You can claim whatever you want but if you want to prove it you better have facts - Do you even science?

Go and sit with the Flat Earthers, kid. You're not welcome here.

Mostly because your evidence is wrong.

sage in all fields

File: americans.jpg (20 KB, 387x398) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 387x398

>>680951052

>>680951230
I can science you baby, I can science all night long.

File: JUICCEEY.jpg (6 KB, 200x251) Image search: [Google]

6 KB, 200x251

>>680951230
And of course OP doesn't have it.

People are tired of proving (relatively) stupid people wrong - because it's a lot of work - that's why you're not allowed to present.

>>680951230
The burden of proof is on you. You have to formulate the hypothesis, and present the data that proves the hypothesis.

Your hypothesis is that human activity, through the emission of CO2 has warmed the planet and, thus, modified the climate.

Now, do you actually have data to prove that? If you do, you need to organize them logically in a reasoning. Like a mathematical proof: A1 implies A2 which implies A3 and so on and so forth until you get to the conclusion (which should be your hypothesis).

Now, do you have that?

>680951719
yes, faggot.

>>680951411

>>680951719
Listen you absolute moron.

You've been shown that proof time and time again, it's right there for you to see in front of your idiot eyes. But for some reason you refuse to see it and believe it. You're just as bad as idiot religious lunatics.

We are sick and tired of presenting you with evidence and having you ignore it, then complain that there's no evidence. You can't blame us if we are done wasting our time trying to prove shit to idiots who are too dumb and ignorant to grasp the simplest of concepts when there's real important shit to be done.

Stop wasting science's time you fucking pleb and either find the evidence for yourself like we all did or simply shut the fuck up and let the adults work in peace.

>>680951230

CO2 can be used by plants.
Ice Age happened and then stopped without human interference, so climate change can happen without human involvement

>>680952122
>there's so much evidence

We'll present it then.

>no fleb you look for it

OP is a faggot

File: 4054880479_99b1cca441.jpg (76 KB, 500x375) Image search: [Google]

76 KB, 500x375

>>680951411
Lol nigger did you even do some research or did you just watch the al gore movie and started advocating a "scientific" theory like it was a religious revelation?
Look at pic related and explain to me how they know the climate change has antropological reasons this time.

>>680952122
>Listen you absolute moron.
Yes, this is how the debate begins. With me being called a moron, for nothing else than asking for evidence. Present the evidence, retard, and only then you can say whatever you want!
>You've been shown that proof time and time again, it's right there for you to see in front of your idiot eyes. But for some reason you refuse to see it and believe it. You're just as bad as idiot religious lunatics.
Do you actually have a fucking study? All I have is these cryptic wikipedia links that only show small evidence, that assure me of probabilities, not actual inferences, and some authority appeal by saying scientist on it.

You presented me with a lot of scientists, and no actual science.

>We are sick and tired of presenting you with evidence and having you ignore it, then complain that there's no evidence.
I don't think you EVER did that. And if you did, then just do it one more time.
By the way, if your evidence is some YouTube video, that has no references, then I'm not interested. I want to know everything. Where did they make the experiments, what the experiments show, what does that mean, everything!?

>>680952566
False information manufactured by Jews.

File: Global-Cooling-Graph.jpg (109 KB, 500x343) Image search: [Google]

109 KB, 500x343

>>680952122
>noooo muh believs
>i dont need to prove muh believs...al gore did
Sure buddy

>>680952624
>>680952789
>>680952922
>>680952566
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.globalissues.org/article/233/climate-change-and-global-warming-introduction
http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.Vxy16dQrLIU
:)

>>680952789
Yeah... but there are many reliable sauces( like remains of plants that grew in areas, that are too cold for it today )
Climate changes because the position of earth to the sun changes... co2 only has a really small effect.

>>680952624
Okay, one last time.
Do you know how to use Google at all? You've seen Wiki pages, did you bother to click on the citations and source pages? Evidently not. A simple search for "best proof of climate change" leads me to numerous articles from pretty good sources. But then you probably won't believe Nasa or their sources.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I mean seriously, this is meaningless to you?
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.Vxy2mUfGDKM

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.Vxy2mUfGDKM

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

Etc, etc, etc.
Don't just read the webpage, read the sources, search yourself if you don't believe something.
Watch lectures about it from reputed scientists, learn about how the climate works and keep an open mind, and you cannot possibly think it's a myth.

The problem is, I think you've persuaded yourself it's bullshit at this point, and once you've done that, even if the world ended you still wouldn't believe it.

>>680952305
Yes it can
Yes but humans are Jump-starting the process
Climate change happens no matter what but we are making it faster

>>680952922
This is possibly the most retarded and meaningless graph I've ever seen.

>>680953099
I never said the climate wasnt changing... i said it's a natural process and we can produce all the co2 we want... we still gonna be in an ice age if some cosmic circumstances lead to it. We shouldnt take our role in universe too important...

>>680952922
even fucking nasa disagrees with you, faggot
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
don't skim it, it's evidence you're wrong

Sage, ffs

Climate change deniers are worse than any radcal muslim or evolution denier out there.

It's scary how fucking stupid you'd have to be to stick to one single argument that's been proven false over and over again.

>b-but nature changes climate, we were heading for an iceage either way!!
>b-but it's cold outside now!!

>>680953933
>680952922
Buddy, there's no point in arguing with these people. Like I said, if they're not already convinced there's not a single fucking thing we can say to persuade them. We're wasting our time trying unfortunately.

>>680953941
If you know the rules so well, you'd probably hide that better ;)

>>680954173
Yes but it's colder than ever in my house, global warming can't be true.

And if it was true, then why are there still apes?

>>680953933
>nasa says something so it's gonna be real
Remember when the pope told ppl the earth was the center of the universe and everyone believed it? They even murdered ppl who disagreed... just because some kind of institution says something doesnt mean it's the truth.

>>680951052

The same is true for "scientists" who claim Creationism or flat-Earth.

The reason they aren't allowed to be scientists is because retards aren't capable of thinking scientifically.

