Humans are affecting the climate

>the doomsday models are never right.
see fuck off and read a book faggot

Technology can't save you this time, the best it can do is push it off for a generation or two.

uh why

>Humans are affecting the climate
and here's the proof...
right?

Attached: Mann Made Climate Change.jpg (2000x1515, 508K)

>the scientists
Who exactly are "the scientists"? What are they even saying? Don't give me that 97% bullshit statistic that makes no interpretation of what they have to say other than noting the possibility of human interaction within the abstract being a potential variable to the whole of climate. At least you're willing to admit this is being pushed by people with agendas that don't really care about the veracity of "science".

The problems population increase. More people more land used, more stuff produced, more pollution created. One human needs a lot of land to survive. Whatever changes you make will be negated by population increase.

There is mountains of evidence in scientific literature which you've never read, but that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is why you so vehemently reject the truth when there's mountains of evidence for it. I genuinely want to know why this fact is such a big deal to you. Can you entertain the idea that it is real for one second and tell me what kind of emotions begin to well up in your reptilian brain?

>At least you're willing to admit this is being pushed by people with agendas that don't really care about the veracity of "science".
never even implied that

>Who exactly are "the scientists"?
The climatologists working at universities who are both smarter and more educated in the relevant field than both of us.

>What are they even saying?
They're saying that humanity could experience some severe problems related to increased temperatures within the time-frame of 50-100 years, and that there could potentially be a mass-extinction event (which has occurred several times in Earth's history), in an even longer time frame, maybe a couple hundred years. Of course, you had no idea this was what the scientists were saying and instead opted to use emotions-based tribalism to get your perception of reality because you are a faggot.

Fake and gay. Sage

>Whatever changes you make will be negated by population increase
>i can predict the future of all technology
get some self-awareness please

you retards do realize that if climate change isnt fixed, literally all of Africa will be trying to immigrate to Europe illegally.

You do realize that if the humans in africa aren't totally destroyed and/or enslaved, there's nothing we can do to stop climate change.

What the fuck are you talking about? It absolutely does matter, and it should matter to you even if your intention is good. Nobody is going to trust you or your side if you're making doomsday claims that you can't even remotely prove or back up with reasonable evidence. You guys have a credibility problem and you refuse to admit it because you don't want to admit to the world that you can't really predict global climate causes. Your argument to your opposition should be based on the practical basis that having cleaner air and less garbage is always a good thing.

>It absolutely does matter
It does not at all. This is the problem with you people. You have no idea what you're talking about, but you make extreme claims as if you're coming from a position of authority. Now I will tell you why it doesn't matter.

Before humans even existed, the Earth has experienced multiple mass-extinction events. Some say the climate is changing, but not because of humans. Okay, well regardless of if humans are changing it or not, what are we gonna do about it if it turns into another mass-extinction event, as it has done before humans even existed? Tell me the answer to this in your next post please.

Fuck me, a star wars fan. Grow the fuck up, you have till 2050, till it really bites. Thirty years, what's on the technological horizon.

the entire "human made climate change" hoax is made up and completely unscientific. It's making guesses based on mostly unknown, uncertain or unprovable data. End of the story is you put dubious data into a wild mix of correlation means causation prognosis and to gain credibility 10 other pseudo scientist will run the same flawed simulation using the same flawed data and say yeah if we all agree water cooks at 25°C and change the definition of bread to attack helicopter the given prognosis is correct.

It's called peer-review but that doesn't make it credible or correct. You're still in the realm of /x/ and pseudo science.

>conservatives
all the people you posted are neo-trotskyites at best

Attached: 1554022428264.jpg (1500x2247, 1.04M)

This.
We stop changing the climate->
Africa grows wildly out of control and starts climate change again because they don't know shit
We accelerate climate change->
Africa suffers from starvation, wars, disease, flooding, and mass death, reducing their overpopulation
The only option besides this would be to eugenize Africa. But unless Europe and the US and the lot all begin a complete ideological 180, that isn't happening.

>criticizes something as being "unscientific"
>thinks data can be "certain" or "proved"

Attached: 1522629482513s.jpg (247x250, 6K)

regulating the actual polluters: large corporations
and the chinks and poos in loos

Scientists don't prove their work anymore, faggot

You've gone from talking about climate change in your original post to being hysterically worried about a broad stroke of doomsday scenarios. We can't have a reasonable debate if your final card to play is claiming the opposition is stupid of because of a plethora of possible outcomes that may or may not be related to man-made climate change.

