Is anyone able to help me out with climate change? Ive tried doing my own research but it's so much data that it's hard to wade through. Is man made climate change really that bad? All of the sources that are big say yes, but you guys seem to say no. Something feels wrong about how crazy the climate cult is getting, but is there any proof from reputable sources that say it isn't real? I want to have sources to point to when the cult says something wrong. Ive heard they cherrypick, is that all? Or do they falsify data too?
Is anyone able to help me out with climate change...
Nolan Peterson
Cameron Parker
> muh science and debate meme
Look at activists, their personal lives, their behaviour. Is that a group you want to be a part of? To be near where you live?
Connor Lee
It's always the city people telling country people how to act.
Juan Green
Start with this op
Look for a study that either doesnt use a feedback loop, or has FORWARD predictive validity using a feedback loop
Afterward join me in condemning the cultists, because you will realize what a fucking scam it is
Dominic Lewis
Thats the issue. Where are these studies? The climate cult is INSANE and i already agree with you. The biggest tip that something is wrong is how they change the story every 10 years. My main issue is finding this shit, google only shows the "truth" and journal libraries like JSTOR show THOUSANDS of articles. Do you have sources?
Christopher Jackson
Not anymore. I did my research after i read michael crichtons state of fear book and havent given a shit since for ~8 years
It was a lot easier back then because the amount of funding wasnt big enough to support the ridiculous amount of garbage being churned out.
Generally though, any article talking about runaway warming will inevitably not be the original data, instead linking to another study, and just taking the runaway numbers for granted, and it will be a goose chase to find it. Good luck
Adrian Ward
You see any global warming in pic related? If so, call me.
>inb4 US temperatures only
That's because the USHCN is the only somewhat reliable long-term temperature record; the rest of the GHCN is a fucking joke.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1981-2010-temp.png
William Fisher
I can't help you with finding what you're after because it's probably been buried by now. But you know what's really funny? I realized one day that leftists talk about global warming the way we talk about white genocide.
>in just a few decades, the world our grandchildren live in will be almost unrecognizable to what we know now
>we must act today
Leo Ward
It is not that hard.
Look at the numbers is all it takes.
CO2 is 400/1,000,000% of the atmosphere.
Water vapor (clouds) is responsible for 90% of the earths ability to retain heat.
If the earths atmosphere could not retain heat we would be an icebound ball.
Look at their temperature measurements they go down to 0.1ºC does anyone really think those measurements are absolutely accurate to the degree they state they are?
Another thing is they are with certainty able to state the average temperature of the whole earth. To my mind this is impossible but without a baseline temp they have no way to emphatically state that the average temp has increased 0.1ºC in a 10 year period.
Ask anyone what animal on earth produces the most methane the answer is always cows.
The real answer is termites there is somewhere between 500-1000 lbs of termites for every human on earth. But if you send a methane tax bill to termites they laugh and turn it into more methane send it to a farmer and he has no choice but to pay it or be ded.
The shit is all high level smoke and mirrors depending on free money to keep the ride going.
Nathan White
People always forget that we are in somewhat of an ice age, it's at least a cold period.
The polar ice caps are only 15 million years old because the default state of the earth is pole-less. I'm really wondering where all of these "irreversible chain reactions" are coming from.
Kayden Howard
There's been almost no change in ice extent as well.
Nathaniel Johnson
This isn't somewhat of an ice age it's literally by the definition of the word an ice age. Until our polar caps completely melt we are living in an ice age.
Luis White
There are some larger issues at hand.
1. At its core this about money and greed.
2. Global thought control concerning pollution will hurt the Chinese and that is a good thing.
3. Climate change is part of the earth's atmosphere, it happens and has always happened, if you get into a debate with a climate change pseudo-scientist, they will never be able to win this argument.
Evan Taylor
>send a methane tax bill to termites
Fuck yeah
Brody Nguyen
I'd also like to send a bill to the asian rice farmers which produce 20% of all the man made methane.
Isaac Flores
Why doesn't this include anything for emissions from natural sources and all the animals on earth?
Jeremiah Nelson
>finding a signal in lots of (((noise)))
Levi Phillips
The NASA troposphere data is adjusted. If there were warming due to CO2 specifically, then the warming would be at the troposphere where the heat is trapped. The raw data shows no change in temperature, and there is a footnote that the older data was adjusted and now shows warming.