One does not "believe" in climate change. One either acknowledges it or he is simply branded the fucking subhuman imbecile that he is. End of story.

>>680954491
>. just because some kind of institution says something doesnt mean it's the truth.
>because some kind of institution
You didn't even go to the link, did you? They have multiple sources and references there. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know what NASA is.

>>680954491
That's why we trust science and not the fucking Pope.

Remember when Gallileo told people the Earth was round and he was thrown in prison and other's were executed for heresy?

Just because you don't see the truth that doesn't mean it's not still true.

I don't see how any of this matters.

>>680954865
>>680954698
rip the newfag who said that NASA was just "some organization"

File: Thats a paddlin.png (114 KB, 400x289) Image search: [Google]

114 KB, 400x289

>>680951411

THIS. Holy shit this.

Since when do the votes of antiscience retards count in matters of science? Hell, I'M not a goddamned mathematician so I fully understand why I'm not allowed to have a say in what new formulas/math theories mean. I'm simply not qualified in that field.

Well these brainless Republican ninnies are not qualified to make any decisions related to climate science, thermodynamics, astrophysics or biology, so who the fuck gave them a goddamned vote? Sorry MORONS! You DON'T. GET. ONE.

Do you have ANY idea how badly societal progress would stagnate if we had to stop and listen to/counter every tinfoiling idiot's "theories" along the way?!

EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE MATTER OR JUST SHUT UP WHILE THE GROWNUPS ARE TALKING.

>>680954698
>cowfarts melt glaciers
Dude nobody is dinying that the earth is warming at the moment. It's just stupid to think it's because of our co2 output.... there are warming and vooling periods every few centuries or even decades. They were just as regular before humans even existed.

>>680951052

the patriarchy is real because 97% of feminists agree it is real

If you don't accept that the patriarchy literally rapes millions of women every day, then you're not allowed to be a feminist.

>>680952305
Did you know our planet had almost no gassious oxygen until some stromatolites started pumping out O2? It's like you're saying that "Because the climate can change on its own, it must now be changing on its own" but we know that we can change our own atmosphere, we're not even the first organism on this planet to do it! Your argument sucks, kid.

>>680952122

THIS!

>>680955133
By your logic, regular citizens shouldn't have a say in politics

>>680955272
The thing is, Scientists think this because there's proof of it. However, Feminists are drooling drones of the Matriarchy.

Holy shit, you fuckers are still talking about this shit

>>680953508
Do you have a comprehensive study, you know, like a book?
All this info should be compiled into a book. I'm not going to do it myself. I'm not going to do the compilation because I'm not a scientist. When will scientists do the compilation?
Where do I get the official hypothesis and the official compilation of evidence?
I don't want to analyze the links because they could be flawed. Where's their official version and why are there so many of them?

>>680954865
You idiots make science a religion. The most common thing in real science is to queszion things. In your fucking world it's heresy and everyone who doesnt follow the most popular scientific opinions is an idiot.... even ppl who are actively researching the topic. You ppl would have better stayed christians, because i doubt simple minds like you can handle the knowledge and use it in their lifes without advanced ethnic and morals education....

>ITT: "no one can have a different opinion than mainstream science!"

>>680955380

Depends on the issue.

"Politics" is not a science field but it's "workings" touch on certain scientific subjects. When it comes to those subjects (climate change, abortion, economics) you're GODDAMNED RIGHT I don't think brainless idiots and Fundie religiontards should get a say in what happens that affects us all.

File: Consider the following.jpg (73 KB, 300x301) Image search: [Google]

73 KB, 300x301

Climate change is as real as the atoms you breath in and out with every breath people. Cmon, this shit is settled.

A simple (very simple actually) way to look at the problem is like this: We are changing the chemistry of the natural processes that drive our environment, and therefore, its climate.

We can pump all the CO2 we want, yes... but we'll only be fucking ourselves in the ass if we do. The planet will be fine, but the animals and plants that depend on a stable ecosystem (animals like us) will not be fine. We need to address this shit if we are to continue living and prospering on this planet.

Why so much hate for facts that dont align with out preconceived assumptions? Its simple chemistry. Lets get over this shit already.

>>680951052
Politics and science go together hand in hand.

Politics care about money. More money to be made from claiming global warming.

>>680955566
Maybe we follow the "popular opinion.."
BECAUSE THERE'S FUCKING PROOF OF IT AND IT'S BEEN PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN. It's not the popular opinion, it's the THEORY. In other words, it's the closest to FACT you can get without getting to fact!

>>680955845
>*global warming has been proved by fucking nasa*
>the following arguments are meant to disprove this fact:
>obamer dun did it
>because some kind of institution
>al gore
________________________
>this fucking thread

>>680955566

1+1=2. this is what those of us with brains like to call a "fact".

Are there people out there who think 1+1 should be 6 instead? Probably. But who the fuck cares and why should it matter when the answer is already settled? People like to claim all postulates are created equal-- that "teach both sides" bullshit--that there's no such thing as a FUCKING STUPID point of view or an objectively wrong answer. Sorry, there is and there are. They may be fringe, but they're still there and they're still 100% wrong (and stupid). There's no point on dwelling on the morons who hold those 1+1=6 views any further than it takes to have a good laugh at them.

>>680954491
That's the point, NASA didn't just say it! NASA funded researchers to perform studies, gather evidence, analyze them, and reach the most supported conclusion if one exists. Climate science gets more consistent results than Viagra, yet you somehow know that we're all making up exactly the same story for no apparent reason? That's ... Impressive.

>>680955679
But 'educated' liberals should? I think it should be all or nothing. Either citizens have NO say at all in politics (I.e monarchy) or COMPLETE control (I.e direct democracy).

Yes, I am a man of extremes but I don't think science should force policy. If people want to burn gazillion tons of coal and make the Earth black, they should be allowed. Those people's neighbors (along with themselves) will be held accountable if it turns out that harming the Earth is bad.

>>680951052
>So, I'm not allowed to present evidence that climate change is false...
A GoOgle search for climate change and hoax got me over 100,000 results.

>>680956175
So because you think that it's black and white, there should be no greys?

