Is clime change, global warming real?
If so, is it caused by humans?
Yes
Partially
Yes
Contributing factor
>>69000669
B8 thread. What are you sliding?
>>69000757
Im in between, caused by humans but the major change is natural
>>69000669
>Is clime change, global warming real?
Yes
>If so, is it caused by humans?
In part
But is it actually a bad thing? That's the question.
It's not
Climate is always changing
The hockey stick shit was circlejerked about because of a flawed methodology in the analysis
The scientists literally altered their study to find a suitable conclusion
Not many people know this. Also it's a scheme for greenies to make money off of solar, wind, etc
>>69000000
I ate Mexican food the other day and now I have wicked gas.
My contribution to global warming has doubled today. I'm sorry Bernie. ;_:
Don't take the evidence meme; theories are just theories just look at gravity.
If you deny climate change you deny all the evidence for it verified by pretty much every scientist. That should be illegal.
>>69000669
Yes
Unsure of how big a role humans actually play in climate change
>>69000669
This video took away some of my skepticism, but I can't help but to notice the number one contributors to co2 are leftist states and countries. So how can we convince liberals to cut down on their energy consumption?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04&list
>>69000669
Climate change is simply natural. Us humans are just accelerating it on a tiny scale. The climate change will be reversed in a thousand years, pal, don't worry!
>>69000669
yes climate change is real.
humans are a large part of it, probably like a good 65% of it.
>>69001444
I think climate change is real for sure, but there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of it(or anything really)
Skepticism is GOOD, and only a shill would say otherwise
>>69000669
It's real.
It's natural cycle.
It deals both Harsh Colds and Harsh Heat.
We sped it up some.
>Green energy will be the future due to resources tapped dry, by then our green house gasses and previous years of using such pollution will not have meant shit to mother nature
the planet regulates and excess co2 through plant life, since co2 is essentially plant food it increases the prevalence of plant life around the world thus increasing the amount of co2 turned into oxygen.
>>69000669
Yes.
However, /pol/ and a lot of right wing people believe it isn't necessarily what the green people think it is. Technically, the earth is warming up since it wasn't too long ago we had the ice age. At least that is one theory. People are affecting the warming, however, especially with the refrigerants that destroy the ozone. The issue is this, is this a problem that NEEDS to be addressed or are we "in the clear". It won't be much longer now until fossil fuel cars start coming off the street. So can we make it until then? The other thing to remember is this: in the past when there were extinctions with very high CO2 levels, there were extremely high levels of other green house gasses like methane. And methane is far better at causing a greenhouse affect than CO2. The methane release came from volcano eruptions and those related events. Where I stand is on the edge waiting to see more evidence. I think both sides are correct, but the hippie side is over exaggerating and the old business man side is under estimating.
>>69000669
Don't know
Not the question at hand. Should ask, "Are humans capable of effecting change, and how can we (relatively) safely implement these changes?"
>>69000669
Yes but that isnt the question. The question is whether the costs of stopping it will exude the benefits of stopping it. Thats a very complex question to answer.
Humans are a big part of it but there has been change since the beginning of this planets existence.
>>69002629
skepticism vs. denialism
Mind sharing your thoughts/opinions/ideas?
>>69000669
yes and yes
its really getting hotter every year, and much too fast to be attributed to natural causes. Expect another drought this year.
>>69003024
its supposed to but deforestation doesnt help. The amazon is too damaged.
>>69000669
There has been no average surface tempature change in 20 years and the rate at which the ocean tempature is increasing, is slowly decreasing.
>>69003380
yep but its not just the amazon, about 50% of the rainforest in congo are marked for deforestation
>>69000669
Yes, goy. We absolutely need a carbon tax. Not that anybody will profit from it.
Also please conveniently ignore the south pole getting colder than ever and growing.
>>69002517
>climate change is mostly man made
>"prove it"
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
>>69001312
Shame it was wasted it a cuck thread
>>69003691
Im getting conflicting vibes from you
its skirting responsibility and ludicrous to think that spewing this much shit into the atmosphere does absolutely nothing. Pollution doesnt go away by magic. The anti warming propaganda just wants people to keep spending money on oil and fossil fuels despite us having the tech to transit to much cleaner and better sources of energy.
>>69004153
lrn2sarcasm
Global warming is fake. South pole is freezing and growing in size. So they changed the term to climate change.
But so what if temperature and carbon increase. Guess how you get plants to grow faster. Put them in a warm greenhouse with higher carbon content. Warm the oceans and get more evaporation and thus more rain.
Some greedy lobbyists are pushing for the carbon tax. But their claims don't stand examination.
>>69003691
OMG they can control the weather!
"More remarkably, this year’s maximum is quite a bit smaller than the previous three years, which correspond to the three highest maximum extents in the satellite era, and is also the lowest since 2008."
