Who do you think knows more about Climate Change - scientists who study the climate for decades...

Scientists, many of whom disagree with the narrative being pushed, like the ridiculous idea that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made - doe thing that ignorant leftists push because they like to go in crusades to save the world to give meaning to their hollow and pointless lives

>top-scientists-warn-of-real-serious-immediate-climate-threat
When, the day after tomorrow?

Well if I know one thing, it's that faggots who spend there life researching something doesn't preclude them from being wrong, or liars.

Not that I fucking care at all, global warming is probably real, but I want everyone to die because people piss me off.

>You really think tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of different countries are all part of this massive conspiracy?
prove that your assertion is correct. ie, prove to me these tens of thousands of scientists have evidence of human caused global warming.

TRUMP KNOWS MORE

and he doesn't have stakes in the oil industry, fucking libtards

>top scientists claim something really bad is going to happen if you don't give them more funding to find out how to stop it

not an argument

the simple fact that BILL NYE SUPPORTS THOUGHT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL tells me the science is bunk.

I could provide tens of thousands of personal accounts of people who have witnessed phantoms if you'd like.

After all, if a lot of people agree on something, that makes it true, right?

t. Al Gore

For everyone not wanting to acknowledge 'climate change' would you trade a more lenient gun rights for a greener energy focus? Hell, I'd probably put Obamacare on the table as well.

Meteorologists don't support the climate change hoax, why should some "scientists" trump weathermen? shit just screams fishy.

You can spot a liberal when they use "climate change" instead of "manmade/global warming"

The thing I cant stand about climate change models, it changes like every 6 months. Early 2000's, new york was predicted to be underwater by now. Polar bears are supposed to be extinct. In fact the populations are rapidly growing. The whole worlds going to end. Its just a liberal fear tactic.

>Climate scientists who can't agree on whether or not global warming is man-made and are currently trying to figure out why it ISN'T happening as fast as projected

>Or Bill Nye(Engineer) and Neil de Grasse Tyson (Astronomer)

90s: hey can we see the raw data and code.
Sure here you go.
Hey there is no variable for the sun in your code.

00s: Can I see the raw data and source code.
No

20xxs: Can I see the raw data and source code.
Dear Barack Obama please throw the climate heretics in jail.

It's not about who knows what the question is what we can/should do about it

The answer is unequivocally not much. We can destroy our econemy and society and not really effect the global climate enough to stop what's happening

The best course of action is to simply deal with the results

This is a dumb question. It's not a conspiracy, just the fact that alternative models of climate are heavily discouraged and the whole climate "science" consists of them trying to fit a curve through data points assuming a result they want to get.

We take the World from the corrupt! The rich! The oppressors of generations who have kept you down with myths of government sponsored science, and we give it back to you... the people. The World is yours. None shall interfere. Do as you please. But start by storming ((America)), and freeing the oppressed! Step forward those who would serve. For an army will be raised. The powerful will be ripped from their decadent nests, and cast out into the cold world that we know and endure. Courts will be convened. Spoils will be enjoyed. Blood will be shed. The police will survive, as they learn to serve true justice. This great country... it will endure. America will survive!

There's no stopping Climate Change until we change our tactics. Unless the plan is to reduce your home country's Comparable Advantage to where home industry is unable to compete with foreign firms, every single environmental and worker's safety regulation must be paired with a tariff levied upon trade from countries which don't at least meet regulatory parity.

Failure to protect home industry from the global consequences of environmental and worker's safety regulations has two inescapable outcomes. One, home industry dies as firms choose to produce dirtier and cheaper abroad. Two, the environment is not protected against the profits that come with polluting.

The only way to actually make any headway is to deny firms that work dangerously and pollute at unacceptable levels the ability to profit off our purchasing power. Otherwise all you accomplish is killing jobs.

False dichotomy. Neither of them understand the climate. No one does. Our science and modeling just isn't there yet.

pretty much

we're not going to kill each other because of CO2s, but that's the excuse people will pull to kill us for. that's madness. UN supports genocide because of climate change. so progressive.

Trump thinks global warming is a hoax though???

Climate change is real and men are probably making it change quicker. We are already on a path to minimise environmental impacts.
Don't really see the problem with it to be honest. Some people just argue for the sake of it.

protip: it's based on fear and not on science of the weather.

All the scientists that have been studying climate change for decades have been consistently wrong for decades.

It was ice age 30 years ago, no snow caps by the year 2000 30 years ago.