>>680955566
This is the most ironic post ever to befall 4chan.

Science is not a religion, but I can understand why you say such nonsense. It's because you have to justify the fact that you've got nothing in this argument, makes you feel better if you can just say "well these people are ignorant and full of blind faith."

Seriously, yes, science questions things and that's important. But once something is IRREFUTABLY PROVEN we can stop questioning it, because to do so would be a WASTE OF TIME.

It's not that complicated.

>>680951052
>disagree with climate change, can't be a scientist
>only 97% of scientists accept it is real
y isn't it 100%?

Anon: 1
OP: 0

File: op_is_a_faggot.jpg (58 KB, 685x474) Image search: [Google]

58 KB, 685x474

>>680956330
Shit. Didn't notice that.

>>680956330
Because that only happens on tv you stupid shit

>>680951052
>I'm not allowed to present evidence that climate change is false
[citation needed]

File: 1458432767732.gif (638 KB, 357x362) Image search: [Google]

638 KB, 357x362

>>680956449

>>680956175

Anyone who's educated on the subject should have a valid vote, regardless of their political alliegances.

Authentication for the right to have a say should be research and understanding of the subject matter, period.

Should someone who knows nothing of science be a science teacher? Of course not. So why should the people who get to decide the direction ACTUAL working science goes in society be given ANY right to vote on it?

File: 1451661566286.jpg (58 KB, 344x291) Image search: [Google]

58 KB, 344x291

>>680956449

>>680956330

He's doing the same thing Faux News does to manipulate numbers and exploiting the Margin of Error for a full subtractive value.

>>680956455
I laugh when people complain like that. What that really means is "my evidence sounds stupid when you argue against it so effectively. It makes me not want to present it if I know I won't immediately win the argument."
That's why I so often ignore people

>>680956269
There can be 'greys' but they should be defined as 'greys' not "someone in between"

>>680956585
Who determines what is enough research and understanding?

>>680956307
It's prettymuch a religion when you believe humans will one day figure everything out with it, that it will answer every question there is to answer

File: 1311789752353.jpg (89 KB, 473x700) Image search: [Google]

89 KB, 473x700

>>680956266
"Results"

>>680956835
Jesus christ you're stupid, do you know what an analogy is?
Ok, so you think there can be reds and blues, so therefore your claim is that you either like red or blue, and other shades, purples, etc don't exist.

>>680951719
Yes, we do. Go read the IPCC report.

>>680955454
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Atmospheric-Chemistry-Daniel-Jacob/dp/0691001855#reader_0691001855 chapter 7 you moron

>>680956911
97% of scientists.

>>680956624
No seriously, scientists working on the same team on the same project won't agree on everything. 97% is a very high number. If you didn't know this, I'm not sure what scientific experience you have or why you're commenting right now. Ameture hour was last night, dude.

>>680957027
I'm saying you shouldn't call shades of purple "mixes of red and blue" because that is too ambiguous. Same with

>>680956130
If you really thing the antropoligical climate-change is prooven like 1+1=2 xou are a reatard.
>>680955921
As long as it is a theory it is not proofen. You'd call it a fact then.
>>680956307
Show me the proof theb that the co2(we produced) in the atmosphere is capable of warming our own planet. If you cant, just proofe me that our climachange differ in any way from the many climate changes the earth been though in the last 5million years.
Dont send me an artice that doesnt even touch the topic

>>680952922
I wonder what the graph looks like if you extend the time axis :^)

File: 1460130390096.jpg (59 KB, 919x720) Image search: [Google]

59 KB, 919x720

>>680957062
You're being trolled.

>>680951052
Well what is your evidence?

>>680957087
What about the other 3% of scientists? And, if I may ask, is that 97% figure all scientists or the ones who actually study climate change?

>>680957134
sorry mate, we are talking about the religion of science right now. that means disagreement isn't allowed. now fuck off from our clergy, we are busy worshipping Richard Dawkins pen, for it is truthful and mighty.

>>680953870
quiet you...we can't have your kind of thinking get in the way of some peoples' goals to have absolute control over how everybody lives...

>>680951052

MAX.jej this same exact study some feminazi pasted Jeanine Garafolo's face on doesn't show those scientists agreeing that the cause is anthropogenic

File: venus.jpg (29 KB, 325x325) Image search: [Google]

29 KB, 325x325

>>680951719

This is the planet Venus.

It's atmosphere is CO2-based and it is the HOTTEST PLACE IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM despite being further from the sun than Mercury.

Don't think too hard here, your frail brain might pop.

>>680951052
Don't you think that it's funny that the few scientists who dont accept climate change are the ones being paid by the oil companies?

>>680956725
[citation needed]

>>680956835

Welp, that proves that you don't even fucking know what "grey" is...

>>680956966
Except I don't think that, and I don't think any reputable scientist would say we will ever figure everything out. The more we discover, the more questions arise.

Okay let's just put it this way then;
Let's say for a moment that you are right, and global warming is a myth, the world will do what the world will do, the climate might change or it might not and we are not having any great impact on our planet.

So, what, we continue to consume the Earth's resources as this rate, doing no harm and just getting on with it. Natural resources are not infinite. We're still going to run out of oil eventually and what then?

Surely it makes sense to pursue other avenues regardless of global warming, no? Do we want to continue to live this way and keep raping the planet, or do we want to have a more natural solar/wind/whatever powered society and run our cars on a more natural fuel, find alternate ways to power our lifestyles and generally do things better and improve how we live through progress?

We have absolutely nothing to lose by doing this regardless, and if we don't then we have potentially everything to lose. So what's the problem exactly?

File: 1457672249037.jpg (48 KB, 535x466) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 535x466

>>680957312

>>680957298
I don't think you know what a Scientific Theory is. In a scientific context, a hypothesis is an educated guess that has no proof. A theory is a hypothesis that has gotten so much proof and only has small faults you could only find if you were cherry-picking.
Look for evidence yourself you lazy tiny-dicked dumbass http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>680957298

>If you really thing the antropoligical climate-change is prooven like 1+1=2 xou are a reatard.

