>there's a global conspiracy of thousands of politicians and scientists where the scientists purposefully falsify data at the command of politicians and their goal is to fuck you in the ass with taxes and import niggers
>source: dude trust me
thread prediction: there won't be a single source that suggests that scientists falsify data. stop @'ing me with things that aren't sources of scientific falsification retard denialists.
Other urls found in this thread:
anonfile.com
youtu.be
corbettreport.com
youtube.com
sciencedaily.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
rationalwiki.org
theguardian.com
twitter.com
It's true. Iraq has WMDs. We must invade.
If we can't use the law to secure the board why the literal fuck could we use the law to change the global fucking climate patterns. like what the fuck.
>secure the board
>stop @'ing me
>climate deniers
Your jew overlords in the CIA fuck kids
anonfile.com
>this is a source that shows that scientists falsify data
if it's true why is it so incredibly difficult for you to provide ANY kind of evidence?
But it's commonly known that scientists lie about their data.
>Let's ignore China and India because our main aim is shitting behind the collar of our fellow men
Another strawman thread.
Don't forget africa.
shills are really trying to make us forget about epstein
Ball worshippers are /x/ tier.
>climate deniers
Dude, climate doesn't exist.
Low effort shilling, OP. Sad.
no, it's not. if it's so obvious then it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to get any kind of source from you people
But the source is the scientists themselves. Do you know what margin of error is?
Well said fren, you look very knowledgeable on the subject.
Can you educate me on the impact of humanity on greenhouse gas emission?
How much of the total co2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to human activity?
This much
>i understand data better than the scientists
You're not old enough to remember how we were all going to die from AIDS, are you?
Here's a little something that might interest you. It's not about climate change specifically, but about the trustworthiness of scientists and scientific studies. You can watch the video at the top of the page or you can read the transcript of the video, or both, your choice. The transcript contains links to all the sources.
29 seems a bit much
It falls every year, they now say it's only like 20 gigatons
ok, say it's real. Do we really want want the 1%, that is responsible for 90% of the worlds pollution, to be in charge of raising the money to solve the problem?
So you don't understand what margin of error means.
Yes please tell me how by [date 20 years from now] we'll all be doomed this time. I was mildly concerned the first time I heard it, in 1995. According to climate hooligans I should have drowned in global flooding by now, or burned in acid rain, or choked on air that is mostly smog, by now. We've crossed so many "points of no return" yet new ones conveniently keep popping up, just far enough out for us to vote billions of dollars in funding to whatever cause.
so you understand it better than the scientists
You want to know what's retarded OP? Telling people what their argument is because you have a cripple-brained understanding of it and attacking that straw man. It's easy:
>You'd have to be blind not to notice changes in the earth's climate in the last few hundred years, but proving to what extent we are at fault and if it would've happened without us is impossible
>Every other pundit, mainstream social commentator, political figure and the MSM fawn over a new way to show the world how much they care and how we need to raise taxes for the environment
>morons like you slurp up every fucking deposit not thinking twice about why they'd be doing this, since they cared about the planet so much before
>the founder of Greenpeace left the organization because of these two faced corporatists that manipulate information just like they always do
But yet still we find morons that are so coddled and small brained they can't even fathom what they've been told about what they care so much about could be a lie or twisted truth used to control them, now that's fucking retarded user
If a scientist says "within a 50% margin of error" do you take what they say seriously?
You should be scared of aids.
I got aids from an orgy in san fran but then I used maji johannesberg's kosher cure to heal my asshole & im fine now
ama
yeah you have no idea what youre talking about. if you think you do then tell me what a confidence interval is right now
what are your hobbies and interests?
It's the same thing. So you think it's fine when a scientist says there's a 50% margin of error?
If ocean levels are truly rising from melting polar ice, why did Obama just buy a 14 million dollar house that’ll be underwater in the next couple years?
To be fair, scientists have been caught falsifying data multiple times. The problem is faggots like you ignore that.
posting irreverent bullshit on slide threads on Jow Forums that jannies purposely keep alive whilst killing off interesting threads with lively discussion
frolicking in the meadows
dreaming about my ex gf who I know I shouldn't go back to but want to anyway since she was one of the few women I could tolerate being around
larping as a faggot
no, it's literally not. fucking scientific illiterate. stop trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about and link a source that suggest scientists aren't reliable or fuck off
>frolicking in the meadows
So you think it's fine when a scientist says there's a 50% margin of error?
>0 evidence of falsification
>why am i not surprised
then link the fucking source HOLY SAY THEY'VE BEEN CAUGHT BUT YOU NEVER LINK THE SOURCE. LINK THE SOURCE.
