Did this movie age well?

>China and India are polluting the world
>So you have to stop eating meat, start eating insects, have no children and accept refugees
What did the globalists meant by this?

it's been getting colder where i live it hasn't gotten about 40 degrees until april the past 3 years and it's almost july and i haven't had to turn on the a/c yet

What if we vote for more guy taxes oh I need carbon taxes to help the environment?

>it’s another thread about a bunch of fat unemployed NEETS who think they’re chemists, anthropologists and climatologists
Oh boy I love reruns

Let's see your credentials big guy

4u

>What if we vote for more guy taxes oh I need carbon taxes to help the environment?
I get that you're trying to communicate your thoughts, but you'll need to do a better job because your post reads like you were having a stroke while you typed it.

Calm down, take a few deep breaths, and then try again.

>as individuals
boycott electronics, as rare earth metal mining, smelting, and processing in china/india makes up the majority of climate change causing byproducts
>as a society
same but larger scale. it's not that there's NOTHING we can do, it's just not something anyone is willing to do, ever.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Cope

Thats because he was just a politician trying to fill his wallet by using sensationalism

Time has been inconvenient for it.

Yeah I’ll appeal to the people who have actually been educated in their respective subjects versus some fat anonymous neckbeard who just parrots shit he found on Yea Forums.

They forced us to watch it in school back in the day and I was the only one annoyed by it. At that time not necessarily because of its message but because a) Al Gore was constantly patting himself on the back in it and b) it was a shitty movie. There's nothing cinematic whatsoever about it. It's a video of a presentation with occasional cuts to Gore sitting in an airplane and being sad because he didn't get to be president.

pretty sure i've had a jew hand me a document before, if thats really all it takes to earn your respect and trust

HEY, HEY! I'll have you know I only fly my private jet when it's absolutely necessary. The rest of the time I have private limos take me to all my environmental conferences.

I mean, it was overblown, but a lot of his predictions came true. So... yes?

>same but larger scale. it's not that there's NOTHING we can do, it's just not something anyone is willing to do, ever.
Nah, at this point even if we all died off and all the factories on the planet immediately shut down permanently, the average global temperature will continue to rise.

No the Al Gore ad did not age well

Which one of those is Al Gore?

>An Inconvenient Truth
>Was actually pretty convenient for Al Gore making tons of money scamming people

It wouldn't hurt to recycle more and save on power consumption.

I don't necessarily think climate change is caused by man, even if I do think it is happening. I still think less trash and local pollution is a good thing though. I live in a beach town and think it is great they banned styrafoam, now I see a lot less of it floating on the shore. I think cars that pollute less are great, especially in cities that have the "bowl" effect like Denver or LA. In London and big cities like that, they would have to clean off the buildings less.

It was total bullshit the day it came out.
>zOmG look at Mt. Fuji!!! The snow on the peak receded when it got warm out!!
Alarmist crap. Caring about the environment is a good thing but don’t con people into it with lies.

Pic related, it’s Mt. Fuji 10 years after Al said ALL the snow would be gone.

Attached: ED25B55E-481B-4942-9503-E8E3663B5DA3.jpg (640x237, 14K)

>guise al gore is a shill!
You're boring and no one here thinks Gore is a good guy, but dismissing the reality of climate change because a clownish politician talked about it is pretty retarded.

I believe in climate change, I'm just not sold on the man made aspect of it. Seems there's much bigger systems in place that drive climate than people.

That also doesn't mean I want to say fuck it pollute all you want. I think we should be working towards cleaner energy aka nuclear energy. I just don't know if I trust politicians that have been wrong about the subject so many times and their solution is hey give me your money, we'll take care of the climate, trust me.

that boils me how disgusting boomer politicians do that shit when they could 'attend' their conference across the globe via skype

>first time in Earth’s history where massive amounts of industrialization is taking place
>>gee this will have no effect at all, just the (((kike’s))) lies!
Yea Forums logic

Global climate change is a meme and the "solutions" are an even bigger meme. No matter how many arbitrary deadlines "scientists" put in front of us. The earth with human civilization has been both much warmer and colder than it is now. It's just limousine liberals worried about their beachfront property.

This. Apathy about the environment is just as bad as apathy about the mass immigration you all harp on about.

i really hate how leftists monopolized environmentalism and turned it into irrational bullshit

>living in tropical country near the equator
>it's so cold I'm wearing two pair of socks and a thick jacket
Yeah I believe in in global warming Mr Glodbergsilverstein.

people live in the arctic were it's well below 0 and people live in the desert where it's 120 degrees even if global warming were real a few degrees isn't going to make a difference

It's pretty depressing to go to Glacier National Park these days because the park guides who've been there for a few years are all depressed because they can see the glaciers shrink more every year.

usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm

I'm glad I got to see them a few years ago, but they won't be there much longer.

Mostly the only real impact will be the loss of some islands and coastal cities...gee I wonder where all the whiny folks live.

Attached: bayofLA_h.jpg (660x519, 107K)

but i'm actually am a biologist

>only taking your money by gunpoint can hope to solve this issue
Eat shit. Hope the Oregon Governor gets deposed and the Republicans go Bundy Ranch on the cops she's sending after them

Too bad SF doesn't believe in walls

i live in miami beach, how fucked am I?

Attached: 1449105755605.png (1106x1012, 525K)

who gives a shit just move inland a little bit

>climate change is real
>we water levels rise
>"yeah, fine, but at least I'm not affected"
based retardposter

It's called being consistent. I don't care about africans starving or raping each other 8000 times a day because that doesn't affect me either.

nice strawman

>I believe in climate change, I'm just not sold on the man made aspect of it. Seems there's much bigger systems in place that drive climate than people.
Just going to throw out some imaginary numbers to help conceptualize some aspects:

>Volcanoes release 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year
>The ocean and plants take 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere each year

>Humans dig carbon out from where it was trapped underground and dump 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year
>this isn't taken out of the atmosphere because there's nothing to take it out (the ocean and plants are already at max capacity)

You can see how the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase every year, despite volcanoes creating much more carbon dioxide. This is why people who stand to benefit from denying anthropogenic climate change latch onto volcanoes - it SEEMS like common sense to say "Volcanoes release 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide that factories do, so factories are inconsequential".

