Global Warming fanatics read this:
http://news.sky.com/story/1596318/poll-growing-doubts-over-climate-change-causes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Even if man-induced climate change was a lie/exaggeration (I've never been too sure), I still think there is no harm in conservation of resources.
Finding alternatives to oil, recycling, all that shit, it can only be of benefit, right? Or am I missing something here?
>>2716
The global warming cultists won't care. It's like explaining contradictions in the bible to someone with a snake in their hand.
>>2775
No harm in self driven conservation. The problem is it's being used by governments to dictate industry and wield larger control over populations. That's not OK.
>>2716
you know what's a hoax? white genocide
>>2716
There are been global warming for a long time. The dark ages had a time of global warming as well which let them grow crops.
>>2788
True
The idea of global warming is very easily debunked with data presented in chart form. Unfortunately, we can't do that here.
Idk man, this year has been very strange climate wise.
I know it's an El Nino year, but here in Michigan we've been having the warmest November in recent memory. It's not even subtle. 50+ degrees Fahrenheit has been the norm.
It's all very surreal and making me very anxious.
>>2784
Global Warming is a bigger hoax - I mean, they don't even stick to 1 name, like sometimes it's called "Climate Change"...
>>2793
Denialists always say the same hackneyed shit that is a Google search away from being irrelevant (or even less, since common sense is the solution most of the time). What's next, you're going to talk about CO2 from volcanoes?
>>2791
As a climate change believer, your personal experience isn't evidence to support climate change
It's literally single digit differences of average temperature that people are worried about - having a warm November this year doesn't support either side of the debate
>>2822
What about the 2003-2008 warm period? It was all that way through wintertime, too.
>an online poll of some anonymous retards, along with an opinion piece in a clickbait rag British newspaper, invalidates decades of research by thousands of Ph.D holding scientists
>this is what climate change deniers actually believe
>>2831
>climate change """scientists""" need mo money fo dem programs
>"climate change is totes 4 realsies guys we wuz phds an shit"
>retards believe them
Fact: Local weather predictions are rarely more than 75% accurate past 24 hours
So why do people believe that 15 year or 25 year or 50 year predictions are 100% accurate?
>>2819
CO2? If its really a problem we have the technology. CO2 scrubbers like those used in space craft and submarines separate Carbon from Oxygen. Solution is a reality. So is the fact that success would start killing all plant life on earth.
>>2784
not according to the un's own definition of genocide
ITT people who have never heard of The Luntz Memo or The Heartland Institute. Want to know why the media calls it Climate Change now? It's because of Frank Luntz's suggestions in The Luntz Memo.
https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf
also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
>>2784
>thread about global warming, connected to summit currently taking place
>cucк has to get his word in
>>2833
Because predicting climate change is NOTHING like doing a small weather forecast that is literally just for the sake of trying to tell locals what its going to be like for traveling or whatever miniscule thing. Thats like comparing the "dirtiness" of a chlorine filled pool to a water treatment plant and saying if the pools arn't 100% clean the water treatment plant can do no better.
The reason why climate change is used in such "extreme" ways is simply because of how we shitty we treat these kind of issues. We have this stupid way of thinking which is "if its not happening tomorrow I don't give a shit!" So, sadly the only way to get even an ounce of a reasonable response to this issue you're going to have to make it sound as if it is going to happen soon in the worst possible ways. And even then we still aren't doing nearly enough on what more reasonable things that could be done.
>>2875
Predicting local weather patterns one week away is easy compared to predicting global weather patterns 50 years away.
If science is unable to do the simple one then the complex one is obviously out of reach given current technology.
The gross exaggerations used in the so called science of global temperature change predictions will eventually cause a terrible backlash worldwide against any science based efforts to protect the environment.
Makes you wonder if the whole global warming thing is being funded by the energy industry?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZcJ-nkkpM
wew lad.
What a surprise, I wonder what's happening.
>>2882
No, it is not the same the time it takes to forecast for a longer more precise change isn't the same as a forecast that is rushed day by day for locals. You also cannot compare this in long terms either because when you're researching for years/months compared to day by day it becomes a night and day comparison.
If this is all some scheme by the energy companies, it's pretty shitty one imo because a lot are still doing fuck all about any of this past posting articles and having shitty fights about it then moving on with our lives ignoring everything passed that
I remember years back, right around the time An Inconvenient Truth was released, there were people making claims that we would see tangible, disastrous results from Climate Change in the very near future. Like, absurd shit, such as whole cities being flooded and put under water in a couple of years.
I've yet to see anything of that sort happening, but I think it does go to show that there's a real level of fear mongering behind this movement.
>>2889
Is it Ron Obvious or Forrest?
Global trends, historical records, astronomical data and measurements from all over the globe are used by computers to predict local weather. That is why local weather is more accurate than ever. Even with the massive flood of information and the current super computers NASA still cannot predict accurately enough to schedule launches during days with required weather conditions (local weather).