>i don't like the consequences of the truth so i will refuse to believe it
afk 30 minutes
considering that's not actually a scientific term that scientists would actually use, i wouldn't think it's fine at all, because it probably means they're some moronic simpleton armchair scientist who is trying to pretend like he knows what he's talking about.
So you think it's fine when a scientist says there's a 50% margin of error?
>0 evidence of no falsification
checkmate atheists
This guy gets it. A “margin of error” isn’t really a term anyone uses. MAYBE when trying to explain very simplistic concepts to people outside of STEM, sure, but you’d get laughed at for saying “margin of error” without significant qualifiers at a conference.
I’m assuming the guy who keeps repeating himself is a Walmart janitor who decided to look up chemicals on an SDS one day, and now he considers himself a scientist.
>sampling errors aren't important
No wonder you dipshits believe everything nbc tells you
>considering that's not actually a scientific term that scientists would actually use, i wouldn't think it's fine at all, because it probably means they're some moronic simpleton armchair scientist who is trying to pretend like he knows what he's talking about.
>haha, he actually wants evidence!
So it's okay if they just make up results
i want evidence there was no falsification
>reaching this hard
give any kind of evidence that they "make up results"
>normal people
>don't believe anything until there's evidence of it
>/x/ tier deniers
>believe something randomly
>haha now you have to disprove my belief that exists for no reason
except it's not for no reason, is it? it's because youre a tribalist moron
If there's a 50% margin of error and their sampling is flawed they can sing any song they like.
ok, link a source saying there's a 50% margin of error and their sampling is flawed.
Climate believers are gullible fucktards and useful idiots. Remember how ice age is going to happen since the 70s then it was warming
remember when the elements were earth, fire, wind, and water?
oh, you believe it the periodic table? are you some kind of gullible fucktard useful idiot?
Just look up what temperature they think it was at any point in history and they will give you very poor answers
Have you tried googling "climate gate?"
As other anons have said, data we've been presented with in the past was obviously falsified because we didn't do what they demanded and still nothing happened.
1995: If we don't stop logging in the Amazon and polluting the oceans we'll all be screwed in about 20 years
2002: The temperature isn't going up but the polar ice caps are lower. We're doomed if we don't do something soon, but for now we can let India and China develop their economy before asking them to lower emissions.
*Solyndra steals millions in government money*
*Climategate shows the "97% of scientists agree" meme is a total myth and they're deeply concerned that they can't actually prove anything*
2019: The ice caps are fully restored but temperature was a little higher the last decade. We're doomed if we don't do something soon, but for now we can let India and China develop their economy before asking them to lower emissions.
If it turns out this shit was actually real the people responsible were the scientists who were this incredibly unpersuasive and inconsistent.
Maybe y'all should have given a solution that actually lowered emissions instead of just outsourcing them.
>no source provided
>and there never will be
dumbfuck zealot. go jerk off your religion somewhere else.
not sure what you mean.
you were asking for evidence of falsification and I was asking for evidence that no falsification occurred. no random beliefs here, just plain old skepticism fren.
>Have you tried googling "climate gate?"
Yes, and it was determined there was no scientific misconduct. If you disagree then show me a link that says otherwise.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with falsification so I'm not going to read it. Provide evidence of falsification of fuck off and jerk off your religion somewhere else.
do you think the scientists are incompetent or do you think they're purposefully falsifying the evidence?
Yeah by the same people who determined Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong.
Nobody believes the bullshit anymore. The speed of information on twitter, Jow Forums, reddit, etc. is just too fast. We can read the documents for ourselves, so when the shills try to handwave everything away and memory hole it we know better.
>Yeah by the same people who determined Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong.
>I don't know how to use google
sciencedaily.com
Here's one,
>UP TO ELEVEN DEGREES CELSIUS AT THE POLES
Wow, that's NINE DEGREES warmer than the earth has ever been! Thanks science!
I don't think either is true. I think the narrative they couch it in is paid for by their owners.
where does it say anything about 50% margin of error or flawed sampling in here
so they're purposefully changing the results of the study to suit the narrative of their owners
>The disparity -- Antarctica warmed about 11 degrees Celsius, nearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit, between about 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, while the average temperature worldwide rose only about 4 degrees Celsius, or 7 degrees Fahrenheit -- highlights the fact that the poles, both the Arctic in the north and the Antarctic in the south, amplify the effects of a changing climate, whether it gets warmer or cooler.
Its bullshit like this that makes it all so unbelievable.
> climate deniers
How can you deny climate ffs
Well climate science funding has only gone up. If they give a result the need to fund it ends. See the position their careers are in?
>do you think the scientists are incompetent
some might be. some might not. the "scientist" badge is pretty vague and there's a ton of people doing competing research in multiple fields right now.
