>2016
>There are still people on /pol/ who do not believe in anthropomorphic (man made) climate change.
>>81121473
>anthropomorphic
>>81121473
It's largely a matter of education.
>appeal from authority: thread version
>>81121473
>believe
Repent sinners!!
The end of the world is nigh!!!!
>>81121599
Literally you think your OPINION is equal to or superior to LITERAL SCIENTISTS
>>81121473
>>81121553
Anthropogenic, okay, but OP is right
>>81121473
Climate change isn't made by humans. It happens every so often by itself. Humans just slightly accelerate the process. Also
>anthropomorphic
>(man made)
Also2
>Flag
>>81121683
yes i do
>>81121473
Fuck off! Trump said global warming is not real and I trust him more than """"""scientists"""""
>>81121473
Except there is no global warming and they have lost credibility.
>>81121599
It's called building a consensus among the scientific community.
Also, sage for obvious troll thread.
>>81121473
>OPINIONS
kek
yet all their models were proved wrong, fucking charlatans
>>81121473
>none of these add up to 100%
>>81121822
>Clovis First!!!
How's that consensus working out, sparky?
Unless you can understand simple climatology concepts like modes of variablility(ENSO/AMO/PDO/EPO..etc.), and the background climate of at least your own area, then you are unqualified to have any opinion on climate change.
Would I ask a Mcdonalds worker what his opinion is on quantum computing?
>>81121891
I agree with race being a determinant of intelligence because intelligence is in a HUGE part heritable, why do you think humans are so smart in general if we didn't inherit it? I also agree with anthropomorphic climate change, the evidence is far too strong to disagree. What now?
Authority fallacy does not apply at all. Most of these people could walk up to an oil company and double their supposed hush money overnight.
There never has and never will be an explanation of how /pol/ can believe the world is filled with dirty subhumans shitting all over themselves and polluting everything while also denying those dumbasses could be fucking the whole planet.
>>81122216
oh look, it's argumentum ad authoritam man
fallacy off you walking fallacy
>>81122309
>the evidence is far too strong to disagree.>>81121832
explain why all their models were wrong
>>81122314
China co2 emissions are falling. It's pretty much the most objective sign that their economy is on the verge of collapse. Can't sweep that under the rug.
>>81122054
confused_nigger.jpg
>>81121473
Human effect is, at most, comparable to a small asteroid or comet impact but drawn out over a very slow length of time.
Is this bad? Probably not, the climate is always changing, it always changes. To believe the climate was perfect before the industrial revolution (our benchmark for whatever reason) is retarded because we were and still are coming out of the little ice age.
Are humans causing climate change? Probably. Is this a bad thing? Probably not.
>>81122060
Science is a dialogue, and consensus shifts with new evidence.
You can be skeptical, but using a failed hypothesis as proof that the current consensus on climate change is outright wrong, is fallacious.
>>81121832
>Imma take all possible models I can find, regardless of assumptions, throw them onto one graph and then average them.
>AGW BTFO
That's real retarded, sir.
>>81121473
Then explain extreme climate changes on other planets, OP.
>>81122372
Not a fallacy. Hearing some of you guys talk about climate is like hearing the mainstream media talk about 4chan.
FYI: Global warming is real, but exaggerated to the point of meaninglessness.
>>81122430
Source on the image? Can't read shit on that graph, you should be ashamed for thinking that's clear enough to be argued against.
>>81121473
>yes goyim, give up all your rights in the name of global warm....i mean.. climate change yessssss
If you're going to post global temps, for the love of god at least use a good source like RSS or UAH. None of this NASA bullshit.
Yes, and most economists are fucking useless when it comes to predicting anything.
Who gives a shit that most "experts" think a certain way?
>>81122685
>consensus stifles new evidence.
FIFY.
For more than 50 years, anyone who dared to date an archeological site in the Americas older than Clovis technology was shouted down and professionally shunned.
Just as is happening to anyone who doesn't BELIEVE in Anthropogenic Climate Change™.
You can call that politics or religion, but not science.
REMINDER: In 2005 the UN predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1
>Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.
When it didn't come true in 2011 they tried to delete the statistics from the official UNEP website
>Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html
The "scientists" working on the global warming fearmongering scam are far-left extremists who believe in their radical anti-human green ideology where white western patriarchal humans are pure evil and 3rd world brown people and "mother nature" are always the good ones. They're not scientists, they're ideologues and they're going to do anything to manufacture a "environmental crisis" to blame on white people
>>81121473
>doesnt mention anything about degree of change
No one is arguing the climate doesn't change. No one is arguing that we dont contribute.
The argument lies in whether or not it is a negligible amount.
Come back when you have numbers on how many scientists believe the change is significant enough to give government control over the means of production
>climatology
physicist here, climatology a meme not a science. their predictions are based on completely untenable models and assumptions. Their predictions were always wrong so far. I have no idea how they keep getting away with it.