No, but 3 to 4bil chinks, poos, towelheads, and africans would fix it

Climate change is absolutely real and you'd have to be a complete fucking retard to think otherwise
That being said, I don't care about it at all.
All these third world shitters can die under the waters, I'll be comfy on my hill in the French countryside

>muh climate

once we are ready to answer the question of "do we really need BILLIONS of humans" the sooner we can enact real solutions

causation has been established for more than a century, people already theorized in 19th century that CO2 emissions would cause warming.
rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

Watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

A proper debate about what? If humans are affecting the climate? I don't give a shit about that. I care that conservatives are blocking climate-controlling technology funding even though mass extinction events have happened in the past. And by the way, it's incredibly intellectually dishonest of you to paint this as a "doomsday scenario", implying it's not likely, when it's literally a matter of time. Humanity will one day face a mass extinction unless we develop the technology needed to control the climate. You think that's wrong? Then you're a fucking dumbass. If you don't think it's wrong, then start encouraging technological development.

Perhaps liberals stop driving and supporting massive corporations to set a good example for the rest of us?
Thought not.

Kek

They don’t. Leftwing scum have to lie all the time. The only reason you support this is because of your never ending need to virtue signal. You think you can fix racism and sexism and poverty and the environment and you make everything worse. Just look at how retarded your propaganda is:

>icebergs aren’t beheading Christians in the Middle East
As if that’s not relevant. You retards want to ignore the fact that Muslims and niggers are constantly raping and murdering white people whilst we become a minority in our own homelands and then ask why we’re not concerned about a planet that we’ll be oppressed in for the rest of history. If you weren’t just a bunch of virtue signalling cunts who are totally fake and don’t actually give a shit then you’d be fighting these issues but you actually agree with the racism towards white people so rather than fight it you’ll carry on supporting it whilst pretending you really care about the environment even though you couldn’t give a fuck and aren’t actually willing to do anything to help white people to make them give a shit about the environment

>ignores everything he said becaus he's a retard

Typical

you do realize i never said any of the stuff in the greentext, nor do i suppport those things, so i don't need to reply to them, right? way to demonstrate your 5th grade level of reading comprehension. no wonder you vemently deny all evidence. i suggest you read every post in this thread because every retarded point you've made has already been addressed and obliterated.

>neocons
>supporting regulations
The enemies of humanity are everywhere. Stop pointing finger at political parties, start pointing fingers at the corporations.

And there you did it again, take natural factors and human factors as one, mix it well, say "look it's the same and we have proof".
I fucking hate you conspiracy freaks.

the whole 3 degree shit is retarded lol

Money user just follow the shekels. Neither democrats nor republicans really give a shit about the planet. Republicans want money and Democrats want more control.

Why does Kilimanjaro still have snow and ice?

Attached: kilamanjaro2019.jpg (700x450, 96K)

I can point my finger anywhere I like and am directing one right now at you cunt.

Climate science is full of bad faith and bad data.
They need to clean up their act, or they damn themselves.
If there is any validity to their claims, then they shouldn't have to fudge data and rely on the guilt trip methodology.

Why do Shareblue think we can't keep two screens open at one time? we are sharing Epstein docs all over the web with each other, while we are wading through your slide threads here

Attached: 1559864183111.jpg (1024x717, 84K)

It can be proven in even a high-school level laboratory that green house gases increase atmospheric temperature. Knowing this, how does pumping green house gases into the atmosphere NOT increase temperature? I will await your thorough, scientific explanation in your next post. You seem to be the science man.

Why would it help to have a net 2% global contributor like the UK to return to the Middle Ages while China and India do nothing and change nothing?

There is no evidence whatsoever that climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization. Not a shred.

Attached: C9DCF072-D9ED-48FC-A310-02162FE01615.jpg (582x571, 72K)

You're not even providing a basis for your argument. Explain precisely the kind of mass extinction event you're worried about that doesn't have to do with asteroids of solar flares or anything else we have no realistic ability to stop, and then explain how conservatives are preventing money from going into the hands of those that can prevent these mass extinction events beyond just going "but they are". I know you won't be able to do this because like all illogical people you fail to see that fact that it is you who is making a claim and the opposition in making a counter-claim, not the other way around, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

bloody shitposting wanker

>listen to scientists!
Okay, based scientism believer, but what about when they have been caught in fraud?

>Climate science is full of bad faith and bad data.
I'm not unwilling to believe that if you provide some reasonable sources, or else I'm just gonna believe you're talking out of your ass.

>image
Yes, there were mass extinctions events in the past that wiped out 80% of life, so why are conservatives blocking climate-controlling technological advancement? Do you think your retarded image actually HELPS your argument?

