Climate Change is a HOAX

My citation: literally any study that says humans are not, in whole or in part, responsible for the accelerated global warming.

Go, find any. Any one that says we're not responsible. Find me the study I'll find you who funded it.

Weather
Weather patterns

One is just what you experience on a given day in a given location. The other is a system of the climate.

in other words you cannot produce any okay

>o-oh u-uhm no not weather what i really meant was weather patterns. u-uh yeah weather patterns

I could show you fifty and you'd say "yeah but that isn't all of them" so to make the proof worthwhile I challenge you to find a at that says humans are not responsible for acceleration of the normal global thermal cycle that isn't funded by big oil. You find one, I'll show you who owns the companies who own the labs.

You can't find those, though, because they're all super, super obvious...

I mean, kind of. Mankind's existence has been less than a blink of an eye in the history of the world and even less time has been with technology. The chemical reaction is real, but at the end of the day, it's a scam to grab your money.

Attached: image.jpg (1886x2048, 437K)

Please show all 50 and no blogs.

Donny's presidency is a hoax.

Oh? Climate change is more real than this presidency.

He literally SAID weather patterns you ignoramus. YOU brought up weather.

imagine how much of an autist lib you have to be to believe human caused climate change isn’t at all pushed by special interest groups who clearly profit off the gullible

it’s literally the same thing

But if it was how could I tax my people on it?

Attached: justin_trudeau.jpg (1086x766, 68K)

I'd rather be wrong with my beliefs than yours. At least mine won't doom the planet.

>there is overwhelming evidence
>where?
>look at all the studies
>which studies?
>go find them yourself/you won't believe me anyways/where is your counter-proof?

Truth is, you never looked into the matter yourself and blindly believe the media that there is evidence and also follow their order to ridicule anyone who says otherwise. Good goy.

You won't even try to find one? Not one? You have that little confidence that a single study that isn't funded by big oil exists?

It literally is not. Weather patterns are an aspect of climate. What do you think climate means?

scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,3&q=climate change&oq=climat

The climate has been in a state of constant flux for millions of years.

Even if we are not directly responsible for climate change, we're still responsible for what we're doing to the environment, deforestation, pollution and waste.

>link to google search
Thanks for proving what I said, faggot. You can't give links to actual studies because you never read any.

>Man Made Climate Change is a Hoax.

The Climate Changes every day.

>Principally human caused climate change is a hoax.
Ftfy
True statement too.

Link leads to 500+ studies... Go to bed Ivan.

1% is measurable fuck face

This

Reroll

Rerollinh

Bullshit. During the Jurassic period "greenhouse gases" we're at levels 6 to 10 higher. There were no humans then, so how did they get so high? Also what was the effect of the the increase? An ice age. So go blow smoke up someone else's ass. The climate hoax is just another communist attempt to scare people into giving them power.

>scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,3&q=climate change&oq=climat
Okay then, here is your counter-proof that climate change is indeed a hoax.

>muh climate
Who gives a fuck? Even if it was changing for worse, we'll all be dead before it gets real bad.

Hal Lewis:

heartland org/publications-resources/publications/hal-lewis-resignation-letter-from-the-american-physical-society

Patrick Moore:

breitbart com/radio/2019/03/21/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-crisis-is-a-completely-made-up-issue/

Sadly the preponderance of that evidence suggests it is real.

How about you stop being a douche-fag and just actually read those studies and get to your own conclusions. You might be surprised what you may find.

Attached: sunny.jpg (1920x1290, 190K)

I've read hundreds. I've also looked at who funds them. Funding for nearly all studies that conclude humans are responsible for a portion of the acceleration measured in global average temperature increase are largely publicly funded. The (very few) which conclude that there is no evidence of human contribution are ALL funded by big oil.

Climate change is for fags.

but politicians say climate is changing. The sea level is gonna rise 1cm real soon. be afraid. be very afraid.

>I've read hundreds
Yet all you can produce is a link to a google search when asked for evidence.

Attached: 1427113212008.jpg (526x522, 38K)

citation needed else you're buying into the liberal narrative

>All you can produce
Have you read them? They're all pretty damning, and the ones that are not are funded by big oil. Go, read a few. They'll all say humans are largely responsible. It's actually bastarding hard to find one that doesn't.