That's pretty amazing that the planet knows exactly how many volcanos will erupt each year and programs itself to exactly compensate for that but 1% more than that is over the line and the planet's accountants tell us we're on our own on that bill.

OMFG I LOVE SCIENCE AND HATE CLIMATE CHANGE!
-posted from my iPhoneX

Attached: 1559470517948.png (454x520, 13K)

>That's pretty amazing that the planet knows exactly how many volcanos will erupt each year and programs itself to exactly compensate for that
It's pretty much the same average output from year to year, so it's not very amazing.

What's not average from year to year is the amount of carbon dioxide extracted from beneath the ground and pumped into the air, which has increased every year since the 1840s.

if evolution was real the animals would adapt to more carbon and save the planet

If evolution isn't real, then where did Netscape Navigator go?

ITT: Mostly educated anons post negative opinions on climate change because they've been tricked into thinking it's a political issue and need to believe the opposite of 'the libs'

And that's the nail on the coffin. I've just resigned myself to see the earth fuck itself a little however many hundred years it takes, no way you can have 7+ billion people fix anything, especially while China exists

Neat. Call me when you do something about China, India, and Africa being the source of 94% of the plastics and garbage being dumped into the ocean every year and leave me the fuck alone until you do.

yep, just that one politician, only him.

>Yeah, okay sweetie, that's called seasons.
No you faggot its called the end of ice age

Attached: 500_metric_ton_proof_of_ice_age_kummakivi_siirtolohkare_jääkausi.jpg (300x210, 31K)

they get paid more when they show up in person.

You practically live underwater already so you should be fine.

>it's not really happening! Volcanoes you guys!
>ok well it is happening but bully these shitskins, not me!
Like clockwork. China is actually putting a lot of research and development into renewable energy not just because their cities are polluted wastelands but because there is significant profit to be made in selling this shit to the rest of the world. They are taking steps toward decreasing their carbon footprint, so where are you going to backpedal to now?

If I didn't feel compelled to reply to him, you certainly shouldn't have.

I'd say so. Notice that every time the "it's muh Sun" or "muh cosmic rays" or whatever retards actually make a prediction, it always turns out to be wrong.

Attached: url.png (640x480, 6K)

I'm bored at work, taking the bait is all I can do until lunch.

>ever recorded
We only have definitive recordings for the past 100 years at best

so im guessing you have undeniable proof that this is all normal and the human population saw and lived through the extreme +5°C avg temp increase

Attached: 1rlax243.gif (320x287, 2.36M)

I feel the same way but still have these commie morons on my nuts about it who don't understand how clean nuclear energy actually is.

There are human settlements and monuments under water and under ice sheets. You don't honestly think the temperature hasn't fluctuated more thatln 5° in 100k+ years, do you?

You can analyze ice layers, soil samples, etc. for carbon, temp or whatever. Educate yourself lad.

Nuclear energy is clean besides all the nuclear waste which we have no solid means to dispose of.

>You can analyze ice layers, soil samples, etc. for carbon, temp or whatever. Educate yourself lad.

This is where the discussion becomes an argument, because people who are unwilling to bother learning how scientists arrive at conclusions simply decide that it's too much effort and it's easier to just dismiss their conclusions than to replicate the research.

100 years is no sample set of data from which to extrapolate thousands of years of climate data.
This whole thing is just a scam to guilt western civilization into paying more for utilities and other shit, as well as get them to cough up shekels for non-profits.
You think Xi or the poos give a shit that they are the biggest worldwide polluters by a huge margin? Are they doing the same song and dance there? Fuck no. Here's a picture of an exhaust stack spewing water vapor, but because it looks like smoke we will portray it as POLLUTION BAD.

China is one of the most environmentally friendly countries now.

>"We" have to do something to save the planet.
>by "We" I mean "you".
>and by "you" I ACTUALLY mean "India and China", but you don't need to know that.
>now you must buy new energy efficient gadgets and alternative fuels from the companies I have major holdings in if you want to do your part

I still don't get how it's legal for her to mobilize state troopers to arrest people who haven't committed a crime.

Just have more kids goy. Nothing bad will happen in the next decade.

Someone has the link about the scientists that sign a letter saying that the climate change is real, but we (humans) are not the responsibles for it? Anyone now what i am talking about?

Hey now im actually employed but im probably going to lose my job when I go back in after my vacation.

Yeah but the problem with these data points is that they're discrete, imprecise and unreliable, even the very best of the data points for climate estimation are only mildly reliable. I'm not saying that the trends that result from meta-analysis of these discrete datapoints is unreliable, but that it is not 100% accurate, and is still missing a lot of pieces.
All that being said, climate is changing, we are contributing, but even so, there is no reverse button, and any country other than USA, China or India making big changes would be, more or less, a waste of time with no net impact.

Unrelated, but anyone have the numbers for the percentage of climatologists who agree that manmade climate change is real?

According to China.

see

We did have one in Yucca Mountain that was supported by both sides before Obama shut it down to appease the batshit hippies in his party.

Not true in the slightest

>and any country other than USA, China or India
All countries you listed are making changes, though USA is slowing a bit.

Yes because I am dead and underwater.

uh hello, it's climate justice now honey

>store it in a hole in a mountain where it will sit forever until it's all full then we need another storage site
It's the same problem as always.

>so im guessing you have undeniable proof that this is all normal and the human population saw and lived through the extreme +5°C avg temp increase
Its called ending of the ice age

Attached: ice_age.png (685x598, 42K)

Why is everyone afraid of change? I for one, welcome a drastic rise in sea levels.

funny how once the cash dries up all the hype goes away. that's why tesla is in the shitter right now.

Attached: National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They're Growing) (1349x7448, 2.77M)

In the link that i'm asking for, it is stated that that percentage is almost 0 for the scientist community

Lmao, based

based double sock bro.