>>81122780
>take all possible models I can find, regardless of assumptions, throw them onto one graph and then average them
are you retarded? all 73 upper and lower bounds are on that graph
the observation were below ALL 73 lower bounds
this proves they are all wrong
yet you still believe?
>>81122866
when you say someone must be right because dey is all lerned n sheeit, that is appealing to authority
where is your data?
oh, that's right, you can't use that because ALL of their prediction models were wrong, and that proves you wrong, and so you must resort to fallacies
>>81122911
it's in C:\Downloads
>>81123065
>most economists are fucking useless
those charlatans claim stealing 2% per year off everyone and giving ti to borrowers is a good thing, yet there was hardly any inflation prior to 1933, and it always was reversed
>>81123248
didn't al gore predict the ice caps would have melted by now?
>>81121742
This.
Everyone assumes the human element is the most important part, when its just an equally big part. Yes, our actions do increase greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. These gasses do increase the temperature, but humans aren't doing it alone.
Natural events, such as wild fires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Does global warming cause climate change? In some cases, yes. But its all about asking the right questions, and not falling for the trap of "the sky is falling" alarmism.
>>81123248
>They're not scientists, they're ideologues
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, a former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France said: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1a566c5076fb
>>81123381
>are you retarded?
You don't get it, I was questioning the competence of someone that would produce a graph like that. Moreover no error bars. I'm a theorists, but even I know that's a shitty graph.
>>81121473
fresh oc just for you, pol
earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years
why is this still news?
>>81122465
Bullshit. The RATE of increase is falling. They're still building more coal stations and emissions are still rising.
>>81123778
have you read the AR5?
surely yuou can supply me with the data needed to falsify my claim, by simply listing which models were not disproved by observation
in fact, I'm surprised you didn't just do that straight away
>>81121473
Conspicuously missing: numbers offering no opinion
Shit data is shit
>>81123191
Scientists are human, too, and it's unfortunate that this happens, as science has to be as impartial as possible and not have an agenda.
But sometimes the scientific community is also the victim of this as well. If you recall, anthropogenic damage to the ozone layer was actually controversial for decades until the 80s and finally by the 90s, it was widely accepted that we are indeed damaging the ozone layer, and the ozone hole was caused primarily by CFCs.
>>81121473
>graph literally labelled "opinions"
yes even scientists are swayed by political agendas
>>81121553
ad hominem
>>81121599
shitpost
>>81121672
even worse shitpost
>>81121683
shitpost + selfaffirmation that you are smart even though, or probably especially because your lack of education
>>81121742
>slightly accelerate the process
>slightly
kek
>>81121781
kek
>>81121808
simply saying the other person is wrong doesn't win arguments son
>>81121832
flat out lying
>>81121891
tu quoque
>>81122620
Sounds like it was written by an actual 10 year old
>the climate is always changing, it always changes
Also again the "there always was climate change" argument which every single climate scientist agrees on
>>81122823
not sure if actually this dumb or sarcastic
>>81123248
>fallacy fallacy
climate scientists =/= UN you dumb fuck
>>81123380
Yeah the climate change has been a lot more servere and rapid than they predicted, good point fucktard
>>81123661
>Does global warming cause climate change?
Congratiulations, you posted the most retarded sentence of the day
If you ever get skeptical that human caused climate change is a problem look at the people denying it
>>81124043
Pic related (from 2009) it tracks quite nicely with Hansen C, this was in 88. The models aren't the problem, it's nailing down a few values to a reasonable accuracy.
>in fact, I'm surprised you didn't just do that straight away
I tend not to engage with these kinds of arguments since most, if not all of the people, in these threads have very little background ground in science and can't really appreciate the finer points of assumptions and errors. It's really a damming indictment on the state of education, particularly when so much of the modern world revolves around a sound understand of maths, science and economics.
>>81125428
Why don't you read/research before you post, shit for brains.
Earth has milder weather than most planets, that have much more extreme patterns...no men up there.
>>81124459
>Scientists are human, too
This is why science is a process and not a belief.
When predictions repeatedly fail, and evidence is discarded or altered because it doesn't fit the concensus, you no longer have science.
That's when you get priests and missionaries constantly asking people if they "believe" in Climate Change, and screeching "Denier!!" at those who disagree.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of Holy Climate Change Inquisition soon.
>>81125428
>ad hominem
I'll give you ad hominem if you want it, you fucking cunt.
>>81125428
>that one guy who just spouts fallacies instead of actually trying to counter arguments
>>81125719
>I tend not to engage with these kinds of arguments since most, if not all of the people, in these threads have very little background ground in science and can't really appreciate the finer points of assumptions and errors. It's really a damming indictment on the state of education, particularly when so much of the modern world revolves around a sound understand of maths, science and economics.