How about you find me any single refuting source to the hundreds in a row in that Google scholar search which agree, that isn't funded by Exon, BP, Shell or Saudi Oil barons?

>Muh big oil funding

And you call us conspiracy theorists. lmao

btw I read them all and came to other conclusions

>Have you read them?
Which? You still haven't given me anything. "Go read some studies and you'll find evidence" is not a valid citation.

>How about you find me any single refuting source
Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you.

>Climate Change
When tree-hugging becomes militant.

Attached: 165469584651.jpg (215x280, 28K)

Here, I'll make you one of these hats

Attached: 1552574321467.gif (480x270, 1.28M)

lol merritards

The climate changes gradually over the years. The earth is getting warmer year over year.

What you're contesting isn't climate change but man driven climate change. Theres evidence that we are producing greenhouse gases and they are up year to year. And the temperature year to year follows that.

Attached: 1879845212136.jpg (496x691, 80K)

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter, go ahead destroy all of God creation for what I care and see where it gets you, just keep being entertaining, I need all these lulz.

>Btw I read them all
If you came to a different conclusion, then you didn't read them.

Actually, you claimed it was a hoax before I claimed it was real. Burden of proof is on you to show me a reliable source that refutes the general consensus.

>Actually, you claimed it was a hoax before I claimed it was real
That's not how it works.
>general consensus
General consensus is no proof for anything. For centuries the general consensus was that the earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Since then we invented the scientific method and can measure, know, predict shit which led to all kinds of incredible technological advances like the internet allowing even retards who deny basic science to shitpost all day long on the internet.

I'm sorry but history is a hoax as well

So is your hair

>That's not how it works
Person making claim provides evidence, that's exactly how it works. First claim = first to provide evidence. I'll wait. Burden of proof after all.

Lol doesn't it suck to fuck yourself with your own arguments?

All I'm asking for is evidence for your claims and you fail to produce anything. The retard is you.
Because you have no arguments, you resort to stupidity. Pathetic.

That would be flat earth, let the scientists do all the thinking retard.

You made the first claim, and your claim challenges a performed status quo. The burden head been on you all along. You're just making yourself look more like a deranged tinfoil-hatting conspiracytard.

Burden of proof:
>When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has aburden of proofto justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceivedstatus quo.
>Climate Change is a HOAX
Unsubstantiated claim that challenges the status quo with 0 evidence thus far.

Fun.

perceived*

Can't deny that the icecaps are melting faster than in the past, regardless of what's causing it.

Attached: iceberg.jpg (1600x1054, 334K)

My claim is that I don't believe you for the lack of evidence to support your claim.
I am here not believing you QED

Do you know what? I don't give a shit. I'm over 60 and I'll probably be dead before the worse effects hit and I have no children. I have a large-engined weekend car and heat my house though oil.

If America and China takes it seriously I might reconsider, but that's highly unlikely as China is building coal-fired power stations and the orange baboon babbles incoherently about "clean coal"

No, you made a claim that climate science is a hoax. Back it up. I'll be busy trying to find a single scholarly article that disagrees with the consensus. I could be a while so it gives you time.

Climate change is as much as a hoax as Trump working with the russians . . .

Wait...

natural melting periods and freezing periods, and they turn it into a omg the earth is fucking melting and turning into barren wasteland.

>No, you made a claim that climate science is a hoax
Now you're strawmanning. Logical fallacies are your thing, huh?
>I'll be busy trying to find a single scholarly article that disagrees with the consensus
Why not link a single one that agrees with it and post it here like I've been asking you to do? I mean, they're so numerous, it must be easy, right?

Attached: 1488613093581.jpg (358x358, 14K)

Nigger, you can't change the climate even if you wanted to. Also who ever complains about nice weather....nigger

Go hug a tree faggot

all based on solar minimum / maximum. humans have very little effect.

>God
You believe in god and you're laughing at us? Stupid fuck. Please don't send your invisible friend after us

Attached: 1522109224911.jpg (480x360, 26K)

>Why not link a single one that agrees with it and post it here like I've been asking you to do? I mean, they're so numerous, it must be easy, right?
scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=climate change study anthropogenic&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=9T8YTSRB6q8J

Your turn.

>asked to link a single study
>links google search results
Are you literally retarded?

Attached: jules.png (500x224, 123K)

Didn't click the link?