>it's better to have nowhere to store any nuclear waste than a facility already built with billions of taxpayer dollars in the meantime
archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-yucca-mountain-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all

Attached: image.jpg (1024x548, 43K)

You do know there are glaciers in other parts of the world that are continuing to lose a shitload of mass? You're yet another retard that mistakes small scale weather for global climate.

>drastic
>might cover the coastal regions

The constitution actually says that they can do that.

Why are conservatives so stupid when it comes to science?

[citation needed]

It's a temporary method of storing nuclear waste, just like always. Read my posts user.

that was not my point please pay more attention next time

best post ITT the best people can do is protect their local environments but the environment as a whole is fucked because of overpopulation

Says the party saying a man can be a woman

>muh coastal flooding

Good. I'm glad to see the liberals will drown. Midwest is where it is at.

based

youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48

>that was not my point
>my pic was unrelated please rape my face
every time

are you going to disregard the massive polutions ?

>coastal areas get flooded
>rich Californians forced to relocate move to your town, gentrify the fuck out of it, price you out
you should care.

literally only way to fight climate change is to nuke china and india and you will have to decide either to nuke africa or just abstain from flying to caribbean to eating avocado toast and lying on the beach.

If all the ice were to melt, the sea level would rise approximately 70m. That's not a real danger though. The real danger is a decrease in the western Antarctic ice sheet and the south portions of the Greenland ice sheet, leading to, even with the most radical projections, a sea-level rise of 3-5m over several decades. Certainly enough to make a difference for a lot of people, but not the catastrophic grand deluge that climate alarmists would have you believe.

Actually, it's a ruse. China is reducing its proportion of power generated by coal burning plants, but increasing the total number of coal burning plants, and projecting to increase overall coal burning for at least the next four years.

He just got PWNED

Attached: 1kin14872s521[1].jpg (540x960, 46K)

china and india will finish industrializing by 2030. africa will never industrialize. co2 emissions will stabilize by mid century and we'll never reach 2 C of warming.

Attached: climate change redistribute wealth.jpg (788x493, 61K)

I shower every 3 days, drive my car only to and from work, and the only electricity I use is my PC, alarm clock, and fan when I sleep. What more do the libcucks want me to do? Live in a cardboard box? Some factory somewhere uses more water in a second than I do in 10 years. Fuck you

>projecting to increase overall coal burning
classic lefties

Article IV, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution Oregon Senate Rule 3.01(2)
Oregon Statute 181A.090

Isn't China industrializing Africa now?

STOP POSTING FACTS

Attached: 1517163777977.png (896x642, 76K)

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门

oregon sounds like a right shithole

>3 is a smaller number than 100, so it's inconsequential

liberal brain meltdown

they're subsidizing a few projects to keep their bad economy afloat

Oh boy, wait 'till you learn about the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 5

>China and India burning giant piles of tires every day
>somehow the emissions from my lawnmower or car are gonna make a difference

I remember reading something that said even if America, Canada, and several other countries suddenly just vanished from the face of the earth, the pollution level still wouldn't budge due to the 3rd worlders and their tires and smog factories
Really jogs the noggin

Attached: 1375048155.58365455.jpg (456x443, 166K)

Kek. Is this really how climate deniers argue?

Yes, being retarded is a badge of honor to them.

The numbers in that graph are fake

And?

I don't deny there is a climate :^)

That is all.

What are the real numbers?

Get used to using less

>the only electricity I use is my PC, alarm clock, and fan
Sound like you already live in a cardboard box

life is a cardboard box

box of chocolate*

water vapor ~ 50% of greenhouse effect
clouds ~ 25%
CO2 ~ 20%,
other greenhouse gases and aerosols ~ 5%
Close to half of the CO2 in the atmosphere is now man-made.

There is no such thing as an average global temperature. It's an absurd metric with no material basis, and which does not have adequate or meaningful measurement. As demonstration--if you took the average temperature of Antarctica in the spring and averaged it with the average temperature of Antarctica in the fall, then took that and averaged it with the same average for the Sahara, what would this number tell you about the world? Another--let's say at 9 am EST, you took the temperature at every TV station in the United States, then averaged them together into one number--what would this tell you about the temperature in the United States? As far as CO2 goes, consider that the emission of CO2 is not uniform--it is not released evenly across the whole earth; likewise, the conversion of CO2 into C and O2 by plants is not uniform across the Earth; the CO2 cycle, and therefore the Water Cycle and temperature cycle, will not be even throughout the Earth; tracking these things globally has no scientific utility. While certainly various models try and take all these factors into account and do track more than these overgeneralized single factors, it is useless and meaningless to report the results of these models by these overgeneralized factors. That all climate reporting is done in these ways which are scientifically misleading, especially in regulatory politics, the very foundation of the science is called into question; if the science were truly certain and settled and clear, why is it not expressed? More complicated sciences have had better popular explanations; the reliance on dramatic charts and numerical explanation seems less suited for explaining what is happening, and more suited for convincing the public that whatever is happening, it's scientific.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Here you are it showed that climatologists saw the grant money potential in a political meaning and tricked old data to hide declining temperatures.

tl;dr nigger

Attached: 1549562025013.png (645x773, 11K)

>Here you are it showed that climatologists saw the grant money potential in a political meaning and tricked old data to hide declining temperatures.
All of them?

>According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists
Oh...

>There is no such thing as an average global temperature. It's an absurd metric with no material basis, and which does not have adequate or meaningful measurement.
They measure temperature anomalies
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

well, no shit

Gentle reminder that climate models are inaccurate due to low confidence intervals and and ever-increasing variance/standard deviations over time.

econlib.org/archives/2017/04/henderson_and_h.html

hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models

I have a masters in post modernist film theory so I think I'm pretty qualified to speak about made up bullshit

>where I live
I'm talking global averages you retard

>It's an absurd metric with no material basis, and which does not have adequate or meaningful measurement.
Your post illustrated the fact that you don't understand the fundamental concept of a global average. Please return to 9th grade.
Also
>that post formatting
Jesus Christ user get your shit together

>google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/
Here have the second verse it adds a few more and involves the policies of the agencies those researchers are working with, it's bigger than 4 people but sure keep believing the sky is falling

Says the board that constantly uses “I frickin love science” as a strawman

>politicly motivated libertarian websites
youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk

Attached: 1558786920881.jpg (2400x1593, 625K)

Wow, they are silly

im always down buying energy efficient hardware, show me the way senpai

They truly are

CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY!