Now it's just climate change because since the climate changes,they technically aren't wrong. "See the climate is changing, we were right. Now give us more billions in research funding."

Who do you think knows more about Climate Change - a rich af politician with an access to information that normies shouldn't know or (((scientists))) who will say whatever they're told to say?

the average woman queefs .005kg/m of CO2 every minute

you are KILLING US ALL!

Stopping global warming isn't something that you need to vote for after all. I assume fifty percent of Americans support stopping global warming. You don't need the government to tell you to stop producing greenhouse gases, you can just do it. Retrofit your houses for solar power, grow your own food, walk to work.

What's the issue?

OMG! It's almost as if Trump is a retard!

It's so bizarre that you believe it plausable that there is an organised movement amongst the scientific community to propagate a lie. Do you have any evidence for this claim? If not, I don't believe you. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Here is some evidence that climate change is caused by humans.

I just can't imagine living in a place like Canada or Sweden where the people are so wrapped up in political dogma that thy act like you chucked fags do all the time

It's disgusting

Yah, I read his book up until he said that.

>Bloomberg
>Berg

those fucks tried to hide Hillary's Health didn't they? the fuck you think they're trustworthy?

>Who do you think knows more about Climate Change - scientists who study the climate for decades, or a politician with stakes in coal and oil industry?
Neither, we can't accurately predict weather 7 days in advance, what makes you think we can predict how the climate will be in 7 years? There's still no good answer(or discussion) about "The Pause." Defend global warming, or as it's now sweetly called, (Man-made) Climate Change.

Did you view anything in the link and check the sources out, or did you see Bloom"berg" and spout JOOOOZ?

You are pants-on-head retarded

Please think about what you've just implied

Do you think thousands of scientists all say what they're told to say, or do you think Donald "I love sucking Israeli cock" Trump is going to say what he's told?

howabout a few more like sources because YES JOOZ MEDIA

seriously, we're in an information warfare age. sources do matter. very much so.

if the source is known for lying then i can't trust them, simply.

and it's not anti-semitism, i'm a jooz too but i'm nowhere near as powerful as Soros.

Because making solar panels is a very dirty business and the overall energy you put in to make the panels is less than the average lifetime energy production of a solar panel in not the equator or desert. you mong.

Global warming will send all the niggers north.

Why did (((they))) change the term 'global warming' to 'climate change'?

I wanna suck ari's queefs up and help save the planet

The scientists who have been wrong about everything every time and who were caught lying? Those scientists?

I don't care about climate change desu desu

lol didn't Al Gore have a bunch of (((top scientists))) supporting all of his "IN 10 YEARS" predictions that never came to pass? call me crazy but maybe science isn't actually infallible? It sure makes for a good appeal to authority though

windmills then, or pedal power or candles I don't give a fuck. You do understand sometimes people speak colloquially?

If you did indeed click the link, the source is NASA. Is NASA part of a subversive plot to undermine the western world? If so, could you show me a single piece of evidence to back that up?

The dispute is over whether it's man made.
>There's changes and WE need to curb our activities
Not
>have we accounted for the Sun being a separate, dynamic body
>what about valcanoes and oceanic vents
>what about the cyclical nature of Earth
We shouldn't be killing our industry because the Saudis can dump 25 mil on the slut in hopes she'Il deliver a bigger share of the market. Come up with a viable, CHEAPER option or shut the fuck up.

>current weather is climate

average american education at its finest

I'm guilty of this myself, but it pisses me off how some people quote black crime stats religiously, but seem to forget what "average" means when it comes to climate.

And why aren't we underwater yet you faggot?

>whites can't be racist

marxist doublespeak at its finest.

Because the more research they put into it they realized it wasn't as simple as that, carbon emitions and other forms of pollution were affecting a lot more then the temperature of the world's poles. Climate change is a broader, more appropiatte term for it.

ok lets focus on NASA then

Post the information from NASA to prove or at least help your argument. don't use journalism, because if they do source it it doesn't mean they themselves use the source to lay down their narrative. it can just be a single sentence snippet for all we know.

Let's let it happen so coastline civilizations sink. That way we can force those people to move inland. As well we could fast track those displaced in other nations to immigrate to our bountiful land mass.

Because higher CO2 emissions can lead to lower temperatures too.

?

you didn't even get your meme right and it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand

People used climate models to make claims of superstorms and weather that so far don't exist in the places it was predicted to exist.

Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to say "look at the weather, climate change models are bullshit".

You might say it's not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but it is definitely evidence to the fact that they are.

It's literally at the bottom of the article, check it out yourself. The raw observational data can be downloaded at the bottom of the article.

Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models:

cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/availability.html

Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry.

The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS):

giss.nasa.gov/

which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation.

science is a globalist hoax

so why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of acting like a fuck

>Who do you think knows more about Climate Change scientists whos livelihood depends on government funding for global warming research

fixed that for you, somehwat.

she is creating global warming in my pants

Too many scientists are driven by ideology and emotion. The data often doesn't support the wild predictions they spout

Global Warming is real and a major problem.

Any solution we come up with is useless.

Because you repeated a marxist redefinition of a word that only exists as propaganda.

Of course there's a relationship between climate and weather. And of course an observation of one can be used to make statements about the other.

>Climate Change

yeah the climate changes every season

>cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/availability.html

I see a lot of Chinas and Canadas in there. i can't say i want to believe them for the simple fact that one's a bizarro state of chinks, and the other is China.

>giss.nasa.gov/

one generation of climate projections hardly is enough considering how old the earth is. indeed it's good to have a start somewhere but the data is not enough to spell out if the globe will get hotter or colder.

computer models are probably gonna get outdated and replaced, so there's no way of knowing if the computer data is indeed accurate or we will find out way too late after the fact.

>scientists who study the climate for decades, or a politician with stakes in coal and oil industry?

Trick question. One's a meteorologist in a lab coat making an argumentum ad populum and the other one is being paid by lobbyists.

Frankly I don't give a fuck whether global warming is real or not. We need to cut back on our reliance of fossil fuels. What we don't need is to tax the shit out of all businesses who create carbon emissions (read: all businesses) or anyone who owns a car. It won't save the environment because those industries will just move to China where regulations are less strict.

I will reiterate: None of the legislative measures that claim to fight global warming will do so. All they will do is fuck up our economy even more and move even more jobs overseas. You are not the savior of the world. You will never save the world. It is beyond your power because you can not dictate the government of China how many carbon emissions they're allowed.

I don't care either way because NO Western politician in a mainstream party is actually going to cut fossil fuels to the levels scientists say is needed to stop global warming.

Both are lying, the right lies by saying it doesn't exists, the left lies by saying they are going to do something about it.

> scientists disprove global warming/climate change
>lose their $2,555,000 a year job

Remember when Al Gore said we would be waterwold in 2013?

oh you mean the actual definition

feels over facts i guess huh

no shit? i guess thats why current weather isn't an argument for or against climate change/global warming

I'm telling you people, it's not something you need to be ordered to do. It's like being a fat fuck and petitioning the government to order you to run around. Just don't pollute.

It's smart politics because there are a lot of idiots who think that climate changes is false so it's smart to appeal to them. I don't think he genuinely believe in that nonsense, Trump seems reasonably bright.

Global warming is something liberals warn against, therefore, it is wrong/a conspiracy/a jewish trick. I really don't know why the fuck I keep coming here. This shit is exactly on par with evolution-denying creationists.

Well, already in a way... in something like 2015 the north pole was pretty much completely without ice during the summer. The north pole is pretty much gone now except on greenland and the islands north of Canada.

Nobody can really WALK to the north pole like they could in the 90s during the summer. But you can sail there.

You're mistaking not knowing with not caring. Plus, windmills and solar panels aren't enough and unfortunately, most global warming crazies are against nuclear which is the only viable solution.

>Liberals aren't all crazy fearmongering lunatics

Lets not forget who the fuck spearheaded this, our "robbed" president Al Gore.

and he's not a fucking anything. not a scientist, not a weatherman, not even a relevant punchline.

But it is deliberately focusing on that time scale. We are interested in whether humans are changing the climate. It looks at the change to the climate whilst humans were around, and analysises how much of it is human caused.

Well, I tried to convince you. From your response I honestly think there isn't a single combination of words or evidence that could convince you, independently of whether climate change is afftected by humans. You didn't provide any evidence to any claim you made. You didn't read any evidence I sent you, apart from noting that it came from Jooz, and you reject climate models because they're too "Chink sounding"

What an exhausting human being you are.

So, semantically speaking 'global warming' IS a hoax
Climate change - the climate changes over time!!! hurr no fucking shit

>Someone silly promoted it, therefore it's wrong.
>97% of scientists agree that it's happening, that proves a conspiracy.
I really don't know what to say. The more it's proven, the less you believe. Cred Forums rots the brain, it really does.