My opinion on it is this:
I have been alive 2 and a half decades. I have lived through 4 global warming/climate change doomsday prophecies. I will believe science when a theory holds water for a decade. I majored in Biology: I support science as a whole, but I'm a normal dude first. Maybe that's why I didn't go for the PhD. Lol.
You have to admit the cost of these international policies (shutting down nuclear power plants) and the lunacy of spraying chemicals in the air (inb4 chemtrails) to change the global climate is not helping their cause. It sounds like rich people shit from the Simpsons.

You can't even go find one to disprove his claim user?

Google scholar, bud. I ain't the guy who posted it, but those are academic search results.

Trump literally hasn't accomplished shit lmao

Attached: william eyerish.jpg (917x1121, 73K)

kek'ed at the name of the first one I found: I'll do the other anons job for him, here you go: onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-109292-MS

US embassy in Israel.

>
>in other words you cannot produce any okay
see here:

Yes, it's a fucking search result you moron.
You can't even give me a single, just 1 (one) paper that reaches the conclusion that climate change is man-made. Why is that?

A search result is not a valid citation.

A term used to describe patterns of weather. Do you not know what that word means?

Oh! You didn't click the link. I see.

My bad, on my screen the article was up but I needed to click once more.
science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270

The mueller reports findings on the trump-russia collusion is a hoax too... Big deal... Millions of people still believe in global warming and millions of people still believe trump didn't get russia to rig the election.

jesus christ what are we gonna do with that much water

science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270

>trump didn't get russia to rig the election.

He didn't. Why do you libs keep insisting on talking about it.

Well, unfortunately that's only an abstract.
A link like this is what I wanted

go.owu.edu/~chjackso/Climate/papers/Crowley_2000_Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years.pdf

Bullshit. You have either misinterpreted something or had lies told to you. You can see the studies on the UN website, and the early ones were even shittier than today.

Same reason climate change isn't real...pay attention...jeeze...

Okay. You have it. Your turn.

He tried to collude, he tried to obstruct... only he was too fukken incompetent to succeed at either.

Since you couldn't provide the link yourself, did you read it?

It is interesting that people would want evidence of Bigfoot and not Climate Change. Science has no consensus. Mars is a planet in this solar system; nobody contends it without endless paying for studies to prove an affirmative. Why do you not question how "science" has a consensus on something so nebulus and complex? Why do you not question why there are countless studies worldwide with billions invested to prove it is happening? If it is so incontravertable, then why do some scientists have to fudge the numbers to prove their theories? Can you not see the danger of something that the politicians of numerous countries want more power to control? There is not a huge movement worldwide to fight narcotics, terrorism, or human trafficking, but all of sudden everybody (including notorious despotic or autocratic regimes) thinks it is a good idea that the US take the plunge and gut it's energy sector in the interest of saving the world. While factories with no real regulation open all over SW Asia, the only hope is for America to stop driving and eating beef?

A better question then is how do we cure their mental illness regarding these issues they have. Proof and scientific support for this proof doesn't seem to dissuade them one bit.

I don't give a shit about any of this

>Since you couldn't provide the link yourself
I did. You are just somehow unable to follow it to the article without bitching. I read it before I linked it. It concludes that natural variation only plays a lesser role compared to anthropogenic causes, greenhouse gases.

Your. Fucking. Turn.

Trumps hair is a hoax

This is hilarious. "The Society of Petroleum Engineers". It's like they aren't even trying to hide their hilariously monetised bias...

>Climate Change is a HOAX

OP is a HOMOSEXUAL

Attached: 8attxr8gfr711.jpg (1080x1921, 167K)

>I don't give a shit about any of this

Yet you cared enough to post. You're an enigma, aren't you, faggot?

Funny you don't mention that the cause of the Jurassic ice age was the eruption of a super volcano, putting vast amounts of among other things sulfur dioxide, and surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But, it isn't. I've worked first hand with concrete evidence of human influenced climate change, and I do it daily. I am an environmental scientist, and climate change is absolutely and irrefutably a fact, our fault, and has already happened quite a lot.

People who deny it should honestly feel shame.

>I am an environmental scientist

Attached: 1428192822727.jpg (460x300, 18K)

Will he sounds like a climate scientists, since they nigh all share his opinion on anthropogenic climate change. I'm not sure what your cause for doubt is.