Everything is politically motivated and if you aren't a libertarian, you're a fucking retard.

I wouldn't worry about that, overpopulation is a meme and will sort itself out
you want to help speed it up though make third world aid programs illegal

complain to the dotheads and the chinks
I can't do anything to fix their massive populations

there is some new climate alarmist movie that my country's distributor has been shilling called 2040, even giving out free tickets to kids

>>First they came up with global cooling
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Aerosols/page3.php
They didn't "come up with it". Aerosols have a cooling impact on the climate and were a major pollutant until the 1970's.
>>then global warming
People have been studying the possibility of anthropogenic heating since at least the 50's.
>>now is climate change
That term has been around for decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded in 1988.

Global warming is a hoax... but it is all caused by niggers, chinks, and poos.

remember goys, the only way to fight climate change is to tax the middle class!

You don't hate SCIENCE do you? taxing 5% of the worlds population will totally save the environment.

It's almost like science is a progression where you learn things over time.

this
give the money to the government,
they certainly know how to put money to it's most productive and innovative uses better than private individuals.

it's almost like you're a fagget

Devastating refutation of climate science.

Then why do they claim the science is settled?

Those are hack left wing journalists. If you really want to learn the science go the original papers from the institutions that study global warming and not blogs or online news.

"They" don't. IPCC publications are open to the public and they even have a tl;dr version for brainlets.

This completely misses the point, and you've understood neither your link, or my points. First, I was responding to the claim of the last five years being the hottest on record; all the sources claiming this put forward single global temperatures; however they are created, they are not representative of any material phenomena. Second, while measuring and looking for anomalies in temperature has uses, it is bad logic and therefore bad science to use anomalies in the building of averages; looking at anomalies is useful for identifying localized events--looking at anomalies is good for helping to understand what caused the anomaly. In the example given by your link--given that all the locations will have naturally different temperatures, and also given that they still operate under some common influences, a common change between all of them over a period of time identifies that there was some common influencing factor among them. You cannot, however, tie this to CO2 unless you simultaneously measure CO2 in the region in the same manner. That said, it is also questionable to even average temperature for even a sub-region over a period of time to arrive at a single number, as though it represents the entire period. Averaging temperatures, as an isolated metric, is not useful. As comparison, you cannot measure the stock market only by averaging the indexes.
Lastly, it is inaccurate for them to describe what they call anomalies as anomalies. For one, an anomaly is not something you can compare as opposed to temperature. Temperature describes the thing being measured, and an anomaly is a characteristic of the data after being measured. Further, the thing they are measuring is a uniform delta, or change, of temperature. While the absolute temperature of the areas would be expected to be different, the changes in temperature of a region would not. They are being imprecise in their language and misrepresenting their methodology.

I don't think they do. I haven't talked to a climatefag in a long time, but used to regular a coffeeshop when I was getting my doctorate where some of them hung and I talked to a few. They were pretty moderate, if skeptical. They were really trying to get to the answer. The problem now is that funding for research is very partisan, so some of them have to act a part to an extent to get funding. That's the really scary thing that is going on, is some ideas don't get funding because they don't fit a narrative. That's not to say climate change isn't happening though, and that we don't have a lot of bad ideas before we figure out the good ones.

You made this thread so what do you think?

no, it as a lot more to do with trying to predict such wide results is incredibly unscientific and is for some reason only allowed in climate science
an experiment can be done or inferred from data taken and they can give you the expected result from the data itself (aka the global temp will rise a degree or something along these lines) but trying to say what that one degree might cause on an object as large and diverse as the earth is impossible
we are only now starting to learn that as the CO2 content of the earth increases it has a rejuvenating affect on dry climes such as deserts and will eventually turn them into forests or jungles

based user shitting on wanna-be "logic" fat alt-righters

You must be new here. As regards a global average temperature, there are an almost unending number of ways to transform the millions of data points into a single number; not every model takes the same approach; which method do you think is most representative of material phenomena, and why do you think it is representative?

lmao this, liberals literally got a panic attack over fucking changing seasons

>Everything is politically motivated
This. Gravity is libtard commie propaganda

there's a lot of intermingling of the same people. they definitely lean towards alarmism and play into hysteria to get neetbux.

>being the hottest on record; all the sources claiming this put forward single global temperatures;
no they don't you fucking moron. you can literally go through local weather stats and find the last 10 years have had the most record hot days and higher temps than historical temps. you're delusional if you think the entire global climate field of science simply has their semantics wrong. No dweeb on the internet is going to upend decades of credible scientific study using a fucking dictionary and high-school level maths. I'm sorry if that feels like an unfair appeal to authority to you. If we listened to random people on Yea Forums instead, the world would be everyone shouting "nigger" every two minutes while trying to rape trannies.

Why do you believe scientists to be any more ethical than any other kind of person?

So you seriously believe if the data starts to show that climate change is not a disaster scenerio and is just a natural cycle the planet goes through without human interaction at all the climatologists that made entire careers predicting a doomsday will just admit they fucked up and tricked the data?

>no, it as a lot more to do with trying to predict such wide results is incredibly unscientific
No it's not.
>for some reason only allowed in climate science
No it's not. People are trying to predict what the sun will do billions of year from now.
>an experiment can be done or inferred from data taken and they can give you the expected result from the data itself (aka the global temp will rise a degree or something along these lines) but trying to say what that one degree might cause on an object as large and diverse as the earth is impossible
No it's not. The most inaccurate climate predictions are ones claiming the world's temperature will cool or stagnate.
>eventually turn them into forests or jungles
The dark pigmentation of the leaves has a heating impact. Forestation as a means of geo engineering(building a carbon sink) has been rejected as a way to cool the planet.