>prooven
>reatard

oh,lawdy.

>Climate Change proven like 1+1=2

It actually is, you fucking mooroon.

>>680957298
>As long as it is a theory it is not proofen.

Another uneducated pleb who doesn't understand what the word "theory" means in the scientific sense.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

>>680951052
no scientists think climate change is false you dipthong

its weather or not humans are the cause.
some people think that carbon emissions are causing a chain reaction that is spiraling to an overall increase of global temperature, and other people think that the variables involved are more complex than that and the warming of the planet is part of a natural sequence of events that humans are having very little effect on.


the whole issue is that the us government hired a team of scientists to prove that humans were impacting climate change, they did, and now more science needs to be done to definitively prove that humans are the primary cause.


either way the assumption by society that humans are causing climate change will only force us into making plans and technologies geared to adaptability. we have to wean off of fossil fuels eventually, and its better that we do it now so it doesnt have as big of an impact when we run out. because we will run out, and pretty soon too if populations and electrical demands grow according to the generally accepted predictions as they have been for decades.

Christ this thread is autistic. You guys are whining like schoolgirls because other people may or may not believe different things than you on an anonymous imageboard.

>>680957461
Kek

OP is right, if climate change is real explain why it gets so cold all the time.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

>>680957298
>Show me the proof theb that the co2(we produced) in the atmosphere is capable of warming our own planet.
The oil companie's own documents show that they knew this was the case in the 1940s, its a matter of public record now, I suggest you take a look.

>>680952789
I'm confused. Are Jews for climate change, or against it?

File: 1024px-The_green_house_effect.png.png (338 KB, 1024x713) Image search: [Google]

338 KB, 1024x713

Chevron's stance on man-made climate change:

>Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs contributes to the rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs contribute to an increase in global temperature.
https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change

Conoco Phillips' stance on man-made climate change:

>We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.
http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-development/environment/climate-change/Pages/default.aspx

Exxon-Mobil's stance on man-made climate change:

>We know enough based on the research and science that the risk is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2014/03/31/managing-climate-risk/

Shell's stance on man-made climate change:
>CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies.
http://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html#vanity-aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zaGVsbC5jb20vZ2xvYmFsL2Vudmlyb25tZW50LXNvY2lldHkvZW52aXJvbm1lbnQvY2xpbWF0ZS1jaGFuZ2UuaHRtbA

Get cucked, science deniers.

>>680957298

Gravity is a theory. Unfortunately, I don't see your dumb ass floating away any time soon


Theory1 - A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is propounded or accepted as accounting for known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory2 - a hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis; conjecture, speculation; an idea or set of ideas about something, an individual notion or view.

--Oxford English Dictionary

Theory1 is the scientific and logical flow-oriented definition and basically means we know it's there, we just can't use it as a control in an experiment due to invalidity or inadequacy of testing apparati. Gravity is a theory. Time relativity is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory. The only reason these things aren't laws or principles is because there is no way to conduct an experiment with them as the control variable. They are STILL fact.

The version that idiots who don't understand this concept use is Theory2. It's a base conjecture or a glorified idea with nothing backing it. The scientific equivalents to watch out for are "postulate" and "hypothesis".

STOP mixing up the two. It makes those who do look even dumber than they actually are..

>>680953870
Prove it.

>>680958074
don't forget Nasa's stance on man-made climate-change
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>680951052
Yeah also smoking doesn't cause cancer and sugar doesn't make people fat.

Scientists can be paid to push agendas, they are also humans.

>>680957298
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+carbon+dioxide+effects+global+warming

>>680958020
tide comes in, tide goes out.

>>680958144
Last ice age was ended by what? Human CO2 production?

>>680958246

*affects.

>>680951052
China celebrates today that they can now send stuff around the poles. Because ice is gone. Simple

>>680952624
>>680952122
>>680955454
damn man, you're getting fucked.

>>680957434
Probably just the ones who study climate change, lol. What kind of question is that. The chemist has no idea, so they're not asked.

>>680958302
No, but that doesn't make it any less true that humans can change the heat of the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide into it. My daughter goes to an elite home-school and they teach you that global warming is true there. If it weren't factual, why would they teach it in elite schools? Also, they have sources and citations there. I think you should do some research :)

>>680958502
they are on fox

>>680951052
This was good bait. Very good.

>>680957509
temperatur from planets does not depend on the distance

>>680958230

>scientists pushing agendas

What about Oil corporations who have the most to lose? >>680958074
Even THEY have admitted man-made climate change is real. You've simply been cucked by a certain political ideology and you're childishly refusing to admit you're wrong.

help me out here please, guys:
>>>/s4s/4361270

>>680958302
That's not proving anything.

>>680958698
It's definitely a major factor

>>680952922
scaling you whore. mankind has been longer alive than since 1998 you retard.

>>680952624
references at the bottom.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

>>680955716
Yes, pollution is a problem, with human causes. ...Climate change is a related, but separate topic.
Humans can address the pollution problem and it will have an affect on climate change, but no matter how we address the issue of climate change we will only ever be the strength of the proverbial piss trying to put out the fire. In other words, humans aren't that bad we just need to continue addressing the issue of pollution. the planet will continue it's billions of years decline in temperature

>>680958572
>elite schools
Wtf is that? You pay exorbitant amounts of money for your kid to learn how poor conclusions are drawn? They teach all kinds of non factual things in schools ie. Religion

>>680958698

So....basically.....you just claimed that the sun is not a source of heat.

Yeah....um....

>>680958829
were actually overdue for an ice age. were in the longest inter glacial warm period in recorded geological history

File: 1453119737984.png (402 KB, 700x700) Image search: [Google]

402 KB, 700x700

>>680958730

Here ya go, mate.

>>680958829
The temperature is rising though. BOOM

>>680951052
Read a book.
http://www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/2#3

>>680958902
Elite schools are the ones where your kids are actually taught something. Like I said, I examine the citations and references they have in the lessons. A few of them are from NASA.