>The Glob is getting warmer
So? Just buy a better air conditioner. Around here we live perfectly comfortable with 45°C

People always say global warming will be disastrous for the world and end humanity, but they never really say how. What exactly is so dangerous about global warming?
>more hurricanes
Not a true statistic firstly (only the number of minor hurricanes has increased recently, and that can be attributed to better measuring equipment). But even if we did have more hurricanes so what? We have been building hurricane proof houses for ages and no one really dies in them.
>less food
Maybe temporarily we will have good shortages but to claim that we are using even close to all available farmland is a lie. Better crops become more and more climate resistant every year and there are a ton of new farming technologies that food shortages can make viable, like vertical farming.
>flooding
It's not like we will wake up one day with our houses underwater. We have had countermeasures for flooding for thousands of years. Half of the Netherlands is under sea level and they never complain.
>less biodiversity/more animals going extinct
Who cares? If an species cannot survive in it's environment it deserves to die out. This has been an elementary fact of nature and evolution since the first single cell organisms.

Other than slightly higher food prices (Enoch some even be a problem since many countries are already massively overpaying for food anyway), there are no really major consequences of global warming. The consequences of destroying out economy in order to do something the free market will naturally do a few years later will be far more disastrous than a bit more rain.

uh, no one said that?

They've been making the same threat every decade like clockwork since the 70s.
But this time its really really going to happen, amiright guys?

I'll entertain the thought.
Out of the hundreds of studies on the climate since the late 19th century, how many are verifiably fraudulent?

Self important monkeys. None of this matters and is all a profitable scam to run.

>it is you who is making a claim
jesus christ if i have to hear this pseudointellectual garbage one more time i'm going to puke. at this point i'm convinced you're not worth talking to, because you basically implied that you don't think a mass extinction event is going to occur even though there have already been like 5 so you're a complete retard, so instead i'm going to educate you on why
>it is you who is making a claim
is pseudointellectual.

Every claim has an equivalent complementary claim. The claim "X does not exist!" Is just as much of a claim as "X exists!" If I say "X exists!", I've made a claim and I should provide evidence. If you counter by saying "X does not exist!", then your claim supercedes mine and now you have to provide evidence, in a never ending circle. You aren't absolved from having to provide evidence in that situation you pseudo intellectual ape.

heh

This

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

TL;DR of this entire fucking thread.
>Most right-wing / alt-right / right leaning people actually do believe in climate change
>Dems and libcucks focus on the old boomer retards who refuse to accept its real and redirect their ignorance towards us as if we're responsible for their thoughts

As cringy as this word is, you leftist ironic shitposting niggers are trying to gaslight us as uneducated flyover state retards. It wont work. Go back to plebbt you kike discord trannies.

Confirmation and selection bias.
Just try getting a study funded or peer reviewed paper published to prove otherwise.
Or even access to the models used to tweak the raw satellite measurements into world ending statistics.

You do realize mass-extinction events have occurred, in the past, right? Of course you didn't, but one can't happen again cause lol who cares.

Thanks for the useless platitude you simpleton. People aren't just dismissing it they are countering with a complementary claim that requires just as much evidence as the original claim.

TRlPS confirm im correct.

I asked you a simple question.
Out of the hundreds of studies since 1890 (!), how many do you think are fraudulent?

>Most right-wing / alt-right / right leaning people actually do believe in climate change
The replies in this thread suggest otherwise.

Global warming is happening, but it's (1) not as disastrous as you'd think and (2) probably a largely natural process. Over the course of human history, the climate has changed pretty drastically without any carbon emissions or what have you. Even within the last few thousand years, humanity has survived periods far hotter (Minoan era) and colder (Quaternary ice ages, Little Ice Age) than what we're living through today. If you really think that humans can stop the climate from changing forever, you're out of your mind. The only solution is to adapt, and the leftists sperging out because California and New York are getting a few degrees hotter won't when the time comes. Evolve or die. Simple as.

Attached: 1547944915786.jpg (234x216, 9K)

Real questions here, if you can answer them, please do:

1. What percentage of their predictions have come to fruition?

2. Have any studies conclusively determined that human-created emissions are causing the climate to change in a way that is significantly worse than if left to its own devices? Can you link me to these studies?

>splitting hairs and playing semantics to ignore your burden of proof
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
>HURR DURR THERE’S A GIANT TEAPOT ORBITING MARS
>Fuck off retard no there isn’t
>UMMM EXCUSE ME THAT’S A COUNTERCLAIM SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

If climate change is real then we're fucked because the poos (who shit on the floor on a daily basis), the chinks (who live in smog infested shitholes) and the africans (who breed like rabits) don't care.