If Donald Trump said global warming was real, would you believe him?
Before you say, "he wouldn't" I said, "If"

go to any chink hate thread, m8. my bigotry is well justified.

climate change is real
man-made climate change is bullshit

>97% if scientists believe in the resurrection of Jeebus

you can say that IF YOU POLL ALL THE RIGHT SCIENTISTS.

and now you got that wrong. 97% of scientists have some kind of theory that man made climate change exists, YET NOBODY CAN AGREE ON WHAT

that's the thing. it's not unanimous.

>This shit is exactly on par with evolution-denying creationists

So you're pissing on people that don't believe in something that has no evidence (anti climate change) by comparing them to people who do believe in something that has absolutely no evidence (evolution)?

Ah, autism at work

Tens of thousands of people believe big foot exists too

JESUS FUCK WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS THAT

Fuck you

I appreciate you proving my point.
I'm not sure what the fuck you're talking about with Jesus. And I'm sure what point you're trying to make. Everyone agrees it's happening, and that it's a problem, and that we need to fix it.

Yes. Canadians cannot understand this.

Who do you think knows more about gorebal warming - scientists funded by governments that get more control and tax money from propagating carbon tax and environmental laws, or a politician who's redpilled as fuck?

baby pig with altered DNA to give it a human face and a penis on its forehead.

CHINESE MADE PIG

>
>Everyone agrees it's happening

your denial of the simple fact that nobody really agrees is what is hurting actual scientific advances to understanding climate.

We don't even have computers capable of simulating local environments with any accuracy outside of 48-72 hours, what in the world makes people think they can tell you what's going to happen worldwide in the next few years/decades? The best models they have now are curve fit predictions, and all of those have been hilariously wrong.

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening or that global warming is a hoax, but if someone tells you they know what's going to happen they are flat lying.

I just said they DO agree. They may disagree as to the exact causes of it, but the fact that it is happening is inescapable. It's like not knowing about genetics and therefore denying that evolution happens because we don't understand the exact mechanism that causes diversification is species. It's happening, and we need to fix it so we don't ruin the only planet we have.

>it's not unanimous
You can't get 100% of people to agree on anything, not even the shape of the Earth. What oil company shills do is exploit a tiny amount of doubt and pretend scientists are divided and that both sides are equal.

Good luck getting a (You) other than me with that reasonable argument. They never reply to reasonable arguments.

Can't wait for climate happening desu.

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/

>Publish paper on ground breaking new model for determining the surface temperature of celestial objects
>Leftist media find reason to bury paper

We can stop the change this time though.

If we found out that an asteroid is going to hit Earth soon and if we had technology to stop it, would you argue that we should just let it crash with us because Earth was hit by asteroids in the past?

Well obviously. That's just the nature of the beast. What am I going to do, argue with someone I agree with?

i'm just getting that the science, while helpful and needed, isn't exactly chock full of correct answers.

this is why i have doubts on this because i read both sides before, i seen Al's Movie and i seed the the Weather Channel's founder make a video attempting to debunk it. hence why doubt of this is gonna keep circulating as this nonsense escalates to it's ultimate bioling point.

Flat earthers are Psyops and not scientists, but nice try there leaf. have one more (you) too.

You are mistaking science with how science is reported by journalists.

Protip: read the studies, not popmedia descriptions of them (so not things like Al Gore).

more like climate cringe, amiright?

(((scientists))) only get funding to study the affirmative effects of global warming. so ill trust the people whose paychecks dont depend on it being true.

We don't know, remember, there is one retarded detail of American politics, namely a belief that science is a leftist thing - Trump is intelligent and I don't think he believes this. He is probably pandering.

There is no consensus on climate change, and even if there were, science is not a democracy.

nice digits

but in reality, the dems are just as anti-science as the neo-cons are. watching the left fold to feefees over science was what led me to doubt them.

I guess what it comes down to for me is pic related. None of these things listed are bad, and if we ARE heading to destruction, I'd like to stop it. No side is without bias, there are no true heroes of science who are completely impartial and look only at facts. But it seems to me that such a massive number as 97% would seem to indicate that they're all looking at the same thing and seeing it for what it is. We can't endlessly fuck the planet without it fucking us back, agreed?

Al Gore isn't a source though.