Obviously saying it is easier to predict climate 50 years away than predicting climate next week defies all logic.
Keep screaming that the sky is falling. It might work on the same people who believe the earth is flat.
Beware sailing off the end of the world on those boiling seas covering many US coastal states 10 years from now.
>>2891
He did use some extreme language but I'd hardly call any of the stuff he has said untrue, if you really want to see an effect look at Venice, it's pretty much became our litmus test for the early stage of flooding, areas in that place are flooding up higher and higher. Yes this is party due to the fact that Venice is sinking as well but it is also a fact that the number of high tides in that area is also increasing much more often and for much longer periods of time.
Majority of predictions are for 2060 and beyond for places like Florida and other major cities. And sadly those are the facts that help enforce the ignoring of the issue.
>>2900
You're not gonna turn /news/ into a lefty hugbox no matter how many times you link to /pol/.
>>2716
What do scientists or people in authority with regards to climate change research or something say about the data changes? Do they support the changes? Deny them? etc?
>>2908
just because he doesn't want the thread derailed by people bringing up something off-topic doesn't mean he wants it to be a lefty hugbox
>>2908
go be nazi where you belong, shitlord
>>2897
if i was in real estate i'd be cashing in on that shit already
>>2894
I'll say again what you keep ignoring, that predicting weather day by day for quick estimates is not the same as having the ability to work on an estimate for year and years. And if you think that just because I said you have years to research something I meant that it is easier you must go back to re-reading.
None are 100% accurate, but when you have years to work on one that as compared to having to rush day by day predictions there is a huge difference, the base information used also does not help make things any more accurate for a quick prediction. Technology is improving every day so maybe soon these will be comparable but for now I do not feel that they are.
Anyways, we can agree to disagree since this argument is just going to be a circle.
(Having debates in here is so much better than that cespool /pol/) we'll see how long that lasts.
>>2915
Rather than hope some climate catastrophe turns some condo in the desert into a money-making beach side piece of real estate come 50 years from now, it's probably a safer investment to buy something up cheap in Detroit and hope that shit gentrifies.
10 degrees warmer in the cities during the summer compared to rural areas.
>no proof humans warm the planet.
It took 10 fucking years to show that it's pesticides killing bees. Who could have guessed? Of course influential chemical companies needed solid proof. When I was young, I couldn't go barefoot outside due to the bees on dandelions, now I just occasionally see one.
Shouldn't need absolute proof to make changes when a bit of common sense would do.
Fucking corporate cock sucking politicians.
>>2930
You could not go outside barefoot?
What a sheltered, spoiled, rich, divorced from all reality little child you were. Lucky you.
>>2917
Lets follow your logic for a bit.
If a scientists predicts a week of your local weather starting 10 days from now, it will be less accurate than if he predicts a week of your local weather starting 50 years from now????
Sorry, I just can't follow your logic.
>>2790
You can post a link to the image; you just can't post the image.
Here's the first one I found, which says you are wrong: http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/150-yr-global-temperatures.gif
>>2949
If you predict the weather in one specific three-hour period tomorrow, then of course it will be easier than predicting the weather for a specific three-hour period in 2065. However, this isn't about that. You are comparing "knowing whether it will rain at 12:30pm tomorrow" to "knowing the average temperature for the whole year" in 2065. And knowing an average is much easier than knowing one specific thing, because all this data that scientists use deals with averages.
Toss a coin. It'll be 50/50 whether it lands heads or tails, right? Over time, like if you tossed the coin 1000 times, you'd get heads ~500 times. However, you cannot say whether any one specific coin-toss is going to come up heads or tails. Similarly, scientists can say that it will, on average, be hotter in the future, even though they can't say whether or not it will be windy at lunchtime on your birthday.
>>3056
Averages
Averaging the entire life of planet earth. The portion man could survive on earth is very small and the portion that man has lived here is even smaller.
But wait, it gets more interesting.
In the millions of years since earths birth the climate has changed dramatically from frozen to boiling and from an atmosphere that could support humans to one that could not thousands of times before man ever gained the miracle powers of being able to cause climate change.
WTF you say?
Yep. Strange but true.
>>3079
That's why scientists don't look at averages over millions of years, just averages over a few centuries. And the averages over the few centuries are changing to get warmer, and based on what scientists know about how those averages should be changing, it looks like humans are to blame. So if it's our fault, we should stop doing what we're doing wrong, or many people will die. If it's not our fault, then we can't change it and we're going to die anyway. So the only way to not die is to assume we can change it, and to try and change it.
I'm all for scientists who try to prove that global warming is not manmade, because you learn things when you challenge the accepted wisdoms of the age, but the fact that they haven't really come up with anything convincing means I'm going to keep saying global warming is our fault until someone thinks up an explanation for the average temperature changes which isn't just "Hey, maybe they were going to happen anyway."