Even worse, some people which are also in thread somehow think science is propaganda. Education is indoctrinating people with false claims.
>>81121473
I believe in it, but I doubt it's that bad
>>81121473
Yeah and ISLAM IS RELIGION OF PEACE. WE NEED ISLAM WITH ALL THE PEACE TO HELP WITH ALL THE GLOBAL WARMING. IGNORE C02 LEVELS AT ONE POINT HIGHER THAN BEFORE HUMANS WE DID DID IT JUST LIKE ISLAM IS PEACE
>>81125719
are you fucking retarded?
a miss is as good as a mile, why post a graph that proves your model wrong?
>most, if not all of the people, in these threads have very little background ground in science and can't really appreciate the finer points of assumptions and errors
wow, your full of yourself huh?
I wonder how many people in this thread are being payed by Big-Oil to deny climate change as hard as possible.
>current year
Not an argument.
>>81122169
the plants must be happy and growing tall
>>81125851
Tell me, which one of the posts i replied to had an argument other than
>scientists are lying
>climate change is normal, humans have no effect
My goal was not to forever prove climate change exist, but rather point out that the vast majority of skeptics are really really stupid. I know, this doesn't proof man made climate change on it's own, but it's important to notice
This guy for example
>>81125782
I never said there doesn't exist climate change on other planets. Neither did anybody else deny this or that there are natural climate change phenomenons on earth as well.
The whole point is that the climate change we are witnessing right now is a lot faster and more intense than it should be, and that the reason for this is human pollution.
Do you think you are the first person to realize there is climate change on other planets?
Shows how little you know on the topic. If you ever actually informed yourself on the topic you would know that climate changes constantly.
We even go through one cycle every year specific to your location, you noticed that?
>>81125823
you should do, cunt. I heard he said your're mum fucks emus for durries and schooners!
>>81126629
great post, congratulations on wondering, top marks
>>81126629
>deny climate change
Heretics! Blasphemers!!
>>81126968
mehmet, give it up, you'll never be a german
now, since you accused me of lying, can you supply a list of those cmip 73 models which were proved right by observations?
>>81126968
Nothing but gibberish. You did not even acknowledge climate changes on other planets in your first response to my post, indicating you are lying. Get outta here, kid.
The general consensus is regarding the existence of human influence, not the validity of doomsday predictions or agreement on the same model.
You can accept that humans have a non-trivial influence on the system without claiming every 5 years that the world is ending in the next 5 years.
>>81127935
>You can accept that humans have a non-trivial influence on the system without claiming every 5 years that the world is ending in the next 5 years.
How else are they supposed to get money for dem programs?
>>81127180
> 3 bongbucks have been added to your account, courtesy of The Oil for Science Association
>>81121683
>he still doesn't realize that scientists are little more than 21st century clergy
>>81129508
fuck off marxist gommie cuck
at least purchasing from oil companies is FUCKING VOLUNTARY, unlike the 50 FUCKING BILLION yankeedoodleshekels STOLEN from the people through taxes to fund corrupt biased doctored (((research)))
you fucking faggot
>>81129508
>he doesn't realize that scientists have a bias to publish results which will cause them to receive more funding
>he thinks unbiased research exists
top wew
>>81121473
> scientist cant create a repeatable experiment to prove his point on climat
> no problem - the scientific consensus will help
We all need to stop to fall for this science meme. The scientific grant system and the scientific journals system cant be further away from engineering and discovery than it is right now. Today it`s only a political brainwashing tool and a ad magica excuse for harmful school education.
>>81121473
>Climate and Earth Scientists
This is like asking priests if they believe in God.
>>81121473
>Not realizing that all of those people have financial interests in keeping the myth of global warming alive
< follow the money
>>81121473
>2016
>tries to bait /pol/ with "how can you not tust the government?"
>>81121473
there are also people who do not believe in race
and there are people who still believe in the holocaust
i believe in man made climate change, but i don't give a fuck, allahu akbar on nwo
burn more tires
Hell yeah! I love carbon taxes and carbon trading! There's no way that this scheme to tax people for their energy usage that's being pushed by a bunch of people with private jets and multiple mansions could possibly be another scam perpetrated on the relatively powerless.
>>81131061
/thread
>>81130769
This. Get back to me when scientists stop being globalist shills, OP.
>>81127504
>ad hominem
getting more credible by the minute paki
First of all, your image should be about 10 times that size if you want to use it as an argument, right now it's unintelligable crap.
Secondly i looked up what you are talking about, which funnily instantly let me some retarded conspiracy site which you so obviously got that image from
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
Did you read the actual article? The way they made that image is so hilariously misleading.