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2350/
They just make it freak out for election year.
>>69000669
Yes, climate change exists and has existed before mankind invented cars.
Our impact on the environment is minimal at best.
>>69004862
>global warming is fake
>admits temperatures are rising
which 1 is it faam
>>69005245
There was an ice age not long ago. Ice ages are happening all the geological time these days.
Why are people such easy rubes in the 21st century?
Why do they want to stop glorious warming?
Why do they want to self ration glorious fossil fuels?
Why is the neo-Pagan technocratic AGW religion so popular? Holy land sky fairies not cutting it anymore?
>>69001239
The problem is that leftists think that scientists are poor and cannot fathom that when many are funded entirely by government money and if they do not produce the 'correct' results, that gravy train stops.
They then think that these studies being peer reviewed by dozens of others scientists who agree with their view point and throw their name on hundreds of papers is not collusion, but science. If all your peers are also people who have a stake in being right, is that an objective review?
Finally, anyone who speaks against the narrative is ostracized and excommunicated. Dissenting opinions are common in science, yet in climate change debates they are ridiculed despite there being many who speak against them.
>>69005571
>Why do they want to stop glorious warming?
Because skiing is the shit.
>>69005245
>admits temperatures are rising
I wasn't admiting anything, only evaluating what would happend IF true.
It depends wich ocean you look at. The southern emisphere is conveniently ignored or called an "anomaly" cause it doesn't help their case.
>>69001444
>I'm the thought police
>>69005245
Temperatures increasing in even decades is just a blip on a radar of a millennium of increases and decreases you alarmist. Nice to see that your solution is more government control and hand outs to green organizations though
>>69000669
epin copypasta I made and keep posting in these threads because you dumb faggots can never come up with answers that aren't "hurr just google it m8 like a lot of scientists agree but never published their methodology or anything, they just agree so appeal to authority":
Prove it is:
A: happening (which I don't doubt).
B: can be directly linked to human actions like burning fossil fuels
C: post specifics, how the parts the humans are doing is actually significant. Like what percent is our fault.
D: post specifics, about just how fast "climate is changing" since "global warming" is no longer the meme term. I want real statistics like "we are getting X warmer every year and I will have to worry about it in Y years becuase Z happened and is devastating"
E: post specifics, about just why I should give two fucks if hipsters faggots have to move their shitty cities 2 miles inland while I pay for retarded infrastructure that would probably cost more
F: if all of that is all real and shit, why I would care if it's as tragic as the lefty faggots think, when they're all just destroying our countries and children's futures with mass immigration of mudslimes and taconiggers and increased socialism to support these subhumans
G: Explain how wind turbines that are complete and utter shit, cost more fossil fuels to build and transport and assemble and shit than they save over their liftime and only work in wind, but not too much wind so you have to use tradition power sources anyway, how solar isn't complete shit that get ruined by dust, only works during the day, without clouds or fog or any retard with an umbrella is within 20 miles
H: Explain why we should be pouring billions of my taxpayer money into this when it is proven the private sector is many times more efficient than any government grant program or research fund. If a company makes and patents the next big innovation in energy, they will quite literally become one of the biggest companies in existence
>>69005571
>Why do they want to stop glorious warming?
you can try saying that again when half the world is flooded and the other half is a desert wasteland
Yes
Not caused by, marginally affected by
The planet was a lot hotter 50M years ago, but no-one blamed humans then.
>>69005768
Excep the coral reef bleeching and species on the southern hemisphere are still dying
Youre trying to disprove a complex problem by nitpicking one data point. Thats fallacious reasoning. Go lookip for yourself , any source you choose and see if the "southern hemisphere" isnt being effected
The ocean ph , all over - is off kilter and shelled animals can no longer draw out the needed materials to make their shells - you have a very narrow range for ocean ph before massive die offs besides just starfish start.
Libtard proof of global warming
>>69006072
transiting to clean sources of energy = / = handouts
by your logic you're giving the oil and gas companies handouts to continue raping the land for their greed
theres no reason not to use a superior product when you can, and we should jump to it because like it or not, fossil fuels are finite.
do you still ride in steam trains powered by coal?
>>69006129
>The rising sea level meme
The only pole melting is the north one. And it is floating. Learn to archimedes. A floating ice cube displace its own weight of water. So even when melted, water level won't change.
I swear you goyim want to pay that carbon tax so much, it's unbelievable.
>>69003469
The water temperature decreases because the ice caps are melting.
Surface temp. Isn't climate
>>69001239
Oil companies have way more money, yet they still haven't been able to buy a single scientist but solar and wind companies can? That doesn't make any sense.