Fun fact: there's nothing we can do anyway. Industrialisation in India, China and Africa will negate any good that we can achieve by recycling our old glass bottles and newspapers.
>>3102
Currently there is no proof that climate change is man made or proof that it is not.
There exist the scientific theory of global warming along with the scientific theory of global cooling (see scientific articles and research from the 70s & 80s)
Man currently has absolutely zero influence on the temperature of the sun. The sun has the largest influence on the temp of earth. Without it we live on a frozen lifeless rock.
Global warming being caused by man and man alone remains an unproven theory. As such there is no reason to prove it is wrong at this time.
>>3102
First man caused global cooling, then man caused global warming, and now man causes generic climate change.
Why the change in names for the same thing?
Simple really, they could not prove warming, or cooling beyond normal margins of error.
Currently the climate will change as it has since before humans walked the earth. Only according to those who believe in man made climate change it is now all due to the actions of man.
Hello Chicken little.
>>3102
I've not read the rest of this thread but is there any proof that climate change will actually kill us? Personally I don't believe the media when it comes to the extreme weather fear mongering.
>>3133
Yeah - Venera 7 (which melted in 23 minutes)
>>3146
>Venera 7
Bro we have Trees and shit that thrive more when theres more co2 it's impossible for our planet to get fucked to the level of Venus
>>2833
>anons try and discuss non-linear systems
My god this is cringe worthy. Since you have absolutely no understanding of any of these issues in any depth why do you have a firm opinion on it? You're just producing noise and nothing of substance.
>>2915
Arizona Bay lad, wanna invest in a time share with me outside of Phoenix?
>>2779
Global warming cultists are worse than radical islamic terrorists.
They don't care for science or facts or the truth. When it was obvious the planet was not going into an ice age they changed from calling it global cooling to warming. When the ice caps did not melt and flood all of the coastal regions around the world the switched from global warming to climate change.
They have no clue what the fuck is going on with the earths climate but they are absolutely certain man is causing it.
Due to this absolute (in their own minds) causal relationship they demand that everyone other than themselves survive naked in the woods with out even the minimal survival tool called fire(as it causes global warming).
>>2833
Because weather is not climate. The conflation of the two, either through ignorance or willfulness, is a chief weapon in the denier arsenal.
>>3178
Climate is just the average weather over a region of earth over a period of time. That time period can be days, weeks, months, years, or centuries. That region can be a town, state, country, or other geographically designated area. Global climate is just the average global weather over a designated period of time.
Technically you may be correct but you can not have one without the other and in common usage the words can be interchanged with no meaning lost.
>>3111
>I have done literally zero research on the topic at hand but I want to seem smart, so I'll just be really condescending as I say things that anybody with 5 minutes to spend on Google knows is false
In the time it took you to read this thread, you could have done enough research to realize what a fucking idiot you are
>>3111
Blindly accepting that CO2 is a pollutant killing life on earth.
No CO2 > No Plants > No Animals > No life on Earth beyond very simple microbes.
Blindly accepting that Global Warming has melted all the glaciers and the ice on north and south poles even though a simple google maps view from space show that this is as false as the statement that there is no area 51.
Blindly accepting that sea levels have risen 30 feet over the last 10 years when you can easily find out that coastal areas all over the world that would be affected by such a rise are not underwater.
Why would you work so hard to ignore the obvious.
20 years of predictions of massive world wide disasters caused by global warming that have failed to occur.
Fool you once or twice. OK happens to the best of us. Fool you repeatedly for 20 years.
Yep. Stupid is as stupid does.
>>2834
... what? Do you have any idea how these work? Why not perform a few minutes of research and discover why this is foolish claim?
From a skeptic: you're not helping.
>>2832
> t. Someone who has never been to university
Maybe I'd be more open to Climate shit if not every solution offered by climate scientists was nothing short of implementing global communism.
That combined with the fact that the very same ideology has been worming it's way into all the prestigeous universities around the world makes it very hard for me to believe the Climatologists have no hidden agenda
>>3394
They offer that because whenever anyone suggests the free market alternative of internalizing the externality of damage to the environment with a carbon tax, everyone flips their shit.
>>2834
We can sequester carbon, but it's crazy fucking expensive and there's a shitton of carbon.
It would be cheaper to reduce carbon emissions by other means than it would be to build and maintain the kinds of systems we'd need to sequester all that carbon, and the more you use those technologies, the more expensive they get.
>>3287
You know Area 51 was declassified, right?
>>2716
Do any of y'all live near the equator? It gets hotter every year.
Roads in India melted this year, my mother said when she was a girl nobody needed a car with AC then because it wasn't as hot as before, people even used to pop the top off in their convertibles in a cloudless day, now everybody has to find what little shade they can find, even then the steam just encircles around you.
Never once glanced at data, you can just feel the heat rising every year.
>>3403
you halfwit inbred idiot. climate changes naturally all the time, fluctuations you retard. Humans don't live 1/10th of the time it would take to realize this and this is why research would help you realize it, if you wouldn't be too stupid to read it and instead think the earth is 60 years old.