Not only did they pick out 1 single measurement, Tropical, mid troposphere temperature, but the way they alligned the graphs. Holy fuck
They took climate models, intersected them all in 1979 as 0. Now most relevant research hasn't been made before 1979, so these graphs are either from irrelevant models or they backtracked later predictions to what they have predicted in 1979.
Furthermore you coud've just picked 1 very hot year like 1979 (smaller climate cycle interfering, which is funnily also "debunked" in that article), where all the predictions lie under. So to intersect them you have to "raise" the models upwards, making them way to high in the future.
And what do we see? Temperatures fall after 1979, indicating an abnoramlly hot year.
What a coincidence they choose that year.
Really great image man, thank you. It's interesting to see just how they manipulate and misrepresent things.
Btw: That guy roy spencer that you seem to like was funded by Peabody Energy, a large coal company, which was revealed in documents after their bankruptcy.
>>81127886
I said you are retarded, because not only is climate change well known phenomenon on every celestial body with an atmosphere, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with earth
>>81130900
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4cb9BHpdhE
>>81131061
yeah, who could object to paying the government extra money?
gotrtsta get mo moneh fo dem progroms
>>81130184
Holy diminishing returns, Batman!
>>81131334
ad hominem is when I say "you are turk so therefore you are wrong" this is different from an insult.
you made your case of why you think the graph is incorrect, but humourously(for a gurkman), failed ot answer the question I asked you
if the claim is wrong, then provide the answer to the question:
>supply a list of those cmip 73 models which were proved right by observations
very simple
ITT: White people arguing like niggers when science tells them they'll have to give up or moderate anything.
>>81121473
We are just speeding up a natural progression. It will only really end in floodings, more heat and huge insects. Which honestly sounds like a pretty good time, senpai
>>81130184
>>81132756
>it has numbers on it so it must be true
>>81133923
>>81133923
this is the kind of climate change you should be worrying about
but why would you care about ethnic german childrens rights to have their own country?
>>81133354
It's so hilariously obvious you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. These are not the "cmip 73 models", you misread that. It's 73 models made by the cmip.
Which btw i just read up on, started making models in 1995. So i was correct. They took models that started after 79 and reverse plottet them to that year. Which is absolute nonsense.
Here is a better graphic. As you can see most models have underestimated the rise in temperatur and some were pretty spot on. So here are your correct models. But his won't change your mind, nothing will.
>>81135032
list the ones that were correct, i.e. born out by observation
>>81135032
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbdpXx-PHuM
so 1 degree a century is catastrophic?
not like there will be any ethnic germans, or brits, left in 10 0years
>Caring about climate change
I'll be long dead before it affects me in any negative way, even if the current trend continues.
Not to mention conflict breeds creativity. How do you expect nations to actually get off their asses and truly start the expansion of our species into the nether of space without have a compelling reason to do so (death of our world due to climate change is quite the compelling reason). I for one will do everything I can to help climate change on its way to destroy the world just so that humanity can strive to take our place among the stars, if nothing else.
Also you are all hypocrites if you say you will cut back on your power usage to help slow or prevent climate change. Not to mention that it wouldn't help anyways due to the increase levels of natural CO2 production that happens via bacteria and has a compounding effect. Arguing about stupid shit you can't control makes you look retarded, so congratulations OP you win retard of the year award for /pol/, and that is saying something.
>>81125719
>>>81124043
>Pic related (from 2009) it tracks quite nicely with Hansen C, this was in 88. The models aren't the problem, it's nailing down a few values to a reasonable accuracy.
You idiot. Scenario C was Stopping CO2 Emissions! Yet emissions went through the roof. Hansen failed miserably. Not that it will shake your faith in the slightest.
Now look at thee utterly failed predictions, Source: Dr. John R. Christy, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
>nb4 Schmidt and Nutter.
Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
>Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/
>>81125428
>I'm a paid shill
>Go Soros!
97% of tobacco company scientists say tobacco is safe. There's a consensus!
97% of government paid scientists say climate change is true. There's a consensus!
Funny, why do these "scientists" keep rewriting the temperature history?
>nb4 Hurr durr better measurements.
Nothing new is being measured.
>>81121473
There is a history of climate change throughout history. Scientists look at this information and come to conclusions, but there is very little experimental evidence to the conclusions.
As it stands, most scientist conclude that climate change is caused by humans. However, this is a consensus, not an actual fact. While a consensus is a strong indicator of truth, there was also a consensus that the world was flat and that the Sun orbited the Earth.
>>81121776
Oh fucking snap!!
>>81121473
#REKT
#REKT
#REKT
>Wikipedia dot com slash list of burn units in the USA
>>81122780
>damage control failure: the post
>>81121473
According to people whose livelihood depends on Global warming, global warming is not a huge Hoax.
Who could have guessed ?
>>81123939
Kek
>>81140213
thanks, will check out