Absolutely not. It's an international panel that presents all likely scenarios. The alarmist shit happens when some liberal arts dropout journalist tries to interpret their findings.

Whoa its like you see a real life evolution of branding for endless taxes on the plebs.

>loololol anons are so stupid they dont know anything, wheres your scientific education bitches?
>but i know whats up, i've heard it on john oliver!
lmao every time

There actually are people who have argued that the theory of relativity is a kind of politicly motivated plot.

It's funny how the scientist in the 1970s who claimed we were heading for a new ice age was immediately dismissed by the majority of the scientific community, but these days it's a fun meme to claim that "all" scientists in the 1970s agreed that we were heading for a new ice age.

Why do leftists deny science?

They don't accept basic economics and basic biology.

>economy
>science

Libs probably think gravity is racist.

you mean all unlikely scenarios

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

It's usually the science illiterate who claim that "the science is settled".

I like how you ignored the basic biology part.

Can the left and right unite on the point that journalists are scumbags and need to be hanged?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

News flash, glaciers melt. More at 11.

but we actually know what happens to stars, a star is not nearly as complex as a habitable planet with hundreds of interconnecting systems
trying to predict what a 1 degree temp change will do is like trying to predict what will happen to our solar system when Andromeda and Milky Way eventually collide
I'm not sure why you brought up geoengineering when I'm talking about a natural occurrence of climate change, which is that deserts and dry climates are only seeing positive changes

>linking some retard blog
>first listings are all about claiming "Germany getting dryer summers is wrong" while Western Europe is still having the worst drought in 50 years
based and retardpilled

>We need to tax you for your CO2 emissions to save the planet!

>oh yeah you also need to let in tens millions of "migrants" to create more CO2

Hmmmmm, something doesn't add up here....

>Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American blogger who runs Watts Up With That?
>later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree
Why the fuck should I spend time reading some blog by this dumbass?

They're desperate to shuffle their pollution from things that make them look like a shithole now to things that aren't immediately obvious. For example, their increasing solar panel use is going to be absolute nightmare fuel down the road.

>Then why do they claim the science is settled?
The character in that cartoon isn't really a scientist. He's just a cartoon drawing.

Not even Gravity is a settled thing, we don't understand this force yet, you could even say not a single physic "law" is settled, as they are law because they have worked in that way for as long as we know, like the chicken predicting he is going to have a nice life for so it has been so far, until he is roasted.

Anyway here I think is the most helpful compendium about climate change myths.
skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I don't understand what's your stake in wanting more pollution but if you want to breath from the exhaust pipe of a car, be your own guest.

>having the most record hot days means the whole earth was hotter for the year
You can't call it "the world's hottest year on record" because of highly localized record temperatures. Further, if you read my post, you'd see I did not and do not assume that climate models operate so simplistically. What I clearly criticized was that the science is put forward publicly only by over-generalized and unrepresentative "data." To further emphasize this, it is always interesting that the qualifications and authority of those criticizing climate science are the first points of attack. While it's true that I'm unlikely to undermine any scientific observation, it's quite concerning that the most ardent public supporters of climate science, given it's dramatic consequences, are even less competent in defending it than skeptics. Also, I fully expect most scientists to get their semantics wrong; after all, they're scientists, not linguists. If you go through my points though, I am not just criticizing the semantics of how they describe what they show, but moreover that the things which they have tended to show publicly are logically invalid. Again, there is no reasonable expectation that simply because someone is able to study the history of science, and able to pass tests on already explained phenomena, that they will in turn be able to adequately describe new phenomena in new and accurate ways. A brief survey of theses, and even limited conversations with masters and PhD students will reveal that the doctoral thesis has changed dramatically over the past few decades and are no longer subjected to the same academic rigor they once were. Lastly, the very appeal of this place is that there is almost no contextual information with which to form conversation heuristics, meaning that each post can only be considered by its content; that's a feature not a bug. Stop appealing to authority; it makes you look weak and discredits your ideas.

Let me guess, two genders epic style?

those are all real predictions made by high level people, sorry if they trigger you.

it's part of logic and math but leftists still deny it because they have low IQ

Enviromental refugees will be a real thing

thats like getting "sad" because the tetonic plates shifted a few feet

only the lowest of IQ think the planet is static, because they know nothing of science or history and thats why they're the perfectly suited to be exploited by climate change alarmists

>you can literally go through (((local weather stats)))

those are all real predictions a lot of them by the IPCC authority themselves. I can link you the actual papers if the format triggers you.

And yet there are thousands of real scientists and politicians using those exact words every day.

We should add "add parenthesis to your words" in the bottom.

Attached: stage of argument.jpg (683x519, 59K)

Economics denial. Now that's a new one. Do you always make up this kind of shit?

i wouldn't know, i only watch movies with tits in it. if i can't jerk off to it, i'm not watching it.

Attached: 1492899222088.jpg (1080x1120, 143K)

>Hurblurblurb muh house didn’t catch on fire so pollution ain’t real!

>Blame the chinks and poos for shit I also do to justify being a lazy idiot!

Attached: 68BFCB20-B5EC-4628-AA38-B8089CCB0BAB.png (225x225, 11K)

based

This but unironically

How can you say something has failed when it supposed to happen in 50 years or so?

Not him, but why are you lefty redditors so obvious?
Leftists basically deny human biological instincts and think the instincts we have recognizing human sexes are simply a social construct.
Read some Steven Pinker you science denialist retard.
They also deny race and IQ/behavior science(which the evidence is increasingly piling up).
Leftists are embarrassingly flawed and are poisoning science.