I really don't give a shit about if climate change is real or not, all i care is for pollution to stop and then potential climate change will solve itself anyway. So far they are doing a very poor job protecting our waters, since they literally selling water in bottles.

Human activity affects the planet, but the doomsday fear mongering is a hoax.

source?

anyone who denies climate change is a retard obviously it's gonna change regardless of what you do whether or not human activity affects it significantly is another question entirely

>pic related it's my face

i like to stop it too

to stop the problems we face right now, it's not climate change, I can pretty much guarantee it's George Soros is what is turning our systems upside down.

if we can rid ourselves of traitors, we can then focus on climate change once more.

Trump a retarded faggot... But he's out retarded faggot

climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
You can't just say someone is against "Science!" because they dispute a specific finding of one field of science. Leftists are more credulous than conservatives, but it just seems like they aren't because they believe trendy things instead of old things.

It's all social pandering and conditioning. They aren't climate scientists so they have no idea if their facts and figures are correct, but they choose to believe in it, because its "science" and there's a "scientific consensus", which is something you should find on a bottle of toothpaste, not a scientific theory.

>a lie

like anything else that is heretofore UNKNOWN, they are extrapolating data, trying to find evidence to fit the idea of man made climate change. They really don't even know what affects the climate entirely.

Space phenomena is a great example, there is more statistical correlation between space phenomena and our weather than suggest earth based effects.

what that means, simply, is that nobody knows what has an affect on the weather, its probably so many things it's almost impossible to make any kind of prediction. Not to mention trying to claim that it is predominantly the fault of humans. That just doesn't make sense. and the real scientific data does not inherently suggest that.

source: this old fgt.

youtube.com/watch?v=jAWbRWlSlpk

I'll never understand why is this a political thing in america. Is your government charging you fees for pollution or something?

>the "its an organised NWO dark room round table" strawman
(((they))) do not literally control their thoughts and pay them off or whatever but they are highly inclined to not go against the general (((consensus))) on whatever the topic may be weather its science, the holocaust or history or the opinions of certain political ideologies, otherwise their lives would be ruined

whoops

they can, and they want to push a carbon footprint tax.

as if you can reliably track CO2 in the first place.

I have no idea how we stop it, or how we even begin to curb it, but I'm glad we can agree on the point that it should be stopped.

I honestly hope for an apocalypse scenario.

I die, or I struggle. Anything to end the trap of complacency that is modern life.

All you have to do to see this is fishy is scroll down to "deforestation" where is shows land use DECREASING since the 1880s. That is moronic.

You can't stop an asteroid from hitting the Earth because we don't have the technology to do so. Making your citizens pay more taxes doesn't stop climate change. Unless every chink in China misses the suicide net, there's no stopping it.

Governments already usually have pollution taxes on companies and cars and people dont chimpout over those things because its logical.
What makes the theorized carbon tax so much worse?
I'll just clarify that I'm not asking this questions ironically or something.

>doesn't knows about corporations have to follow laws to reduce emissions
>doesn't knows about international organizations for environmental protection
There even is a law where you need to reduce lighting, else you light pollute. Of course USA never followed that, neither they follow car norms for reducing pollution.
Either way how you turn global warming, it's American bullshit and they also regulate pollution, but really all they done is pollute 40 times as much as when we were in Yugoslavia and din't had a single global warming/pollution regulating law. They all lie and charge money for nothing. All should be lined to a wall and shot.

Climate change is a red herring used to push for government control of resources.

They fund scary studies over experimental solutions because solutions don't get them the control they desire compared to scary reports wherein the only solution that's proposed nearly 100% of the time is more regulations aka government control.

You may not see the raw data. You may not see errors associated with their measurements over time. You may not know where they space their sensor grid or how that changes over time, and you may not conduct metastudies of their predictions.

Source: I worked as a lab tech for a PhD climatology candidate who tried to conduct a metastudy and found nothing but trouble.

You mean Scientists with stakes in the climate industry? Both sides are making money off of this fiasco.

humans emit CO2, so in theory, we can get taxed for simply existing and emitting CO2

it's the slippery slope. We like to assume everybody won't go stupid from it BUT...

Yeah, but they still try to at least pretend they have science on their side - newspapers like Washington Post constantly report on science news, far more than the conservative ones.

It's the perception that matters when you are pandering, and, as you have probably seen on this board, many Americans think that the left being something is enough to oppose it.