Taking an awful long time. Are you still here wronganon or did you give up when someone actually brought evidence?

Or are you still struggling to find a dissenting study that isn't funded by an organisation as obviously named as "The Society of Petroleum Engineers"?

Oops, forgot to link wronganon, hey, wronganon () have you found any dissenting studies not funded by big oil? It's it possible the literal only ones disagreeing with what the majority of scientists have found are ones with a blatant agenda?

You can't combat the idea that something is a hoax by providing evidence. Conspiracy theorists refute evidence. It's part of the conspiracy. I take solace in the fact that the amount of people with such trust issues and such a flawed understanding of the scientific world and possibly of science altogether simply has to be small. To think that, somehow, every research team which provides the same results are all "in on it" is actual insanity.

Was going to say this. Basically everyone agrees the climate goes through cycles. The contention is man-made climate change. Both could royally screw us, the question is whether we're at fault or if we just have to go along for the ride.

>the contention
By a select few, mainly oil companies. The challenge to find a non-oil-funded dissenting study remains open.

Attached: 20170315-001.gif (320x222, 209K)

Cool, you have nothing then, wronganon ()? No studies showing we aren't the cause?

That's what I thought.

There you have it folks. Anthropogenic climate change is real to at some degree, big oil wants to shut it down which lends even more credence to it's correctness. It haemorrhages money without profiting much of anyone and is largely a publicly funded effort so corruption is at a minimum in the field.

Go. Fucking. Green.

fun fact

according to climate change people we have died died every 10-12 years, none of the shit they predicted ever came to pass even the OPPOSITE HAPPENED

since the
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010
2020

that thats 10 times we have all died

Attached: tide_has_turned_trump.jpg (1800x1230, 656K)

It took you the entire thread to find one single study and you couldn't even provide a proper link to it. You sure as hell didn't read it or any scientific paper for that matter, so there is no reason to act smug about it.

>No studies showing we aren't the cause?
There is a study linked in this thread that claims that humans are not the cause, but you dismiss it right away because it's funded by the petrol engineers, just like the flat earthers dismiss any evidence because it's by NASA. You're hopeless.

One study that relies on a model that is slated as inaccurate by the entire scientific community. By an organisation who profit greatly by it.

You clearly didn't read the linked article because it outright says humans are the primary cause, like, word for word it says:
>I show that the agreement between model re-
sults and observations for the past 1000 years is
sufficiently compelling to allow one to con-
clude that natural variability plays only a sub-
sidiary role in the 20th-century warming and
that the most parsimonious explanation for
most of the warming is that it is due to the
anthropogenic increase in GHG.

Did you read it? Or any of the others ever? It do you just parrot what you hear on /pol/?

It gets more difficult than that, because now there's people even arguing that climate change is a positive, that the warmer temperatures and higher levels of CO2 will increase agricultural yields.

And they'll argue it right up to the day they get flooded. It's hilarious. And the ones fighting against the truth are so obvious it's cartoonish. And now one of them is the President.

Mate...... citing the state of the atmosphere that caused dinosaurs to go extinct is not the rebuttal of climate change you think it is. It shows that an atmosphere filled with greenhouse gases is not congruous to life, whether we churn that shit into the air or natural disasters do it for us.

Man made climate change
Supervolcano during the jurrasic
.
.
.
It's like you're not even trying

I don't think you understand how science works. You're the same as the rest of these fucking retards who say "Woah it correlates so it must be true!" 0 thought processes going on in your brain.

The tears...those salty salty tears!!
Get fucked and shut the fuck up, fake "scientific" report fag. Follow the money.

Attached: Inevitability.jpg (400x400, 33K)

What are your thoughts on the fact that the IR fingerprint of water covers the CO2 spectra?

>One study that relies on a model that is slated as inaccurate by the entire scientific community.
The entire scientific community?
>By an organisation who profit greatly by it.
And that instantly makes the science behind it invalid? This is conspiracy theorist mentality.

>Did you read it? Or any of the others ever? It do you just parrot what you hear on /pol/?
You're just parroting me. What the hell. And no, I didn't read it because that takes time with some 50ish references that also need to be read to evaluate the validity of that study.
And what does /pol/ have to do with that? Anyone you don't like is Hitler?

