enviromental dangers as plastics, hormones, plant based massive monoculture agriuculture with pesticides and artifical chemical fertilizers taht desertify the soil and deplete the nutrients and causes algaeblooming etc etc, all of this is sanctioned and protected and not brought to light because they yell about one single thing that isnt even relevant: CO2, the plantlife on our planet could not live without it, greenhouses and other institutions use it aswell as heat in glass boxes to grow rich and strong, and yet in their eyes it's Zyclon B and is so awful oh no look here goy, stop driving you filthy swede, eat this basedslop dont buy local, buy from my international food sources brought here from all over the world in a very polluting way straight form the deforested amazon and other forests goy, CO2 is BAD therefor we need to cut down more trees to produce more plant based slops for you goy PAY UP!

If you do not see the madness of this and still parrot the authorative talking points they want you to discuss and never question you are lost, even if you have a fancy bioengineering degree and went to all the big schools and have a degree blabal does not make you "smart".. i have a friend that did just that and he is so bluepilled and believes all of it, becaiuse his authoriave sources and colleagiues say so, the media he watches (the online proponent of our mainstraem here in sweden) hammers the propaganda about this, the 97 percent agree, climate deniers, greta. all of it, non stop, he thinks hes a smart human but in reality he is merely a programmed golem thinking he has free will and objective thinking. Hell look at me a permaneet with no higher education that basic courses that spends his day online all day delving into politics and issues just like this know MORE about reality and what it is to be human and not a programmed construct.

>"Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing"
No, that's what you *claim*. If it's true remains to be seen.

>"In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions"
Only that this goes contradictory against the current solar cycles: thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-20-at-08.01.18.png

>"Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives."
>realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-05050712.png

>"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming"
>journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
>tl;dr: it's more like 52%, *at most*

>"The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record"
No data sheets, so I have to assume they're using adjusted data from NOAA/NASA, which would be unreliable even if unadjusted. We have too little data, specially from the southern hemisphere, to make any guess about global temps

>"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean"
Models have been repeatedly wrong, then the temps have been altered to make them right, and then Hansen says that he wishes he hadn't been that right about climate change:
>realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-01-11080638-1024x824.png
>dailyherald.com/news/20180618/james-hansen-wishes-he-wasnt-so-right-about-global-warming

Sorry, this site is not worth my fucking time.

>Pretty much everything that get published points to climate change
Not true unless you only count journals with political bias, but even if it were the claim is for unnatural and apocalyptic *man-made* climate change, and that's complete bullshit based on manipulating the data and cutting it off to only consider the last couple of decades instead of the centuries / millennia needed to see the real trends. Yes we're on a warming uptick of the sine function right now, a completely expected and natural one. We're in a "warm interglacial" period still emerging from a fucking ice age, after all.

Attached: climate change hoax temperature flat or slightly cooling over last 10,000 years.png (600x400, 38K)

OP pic is spot on accurate.

>My browser has no support for video playback
Gets linked videos from as far back as 2008 debunking every claim that climate change deniers have
>oh sorry im a conspiracy nut who uses tails and lynx to go on the internet
>solar cycles
This was a agrument a while back for if climate change was man made or not

> Why should I believe scientists when it comes to a question of science? ExxonMobil obviously knows more about this than NASA.

Attached: climate-science-vs-fossil-fiction.jpg (812x2241, 474K)

it used to be "global warming" too. the trick is that they change it to disguise their intent, now its climate change.. wich unironally occurs naturally on our planet, and they use that in their propaganda and agenda to seem legit in their cause.read what i posted up top, they take one miniscule thing such as CO2 and makes it the only issue while ignoring the other really damaging things to both the planet AND the human race as a whole, shit food, social engineering, education. everything.

>oh sorry im a conspiracy nut who uses tails and lynx to go on the internet
... aaaaaaand now it's time for ad-hominem attacks. As always, when there's no argument.

Which is exceptionally funny to me, because having shit stored as easily quotable text should be much "better for the climate" than relying on videos that took lots of computational time to encode, and lots of computational time to decode. Looks to me like I'm already a better "climate protector" than you.

>This was a agrument a while back for if climate change was man made or not
No, it still is. The grand solar maximum is over, now a grand solar minimum begins - y'know, one of those that caused the Dalton minimum. Expected low: 2050.

Except for the two heatwaves this year this summer has been quite nasty where I'm living. Let's hope this is no sign of the upcoming minimum ...

...