>All these Cred Forums tards unironically thinking it's cool to stay reliant on wahhabist oil

Good kafir

>reading and posting in a thread started by a leaf
hello reddîtors

Clinton is the only politician in this race with stakes in the coal and oil industry you dumb faggot. Saudi's are the top donators to her campaign.

It's clear you haven't read the link I posted. It is an examination of the cause of climate change over the last 100 years. How much can we attribute to volcanoes? How much can we attribute to changes in the sun? How much can we attribute to this, that, and the other? There's no extrapolation. None. It tries to explain the change that has been observed.

It never claims that. It claims that land use is causing a cooling effect.

wait so
are all the nations in the world which believe in climate change just a bunch of bafoons

It's not a question what energy source you use, but how to reduce international meddling to 0%. There ain't such a thing as good international politicians, not even one was born who had just good intentions without profits in mind first and causing a whole lot of other problems.

>Of course USA never followed that, neither they follow car norms for reducing pollution.
What? Yes we do. Stop being ignorant. Remember when we went after the Krauts for faking up their emissions standards?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

or the millions of people that believe angels exist.

I study an environmentally focused course

The lecturers and pupils are nearly all smug socialists who routinely scoff at any suspicion that there ideas may be wrong, so yes, they really would be naive enough to follow through with this.

What is Las Vegas and non-stop lights in New York? What are you big cars who eat gas like crazy? You don't follow regulations at all.

or the billion of muslims who believe in Djinns.

Climate change is real. Wither or not Humans cause it doesn't matter. Warming or cooling temperatures have made countless species go extinct throughout earths history and it will Continue to do so with or without us.

>Trump is intelligent and I don't think he believes this. He is probably pandering.
Vaccines, climate change, creator of ISIS, and he has redpilled JFK author working on his campaign. All of these are not what it seems. If you've been on Cred Forums enough, you'll at least know that ISIS/JFK is true, keep your mind open and you'll see the rest eventually.

Trump brushes shoulders with the top elites, the ones who are responsible for directly manipulating manmade climate change (previously sold as GLOBAL WARMING), for shilling relentlessly in our media (we all know the iconic bear on small ice picture), and buying off celebrity endorsements. Part of why the establishment fears him so much is he's intent on exposing the frauds they've hoodwinked the public with for decades.

I don't understand how global warming is a politicised 'left wing v right wing' issue, it's like politicising the fact that smoking causes lung cancer and then saying 'my grandma smoked all her life and she never got cancer'.

>lets keep the climate the same as it is today ignoring natural cycles

That will work out well hahahahah

hell, you can look into historical records of the roman empire.

it was once so warm that England isles was growing vines of grapes that rivaled that of those in now modern france and germany, this was during Rome's properous years.

and when rome was falling, the whole empire was going through a major cold spell.

you are indeed correct.

Depends what you smoke. If you smoke Marlboro all your life you can get cancer, while if you smoke natural tobacco that has just tobacco inside then you might live longer. Of course worse thing is still if you smoke menthol cigarettes.

Right, but that's also moronic. Deforestation causes more CO2 in the atmosphere, which leads to global warming not cooling according to models. Really, opening up patches in forests causes cooling because its not as dark and reflects more sunlight? As opposed to much, much less cloud cover? Pretty dumb thing to measure and defend, no?
scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

Okay, but I was disputing your claim about car emissions standards, not defending Las Vegas.

Ever notice how it's only "climate scientists" that say this? Biologists, geologists, chemists, and physicists, don't support the notion of man made climate change.

Only the scientists who receive government money to prove it exists seem to be unanimous in their agreement. This is in stark contrast to real scientists who fit hypotheses to data rather than the other way around.

What does the study of living things, the earth, chemicals or physics have to do with Meteorology?

The earth goes through cycles, warm and cold. We are litterally on the tail-end of the last ice age. So naturally the earth will warm. Im not saying humans dont contribute to it but even science says that we are in a warming cycle right now.

Nah, he slided in this one m8. Scientists predicted harsher winters because of climate change.

Fucking kek

this!

Here they have pulled it further after this hoax, they started several years ago. They hire "scientists" and go and say hey we want you to research that eating cheese reduced the chance of getting rectal cancer.....

Then they will use this as an argument in a political discussion; "A new study finds that cheese reduces the chance of getting rectal cancer, so therefor your argument is invalid!"

I wish I was joking but this is how ridiculous it has become here, it's also draining funds from actual research funding by all these programs.