Attached: 1546489770421.png (1120x2499, 505K)

it's actually just an ad hominem, but his silly banter isn't that far off
there's a lot of regions that aren't experiencing heatwaves
where I live it's the most delayed summer and we've only hit 90 degree temperatures a few days and normally our summer would have started two months ago with several 100+ degree days in a row

I dont think that is accurate considering last year was the coldest it has been

>Economics denial.
Yes.
It's actually a really big problem in this day and age.
People vote against their own economic interests(by voting for left wing parties) because they deny basic economics.
Imagine being PROUD of denying basic logic lol

But is economics taught in school?

we were always at war with Climate Change, citizen.

They do, mostly when they get blown out tho. The fact that they still think Trickle Down is anything more than a pejorative is a big indicator of their inability or interest to understand basic Econ.

It should be. That way socialists would no longer exist.

Look, I grew up in Colorado; I love skiing; but in the end, what is the actual moral dilemma on whether or not it snows? What is the moral justification for why the world as it is must stay exactly the way it is? If we are going to engage in the costly endeavor of historical preservation, how do we decide morally what is the right state of the environment to preserve?

If that's the case, why are you behaving like an emotional woman?

It's not taught in grade school and almost never taught in high school.
The economics they teach isn't real economics, they teach neo-keynesian bullshit.

1. Because they've already missed their trajectory.
2. Because, after recognizing the missed trajectory, a new prediction has been made which contradicts the former prediction.
3. The old prediction is called flawed by the people who made the prediction.

Trickle down always seem to trigger you

I think it's incredibly arrogant to think we can and should keep the earth at whatever temp it's been at for the last 100 years. And if we want to control the climate, it's going to need to be done with technology, not taxes on the middle class and shutting down industry.

>lose the argument and have absolutely no response
>go apeshit and start crying
Every single time with you people.

AP economics is taught in most high schools, but that is usually the only context any economics is taught in, and few people take it, or do well in it.

the percentage of the WORLD population that is in western countries vs the world is commonly known

You can literally look up the expected world population growth for the next 100 years

if your "solution" for something effecting the entire world ONLY pertains to a fraction of it, you're obviously politically motivated and don't care about the science at all

Scientifically what you're being peddled as solutions are just ineffective propaganda or wealth transfer from the middle class to the rich

>Steven Pinker
>literal popsci

Attached: spoony.jpg (1280x720, 128K)

>heh I'm really dumb and using the most nonsensical ahistorical bullshit strawman terms I heard bill maher say in the 90s
>are you MAAADD libertarians/conservatives/right wingers?

No, we're just laughing at you for licking boots lol

If it’s progression, and not accurate, why are people forced to accept it as fact then?

Yes it bothers me when people don't know what they're talking about but act like they do. The left is economically illiterate and it is often the kryptonite to any of their political stances.

fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker#Research_and_theory

I'm not saying you should, I'm saying that it should be a debate but it needs to be a debate using science and not "my side says this". That is a problem with both the right and left. So some comic that shows people are getting it wrong along the way, doesn't impress me.

>this extremely intelligent PhD btfos my retarded arguments, but he's popular so that means he bad

You people don't even believe in human evolution/genetics/instincts.
Imagine actually thinking gender is a social construct and we haven't evolved billions of years of instincts which control how we think and act about gender
lmao why are you even trying to debate, go join the rest of your flat earther friends

u mad?

Attached: 1480355058203.jpg (483x581, 39K)

>argument from authority
do you listen to everything black science man says too?

We'll all be dead in 12 years unless we build a train to Hawaii using solar powered construction equipment, bigots

I mean, I didn't really come in from nowhere shilling my /pol/ infographic trying to impress with a list of 200!!!! alleles and list a whole bunch of brain structures as if they are all related to intelligence?

Do you even know what alleles are?

Reminder that leftists unironically deny human evolution.

Reminder that leftists unironically deny basic economics and think scarcity is a bourgeois myth.

You can get mad about a few climate change denialist conservatards but to claim you yourself aren't guilty of the same shit is absolutely hilarious.

Attached: picard-facepalm.jpg (895x503, 33K)

Pinker is a liberal but whatever.

I seem to remember Thomas Sowell advocating for this concept when talking about how in certain US states when taxes were lowered for rich there was an increase of funds next year and when the opposite happened there was a drain of rich people.

>everyone talking about climate change is a "leftist" and believes these certain things
based strawman user

>>argument from authority
What argument from authority?
My argument comes from actual science.
I told you to read Pinker because he's the best source of information imo on these scientific topics.

Yours comes from your feelings.
Imagine being brainwashed enough to become a leftist, damn

being a liberal doesn't mean being a socialist though

Who even cares if the world ends desu what do people think is going to happen anyway?

>/pol/ infographic

>literal fucking SNPs and GWAS studies are le ebul /pol/ boogeyman
LMAO, the next 20 years is going to be extremely fucking hard on you people.
I can't wait for more and more irrefutable race based science to keep piling up and for you people to keep denying it.

>Do you even know what alleles are?
TOP KEK and he names basic bitch concepts like alleles to pretend he has some credibility

there is no such thing as "Science", there are things such as Physics, Molecular Biology, Neuroscience, Ecology.
If someone claims to be practicing "Science" they are a popsci journalist and nothing more.
I've read plenty of Pinker, his arguments are not impressive at all.
I have made no arguments here, only pointed out that Pinker is not a valid source, retard.

BTW I think niggers are retarded, I just don't believe in brainlet tv dinner theories like genocentrism.

On four channel liberal=libtard=sosialist=commie=nazi

>don’t do anything good for the ecosystem in America unless you can make the entire planet do the same
What a convenient way to remain lazy and complacent. Pretend the problem is impossible to solve, blame others, and remain ignorant. Ironically, this similar mentality of “don’t improve America unless you can do the same globally” likely contributed to the current rampant industry in Eastern countries in the first place.

>What argument from authority?
>My argument comes from actual science.

>>>this extremely intelligent PhD btfos my retarded arguments

You don't even know what argument from authority looks like and you expect your opinion to stand here? Pathetic.