The jew strikes out in pain as he stabs you, them taking the "high ground" and declaring themselves the good guys while infact both of them are scum while any real skeptic, both amateur and proffessional that dare say and show anything but the narrative is treated just like the witches of the medieval ages. or the astronomers that suggested the sun was the center and not the earth. you are more than this, better than this. be a real thinking human and not a golem.

What of the satellite data?

Satellite data predicted an ice age in the 1970s:
>theguardian.newspapers.com/image/259696938/?terms=space+satellites+show+new+ice+age+coming+fast
>realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1206_shadow.png

Problem is that NOAA nowadays pretends that they don't have any pre-1979 satellite data:
>ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf
, the graph cuts off before 1970:
>realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fig4.2-perovich.gif
, but it's still present:
>realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-5.53.39-AM-down-768x642.gif

In other words: manipulated. Also satellites tend to slowly drop back to earth, and that drop is interpreted as sea-level rise.

lmfao for real?

>meme flag
>science census bad!
Fuck off faggot

If Jow Forums was a thing in the 80's these people would've been arguing that smoking cigarettes is good for you and calling claims that they cause cancer a jew hoax.

The only reason that climate change is a political issue is because the fossil fuel industry lobbies conservatives to deny the science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

> From 1989 onwards industry funded organisations sought to spread doubt among the public, in a strategy already developed by the tobacco industry. A small group of scientists opposed to the consensus on global warming became politically involved, and with support from conservative political interests, began publishing in books and the press rather than in scientific journals. This small group of scientists included some of the same people that were part of the strategy already tried by the tobacco industry.

> As their arguments were increasingly refuted by the scientific community and new data, deniers turned to political arguments, making personal attacks on the reputation of scientists, and promoting ideas of a global warming conspiracy.

> In 1992, an EPA report linked second-hand smoke with lung cancer. The tobacco industry engaged the APCO Worldwide public relations company, which set out a strategy of astroturfing campaigns to cast doubt on the science by linking smoking anxieties with other issues, including global warming, in order to turn public opinion against calls for government intervention. The campaign depicted public concerns as "unfounded fears" supposedly based only on "junk science" in contrast to their "sound science".

> During the 1990s, the tobacco campaign died away, and TASSC began taking funding from oil companies including Exxon. Its website became central in distributing "almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the popular press."

> In the 1990s, the Marshall Institute began campaigning against increased regulations on environmental issues such as acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and the dangers of DDT. In each case their argument was that the science was too uncertain to justify any government intervention, a strategy it borrowed from earlier efforts to downplay the health effects of tobacco in the 1980s.

I noticed you've repeatedly been proven wrong, yet you make no sign of admitting so.

In other words, you're in an echo chamber, and it's pointless to debate.

There is a drop of oil in each existing well for each drop taken out. The tethys is unexplored under the Western flow regions of Saudi (a whole ocean under there). Aramco paid our University to teach a generation of students with exploration there being the state goal. (It isn't sitting under sand and sediment like rest of area. We will eventually be able to drill to the mantle and extract abiotic oil (maybe).

OR

We can be awesome Type 1 Civilization and start using thermal spectrum molten salt reactors and use the waste heat to synthesize fuels from atmospheric gases (closed loop cycle). This is what the white man would do, unhindered.

>changing the name to be more accurate and descriptive is bad

>I am unable to watch videos debunking all my claims, but I wont because thats bad for the enviroment (except nothing bad is happening to the enviroment)

love me some wet bulb temperature risks

>fossil fuels running out
Literally no one in industry or higher education says this. Explored reserves, proven reserves. Unexplored reserves. Unproven reserves.

There are carbonate rock units the size of entire continents still subducting under your feet.

It speaks to an attempt to deceive, or reframe the original premise.
If you don’t believe in what you claim to support, why should I?

>realclimatescience.com
If the site's name says so it must be true

>I am unable to watch videos debunking all my claims
That's why I asked for other sources. But don't worry, I already debunked them in turn, so nothing of value was lost.

Not even electricity. So I don't really get your problem - except that you're suffering from massive cognitive dissonance. But I know that already.

>you should be unable to change anything as you research and learn more about a thing
They though climate change was only going to affect temperatures
They then found out the effects were on all climates

>please post 10hours of video material in your post with links to 200 articles

>what is the Köppen climate classification?
Just how incompetent were they, then?

populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
>inb4 he googles the already counter-argued "debunking" of articles listed because he didn't take the time to scroll through or read the "rebuttals to criticism"