Plenty of thought processes. Primarily: why is it the only people who disagree with this wide-based consensus from studies out of countless different labs with varied backers some of which are public and many of which have no association with for-profit organisations, happen to be those with a clear vested interest in it not being true?

Preponderance of evidence suggests the global warming phenomenon is largely attributed to greenhouse gases.
Preponderance of evidence suggests humans and human-lead industries are the only reasonable explanation for the heating phenomenon exceeding historical rates in spite of a solar minimum.

But sure, all these are the liars and the ones with a vested interest are not. That makes sense. Do you not doubt the motives of big oil at all? You're willing to trust Adobe of the wealthiest organisations in the world who stand to gain more by lying to you than the thousands of climate scientists telling you this is real would of it were not?

Seriously, the sheer weight of evidence alone should mean something. The thousands of studies that agree, all from different organisations, with varied funding. It would take an astronomical amount of organisation and there would be whistle blowers every five minutes due to the sheet number of people involved anyway.

Yet, silence...

Climate change is real, any statement saying that human activity is causing/accelerating it has no leg to stand on though.
We know temperatures change naturally in our planet and they have not changed their pattern with our existence; casualty does not equal causality.

Isn’t CO2 natural though?

NASA alone takes about a 20 billion dollar funding out of the premise that they are researching climate change, and they are the smaller fish.
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace and now former member, quit the movement because they were advocating these ideas that climate change was a bad thing without proof that is even caused by human activity.

Stopped reading immediately.

You have this percieved notion that ALL of science is backing that man made climate change is real. Sadly this is false. I have had discussions with scientists that have argued against it, and I tend to agree.

I have yet to read an article that discusses levels of confidence and sigmas.

Climate science is a liberal art. Sheeple can't think for themselves.

>No I didn't read it
>It takes time
>But I'll insist you take the time to hunt it down
You're disingenuous.

Thousands of studies agree that we have an impact that is more than negligible. These studies are from disparate organisations and academies with varied funding, much of it public.
A handful disagree. They are all funded by a small group of companies with a vested interest.

The evidence thus suggests that climate change is real, at least in part anthropogenic, and that a small group of companies are pouring as much money as thousands of others to try and refute the evidence thus fairly gathered.

I've read several oil-funded studies. They ignore vast stores of evidence to reach a conclusion. If you'd read enough studies, you'd see the same pattern. But you're bought in to the idea that you have special knowledge that thousands of scientists don't, and you won't take the time to read that which disagrees with you.

Yes, climate change wouldn't be a bad thing at all either; the more heat and CO2 we have, the higher the humidity level.
The fucking planet gets greener with more heat, opposite to what the idiots at the media will tell you; there will be no drought, plants consume CO2 for fuck's sake.

AOC probably doesn’t want it to be warm. She seems cold-blooded to me.

>Climate Change is a HOAX
It's a provable fact. The climate is in fac changing, the permafrost is thawing, the tree line is moving farther north, the glacial sheets are decaying, temperature is going up, as are sea levels. This is easily observable shit.

I don't think you know what cold-blooded means.

If Antarctica becomes tropical, we can just turn it into a big resort. See it’s not so bad.

You obviously didn’t understand my joke.

Nobody said all scientists. I'm not the user you're replying to but even I could follow that. He said that all studies that show humans aren't responsible are funded by oil companies.

If 99% of scientists say climate change is man made, it doesn't make you an enlightened intellectual to believe the other 1%. It makes you a fucking idiot.

> the more heat and CO2 we have, the higher the humidity level.
This is not a thing. Otherwise deserts would be the most humid places on earth.
>The fucking planet gets greener with more heat
Again, the desert would be extremely green if this was true.
>there will be no drought
there's a bet I would never take.

your scientifically inaccurate joke?

I wonder who would migrate there... would there be a giant war over the landmass?

>My anecdotal evidence of scientists I have talked to trumps the huge bank of evidence gathered in support of anthropogenic climate change which I will not read because my time is valuable so I will hold my belief without ever reading things which challenge it.

The vast majority of scientists who actually study this phenomenon agree. Sigma levels are largely only used by physicists and medical studies. Chemists for example don't tend to make announcements in sigma levels. If you haven't read any articles discussing levels of confidence you aren't reading much of the literature. Climate science is, like all other sciences, subject to the scientific method. Anthropogenic climate change had testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypotheses which have been found to hold true.