I’ve never watched john oliver so nice projection low iq faggot

if you cared at all about the environment you'd be in full support of Trump's massive tariffs on China

Yeah it's his book "tax cuts for the rich" and that happened in the 1920s. It's because if you tax the rich past a certain point they funnel their earnings into tax exempt municipal bonds and securities and other forms of deductive consumption and saving.

He's actually center right and far right on certain issues.
He's basically Sargon of Akkad.

>there is no such thing as "Science", there are things such as Physics, Molecular Biology, Neuroscience, Ecology.
Which are forms of science, brainlet.
What a dumb argument.

>If someone claims to be practicing "Science"
Pinker doesn't.
He's an evolutionary psychologist and cognitive psychologist.

>I've read plenty of Pinker
No you haven't.
You still don't even accept human evolutionary instincts.
How is it even possible for someone who claims to be in support of science believe in such secular creationist horseshit?

Are you just retarded?

>Pinker is not a valid source
But he is.
He explains and refutes left wing arguments quite nicely.

Weird flex but ok

>You cannot, however, tie this to CO2 unless you simultaneously measure CO2 in the region in the same manner.
You actually have no idea how the greenhouse effect works. Measuring CO2 concentration around the thermometers tells you nothing. What you need to measure is the global radiation budget.

>You can't call it "the world's hottest year on record" because of highly localized record temperatures.
The changes in temperature are actually highly correlated over large distances (even hundreds of kilometers). You're just wasting everyone's time here, paragraphs and paragraphs devoid of substance.

>>>>this extremely intelligent PhD btfos my retarded arguments
But he does.
This isn't an argument from authority you low IQ piece of shit lmao

It would be an argument from authority for me to say everything pinker says is correct and nothing you say can refute him.
I was simply telling you to read him.

lmao what a brainlet.
>You don't even know what argument from authority looks like and you expect your opinion to stand here?
You don't even fucking believe in evolution.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Global warming is a problem, but the west is barely responsible for it

Blame Africa, India, and China for contaminating the oceans and pumping poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere

its cute that when you get rid of religions, the intellectually deficient populace just attaches itself to something else that also has its Truths and preachers and "wise men" and its very own apocalypse where you need to Repent by not using straws or you're going to bring the wrath of G-oh sorry, I meant the wrath of nature down on you

Steven Pinker is popsci, end of discussion. Cite some real sources.

>You still don't even accept human evolutionary instincts
I didn't deny the existence of phenotypes anywhere retard. My main point of contention is that you are citing Pinker, who is a talking head.

I reiterate that Science is not a field. You are outing yourself as a reddit brainlet.

The studies are not /pol/ you absolute retard. Jesus Christ. Your dumb fucking infographic is though. You probably made it too?

but the west can do something, end trade with china and india and stop giving aid relief to overpopulated africans
this is the real inconvenient truth

They haven't done shit yet. So you dumb nigger go campaign to ban straws when the West has absolutely fucking nothing to do with ocean plastic pollution. People mention China because it's fucking true you goddamn retard.

>he is a PhD, therefore his argument is correct
>This isn't an argument from authority

Attached: shrekcringe.png (1080x784, 891K)

>Global warming is a problem, but the west is barely responsible for it
Actually, most of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is still from the west (because the west industrialized earlier).

based retard user

iirc they changed the name a lot of times because boomers use the name as some kind argument
>climate change? climate always change! checkmate

see I'll greentext it so your peanut brain might actually read it.
>They are taking steps toward decreasing their carbon footprint

Nigga have you been to China. The last time I was visiting the countryside we came upon a mining village that built the ore processing plant in the middle of the city, just blowing smoke nonstop directly into apartments. I came acrosst town canals with the sole purpose of dumping garbage so that when the rainstorms come they can wash it into the river. This whole “China is Clean now” meme literally just comes from China government announcing propaganda in their own state controlled media.and for some reason liberal media in America starts spouting it off to jerk their own anti-American dicks. Fuck you for falling for the most blantant propaganda in the history of mankind.

>region
>around the thermometer
C'mon, you're better than that.
>large distances
>200 miles
So, a region. You would have to be an idiot to be surprised by the fact that an area of land with a consistent ecology would also have similar weather patterns over that same area. My whole point is that you cannot simply compare one region to another region, especially when they are not bordering each other--like Antarctica and the Sahara. I have yet to see a single study which shows any meaningful and reliable correlation between changes in all Earth habitats. Each claim I have seen either makes a logically invalid analysis of the data, does not have reliable or consistent data, or has too wide a margin of error in their pre-analysis.

>global warming? It's snowing in this one area, checkmate scientists ;^)
I really enjoy this. It's dumb but in an adorable way.

Who gives a fuck? That has nothing to do with their plastic dumping. And oh wow some tiny change meanwhile they're still easily numbah won in the world. Then there's Indian poos and African niggers, are they doing anything? The planet would be fine without the useless continents and subcontinents full of morons

nobody cares about "steps". get back to us when it decreases, chang.

>they're taking steps to change but so what ALL THAT MATTERS IS RIGHT NOW RACE WAR NOW
Compelling hypothesis.

>he has a PhD therefore it’s an argument from authority
>somehow this is a counter argument

Attached: 3A49CB40-D3C3-48CF-A986-738E74BAE05B.png (800x729, 62K)

>I have yet to see a single study which shows any meaningful and reliable correlation between changes in all Earth habitats.
You don't even need a study for that, just look at the thermometers. Pick a country, pick a continent. It doesn't matter, the trend is always up.

B-but that’s just because we’re coming out of an ice age! W-what do you mean we shouldn’t exponentially multiply climate change during already rising temperatures? I want to blame something out of my control!!

The Tahoe area ski resorts recorded the heaviest snowfall in their operational histories in 2010, 2016, and 2018. This most recent winter, Squaw Valley recorded the most snowfall since they opened for business.

>B-but that’s just because we’re coming out of an ice age!
We're not actually coming out of an ice age, we are (were) headed towards one. But these changes (caused by orbital parameters) are slow, imperceptible on human scales.