File: 1461499137162v.jpg (86 KB, 500x695) Image search: [Google]

86 KB, 500x695

>>680952566
Your own graph proved you wrong my nigga by still including just the period you want to ignore.

>>680958074
>To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together.

Translation "Government is going to pay us gobs of your tax money to perform more 'research' that supports this political agenda, we'll gladly take it, and any new regulation helps protect us from competition by raising the barrier of entry into our industry. Hell, there's a lt of money to be made in 'research grants' so long as they give the right answers".

>Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2

Translation "Our corporation is owned and controlled by a bunch of international Jew communists. We're doing our part to bring about the 'Great Work' and we'll use any boogeyman we can dream up to get you rubes to go along with it."

You are such a naive child.

>>680958134
>Gravity is a theory.

Then why is it called "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitaion"?

>>680953870
the average surface temperature has risen .85 degrees C in the past 132 years. This is by far the highest rate of change in temperature in earth's history. I'm pretty sure that's not caused by "some cosmic circumstances."

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

>>680958752
Neither does 20 years of data when you're trying to extrapolate 100,000 years of data

>>680951052
that's because it politics not science.

Do you know what thermal radiation is you retard?

>>680953741
How is it meaningless? The graph shows carbon levels rising over time, yet temperature is decreasing.

Believers of climate change, man-made climate change, believe that carbon output is what's causing temperatures to rise. This graph proves carbon is not causing temp. to rise. It's something that man made believers seem to ignore whenever I or anyone else brings this very simple fact up.

If carbon emissions are always rising, why isn't the temperature along with it?

>>680951230
first post and already a faggot.

>>680959116
Because it's a theory AND a law of the universe.
I like how you ignored all the other posts in reply to you, faggot.

>>680959116
Gravitational theory :^)

>>680951719
the next faggot.

>>680959223
>>680958903

>>680952122
faggot part three. if you're so right then why are you so angry?

>>680951052
I know this is bait, but while you retards are denying this shit and holding everyone back from making changes, the ice caps are fucking melting at a staggering rate. Scientists have already said that at this point we can't even stop it, and you fucks want to make it worse because let me guess, you're political beliefs are radically conservative so of course you have to believe what they tell you. What would you call a person who sells out their species?

>>680959180
I mean, works better than you just talking shit to annoy people.

>>680959116
>Then why is it called "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitaion"?
That is the law is the formula for calculating it. A theory is for explaining it, as it is the worded text of the observed mechanism.
Will it explain how electricity can create heat or a magnetic field or light or whatever if I just say "Ohm's law, R=U/I is all you need to know my man."? Exactly.

>>680951052
Bad science is using evidence to prove that your own theory is correct and then assuming every other possable theory is incorrect.

Good science is using evidence to prove every other possable theory incorrect, thus leaving only one true answer.

Great science is good science repeated 100 times.

Thats why when you see studies in the news by this group or that group, its usualy bullshit.
Funny how your average idiot will completely lap up any studys results just because their one test made the news.

>>680959072
I'll bet you they literally teach what they know and nothing else. Teachers are not as intelligent as you think no matter where they teach. That's why they're teachers and not in the real world.

Tldr; teachers teach what they want not the whole picture. PC ultimately rules

>>680951052
as a scientist, i don't believe anything i find on the internet, including theses. there are bots that produce false theses, so yeah. Real scientists will never say something without evidence backing them up, but you need always have a broad mind, i personally believe the climate is going to shit, because of all the pollution (mainly plastic) killing the seas and so killing all the oxygen producing organisms. The oxygen levels are decreasing each year and that is a fact.

If you say climate change isn't real, back it up.
Co2 in itself does not stay in the atmosphere for long because of plants and rain, If humanity would stop producing co2 levels would start to drop immediately. But co2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. factories are producing far worse greenhouse gasses.

Also even if you don't believe in global warming, do you want to live in china's levels of pollution where you need to wear a gasmask all time?

>>680959424
You have literally no arguments against his claim other than calling him a faggot. GTFO, this thread is for a debate, not hopeless faggotry.

>>680955716
If this is settled, why is it that the emission of CO2 is always rising but the temperature, globally, does not?

>>680959487
>the typical climate changer response
Enjoy the corner I stuck you in pleb

>>680951052
You're not allowed to present evidence according to whom? I am pretty sure climate change is straight up fact at this point but if you were to have evidence to the contrary it would be the scientific community's responsibility to hear you out.

Also all the carbon in the air is fucking the oceans too. It's turning into carbonic acid and bleaching reefs.

>>680959532
I don't teach the kids. It's an online school C: faggot

File: 1458993525513.png (190 KB, 620x465) Image search: [Google]

190 KB, 620x465

>>680959116

>muh laughable conspiracy theories

Governments aren't going to give away money to those oil companies, they are going to impose carbon taxes on them and give money to their clean energy competitors.

You have literally no evidence to support your position so you have to invent conspiracy theories in a vain attempt to dismiss airtight evidence. You're hopelessly cucked to a delusional ideology. Stop being such a child and admit you're wrong.

>>680959448
sad but true. In a few hundred years all the deniers will find to their dismay that they cannot eat, drink or breathe money.

>>680959688
You never said anything of substance to begin with, so you get my balls.

>>680959228
Because that's not how it works. I'm not a scientist so don't quote me on this, but from what I understand... you wouldn't see that sort of correlation on a graph like that. It's not a steady climb getting hotter and hotter every year, it's a build up of emissions getting trapped and eventually it reaches a tipping point.

This graph is not scientific in the slightest and leads to false belief when people don't understand how climate change happens.

It's like me making a graph showing how angry I am compared with how many posts are in this thread. You wouldn't see me getting angry on the graph, but eventually I see some post which pushes me over the edge and suddenly all the rage which I've been hiding explodes like a volcano.

I hope I explained this in a way you understand because it's very important you realise how useless that graph is.

>>680959786
Elite online school? This must be some really accredited facility.

You stupid unbelievers !!!

CLIMATE CHANGE IS FUCKING REAL.

But it's not caused by CO2. And the climate is changing all the freaking time....