>>3398
>free market
>tax
How can you put both of these in the same sentence? Do you know the definition of free?
Analogy: gears with chunks of rock in between them will not spin "freely"
>>3418
M8, I want to hear an argument against what I said, but your English is abysmal. Try again so I can understand.
>>3399
You seem to have missed a bit of history there bud. After ten years of being able to view area 51 from space on the net the government finally admitted it was there.
Another swing and a miss. C (carbon) and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are not and never have been the same thing. All life on earth is based on the element of carbon and all plant life needs carbon dioxide to survive. Finding a way to tax something that we would all die without is the ugly business of corrupt governments and businesses.
Lets tax air, water, and sunshine while we are at it.
>>3399
You should dig a little deeper. The Carbon tax sequester market scam does not reduce Carbon a.k.a. CO2.
All businesses get yearly carbon dioxide emission tax credits including those that have never produced CO2 and never will (unless you count the employees breathing). Those that don't produce CO2 can sell it to those that do. They can not sell the credits to the government for cash. The government taxes the transfer of these credits.
Net = Net. Those that produce lots of CO2 either buy credits or move factories to the 80% of the worlds countries that do not regulate CO2 or just pretend to, like China.
>>2716
First is a public poll, doesn't inform me of the science at all.
The second article cites some guy's blog as "proof".
Data fiddling does happen and it is a scandal, because I want reliable results to see what's happening with the climate. However the problem with people like you is that you've pre-decided that global warming doesn't exist and will post any old article that you haven't fact-checked if it agrees with your view.
>>3441
Functioning free markets require the rule of law. to use your analogy a well functioning gear chain requires lubrication to work efficiently. Correcting externalities by applying pigovian subsidies or taxes is simply making a gear train function at it's optimal level.
The amount of fucking ignorance in this thread is staggering. Top tip: if you don't know shit about something don't form an opinion but if you do keep it to yourself.
>>3522
Free Market theory does not mean heavily taxing and regulating to alter the market at the governments whim or the whim of those who buy influence.
I think you have a very fragile grasp on the meaning of ignorance. It does not mean anyone who fails to agree with you.
>>2911
the lefty mongoloid was the thread derailer chief
>>3133
If the Earth actually gets hotter, we can all just move to Canada, Russia and Antarctica. Those places are huge, and could easily accommodate humanity. They're empty right now, but the only reason for that is because they're so cold, which they obviously wouldn't be if global warming happened.
However, poor countries are fucked, and the places that grow food and provide various resources for the world will be in serious trouble. So if society collapses in the future, nobody will say, "Damn it, climate change!", but they will probably say, "Damn it, water shortages!" or, "Damn it, war in India!" and those things will be traceable back to climate change if you really want to sound smug.
>>3548
71 percent of the earth is covered by water. Yes most of it is salt water, however simply boiling water and collecting the condensate from steam produces pure unsalted water.
The very idea the earth is running out of water is bullshit of the highest order. Shame on those who buy into this propaganda.
>>3456
His argument was that the changes you are experiencing, because they happen over such a short period, could easily have just happened by chance. It's perfectly possible that India is just going through a hot spell right now that could end next year, and it would look exactly the same currently as it would if humans were destroying the world with their evil greenhouse gases. According to scientists, there is a 5% chance that he is right, and a 95% chance that he is wrong.
>>3394
All the top universities agree that climate change is manmade because that is what the evidence suggests. If you can find evidence that makes it look like climate change is not manmade, I'm sure you could find people at each one of those universities who would love to see it, and consider it. As for the communism thing, who do you think is more likely to spend millions on corporate lobbying to advance their argument: big, polluting multinational companies who reap vast profits from their output, or penniless hippies and downtrodden climate researchers?
>>3184
>in common usage the words can be interchanged with no meaning lost.
But people in this very thread are basing their arguments on the assumption that if you can predict the climate, you can predict specific weather patterns. They are confusing the words, and in doing so, the meaning is being lost.
>>3557
But doing that on the scale required would be prohibitively expensive. If you want to quintuple your energy bills, go ahead and do it, but it's easier and cheaper to just drink the freshwater that currently exists and consider changing your behaviour just enough that it won't run out.
>>3558
You will be mocked for centuries for believing global climate change is caused by man just as flat earth supporters are today.
You have yet to explain how the global climate changed repeatedly over millions of years often much more drastically than in recent history during the absence of human life.
Or do you just deny that climate change can occur without humans?
>>3557
Desalination is very expensive.
>>3562
Even primitive societies can boil water. Fuel can be animal dung, dried grasses, wood, coal, garbage, or other wastes to name a few. Even today there are large areas of the world were water must be boiled before it is safe to drink. Just stretch the process out a bit and you would be able to remove the salt.
You have the super rich country mindset thing going in the view that the only way to boil water is by buying energy from a company.
