Can you redpill me about climate change?
Should I believe this co-founder of Greenpeace?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60
What paper liberals and jews play here?
Bump
I've been trying to understand this issue intimately, but it's all so complicated Conservatives say it doesn't exist, or is at least not human made, but what's there proof beyond
>muh 97% paid by guvment
>>55570723
>>55570225
http://berkeleyearth.org/ Group of skeptics findings on climate change.
>>55570949
Thanks. Though don't anyone be fooled into thinking this is endorsed by Berkley.
Moore. He's a sellout.
>In an interview with French filmmaker Paul Moreira, Patrick Moore claimed that drinking glyphosate was safe, then immediately refused to drink some himself when presented with the opportunity. The interview and Moore's refusal to sample glyphosate came on the heels of a World Health Organization study that found the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide is "probably carcinogenic."
While Greenpeace are largely over-politicised Moore has cashed in hard on his reputation. He is now a well paid consultant, not for his expertise but the fact that he was a 'founder' of Greenpeace.
Climate change is a natural factor. It is natural that the climate changes itself over certain time periods. Do you think we had the same climate 500 years ago? Hell no
Climate changes it is natural and nothing to worry about. However the media and all those fucks think it´s gonna kill us and the poles are melting. I say bullshit.
They provide us with some climate data which was collected over the last 100 years.
However, 100 years is just too little to even consider any major climate changes. 100 years is nothing to this old ass planet earth.
So in order words, there is too little evidence to even consider a real climate change.
>>55570225
I cannot offer you any redpill on this but if you want to an explanation to most of the commonly raised arguments against man made climate change, here is concise
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
tl;dr it's almost certainly man made. The accumulation of co2 is of a specific isotope produced by burning fossil fuels. The greenhouse effect is real and demonstrable and the temp is rising. While other factors can affect change, none of them are attributable to the current situation. So while it could be a completely unknown factor that we're yet to discover, the current model fits.
>inb4 models have all been wrong
>inb4 pause in warming
>inb4 NASA conspiracy
>>55570949
lmao
holy fuck
this board truly is dead
>>55571442
Kill yourself.
Fucking moron.
did they not teach you how the greenhouse effect works in school?
does your dumb ass know what co2 is?
>>55570225
Climate change is real but it's mid/long term effects are unknown.
It's possible that the climate changes into something that's slightly unpleasant rather than the doomsday predictions jews have given us.
Anyway, OP here
Do you have infographics about this issue?
>>55571697
>did they not teach you how the greenhouse effect works in school?
>in school?
> school?
Dude get the fuck out of here. You really think that co2 bullshit is really a danger to this planet lol. Get your head out of your arse and read some wise books. I suggest Behold a pale horse by W. Cooper.
>>55571721
I don't think anyone lucid denies that the climate of earth is dynamic in nature. What most people take issue with is whether human industry is the factor responsible for it.
>>55570225
Climate change is real.
Man-made global warming plays little, if any, significant role in it the earth's climate.
Obviously you don't want to breathe in chemicals and shit, but the U.S. really pushed the "clean energy" initiative to subsidize new types of energies to punish the Saudis for 9/11 and prevent Russia from expanding into the arctic, which they did anyways.
>>55570225
Fine. Make me post it again.
Daily reminder:
* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.
* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.
* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. (Pic related.)
* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.
* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.
* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."
The more you know.
>>55572742
>* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
I see this one a lot. Source me up.
>>55573049
>>55573258
>>55573258
>>55573385
Will get to these in a second but would really appreciate a source on the 1.2C bit.
Have tried muh google.
Regardless of climate change, were causing major environmental damage. Scientists talk about the anthropocene extinction as an extinction event rivalling the big ones we all learn about. CO2 increases could just as easily be caused by massive deforestation as by industrial fumes. We don't live in a bubble, so this all could have major impacts on us.
>>55573525
Get the African and south American niggers to stop cutting down trees. Tell India and China to stop pumping shit into the air, teach the avaerage retard at a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb and that nuclear power is the most efficient means of power generation now.
>>55573860
easy enough on paper huh? The amount of disinfo propagated, particularly by a couple of contributors at Forbes and the Daily Telegraph make it all to easy to create the idea that the science is bullshit.