>>680960020
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.newfag

>>680954674
and you expect me to believe the shit that comes out of your mouth when if I disagree with you I get called names.
doesn't make you sound believable or intelligent.
maybe that why you believe so people will think you're smart.

>>680960050
It's caused by CO2 AND Humans. Stop fucking lying.

>>680954865
nice reasoning

>>680960146
Have you been ignoring the whole thread? Very rarely does anyone here get called names. We're giving you proof, but no, you just HAVE to ignore it. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>680955163
you're stupid if you think it can be fixed with politics or money.

>>680960146
You proved to him you're not a drooling retard and are capable of staying on topic, well done.

>>680955336
nice way to show you're stupid.

>>680955163
And we're also experiencing the highest rate of warming in the last few thousand years, while also being the longest we've ever been since an ice age. :^)

>>680951719
>Now, do you actually have data to prove that?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

People like you are fucking obnoxious. You're not a fucking scientist, you don't collect data, so your opinion isn't valid and no one fucking cares about your opinion because it isn't fact.

>>680959951
I understand what you're saying. You're saying that one day the atmosphere is just going to explode or something similar. Whatever bad is going to come from man made climate change, it's going to happen all at once, and we won't notice the effects until it's all over. Kind of like how Christian wing nuts say you better believe in Jesus or one day he'll murder you all in the rapture and you specifically won't be saved.

Yes I see what you mean, but think there would be evidence of a temperature rise or decrease if CO2 was causing climate change. Or a different greenhouse gas if you say CO2 isn't that bad. What are the other bad greenhouse gases?

You're trying to tell me that the next ice age or crazy hot warm period is just going to happen out of the blue. Well yes I believe that will happen, but gradually. Like it has in the past with the medieval warm period and little ice ages.

>>680959826
Those tiny nuts? The ones that can't wrap around the fact that you can't use 20 years of data from a fag to prove 100,000 years+ of climate data. Climate may be changing but science can't prove that it's by humans, we dump all of our time and resources into a garbage theory that we can't do anything to save. No different than someone trying to make a steam powered car in 2016. It's a lost cause no matter how you cut it.

>>680960535
It will matter when I vote your fucking shit down. And if you try to contradict me, I will say the same thing "You're not a scientist either, so go fuck yourself".

>>680960572
>evidence of a temperature rise
There is.

>>680958208
Whatever man, they tried to scare people with global cooling in the 70s, then global warming in the 2000s, and now it's climate change since the first two didn't pan out.

The whole thing is bullshit. You can't get funding by saying "everything's fine, we will continue to see dramatic shifts in the environment as long as this rock continues to hurl through space until the point it is engulfed by the sun."

Everyone wants to have a cause, whether it's dindoos, feminazis, or environmental alarmists.

>>680960395
How is he showing he's stupid?

>>680954865
>Remember when Gallileo told people the Earth was round

Holy fuck. If you are going to make an argument make the RIGHT argument. The Ancient Greeks knew the world was round and even knew how large the earth was.

I hope your AGW arguments are more accurate.

>>680960618
You get the balls. Sorry.

>>680960722
You can't deny climate change, since it's happening. lol. They're trying to argue it's not caused by humans, silly.

>>680951052
You are allowed to point to such evidence, if it exists. But that would be like pointing to evidence that you don't need a brain to survive. Technically such evidence exists, if you make the hypothesis vague enough. But the general scientific consensus is so strong, that it would be kinda dumb to do so.

>>680960618
Even if it is by humans so what? It's going to change to the point that we are all dead anyway, who knows if our changes are for the best or not?

I'm Canadian, let it warm IDGAF. Move the wheat belt north.

File: 65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg (59 KB, 800x485) Image search: [Google]

59 KB, 800x485

>>680958983
For real, dude. I know this :)

>>680959021
It rises and falls, sometimes at the same time! just depends how your using what data when

>>680952122
>implying any form of unbiased science goes on in /b/

>>680960273
you are the problem. I am on this site literally 16 hours a day. I read every thread posted by every anon. I know more about this site and the people that use it than you ever will. you are only here to be with the others in attempt to make yourself look important. your post is the same, I am stupid because I don't agree with you then you link to supportive information. you are worthless person please log off. there are better people than you who need to use this site.

>You can't prove it without statistics
>Those statistics aren't real
how do you win with these super autistics?

>>680960722
You know why?
>global cooling
too far away from the sun
>global warming
too close to the sun
>climate change
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>lol i think it'z scari tatcisc so your wronf xddddddddd

>>680960792
the greek knew the world was round because they ran tests of the same nature as gallileo, altho most primitive (a story of weels, sticks and shadows). Tho the church had full knowledge of those tests, confirmed by Gallileo, they decided to trust their holybook better and were wrong as fuck.

I hope it rings a bell

>>680960050
Agree. Not many here will understand. Our planet has and continues to have climate change. I mean come on all you dumb fuck - who the fuck caused the last ice age?? Dinosaur farts ? Aliens? Volcanoes can spew much more Co2 than humans. A volcano a few years back that erupted spewed in one week the amount of Co2 that all, yes all of humanity could cause in 5 years. Why don't the scientists report more about this? That's right - you can tax or control volcanoes. Yeah let's put a Carbon tax on volcanoes

File: Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg (17 KB, 500x312) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 500x312

>>680959228

>that graph dishonestly begins in 1998 because El Nino made that year unusually warm
>the graph is based on preliminary satellite data which has since been overruled by a consensus other satellites
>that graph is based on preliminary satellite data when surface temperature readings have been proved to be more accurate (and those surface readings have indicated consistent increase in temps)
>that graph is based on atmospheric temperature which only accounts for 3% of increased temps (the remaining 97% of heat goes into the ocean)

2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998. 2016 is on track to be the warmest year ever recorded. Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2015 is approximately 0.14 degrees C per decade.

>>680960792
Yeah the Greeks knew it before, so what? Sorry, did Gallileo NOT claim it was round and get thrown in prison? I didn't say he discovered it first you dipshit cock sucker.

Nice try though, shame you shot your own leg off.