>>2793
>>3111
why do people like you insist on making posts on simple subjects without doing basic research first? Global warming causes climate change. Learn to read dipshits.
>>3110
currently there is no "proof" that man and ape share a common ancestor. Nor is there any "proof" that germs cause illness. Congrats for not understanding how scientific theories actually work.
>>2882
we can predict with a pretty high degree of accuracy what the average temperature of December will be. Predicting averages is easier than predicting specifics. We don't know exactly what day it will snow on in advance, but we do know that December will be a lot colder than June. Just like we know that higher GHG concentrations will result in an increased greenhouse effect.
>>2834
the fact that idiots like you come here and say stupid shit like that is why we can't even have these discussions. You and all of the other science denialists ITT have done zero research on the subject.
CO2 scrubbers are expensive and inefficient
as for plants, CO2 levels are significantly higher now than at any point in the past million years. If plants survived fine with CO2 levels not going much above 300ppm, then why, just a couple centuries later, would they all die if we returned to that same CO2 level?
>>3577
Even dirty water can be used for watering crops, but salt water can't.
I don't know, looks like it's still going up
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Can't wait for the hydrogen economy tbh
climate change depresses me
>>3583
it is still going up. 2014 was the warmest year on record, with 2015 on pace to beat that. The past decade was warmer than any other decade on record. The people claiming global warming isn't real are science-denialists who like cheap gas and coal power, and realize that accepting the truth might mean making changes to their lifestyle in order to cut back on GHG emissions.
>>3586
Is there any hope?
This made me depressed to read
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/
then articles about current paris talks being ineffectual seems bad.
>tfw Greenland will be gone in your lifetime
>>3579
1) Any change in the average temperature of the earth affects weather and thus climate. If the average temp of the earth stays the same weather and thus climate still changes. How can you ignore all historical and current scientific observations and keep screaming all changes occur only because of global warming and only because of that portion of warming caused by man?
2) Theory is the prime point. A theory that can not be proven is not a factual explanation of cause and effect.
3) Guessing what will happen 50 years from now by utilizing a formula that has been proven to not work when loaded with known historically collected temperature data is like throwing a baseball in the air and predicting it will fail to come back down.
4) If you really believe CO2 is killing the planet, to expensive to save the earth and all life on it would not be a part of this discussion.
>>3589
there will be some unavoidable consequences because we've already waited too long. But I think the catastrophic stuff can be avoided so long as the people in charge actually understand basic science instead of taking the "only God can control the climate" view that denialists take.
>>3594
The religion of man made climate change will ignore all factual scientific data that indicates the climate of earth ever changed before man discovered that horrible green house gas producing thing called fire.
>>3599
who denies that the climeate changed before people were around? Sounds like strawman
>>3568
wtf are you even talking about? Climate scientists all acknowledge that previous warming has occurred. The causes range from changes in solar intensity, to changes in volcanic activity, to changes in axial tilt. None of that can explain the CURRENT warming however.
The earth is warming, that's a fact. Name one single alternative theory to explain the current warming. Because of all of the known factors that affect the temperature of the Earth cannot explain the current warming, except for an increase in GHGs causing an increase in the greenhouse effect.
Again, all of this is easy to research. Why is it that none of you science denialists can do any research before having these disccusions?
Oh yeah, because if you knew how to read you wouldn't be science denialists in the first place.
Sounds like that guy is amazingly ignorant, or is yet another compulsive dittohead (YACD)
>>3602
You actually believe that every factor that has effected the earths climate in the billions of years since the planet was formed have nothing to do with the current changes?
That man and only man is currently causing changes in the climate and that it is man and only man that can cause the planet to get warmer, cooler, or stay the same?
Being a religious fanatic with unwavering devotion to your beliefs can be seen as a positive but like all such things hiding behind your ignorance to be popular is not proof of man caused and only man caused global warming.
"none of that can explain the CURRENT warming"
BULLSHIT
>>3619
You don't seem to understand what he means, or are just trolling.
Basically he's saying that when you control for all the natural variables that cause changes in the earth's climate, there's still a warming trend that can only reasonably be explained by CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, after all. It's crazy to think we could pump enormous amounts of it into the atmosphere and it would have no effect.
>>3626
Enormous amounts. You obviously have no clue that CO2 is currently being measured as 0.036% to 0.039% of the earths atmosphere. What is a normal CO2 level? Historical during warm climate periods it rises and during cold climate periods it lowers. What comes first warm climate or increase in CO2? Historically and currently a heated topic.
>>3631
We've seen a 36% increase in CO2 levels since preindustrial times, it's unambiguously caused by human activity. Even people like Lindzen admit that it will cause an increase in temperature.
The amount of people here that are ignorant to economics and geography is too damn high.
It's like, Republicanism:the thread
>>3647
>can't see the forest for the trees
I feel sorry for you if you still look at it from a partisan issue. Literally meme tier shit.