>do you think they're purposefully falsifying the evidence?
not unheard of, happens pretty frequently actually. people live off the grant money they receive after all. they don't always have to falsify anything just reshape the study, cherry pick data, use questionable sources, reach hasty conclusions etc. There is no single truth in science.
>sciencedaily.com
>The calculations, based on temperature measurements down a 3.4-kilometer-deep borehole, prove that climate models do a good job of estimating past climatic conditions and, very likely, future changes.
LMFAO. your own source debunks you my god you are a retard. ill allow you to not reply to this post in shame. just click x and walk away slowly.
this thread AGAIN
are you some kind of shill dedicated to sliding? How many threads have you made today for that? 6? 8?
okay, but where's the evidence they're giving results based on their owners
>it cant get warm more in one area compared to another
my god so you're actually THIS stupid?
where's the "evidence" they aren't?
All about Climategate: youtu.be
Who is the IPCC: youtu.be
>not unheard of, happens pretty frequently actually
source?
>why is venus so hot
duh the atmosphere
>does increasing the amount of greenhouse gases on earth make it hotter?
nah
??
Are you implying the scientists don't know who is funding them?
here's a condensed list (sources listed at the bottom) also look into retractions
en.wikipedia.org
Greenpeace and all that shit are of course scams, just like all the rainbow merchandise.
The oceans are screwed and the polar ice is melting that has been frozen for 12,000 years. Those predictions were correct.
There are serious climate policies that demand China India and the US + EU all lower their standard of living to at least 1/2 over 10 years.
The only real way to stop collapse is more of a reduction to 1/4 consumption and redirecting all industry into nuclear over the same period.
see
>kikes bombing gaza
>sliders out in full force
Woah who would have thought
Are you part of JIDF doing it for free or do they at least pay you?
this list is tiny compared to the total number of publications. this isn't even climatology, it's just everything. citing this is disingenuous. you're espousing a recurring theme that consistently skews the data. you linked outlier events. these are not consistent.
and besides that China and India don't consume what they produce with all their pollution, the US and EU do, so it wouldn't really help to get China to stop.
Americans(and western eu) have to stop buying iPhones and Trucks and reduce overall consumption to cut demand for production and shipping by 75% or we all die.
see
the evidence they arent is here btw
>source?
>source?
>source?
>source?
>source?
rationalwiki.org
look schlomo, I don't know what your goal is in this thread, but the point is that the "evidence" for climate change is opaque and esoteric, and the climate shills keep moving the goal posts and getting caught scamming.
Here's just one of many sources on the ongoing scamming. theguardian.com
It is up to YOU to provide a source for why we should surrender our shekels and autonomy to prevent this alleged extinction level event.
If climate "denial" was the hoax, only a few oilmen would be in on it. Everybody else would be scrambling because they care about their children and grand children. The barren globalist bureaucrats like Merkel and Macron are the ones crying about the future that they have no stake in.
If this shit is real, and I have no reason to believe it is, you're gonna have to do a lot better than "the science is settled this time for real, shut up goy you're crazy" If you want ot have any hope of saving the planet.
that's got nothign to do with the post you linked
The polar ice has actually increased over the last 10 years. The only sources I can find on the spot are major cope posting as to why this doesn't prove anything.
Why aren't we moving as fast as we can towards self sufficiency instead of rehashing the old Kyoto protocols from like 20 years ago if this shit is real then?
What? You don't believe that it was 70 degrees and sunny in Antarctica just 10,000 years ago? What are you a climate change denier?
just showing it's not unheard of and it happens. they don't always find out in the end, this is just a short list of proven offenders. as for climatology it's such a young discipline that we won't find out about falsified/fudged/dishonest results until much later. hence why we must be a bit skeptic about it. i don't believe everything i hear or read just because it's published by scientists. they have been wrong before and will continue to do so.
Based retard subhuman
>An on the spot fallacy (OTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic
I'm not asking for specific minutiae, I'm asking for ANY kind of evidence or source. Congratulations on finding this article, it doesn't absolve you of needing to have fucking evidence jesus christ.
>virtually all research is funded by government
>its impossible for the government to influence the nature of the research produced by government funding by allocating funds to projects and researchers they know will promote the policies the gov wants promoted
Wow.
Because the profit margins on fossil fuel are massively exponentially larger due to the cost of shipping transport and labor which can all be skimmed and require constant maintenance.
Really just think for one second before you post.
>The polar ice has actually increased over the last 10 years
>falling for fake news
exactly like a leftist
Like honestly why the fuck do you think we are in Syria and the media is constantly harping on Putin?
Don't forget he refuses to acknowledge empirical evidence or basic scientific principles.