File: happycamper.jpg (119 KB, 754x1009) Image search: [Google]

119 KB, 754x1009

>The Earth is flat and is located at the center of the universe.
>I'm not allowed to present evidence of this.
>Fails to provide evidence of said claim.

>>680960926
There are going to be drastic changes with or without humans. Worse changes than we could create if we tried. Human involvememt is a non issue

>>680961312
NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS

>>680961095
Oh PLEASE. Go read a fucking book.

The church objected to Galileo putting the sun in the middle of the solar system, not that the earth was round.

>>680961256
Global warming deniers = BTFO

>>680955454
>I don't want to analyze the links because they could be flawed. Where's their official version and why are there so many of them?

How can this not be a troll? The end goal for scientific research in a particular area isnt compiling a fucking book.

>why are there so many of them

Because there are many different scientists in many different labs approaching the problem in many different ways. They are all coming to, generally, the same conclusion. The differences between their studies and approaches are meaningful and important, and will guide future research in the area. That's how research works.

>source -- published research scientist

File: epica_CO2_temperature.png (12 KB, 720x240) Image search: [Google]

12 KB, 720x240

>>680961038
another graph, just to follow more recent time frames

>>680961329
A few billion humans is way more influential on our planet than you think. We're already acidifying our oceans with carbon emissions.

>>680951052
You are allowed to present evidence for consideration. But that evidence should be well documented, and preferably peer reviewed. The same goes for any postulation within science.

The reason your side of the argument gets scoffed at is that the greater scientific community has repeatedly shot holes in any such claims, utilizing tests and or other, more overwhelming data to the contrary.

So what evidence do you claim to have that's different than all of the other evidence which has been disproven?

>>680961508
Yep, onto the next issue alarmist guy

>>680960744
every thread is the same. it always devolves into name calling and the like. the posters in this thread only know what they have been told. they post their favorite link to the information they believe to be correct even though they really don't understand it. no one here is a scientist or an adult for that matter.

>>680961709
It's the same issue. :^)

>>680960618
>>680955163


Yes, the climate has changed before humans were around. And do you have any idea what caused those changes?

Greeenhouse gasses - CO2 and methane to be exact.

When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

>>680957509
Venus atmosphere is 97% CO2. Earths is .04%. In layman's terms for those like you who are not mathematically inclined this means 4 out of 10,000 on earth is CO, whereas on Venus it is 9700 parts out of 10,000. About 1/2400 as much. I can't believe that any of you dumbfucks even try this, or that any of you really believe it is a valid comparison.

>>680961709
kill yourself
it's fucking relevant to the conversation you dunmbazz

>>680952305
That isn't climate change. That's the normal pattern of temperature fluctuations.

Climate change is the artificial acceleration or alteration of the natural flow of events that leads to such natural (if sometimes extreme) shifts.

>>680961772
Acid levels = climate

>>680961077
>I am on this site literally 16 hours a day.
>you are the problem.
>I am on this site literally 16 hours a day.
>you are the problem.

this is why your opinions are shit you neurotic dipshit.
believe it or not some people like to use the VAST intellectual resources available to them via the internet and research their opinions.

>>680961751
There have been loads and loads of peer reviewed, cited, sourced links posted. If you choose to ignore it, that's on you.

>>680961403
sure kid.

>>680961263
Here you go you mincing faggot.
http://www.space.com/15589-galileo-galilei.html#sthash.z6TQOAQC.dpuf
Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei provided a number of scientific insights that laid the foundation for future scientists. His investigation of the laws of motion and improvements on the telescope helped further the understanding of the world and universe around him. Both led him to question the current belief of the time, that all things revolved around the Earth.
>that all things revolved around the Earth.
>that all things revolved around the Earth.

Post pics of shooting yourself in the head for being a moron.

>>680961256
Ok forget that graph. What about any of the million other graphs showing that the planet drastically changes over the course of a few thousand years? In terms of planets, 100-500 years of data is shit because it changes a little bit all the time i.e. the seasons.

To get an idea what's happening you need to delve into 1000-1000000 years worth of data, which is in a lot of these temperature graphs.

The piece of evidence that will always make me disbelieve the hype that is climate change for political reasons, is the fact just a few thousand years ago there was a little ice age. Before that there was a medieval warm period.

The planet changes always this climate change fad is just that, a fad. A lot of smart people have thrown around a lot of ideas and theories over the years and in our culture today we gloat and have massive hard on for fads and new cool beliefs. That's why this idea has so much traction. It's cool. See how crazy all the younger crowds are over climate change? Ill end my post and this thread with this. The THEORY of climate change.

>>680957517
Don't you think that it is funny that all warmists are paid by governments to support higher taxes? Don't you also think it is funny that these government paid mouthpieces want to use the power of government to make it illegal to refute their lies?

>>680961751
You're literally the worst person here. You assume that everyone here is a tiny-dicked faggot who doesn't know that they're spewing shit. Say that to NASA, Chevron, Shell, etc. Do you really think /b/ can't have an intelligent debate? You must like rekt threads.

>>680961095
Galileo wasn't arguing that Earth was round; everyone agreed about that since antiquity.

Galileo was about the Copernican model of heliocentric orbit. i.e. Earth orbits the Sun.

>>680961851
Are you slow?

File: china-rare-earth-toxic-lake.jpg (52 KB, 550x369) Image search: [Google]

52 KB, 550x369

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

About a quarter of a percent of CO2 released is down to human activity, I don't see how this can have much of an effect on the globe as a whole. Water vapour constitutes basically all of the greenhouse gases, and the mean global temperature is mostly influenced by the synchronization of axial tilt, orbital perihelion and lunar position in reference to the sun.

Another thing; how come the solution to global warming is always MORE TAX? A massive influx of green taxes won't solve this fictitious carbon problem, so why do so many politicians subscribe to this bullshit and push for more tax?

Pic related, it's the result of rare earth mining required to build solar panels and wind turbines. Does this even matter to anyone in the first world?

>>680961858
name calling is a sign of your vast intelligence.
what would the world do without you?