>>3638
To focus on a very minor portion of total greenhouse gasses and at the same ignore all the major contributors to temperature change is silly to the point of insanity.
CO2 has a very minor effect if any on the earths temp when compared to the temperature and distance of the sun in relation to the earth. Other huge major weather and climate causing factors such as the earths ever changing orbit in relation to the sun and other planets, the earths magnetic field, its axial tilt, just to name a few of the biggest causes and those we obviously have no control over.
Fact: Simply dropping CO2 levels will not overpower all the major contributors to climate change.
So get over it and move on to solving the worlds real problems. Millions of people a year still die due to lack of shelter, clothing, food, clean water, and the most basic of medicines.
>>3651
yeah but dude didn't you just see the president on rachel madcow's show talking about how global warming is the greatest threat to man kind?
bigot
>>3655
Politicians and those who believe everything they say. Prepare to have your expectations remain unfufilled by these types for the rest of your life.
Its really sad that people can be led to believe such obvious falsehoods. The idea that the current level of CO2 has a greater effect than the Sun on the global climate is of course absurd.
The idea that increasing the price of energy will not only reduce the temperature of the planet but make everyone on earths life better falls into the same category.
Ignore reality now suffer for it later.
Enjoy freezing your ass off in the future because you can not afford to heat your house. Or if the planet continues to warm despite CO2 reductions enjoy not being able to afford to run fans or air conditioning.
>>3651
Aren't changes to Earth's orbit incredibly minor on a human time scale?
>>3526
If the market isn't functioning properly because the true costs aren't reflected in prices how is that heavy handed regulation? Coal power plants kill those living near them yet this isn't reflected in the price of energy from that power plant. Is incorporating that into the price a tax or just merely forcing those responsible for the costs on people to actually bear that burden. If you think free markets means freedom from responsibilty and freeloading then okay then but I somehow doubt that.
>>3631
in the past million years, CO2 never got much above 300ppm. Currently it's around 400ppm. The rate that it's increasing is faster than at any point in the past 300 million years.
Once again can you fuckers become literate and do this research yourself? I'm sick of every climate thread coming down to myself and other posters having to teach basic facts to people too stupid and arrogant to do any research on a topic before they go spouting off their bullshit opinion.
GO. DO. SOME. FUCKING. RESEARCH.
Because you obviously never have, you don't even know the very basic facts behind global warming theory. Same with any of the other science denialists ITT. This isn't a discussion between climate change supporters and skeptics, it's a discussion between people who have researched the topic and people (like you) who haven't.
>>3680
5% increase in CO2 that is 0.036% of the atmosphere has an incredibly minor effect compared to changes to the earths orbit.
Minor changes in the earths orbit effects tides, lengths of seasons, and of course global temperatures.
>>3694
holy shit, it was all due to changes in the earth's orbit ALL ALONG
How did we not notice the ORBIT of the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET changing suddenly?!?!?!
>>3694
The raw percentage of the atmosphere seems like a poor metric.
Aren't things like CFCs, and refrigerants way stronger reletive greenhouse gas but smaller percentage of atmosphere?
The limited resources on Earth cannot sustain compound growth for ever. 5% growth you double consumption every 14 years, so we need to look at the things that are finite and conserve them for our own future.
No matter the answer to how much we have affected the climate so far if we keep going we will eventually. So the sooner we stop the easier it will be.
>>3691
Your level of ignorance is simply staggering.
Your belief that simply changing the CO2 levels will overpower all the major causes of global climate change is quite sad.
>>3702
why do scientist generally agree it's anthropogenic?
>>3702
Your inability to comprehend things acting on different time scales is just fucking bizarre. Clearly no climate scientists have considered what you are talking about only you are smart enough to see what is happening. We are sheeple and you are clearly the one to shepherd us.
Fuck me this is why I stopped arguing about this shit for years it's like trying to headbutt through a brick wall.
My dad works in air management and he's been telling me about this shit for years.
Also I love the number of people in this thread that think we've got more than a shadow of a guess about what the earth was like even 500 years ago let alone 10,000. We know a lot less about basically everything than people with a hard-on for P.H.D.'s think
>>2716
Those articles
1) Poll says MORE people don't believe it, not MOST people don't believe it. More doubters does not mean it's not happening.
2) Booker is a long standing denier wo also denies passive smoking & asbestos were problems.
Must try harder OP.
>>3696
This is not a plastic model of the solar system. The earth never follows the exact same orbital path around the sun. Same goes for the moons orbit. Same goes for all the planets and moons in our system. The temp of the Sun is also constantly changing. Ignoring all these changes and their effect on climate might be fun for you but it has little to add to the discussion.
>>3698
kind of depends. There are inputs that aren't meaningfully limited, like sunlight, and inputs that replenish, like water. Other inputs can be recycled or substituted away from.
Also, when calculating GDP we include things like services, intellectual property, etc.
So making a sustainable economy that grows seems possible, but the transition might be a bitch.
