When will the scam that is man made climate change/global warming/whatever new term they have invented be taken for what it is, a scam and a lie?
Really.
you are retarded if you think Man Made Climate Change isnt happening
>>70242056
I guess if you convince me and the rest of the scientific community that elevated XCO2 in the atmosphere has no effect at all on global climate and the carbon cycle, then I'd switch sides.
You can start by showing that CO2 is IR-inactive, that would end the debate rather quickly.
>>70243350
The scientific community abandoned science in favor of more gubmint money.
>>70243777
Don't think I have. Pretty good argument nonetheless.
>>70242056
Doesn't matter, by then it will be called something different to distance themselves from the fact that they are wrong.
>1970s: global cooling
>90's-2000's: global warming
>present day: climate change
>tomorrow: ?
Holy shit you people are crazy.
>>70244271
All the anti-warming charts are showing temperatures for very narrow regions, or don't saw what's being measured at all.
This is low quality bait.
CO2
>Plant food
> >1% of atmosphere
>has had concentrations 10x higher in the past
>Climate is affected by literally thousands of other things, most of which impact more than CO2
>Scientists have a clear conflict of interest when their funding rests on how severe climate change is
I'm very skeptical, Fampai. Not to mention civilization would collapse without fossil fuels
>>70243045
you're retarded if you think there is a solution that won't just be a greedy kike tax grab
>>70245344
>>Climate is affected by literally thousands of other things, most of which impact more than CO2
Indeed. But none are changing so rapidly as Co2 levels, and maybe methane levels too. No one cares that the climate is changing, it's always changing. What we care about is it is changing in a direction that is projected to costs 100s of trillions in damage, and seems likely that it is being accelerated by the burning of fossil fuels to a cost that is higher than the value of the fossil fuels.
>Scientists have a clear conflict of interest when their funding rests on how severe climate change is
Do they? If anything they'd be encouraged so say there isn't climate change.
>>70245344
>>Climate is affected by literally thousands of other things, most of which impact more than CO2
I fail to see how this is a proper argument. While obviously Earth's climate is not driven solely by carbon fluxes, they play important roles - as do other elements of the climate system. Discounting the effects of atmospheric CO2 on grounds of other aspects of the climate system, however, is an argumentative fallacy.
>>70245841
>What we care about is it is changing in a direction that is projected to costs 100s of trillions in damage,
oy vey! thats a shekel shoah
>>70246186
Even the jews understand.
>>70244096
Atmospheric admonishment
>>70242056
I don't have to convince you of jack shit. The raising of ocean levels over the next few decades isn't tied to your perception of reality or mine.
>Inb4 HURR DURR WATERWORLD THE WORLD CANT FLOOD
If all the ice melted today, the oceans would rise in elevation about 220 ft. Not nearly enough to go past the coastlines, but certainly enough to create some inland seas and play merry hell on the economy of every country, both local and global. Even a couple of inches to a foot can be devastating economically.
>>70245841
>None are changing so rapidly as Co2 levels
Scientists don't even know this. Climate science is really fucking complicated, and relatively new. There's a reason why the scientist's predictions haven't come true- the field is in its infancy
>accelerated by the burning of fossil fuels to a cost that is higher than the value of the fossil fuels.
If we stopped using fossil fuels completely, literally billions would die within the year. So unless Climate Change is going to set the world on fire, its not worse than the alternative.
>Do they? If anything they'd be encouraged so say there isn't climate change.
If they say there's climate change they get funding. If they don't, they don't. What about this is hard to understand?
>>70242056
i agree with you on that SVEN but i believe we people are fkin the planet other ways like consuming so much water pointlessly on washing cars
>>70245841
Are you retarded? If their funding (their pay check) is coming because people (retards) are panicked about "climate change" then of course that's a conflict of interest. This is what annoys me about liberals, if it's something I don't like (fossil fuel companies) any money they give is bribery and a conflict of interest. If it's a green energy company their motives are just so they are above conflicts of interest. Same with "climatologists" if your pay check rides on people thinking youre important of course it's a conflict of interest that you are the source of information on said topic.