>>680961751
You're literally the worst person here. You assume that everyone here is a tiny-dicked faggot who doesn't know that they're spewing shit. Say that to NASA, Chevron, Shell, etc. Do you really think /b/ can't have an intelligent debate? You must like rekt threads. Get out of our debate thread, we don't need your type around here.

File: bush.png (7 KB, 204x247) Image search: [Google]

7 KB, 204x247

>>680961928
can you climate change denying fags please crawl back to the cave you grew up in

File: herro.jpg (4 KB, 78x103) Image search: [Google]

4 KB, 78x103

>mfw all you scientific illiterate faggots discuss which scientist to "believe"

>>680962079
>its hurts my feelings when people on SLASH BEE SLASH say im things.

way to go.
you sure showed me.

>>680961263
You have vague ideas about 'Galileo' and 'space' and 'the church' and 'Greeks', but you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>>680962031
>>680962031
I guess? Do you have a point or are you just going to hurl feces like the ape you are?

>>680961869
see another one of the "believe me or you're stupid" crowd.
you don't even understand what you are reading but you believe it to be true.
your response and it structure prove beyond a doubt you are the dumbest person in the thread.

>>680961077
>16 hours a day
There's your problem. You spend too much time looking at shota and rekt threads to actually research your opinions.

>>680962320
You didn't read it, did you? Any of it?

>>680962051
That's a bit disingenuous; rare earth minerals are used for much more than just solar panels.

>>680962004
you proved my point. you are a child based on your post. can't win call them names. I don't agree with you, I'm the worst person in the thread.

>229 replies
>78 posters
this thread is just samefags baiting and trolling each other

>>680962320
>Ppfft, just likes those climate change believers. Relying on evidence and studies.

>>680962320
When did he say you're stupid for not believing him? It's not even a reasonable inference to say that. You're just trying to make yourself look superior because you have no point in this thread anymore. You're the laughing stock. Deal with it.

I don't understand.

In who's interest would it be to fake climate change?

>>680962536
More like climate change deniers getting BTFO!!!!!

Global warming is a natural occurrence, prove me wrong.
>protip: you can't

>>680961928
Holy fuck you obnoxious twat.

I'm willing to admit I might be wrong about Galileo, I never claimed to be an expert, though I'm sure the black science guy told me something about it, inquisitions and stuff.

Does it make you feel better that I admit I got the exact fact wrong on an insignificant detail? I mean shit, my point still stands.

Now fuck off okay, you're right I was mistaken. You could have just educated me though instead of being a fucking child, there's enough of that going on already without your ego getting involved.

Post pics of your shit eating grin now you've won a minor argument on 4chan so I can jizz all over it.

>>680961928
unfortunately in the past there were varying degrees of understanding about the universe because the internet didnt exists. galileo did not invent the belief that the earth was round, he just challenged the accepted dogma.

as an example here is someone who was a heliocentrist almost 2000 years before galileo was born
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philolaus

>>680962651
The lizard government people who are in bed with big oil to take away our guns and destroy the planet by making people stop polluting.

>>680961941
>Ok forget that graph. What about any of the million other graphs showing that the planet drastically changes over the course of a few thousand years? In terms of planets, 100-500 years of data is shit because it changes a little bit all the time i.e. the seasons.

What you present here is not evidence, nor is it an actual argument that is to be discussed in a scientific manner. When you talk about climate science and argue that AGW is not supported by evidence, you post a bunch of graphs that you probably don't even understand yourself. You're missing a very crucial point in a proper argumentative chain here.

E.g., you state that atmospheric CO2, the carbon cycle and air temperatures have changed in the past (>100ka) way more than have in recent times - the point that is missing here is this: how is this related to today? What is the mechanism that drove these fluctuations in the past and how is it relevant today? How does the rise of XCO2 from 200ppm to > 400ppm fit into the scenario, if at all?

You may criticize the AGW narrative, which is fair to do, but posting a bunch of shit images without linking it to a scientific argument is nothing.
Because that's what the developers of AGW did, they presented the hypothesis and laid down a scientific argument with mechanisms, relationships and data.

>>680962521
no, you're the worst person in the thread because you're a pseudo intellectual who attacks everyone who disagrees with you.
love that hypocritical name calling
>child

>>680962564
really. cause all the butt hurt I'm causing proves otherwise.

>>680962675
What was the point you were trying to make?

>>680962890
Epik troll dude

global warming can not be proven scientifically. It would require multiple earths for reproducing the experiment.

>>680962654
Its because it's a heated debate and people are posting a lot. There hasn't been one post changing my belief that the sun is always growing in diameter and will completely engulf the earth's orbit at some point in the very distant future. For some reason this fact never gets brought up during these climate change arguments.

Also the simple fact when talking about ranges in the thousands of years, the planet has and always will drastically change in temperatures i.e. Little ace age and medical warm periods

>>680962722
This post would be funny if it were not actually a legitimate and fair summary of what science deniers actually believe.

>>680962051
>About a quarter of a percent of CO2 released is down to human activity, I don't see how this can have much of an effect on the globe as a whole.

Simple. Because plant respiration (the main source of CO2 fluxes) is driven by the carbon cycle, which we humans influence by steadily pumping out carbon into the atmosphere. The vegetation component of the carbon cycle is seasonal, where as our contributions continually rise.

>>680962483
But if we're going to replace all our power stations with these inefficient gizmos, that's going to probably deplete our resources for rare earth minerals.

>>680962692
You're confusing the idea of spherical Earth with the idea of heliocentric orbit. They are different things. The former does not depend on the latter.

File: inshock.jpg (40 KB, 730x663) Image search: [Google]

40 KB, 730x663

>2016
>people still fall for political propaganda
mfw people actually believe that climate change is happening because of humans

it's sad to see that the minority sees the bigger picture and mindlessly believes whatever they get thrown into their face. OP is on the right path, but he's doesn't see the connections yet

>>680962890
Because when I completely prove you wrong, I'm just butthurt. Good job.

>>680962664
I'll help prove your claim further. Little ice age and medieval warm periods prove you right. Climatefags never acknowledge these proven facts.