Either way, adjustments make neligible impact on the raw temperature measurements. With or without the adjustments, the trend still shows global temperatures rising. Also, there are many adjustments that actually lower the rate of temperature rise.
>>69006455
I'm not denying changes are occuring. I'm chalenging the manmade part. And especially the "putting money on the problem" part.
Look at pic related and tell me how much fossil fuel we used 8000 years ago? HOW MUCH CARBON TAX MONEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT???
>>69001079
>But is it actually a bad thing?
This basically. The whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect seems pretty far-fetched. CO2 levels were like 15-20x higher hundreds of millions of years ago, and not only did life survive on earth, but it thrived. This period experienced one of the most rapid developments in evolution and diversification of life on the planet (Cambrian explosion) and also was when some of the largest organisms to ever walk the Earth existed.
So I wouldn't buy into the global warming doomsday scenarios. The real problem would be the economic cost, humans could adapt to higher temperatures, but at what cost?
>>69006981
Sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of water and melting of land ice e.g. glaciers.
>>69006129
I for one look forward to leading my band of warboys to battle against the lesser sea-dwelling raft plebians
>>69005768
You need to look at the global average temperature, not just a part of the ocean. If you look at the global average temperature and the trend in the last 100 years or more, the temperature is clearly rising in concert with the rise in co2 temperatures.
What we need to do is adopt more nuclear energy and encourage other countries to do so, rather than continuing with coal.
>>69009425
Ok, look at this
>>69008207
We had much bigger sea level rise in the past before cars were invented. Tell me how much money could have prevented a 30 feet rise and how do you spend it? I want to see a clever plan before I shovel you my money.
>>69010113
see this guy
>>69008602
You haven't proven me that this is a bad except for some idiots who build too close to shore.
Warmer climate = faster plant growth, more rain, shorter winters, more food. Where is the problem?
>>69010206
That sea level rise was caused by the end of the last ice age. Just because the climate can change by natural processes, doesn't mean it can't change by anthropogenic processes too. All evidence suggests that the current warming is being caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
>>69010616
1-2 deg. C temperature rise will probably have a net positive impact on agriculture globally. We can only limit warming to this amount by taking action to reduce GHG emissions.
Any amount of warming above 2 deg. will be dangerous and very economically costly.
>>69010616
I think most climatologists would agree that there is no net benefit to climate change. From what I hear, climate change means more extreme weather, which would be bad for crops.
More floods, wild fires, droughts, sea level rise, would destroy crops and outweigh any benefit.
>>69010616
>faster plant growth
No, growth rate will remain pretty much the same. CO2 isn't really a limiting factor to plant growth since you can get it basically anywhere on the surface. It is limited in the water, however, which is somwhere you don't really want it. Uncontrollable Algal blooms aren't a good thing.
>more rain
In places that already get a lot of rain, sure. It isn't magically going to start raining in deserts. This would lead to faster depleting soils, floods, even more algal blooms and even droughts since the water has to come from somewhere. Also, you're forgetting about acid rain.
>shorter winters
Winter serves a purpose, and it won't exactly lead to a hotter winter. It key get shorter, but it would be a lot harsher on everything that depends on it. Not to mention the tons of extra snow, sleet and blizzards you'll get from the extra moisture in the air, and the massive amounts of runoff you'll get from the thaw.
>More food
Biomes don't change easily. Coral is being wiped out worldwide because the seas have become 1°C hotter. Crops are no different. The heat will affect their growth, along with all the other things above.
>>69011520
>>69011611
>>69013073
There you go. The economic system is flawed.
Our economic system will have to adapt to the climate changes. Cause no amount of carbon reduction will stop earth precession and Milankovitch cycles.
Destruction of wetlands, deforestation and monocultures are actual manmade nonsenses that we have control on. And correcting those would have actual impact on floods and erosion compared to driving a Tesla. With an economic cost of course.
But the carbon tax is a scam that will only make some fat cats even fatter.
Of course it's real.
That doesn't mean we should listen to environmentalists about what to do about it but yeah we're in the midst of human caused climate change.
The smart people question if it's worth doing anything about and how much measures live driving hybrid cars would actually help.
The people that deny it's happening in current year have clearly shoved their heads so far up their asses so far in Denial it's not even worth talking to them. It's like talking to a fucking creationist or a flat earther, unless you can actually get them to commit to a position and admit they're wrong if you present evidence that contradicts them they will never "lose" an argument because they will shift goalposts or call the evidence a left wing conspiracy. There were enough of them that we had to actually take them seriously in the 2000s but it's current year so we don't have to anymore.
>>69000669
NO. It is a "religion" that can be used on atheists to control them. Traditional religion instills guilt for sin. Climate change religion instills guilt through the "over"-consumption of goods. It's bullshit and only cucks believe it.