>>70246254
no, just whoever "projected" that is a joke
>>70246353
>Scientists don't even know this.
No they don't. But all research suggest it's probably true. Simply because they aren't 100% sure doesn't mean it's not wise to take note.
Imagine I offered you a burger, and told you "I'm 90% sure this burger is laced with a lethal dose of Cyanide". Would you still eat it?
>LOL, you're not even sure! I'm not gonna fucking waste a burger if you don't know for sure!
>If we stopped using fossil fuels immediately
ftfy. I agree. That's why no one is doing that.
>If they don't, they don't.
So right wing government, business interest and global oil corporations would not be interested in funding research that if that could save them trillions of dollars?
>>70246122
Fallacy just means not logically necessary. Its a fallacy to say "that man's a pedophile, so I don't want him to babysit my children" because being a pedophile doesn't 100% mean that he will rape the kids. AKA yelling fallacy actually means very little in most cases, we live off of fallacies because they help us navigate an infinite world with finite information.
So yeah, its a "fallacy" but a good thing to look at. Atmospheric H2O levels are far more important to climate cycles. Sun cycles are as well. And our knowledge of climate science is extremely limited so we should probably stop talking out of our asses. Especially when fossil fuels are 100% necessary to sustain the world as we know it
>>70246329
OK just like what was going to be happening now according to "climatologists" like ManBearPig 10 years ago. Eventually you have to have a correct prediction to be taken seriously. Unless the media makes you out to be an 'expert'
>>70246775
>Imagine I offered you a burger, and told you "I'm 90% sure this burger is laced with a lethal dose of Cyanide". Would you still eat it?
I agree with your conclusion, but not the premise. You assume we have 90% certainty- we don't. Look at all of the climate predictions of the last 20 years and you'll realize that literally zero of them have come true. Ice at the pole's is increasing, temperature has stabilized, there haven't been any climate refugees (the UN predicted about 50 million by 2010)
So yeah, if we had 90% certainty I'd say lets do it. Turns out we have about 2% certainty, maybe less
>So right wing government, business interest and global oil corporations would not be interested in funding research that if that could save them trillions of dollars?
I'm not sure I follow. Businesses want money yes, but I don't see the connection.
>>70246901
>Atmospheric H2O levels are far more important to climate cycles. Sun cycles are as well. And our knowledge of climate science is extremely limited so we should probably stop talking out of our asses.
Water vapours is obviously a strong greenhouse gas, but I reject the notion that it is of high importance regarding 'climate cycles'. WV is short lived, basically a strict function of temperature and pressure. I don't know where you get this idea from.
And regarding your second point about talking out of our asses - I have yet to see a paper on, e.g. climate modelling, that doesn't mention it's shortcomings in the most critical fashion.
Stop getting your information from Al Gore and Glenn Beck.
>>70247304
>Look at all of the climate predictions of the last 20 years and you'll realize that literally zero of them have come true.
Not true at all. The most important ones have been pretty accurate.
>Ice at the pole's is increasing, temperature has stabilized, there haven't been any climate refugees (the UN predicted about 50 million by 2010)
The ice in increasing but receding at the same time (It's increasing in thickness due to increased snow from the warmer weather). But none of that matters ultimately. All that matters is the global average temperature, which is going up. Certain regions can get colder or warmer, but overall the global system is gaining more energy. This means the sea levels are rising, which they are.
>(the UN predicted about 50 million by 2010)
Lots of retarded groups have made retarded predictions. Most climate science is conservative and has been pretty accurate overall.
>Businesses want money yes, but I don't see the connection.
So they could lobby for anit-global warming research so that they don't have to pay green taxes.
>>70242056
You have to realize.... being a liberal is a cult... so they will believe what they're told the same way a religious person just "has faith". They know absolutely nothing about climate change, but will believe their cult masters word for word about it.
>>70246254
Carbon credits etc. will massively increase tradable instruments, and they are all connected to pretty much everything else through carbon. This will give both control and volume to the current financial system. Proposed personal carbon budgets will give unheard of levvel of control over the world population. That has been already noted by many people. I'd say this coming increase in volume has been calculated into these current support billions - they are buying time.