>I hope you don't have to deal with this crap

CO2 emissions have their own section.

Quibbling over whether climate change is caused by human caused CO2 emmissions or human caused deforestation is something of a moot point, either way climate change is human caused.

not the faggots who made the prediction models for the IPCC, which were all disproved by the observations

>Global Warming is a political subject, not a scientific one
>warming: a comparative measure of TEMPERATURE
>Temperature is important in all fields of natural science, including physics, geology, chemistry, atmospheric sciences, medicine, and biology, as well as most aspects of daily life.

Global Warming is a political subject, not a scientific one
this might be the strangest argument I've ever heard.

politicians are more qualified to measure temperature than scientists? is that what you are saying?

Listen goy the climate is getting hotter and it's bad give shekels never mind all the snow

You could call it weather diversity. You are not against diversity now are you. Say no to weather borders. Idea that different kind of weather could not happen at europe is just old fashioned idea!

EU had to change light bulbs, we had to change cars, they told us we had too much light pollution at night when we had not even nearly as much as any American city. You can't really pick anybody's side here, pro or anti-global warming, all crooks and thieves. International elite and organizations exist only to leech money and exploit you. People who flood you will millions of illegals aren't going to benefit you in any way, not even in thousand years. UN is pushing illegals so they can have an army of illegal workers and illegal business, then on other side UN talks about global warming and yet what they produced is light bulbs who are potentially poisonous, bio fuel that need to cut rainforests to plant bio fuel palms, polluted air and water like never before. What are they even doing? Doing nothing would be better. We did nothing during Yugoslavia, you could swim in every river 20 years ago, now it's all polluted.

Who hired these scientists and to what end, exactly? Are you under the impression that a massive, global conspiracy was funded by Big Solar? Sure: the sugar companies paid the shit outa doctors to say sugar was healthy. Cigarette companies to say it was inconclusive. To what profitable end do you believe that global warming is a conspiracy in pursuit of?

Vostek ice core samples

You have absolutely zero solid proof that human caused climate change is real. A link from some backwater website citing "facts" is not proof. You know what is proof of the opposite, though? That the prediction of every single climate model made in the past two or three decades is false.

Yeah what does the study of the earth have to do with the weather on the earth?

Look this field was hijacked by politicians that wanted to use it as political leverage and gain, not to mention just fart off real env. issues. You know make a distraction.

It pretty started much started here I bet, it's all about exploitation. You pollute, pay me shekels because that fixes everything.

>Anyways point:
It's religion now, not science. When you do research you are not to assume any outcome of whatever you research, the conclusion of it is often quite opposite of what you would belive. You are supposed to be objective and consider all facts and build it on other shit, you can't make a loose statement without showing to something to back it up.

Anyways what's happened here, is something weird. If you come with research here that doesn't fly with this congregation, you are ousted! Forget about funding. It's like a lit witch hunt. Then your are bought by this and them and all that crap. It's also an ecco chamber of bullshit now.. to long

We also did some research on these bees of yours that are supposed to be dying.
>UTTER NONSE
It's just a fucking jewish hoax this too, we did comprehensive research on it, to find this that the bees they have never had it better. It's all lies based on "feels" "I thinks" not science, and it's built on top on top on top on each other, without people well checking....

the-cryosphere.net/8/1801/2014/tc-8-1801-2014.pdf

Gas does not stay in ice, it leaks in and out

what is homeostatic equilibrium.

>ocean warms
>ice melts
>ice melting is endothermic reaction
>cools ocean
>ocean freezes again
>repeat

Geologists studie the rocks on the earth and the insides of the earth, the weather is a seperate scientific study.

Wasn't the major push and argument about climate change based on a completely retarded model that some university students BTFO a year or two ago?

That said, the bigger problems we are facing right now are global overfishing and factory farms overusing/feeding antibiotics instead of maintaining a clean environment, to save money.
We now have superbugs immune to our last ditch antibiotics, setting the stage for an apocalypse.
Politicians would rather push climate change policies without knowing what they are doing, and commit nepotism and reward corporations that in turn reward them.
Human corruption is what is killing the planet, and it always has been.
If Obama or any other faggot politician actually cared about anything but themselves, they would audit the fed, let our "allies" fend for themselves for a while, and focus on creating a culture of transparency so that the people can weed out the corruption long after they have left office.

you might want to double check your reading comprehension. i proved your point absolutely laughable

>Climate studies
>the art of EXTRAPOLATION

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