>>3706
>My dad works in air management
kek. Assfucking your son isn't an actual job you know
>>3709
We should really make some kind of national aeronautic and space administration that can look into these shocking issues. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
>>3711
>the same guy who likes to make jokes about father-son sodomy now want's to dictate national agencies
and this is why democracy is one of the worst systems of government to have ever existed.
>>3696
>>3694
Changes in orbit and axial tilt are one of the causes of global warming. But as said above it's one of the causes of PREVIOUS global warming that is not causing CURRENT global warming. Milankovitch cycles take 41,000 years. Our warming is happening a lot faster than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
here's a good video going over this and some other common skeptic arguments about climate change. They also mention solar intensity, and the fact that changes in solar activity are not the cause of current warming, because the warming is happening even without changes in solar activity.
Its just so easy to make fun of people here.
They focus with such absolute color blindness concerning major causes of climate change to focus on a very minor contributor that the politicos want to use as a massive form of tax revenue. Will any of that money ever be used to reduce CO2 or help those effected by climate change. Not gonna happen.
>>3721
nice conspiracy theory m8
>>3706
I'm still surprised people think there even WAS a 10,000 years ago. Everybody knows the earth is only 6,000 years old, how can they prove otherwise? Outside of the Good Lord's word, we've only got a shadow of a guess, and that's no basis for believing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old
>>3709
You know we can measure solar intensity right? They've got these fancy things called "satellites" up there in the big sky. And changes in the solar intensity are not correlating with the current warming.
>>3721
>broke scientists and non-profits are the ones corrupted by money
>not the multi-billion dollar fossil fuel and automobile industries
>>3730
>Did it ever occur to you that they have so much money because they are superior? Why would you believe anything a poorfag says?
0/10
>>3717
The sun getting hotter will not cause the earth to warm.
The earth getting closer to the sun will not cause the earth to warm.
Whats with this obvious bs.
Do you actually apply any objective thought any of this stuff before you blindly repeat such obviously false propaganda?
>>3733
but the sun isn't getting hotter
and the earth isn't getting closer to the sun
are you retarded? A can only cause B if A actually occurs. If B occurs but A does not, then something else is causing B. In this case, a rapid increase in GHGs
>>3732
I was being sarcastic senpai
>>3703
It's easy.
Look at the changes in the planet over the last few millennia. The only obvious change is humanity. Ipso facto, humanity is the cause.
That of course excludes things for which there is little to no understanding of from the line of up of suspects as the primary drivers of climate change.
In a system of nearly infinite variables, surety is nearly impossible.
But we can pass laws that make the sun and rain behave and feel good about ourselves, even if they do absolutely nothing in the long term.
All the while the professional paranoiacs will have moved on to the next pressing global emergency they hear about on the nightly news. Racist pandas, or homophobic ants, whatever.
>>3735
Why would you spout such obvious falsehoods that were so easy to check?
>>3743
Maybe you should ask yourself that question.
We alter the amount of CO2 (0.036 percent of the atmosphere) and we can alter the climate of the entire world.
So if Russia, who has vast amounts of frozen territory, needs more farmland they just need to build giant CO2 generators?
Its so simple minded. It would make a good lego movie.
>>3777
>All electrical power relies on CO2 producing fuel
>>3789
What type of electrical generating equipment can be produced without producing CO2 in the process?
If you could produce it without producing CO2 how would you transfer the power to them without producing CO2?
Once they got electricity how would they utilize it without items manufactured in processes that produce CO2?
>>3807
can you stop bumping your shitty thread with your shitty posts?
fucking sage
>>3777
no, that's why the Kyoto protocol calls for reductions from developed nations while allowing for developing nations to develop.
>>3807
solar and wind
I guess you could carve a wind mill by hand but the generator production would require massive CO2 footprint. Mining for many different metals some quite rare. Oil drilling for plastics and paint.
Solar panels? Sorry another heavy CO2 producer with rare earth metals and oil required. Solar requires batteries. That's more oil, metals, and rare earth metals.
Add to the equation that you are not replacing a CO2 heavy production process with a less producing CO2 process you are simply adding new markets for electrical appliances produced in processes that add more CO2 to the atmosphere.
I should never read what you retards think about climate change. You're all a bunch of uninformed retards.
Yes, random 4chan user, you know more about climate than an entire community of climatologists who are all just memeing you.
You know what is really happening, and ONLY YOU DO.
Yeah dat global warming be some bad shit man. Gotta do sommin bout it quick.
Fuck no man. Ya cant take my shit or turn off my shit or raise the price o my good stuff.
But I get ya man dat carbon shit be bad for da planet ya hear.
>>3826
>Appealing to authority
>People aren't allowed to question
>People should just believe in whatever they are told without using their own judgment beforehand.
You're the very definition of a sheep and the kind of citizen that politicians love the most. Most revolutions, inventions and world changing theories/philosophies were conceived by people who questioned the status quo and weren't content by the explanations of the so called ''renowned authorities''.