>it doesn’t matter
Yes it fucking does, because the whole hysteria wrapped around it implies man is the major, if not sole, contributor. Correlation=/=causation

All the ones preceding 2011 were fraudulent. They were caught in 2011 and because there is no agenda climate change being real went on after it got memoryholed. I am not going to scrounge up the proof as I haven't looked at it in close to 8 years now and I don't give a shit if you believe it. They were caught being fraudulent and I believe they are still fraudulent. You are trying to convince me to believe in the man made climate change hoax and that means you need to prove that the current studies are genuine. Labeling them "science" or telling me how many "scientists" support the current believe in man made climate change being real is not convincing. Neither would calling me a luddite or anti-science be convincing.

Attached: scientificmethod2.png (800x600, 22K)

I would have to say you're asking a question that you know no one could possibly know the answer to. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest, really. Uh...65? Or all of them if based on ideology and faulty axioms, rather than objective evidence.

Al Gore invented the internet.
Russia cheated him from being POTUS

That is fact. All else is speculation

The main issue is that conservatives are blocking climate-controlling technology, which is moronic, because whether or not humans are causing it is irrelevant to the fact that mass extinctions have happened in the past and they can happen again.

Be honest, are you left leaning?

>mountains
Out of molehills

All summer the temperature has barely been above 80 degrees here in Washington. Most days it's low-to-mid 70s
If there was ever anything to convince me that global warming is/was a hoax, it's literally the last three months

>splitting hairs
wrong

>UMMM EXCUSE ME THAT’S A COUNTERCLAIM SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE
This is completely reasonable and if you think it's not it's no wonder that you are anti-science. The evidence would not even be difficult to present. Evidence: there's no way an undamaged teapot could have entered space, and I'm done.

>1. What percentage of their predictions have come to fruition?
Are you talking about actual scientific results or alarmist liberal retards lying through their teeths to get elected more easily by guillible leftist retards?
Most of the shit scientists predicted are verifiably true, such as the extinction of thousands of species every year, the displacement of populations, rarification of basic resources such as drinkable water...

Of course the world isn't ending in 12 years like this spaniard retard AOC said, but climate change has real consequences that we could (and in my opinion should) act upon.

Climate controlling technology is being sprayed above your head everyday. Coincidentally you are told that this doesn't exist.

Read the whole post.
>Correlation=/=causation
Oh boy more pseudointellectualism. Hey genius, since you're so keen on what does and does not equal causation, please enlighten me on what DOES equal causation?

Why would you do anything about it? A mass extinction event would be a great thing.

scientists are de facto marketers that will prove anything to masses as long as you pay enough

>climate change will cause mass starvation by 1975. Quick raise taxes!!
>the rainforests will be gone by 1995. Quick raise taxes!!
>there will be mass extinction by 1995. Quick raise taxes!!
>theres gonna be an ice age by 2000. Quick raise taxes!!
>theres gonna be massive warming by 2000. Quick raise taxes!!
>nations will be wiped off the earth by 2000. Quick raise taxes!!
>we have 10 years left to live ~ (Al Gore 2006). Quick raise taxes!!

Attached: 1558747667595.png (512x512, 102K)

What are those natural factors you speak of? CO2 produced naturally gets absorbed back, nature is in harmony right now, it's only humans that are causing warming, solar activity too has bee going down recently.

>climate-controlling technology
Like what? You gonna build a giant fan to cool off the U.S.? Put a giant magnet in space to pull the earth a few hundred miles from the sun?
We can't "control" the climate, only adapt to it, as we have for thousands upon thousands of years. If there is an actual climate crisis, we'll survive by changing our lifestyles: what we eat, what we wear, how we build our homes, when we wake and sleep, when we work and take time off, what we do for recreation. A mass extinction will only occur when we are no longer able to adapt. And that's not the work of evil conservatives or greedy capitalists, it's the work of natural selection.

Attached: 1555359324028.gif (497x373, 489K)

no

>the boomer "gotchya"

Please look up the definition of "weather" and then look up the definition of "climate". this is a classic fallacy of division. Just because the greater system is experiencing a change does not mean that change will be experienced equally among all of its parts. For all you know its 150 degrees in the middle of the atlantic ocean, which would offset whatever ephemeral cold weather you are experiencing.

source?

>haha i did a strawman i won

>it's only humans that are causing warming
No actual proof exists for this statement.

none of our predictions ever come true but pointing that out is just a strawman. quick raise taxes!!