Forget it.

Spoken like another one of those mindless fuckheads. Please do more thinking instead of just reading.

For the record, I believe it is very PLAUSIBLE but I haven't seen enough true data to break out a pitchfork for anyone who disagrees. Sadly at this rate I would have to put pen to paper to satiate my concerns...

There would definitely be a war. Countries have already claimed territory there.

You are retarded.
>This is not a thing. Otherwise deserts would be the most humid places on earth.
Deserts are in the middle of the planet, humidity cannot be maintained with lower levels of CO2; we literally have ancient texts describing the surroundings of the Nile River to be green and full of life.
>Again, the desert would be extremely green if this was true.
Again, don't talk about things you don't know about.
>there's a bet I would never take.
Then you might as well keep praying to God, you don't want to take the risk of going to hell, do you?

>You're disingenuous.
No I'm not. I'm just telling you that reading hundreds of pages of scientific material takes time.
>Thousands of studies agree that we have an impact that is more than negligible. These studies are from disparate organisations and academies with varied funding, much of it public.
>A handful disagree. They are all funded by a small group of companies with a vested interest.
Made up numbers.

>The evidence thus suggests that climate change is real, at least in part anthropogenic
So we agree.

>But you're bought in to the idea that you have special knowledge that thousands of scientists don't
No I didn't. I asked for evidence because I don't blindly believe in what people tell me. The people researching for oil companies are scientists too and you don't believe them either and question their research.
>and you won't take the time to read that which disagrees with you.
But I do. See above.

>humidity cannot be maintained with lower levels of CO2
How does forming carbonic acid lead to more humidity?

Tell me, you enlightened beacon of pure logic, what reading should I do? Maybe you can point me to a geocities style blog or a YouTube video hosted by a man with obvious mental health issues. I would love to know where you get your very real very well researched informantion.

Actually, climate change isn't a hoax. Earth's climates have changed millions of times over billions of years.
It's just that the Left is using their perversion of climate change to foist an enormous tax on everyone, a form of robbery and extortion.
Politically, the Left's version of "climate change" is a form of HATRED AND VIOLENCE perpetrated on everyone.

Attached: ClimateChart2.jpg (923x768, 296K)

>How does forming carbonic acid lead to more humidity?
Oh a physical level; they create a more dense atmosphere, making a better greenhouse effect

Simple thought experiment, how many variables do you think affect the climate?

Follow up, how many of these variables have been discussed and discarded?

All I have seen thus far are graphs of a recent temperature change in a noise driven graph set next to a graph of CO2 concentration in ice. I already learned through the research projects I have done to not latch onto one variable before discussing ALL variables.

>Climate change has always been a thing, and here's the chart to prove it. But pay no attention to those sharp spikes at the very back of the chart. That's just earth being earth.

try again using science.

Still waiting on all that research you've done.

Did you write a bot to combine right wing extremist talking points or did you copy and paste it all together on your own?

>try again using science.
You must know a lot about science, enlighten us.

>But I do
>I didn't read it
Gtfo. I can't debate someone who won't read what they demanded. You say made up numbers, but read through the Google Scholar search you so hastily disparaged earlier. Abstracts often belie their conclusion so you can skim. Tally the times they blatantly and in no uncertain terms conclude that we are responsible for the better part of climate change, really those that explicitly state the opposite. Go for as long as you like, the dissent is RARE.

You're sold on an idea, and you won't spare the time to read that which disagrees, as you've demonstrated in this very thread, with your unwillingness to read a 9-page PDF file.

You are disingenuous. I can't argue with you because you won't argue fairly, and will advise others of the same logical fallacies you yourself commit. Burden of proof? This thread opened with a claim contrary to the status quo and not one person has provided proof of that claim. Only one study has been linked behind a paywall as if I needed any more reason to doubt its credibility.

Every scientist at NASA agrees climate change is real and humans are accelerating it.

But wait some college-dropout, coke-head "environmental journalist" at fox news says it's not real so a bunch of white haired, beer bellied, red faced boomers automatically agree.