Stop believing in whatever someone says just because it has a PhD and start to think for yourself.
>>3837
I have a Masters in Paleoclimatology.
Shut up.
>>3826
Hmm. Do you think it would be wise for any climatologist to go against the grain on this? You fucking moron.
>>3841
Scientists very often put forward radical or unpopular ideas.
Scientists go with whatever has the most evidence, and climate change has a shitload of evidence with very little to no evidence to the contrary.
>>3691
Holy shit. Trees? Look up how they work and how many of them are around currently versus the past. Your stupidity is shocking.
>>3845
People have done the calculations, the amount of trees that we have removed can't account for even a fraction of the CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the past century.
In fact, nothing can, aside from fossil fuel burning.
>>3599
>will ignore all factual scientific data
I've noticed that your side of the argument hasn't actually provided any sources at any point so far in this thread. Admittedly, not everything on the "climate change is real and happening" side has been sourced, but every source so far has been posted by one of them, not one of you. Would you care to provide any kind of anti-climate change links to change that?
>>3647
Poor ignorant fucks like you make me sick. Thank the gods you are in the minority. Take your religious cult bullshit and shove it up your ass.
>>3651
>But the changes caused by CO2 are only very minor!
Yes, but in case you haven't noticed, the effects we are currently experiencing are only very minor. Nobody is saying the temperature will shoot up to 10 million degrees tomorrow. They're saying it might increase by a couple of degrees in the next 20 years. That's a minor change, but it's still enough to destroy a lot of things we currently take for granted.
>>2784
Fuck off back to /tumblr/ you c
>>3841
You do have a point that the consensus is so overwhelming that some scientists might be reluctant to speak out against it. However, the same would be true of claiming there's no such thing as gravity, and yet nobody seems eager to defend that as a valid ideological position. Meanwhile, most of the scientists who disagree that climate change is manmade are funded by large corporations like BP, and encouraged to reach the conclusions they are being asked in advance to reach. Do those people really sound like the edgy rebels you are so desperate to find?
>>2775
The problem is all of the resources we need to spend to "conserve" the others.
Its quite easy to research many scientists predictions and statements concerning global warming and determine how wrong they were.
1) Coastal areas around the world are not underwater due to predicted rise in sea levels.
2) The polar ice caps continue their seasonal thaw and freeze cycles but you can view satellite images from now vs years ago and the amount of ice has grown instead of shrinking.
3) Despite the claims of a large rise in the global average temperature people all over the world year after year have experienced colder winters and even temps breaking 100 year old record lows.
4) They understand that the climate is not weather is a giant dodge scientists created to change the topic when their predictive failures are pointed out. Climate is just weather in a specified area measured over a specific period.
All over the world people who were convinced global warming is real find the climate where they live is not getting warmer thru actual real life experience.
5) Breaking the CO2 warming trend down to real numbers has shown the average global temp rise just 1 degree or less over the CO2 increase years.
6) Most recognized scientific global warming predictions warn of the possibility of another 1 degree global rise over the course of the rest of their lives. Hardly an emergency for the average person and in only very rare cases a reason to make massive sacrifices in their quality of life to stop it.
>>3837
None of the science denialists here are using their own judgment though... They're just parroting what conservative taking heads say. Literally not one single science denialist ITT had actually done any research on this, you all are saying things that are easily proven false.
If you're going to challenge the experts you need something to base your skepticism on. And science denialists have nothing to support their claims that science is all fake except for "but the bible says God controls the weather!"
>>3894
>muh science denial!
HOW DARE THESE HERETICS QUESTION THE CLERGY!
top kek
>>2791
El Niño my ass, in California is is cold as balls right now. Cold weather for us is a sign of NO El Niño.
>>2716
>The British public is increasingly sceptical that human activity is to blame for climate change, a poll for Sky News suggests
So what? If a poll said people doubt gravity, does it matter? You're still going to die when getting out of the 60th floor window
>>2716
I want to say Global Warming is real but when NASA came out and BTFO of climate scientists and said
>the arctic is actually gaining ice and not losing it. Thus, the oceans aren't rising, but actually losing water
And there was that one study that proved climate has been stable for the past few decades.
I'm still optimistic
I don't understand what you fags are arguing about.
Earth is not static. We have evidence of massive climate changes before humans were even on the scene. The climate will continue to change no matter what we do.
Are the scientists embellishing their data to keep their funding? Are government and corporate parties pushing for ineffective "solutions" like wind and solar energy to line their pockets?
Are other politicians denying climate change in order to keep their lobbyists and voters happy?
>>3177
>When it was obvious the planet was not going into an ice age they changed from calling it global cooling to warming.
I actually remember being like 5 and going to a national park where they talked about a new ice age and shit.
Which is why I've always been skeptical of the "global warming" doomsayers.
>>3894
Your proctoligist called.
They found your head
>>6140
Great argument there, champ.