It is an economic restructuring scheme for global planners. That is why the solution is always some tax or something that would give an international entity taxation power over the nations.
Cooper Mitchell
>The raw data shows no change in temperature
That's not true. There's a little bit of change.
But not enough to validate Hansen's mad idea.
Jacob Cooper
>There's a little bit of change.
* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor and that more water vapor will lead to a lot of warming.
* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.
* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 20 years. They are all trending too high.
* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.
* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.
* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."
Landon Jenkins
This has been my problem every fixing study just cites more studys in a giant fucking circle sometimes referencing data that you can't find anywhere anymore but when you point this out the normies just go "hurr why don't you trust the data in the first place user?" Maybe because the data is fucking nowhere to be found?
Liam Hill
>A doubling of preindustrial CO2
I never said anything about CO2. All I did was saying was that there was some change and posted the prediction graph from Hansen he published in 1988 which had the LTT and the information that the third scenario was the "we stop all emissions NOW" scenario.
Mason Wright
>Maybe because the data is fucking nowhere to be found?
>USHCN, GHCN, UAH
You're welcome.
Ethan Thomas
Right so you guys have given awesome reasons and believable points, but no one will believe me if i say "Jow Forums says so"
Andrew Hill
This is another problem unless an area had a weather station recording tempratures they have to make large assumtions based on tepratures that were recorded. So if the distance between 2 measurements is 500 miles for example and one is 90*F and one is 50*F they have to fill in the temps for the inbetween 500 miles and if they average it they can be fucking up the temp for certain areas by tens of degrees. Granted if you space out the averaged numbers more you get slightly more accurate data but that's the worst part if you want your data to make it look like it is warming average the numbers further apart from eachother if you want it to cool average cooler numbers across hoter areas. There are tons of ways to fuck with the results off hard data and it is all "proven peer reviewed science"
Samuel Smith
Then just download all charts and copy all states into a TXT file. That way you can simply restate everything without having to disclose your sources.
Tyler Morales
Carter Morris
They are conspiracy theorists trying to indoctrinate you.
They have no data, just really sweet words.
Nathaniel Stewart
No data. Right:
I wouldn't know this because I make my living fair and square as an engineer, but do you get paid a lot for lying your arse off?
Luis Ramirez
Climate cultists will not listen.
Simply agree with them and take THEIR conclusions to their logical end.
>Climate change is real
>It's man made
>The best way to fight it is worldwide population reduction
>Two policy child for overpopulated countries (China, India, South Asia, Africa, South America)
>Close America's borders PERMANENTLY to lower the carbon footprint.
How can any devout climate-changer object to such logic?
Juan Richardson
Fuck off bill nye
Owen Nguyen
>Two policy child for overpopulated countries
Actually China is in a demographic deadend. It's probably gonna kill them soon.
Evan Russell
>memeflag avoids discussing feedback loops being unverified nonsense with no forward predictive validity
>just posts charts and self serving studies
Every
Fucking
Time
Might as well be flat earthers posting flat horizon lines, its the same arguments but with a massive circlejerk of academics (read: stupid failures)
Jeremiah Ward
Probably the same reason they wont admit the majority of the things that contribute to the issue are the large cities and their inhabitants. ie. the same people foaming at the mouth that it's humans fault
Jaxson Torres
>just trust the scientists who tell you how the world is supposed to work, not the actual data that has recorded it
If the data doesn't support your fancy hypotheses, then they're dead, then and there. No further discussion until you can come up with better data, so see you in fifty years or so - provided you don't spend them sitting on your laurels not improving the perceived data corruption or whatever.
Angel Allen
Im denying data, not presenting my own. I need not present data to deny your doomsday cult retard
The assertion is that warming will be runaway due to a feedback loop. Every model that predicts runaway warming uses this conceptual loop, yet none have forward predictive validity. They readjust the numbers after the fact
And they also assert a lack of counterbalancing, which remains to be seen, is impossible to test, and is unprecedented
Fuck off pozzed brained faggot
John Clark
OP, the idea that the science is not settled is an actual conspiracy. The brainlets here do not understand the science and they certainly dont understand the reason why they don't believe in climate change. Almost every single climate scientist in the world doesnt even think about whether climate change is real or not. The evidence has been overwhelming for a while and the only reason america has so much denial is because of think tanks funded by oil that constantly put conmen on tv. These men are literally the same men that lobby from industry to industry in order to slow regulation. Its their job, none of them are climate scientists.