>imminent apocalypse? Of course its going to happen! Its on the holy bible you moron! Just as our lord intended. CHECKMATE

Attached: aood.jpg (800x562, 63K)

10,000 years ago the sea level was over 300 feet lower than it is today, glaciers have been melting off for a while, son.

What's your point?

You laugh but those are literally boomer arguments that I have seen on my grandparents facebooks.

>Based on 260' sea level rise

I'll take shit that ain't going to happen for $500, Alex.

underrated kek

>every trend is up
That's not true. The satellite data points the opposite direction. Historical data has been revised downward to be more in keeping with "advancements" in the science. Cities have grown larger and hotter, but measurement stations have not moved; stations which have remained rural do not show meaningful change. The very scale of the global increase is less than the margin of error for regional aggregation. In aggregation, warmer observations are weighted over colder observations. Measuring stations are not adequately dispersed, meaning some regions are over-sampled, and most areas are under-sampled. Lastly, the link to CO2 has yet to be demonstrated by region--if CO2 drives temperature, global changes in temperature should be driven by areas where CO2 expulsion is greatest, and the temperature in those regions should be in line with the warming factor suggested for the globe. Every single missed prediction leads scientists to say that they previously missed some important mechanism--such as deep ocean absorption--and yet with each new process discovered, the number of possible influences outside human control grows, and the influence of CO2 diminishes.

Are you going to personally feed Africa when the crops fail from climate change? Nope. And in this dire global scenario Europe isn't letting in millions of Africans. Military force will block off the Med. So actually climate change is a white supremacists dream. Northern areas become more temperate to replace the lost areas, and you just have to keep out migrants via force, which is easy in a do or die situation when moving crop development to Canada and Russia. Everyone would support it.

We've had slowly climbing temperatues since the little ice age during the 1600's. Before then was the medieval warm period that was much hotter than today.

lol are there still neo-cons denying global warming is real?
Thank goodness these fags don't leave their house or they might infest the rest of us with their stupidity

It not possible. Burry head in sand = invisible. Me no think me no scared.

Attached: 5B4FECA5-7E3F-4B8B-B2D4-73C1084F473B.png (213x237, 8K)

>climate change isn’t real because we didn’t move measurement stations to colder places when cities got hotter

Wow....so this is the power, of room temperature IQ...

Attached: CACB9F72-3E9D-4853-9E5C-698D5B62D501.jpg (800x450, 44K)

Unfortunately, they still vote.

>The satellite data points the opposite direction.
What the fuck are you talking about.
> Lastly, the link to CO2 has yet to be demonstrated by region
You CANNOT demonstrate the link by region. Like I said, you have no idea how the greenhouse effect works.

Attached: url.png (2700x990, 113K)

LMAO LOOK AT THIS DOOD. what is an ice age faggot?

>an increase in noise does not affect the accuracy of the data
Incredible. Of all the points to argue, you picked the dumbest one. I'm sure your college degree in film studies is really useful for you.

>it’s duh Jews
Jesus Christ, have you no shame?

Lol, you sound like a total retard upset you got called out.

I don't think you understand how chemistry works. You cannot separate a generalized effect from an individuated effect. The properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas occurs at the molecular level. If one region has a higher density of CO2, that region should experience a greater greenhouse effect. You are playing word games. A region is not your neighborhood; a region is an environmentally contiguous area--as in a large area which shares the same topography, the same wind patterns, the same humidity, the same precipitation patterns, etc. The eastern seaboard of the united states produces more CO2 than Montana and the Dakotas. If the heat island of city developments can be seen in the data, then we should also be able to see a difference in temperature increase between the Eastern seaboard of the United States, and the interior of Canada. These regions are affected by such vastly different pressure, water, and wind patterns that we should see little influence from one region upon the other simply by the dispersal of heat. Lastly, if you're going to post a chart, please include a link, a citation, or an explanation of methodology. There is literally no way for me reasonably comment on your chart one way or the other, since you have not provided adequate information. I can only assume that you are not very scientifically literate, and so you yourself do not really know what that chart is showing. If this is not the case, I would really like to be dissuaded from my negative opinion of you, so please provide the necessary information.

You are literally trying to defend the idea of the Greenhouse effect by using the Heat Island effect. Who's the retard?

I remember acid rain from the late 80s

Still you. You’re trying to deny common sense by citing a fallacy nobody made and you think me calling you retarded is the same as defending your straw man.

>> hey guys it's all about me. Forget about the rest of teh world lmao

>it's hot everywhere!
>not here
>UH HOW CAN YOU MAKE THIS ABOUT YOU

>If one region has a higher density of CO2, that region should experience a greater greenhouse effect.
You've already told us that you don't understand the greenhouse effect. You don't need to repeat yourself. Quit wasting our time.
> There is literally no way for me reasonably comment on your chart one way or the other
What is the source for your claim that satellite measurements show a cooling trend? How could you possibly not know what this chart is and where it comes from if you are aware of satellite temperature measurements?

>> I'm more important than the rest of the world.

Based selfish poster.

>Thinks heat island effect is a fallacy
So is Global Warming just common sense? Or is it a science too complicated for the ordinary person which only experts can understand and discuss? Am I an idiot for trying to understand something beyond my expertise? Or am I an idiot for overthinking something so simple that everyone can understand it? Is science something that can be done by anyone, or is it only something which can be done by a privileged few?

You keep saying I don't understand the greenhouse effect. How about you explain it to me?

Well there you go, there you fucking go. How about next time you spend at least 10 minutes even just on fucking Wikipedia before you come here and tell everybody how the scientists are wrong and have no idea what they're doing?

>can't explain something, resorts to personal attacks
lmao typical

The point is that you should not need me to explain anything to you, you are smarter than all the worlds scientists after all.

what an argument, it's clear you got outpaced by the poster you were talking with because all your posts have just been a variation of "ur wrong" without explaining why he is wrong
you're a poor debater and either an actual retard or pretending to be one just to get people riled up

I can explain why he's wrong. But should I? He can't explain why he's right. He can't explain anything because he hasn't even spent 10 minutes on fucking Wikipedia.