The idea that the all the worlds governments are all making this shit up to make more in taxes makes no fucking sense. Its much more likely and obvious that certain interests are trying to pad their own pockets before they die and to do that they have to slow public opinion. Watch the movie Merchants of Doubt, it exposes all this shit and confirmed to me that climate change is obviously happening. Also its not another one of the retarded propaganda conspiracy movies that are constantly put on this board. It has solid research and sources to support it.
David Sanchez
>Im denying data, not presenting my own
Pic related.
And I suggest making yourself a little bit clearer next time. I'm the guy who sees little to no global warming: - from your description
>memeflag
>posting charts
>self-serving studies
I figured you were ... well, a believer calling me out.
Isaac Wood
>trusting a mainstream movie instead of random infographics without cited sources on an anime forum filled with incels
IN B4 JEWS GOT TO HIM
Matthew Hernandez
>OP, the idea that the science is not settled is an actual conspiracy.
52% "consensus": journals.ametsoc.org
Also who cares about consensuses? Pic related was consensus once because some idiot translated the Italian "canali" as "canal" when it should've been "channel".
Parker Price
>pic related
Doesnt apply if youre just denying something, proving a negative isnt necessarily possible
Andrew Long
The 99% consensus """""study""""" included ANYBODY who was undecided on global warming all the way up to full on manmade death cultism, and was sourced from people not even involved in the field
Gabriel Jenkins
>Doesnt apply if youre just denying something
Yeah, sure, you can argue like that, but that doesn't make you credibly. Just denying anything without proper fundament to stand on makes you look like a crackpot.
And there's enough crackpots out there already denying climate change without being able to show any data.
Henry Ramirez
>credible
Rough day at work.
Anthony Torres
doesn't agriculture also include crops?
then how is being vegan better for the environment? are cows and only cows really the biggest contributor or agriculture green house gasses? not the machines used to pick, plant. and process the food?
Charles Cox
>crackpot
Im explicitly stating why i deny it and demanding evidence for the particular thing that is being denied
Only retards that dont know about the material and cant be convinced amyway would think that is crackpot
For those retards arguments are irrelevant anyway
Jayden King
>Only retards that dont know about the material and cant be convinced amyway would think that is crackpot
Writing people who don't know about the material off as being unable to be convinced is a fallacy. Four months earlier I was tooting the climate-changer's horn myself due to ignorance, and then I checked the sources myself.
There are people that can be convinced - but only if you don't write them off as retards.
Logan Miller
I'll help you with climate change, you'd be surprised how much your climate changes after you've been slapped upside your fat head
Ethan Anderson
Ok so you want me to present every study laced with an original feedback loop calculation ever and then...?
Juan Perry
Learn to read. Most of the scientist that didn't say yes never published anything related to the topic.
Then there is another 10% that says it's equally human and natural. And another 10% that it's human but with insufficient evidence.
Chase Rogers
>but is there any proof from reputable sources that say it isn't real?
The University of Oregon publishes a lot of actual scientific papers that undercut most of the arguments you hear from the climate crusaders and manages to avoid backlash because of their highly respected forestry and environmental sciences departments and reputation of being extremely left-wing. But I'm not sure if that'll be too technical for you. You can find some of their papers posted on their website and the websites of their professors which are linked to in the faculty directory.
Ian Robinson
>moving goalposts
We're only talking about those who think it's "mostly" human, not "equally" or "I'm talking out of my arse".
>Most of the scientist that didn't say yes never published anything related to the topic.
Among professional forecasters the number is closer to 38%.
Jaxson Hill
It's all a scam
Nathaniel Foster
>Global thought control concerning pollution will hurt the Chinese and that is a good thing
>implying the Chinese won't tell these UN fuckwits to pound sand and continue doing exactly what they're doing now
Angel Ortiz
It is fun to tell cultists that, under their own model, there is no way avoid catastrophic, species ending global warming and that their solutions will only punish the poor and minorities. You can wrap it up and call them a eco NAZI
Grayson Morris
Even still, 62% is a far cry from 99 and not even a supermajority
Especially when the underlying science is utter garbage
Julian Cooper
Better yet, all of the west cucks and pressures china to agree
They do and then proceed to not enforce shit