Attached: co2.jpg (835x605, 104K)

Attached: 58008096_1599567463510618_4937720091128102912_n.jpg (720x960, 70K)

NASA? You mean the NASA that takes about 20 billion dollars a year to fund their "research" about climate change NASA? The NASA that spends less than 2% of that money to actually research climate change NASA?
Wow, I'm convinced; gais gais, climate change is true, praise the Lord!

Uh, your chart is out of date, we past 400 atleast 2 years ago.

Carbonic acid is the acid formed when CO2 dissolves in water. When CO2 reacts with humidity it can form as a liquid at higher temperatures than water which is one of the primary drives behind acid rain, which is damaging to crops. It lowers RH when it forms.

CO2 + water evaporating from increased heat if global waters = more acid rain = bad for crops, bad for buildings, bad for people

Can I dumb that down for y'all any more?

This guy gets all his information from his grandpa's racist-facebook-memes but he somehow thinks he outsmarted all the scientists at NASA.

ok my biggest problem with climate change is that it was first stated as global warming when I was in school. Global warming was an irrefutable fact. then they decided that since not every place in the world was consistently warming from year to year they dubbed it climate change instead.
How can we pull data from such a minuscule sample set ie. the last 100 years or so when we started recording temperatures and then say we know what will happen in the next 1000+ years without knowing what happened in the past 1000+ years?

and that article is still more or less accurate.

We can get lots of data concerning historical temperatures through ice cores, tree rings, historical records etc.

>NASA takes $20bn for climate study and spends 2% on climate study
Citation very much Needed

>all the people being serious
>"whohoho, I sure do like science"

we do know the temperatures thousands of years ago.

Attached: global temperature.jpg (1058x576, 95K)

CO2 has infrared absorption around 4 micrometers and 14 micrometers wavelength. Water already absorbs these wavelengths. Luckily liquid water absorbs less of the 4 um therefore I expect that after water covers the world we will see the cycle return.

Right, the NASA that put a man on the moon. The NASA that employs some of the best climate scientists in the world. Maybe you have a better source?

My grandpa's name is Patrick Moore then; and you take yours from CNN and some "science guy" who doesn't even have a PhD.

Fucking troll KYS ASAP

That attempted rebuttable is so sad and pathetic. You are flailing from how bad you just got burned by my last two comments.

>Says there was no rebuttal, while not giving a rebuttal for the last two comments.
The autism.

Attached: co2(2).jpg (1280x800, 310K)

So your hypothesis is that the climate will reach an equilibrium after the polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise enough for water to absorb the excess heat.

Please tell me I'm wrong because otherwise that's painfully stupid. Please provide a link to your research so I can understand and maybe laugh at you.

your mom has a cock

youtube.com/watch?v=65NltGQJc50

Patrick Moore is lobbyist and shill for big coal and big oil companies.

He's not even a scientists he gets paid millions to lie to stupid uneducated boomers about climate change.

It's all volcanos. AGW is retarded. Made Al Gore rich, though, so bully.

And your mother has a dick.
See I can make shit up too, but at least Patrick Moore elaborates his points; do elaborate yours. How is Patrick Moore lying?

you are a special kind of idiot.

Try:

1. Climate change is real.
2. Climate change is definitely caused by human activity.
3. Human extinction, not to mention the extinction of most animals on Earth is very likely if nothing changes.
4. There are just a few years to do something about it and that something is not compatible with our current civilization.
5. How do we start building a new civilization, or how do we prepare to die?

Because... ?
See this is why I give no credibility to people saying climate change is wrong, they never explain anything, they just call others idiots in the end; you guys might as well becomes SJWs and ask for a safe space.

>weather patterns over even the last 20 years
that happened

I wouldn’t worry too much about it user, it’s Yea Forums. Basically everyone here is either gay and/or retarded. Fortunately none of them will be scientists so we should be ok

At this stage I will assume you understand/know nothing.

My hypothesis is that water vapor already absorbs the infrared wavelengths that under man driven climate change would be absorbed by carbon dioxide. What this means is that any carbon that is present in the atmosphere has a negligible affect as water is already absorbing these wavelengths. I suppose the CO2 nominal heat increase could push more water into a vapor phase to increase the heat absorption, but I don't really have the time or will power to take it much further than that. I've put in my time.

>9-page PDF file.
And you can't even read my fucking 2 lines of post. There are 60 references in that article that you have to read you fucking moron. That takes time. You can't read hundreds of pages in an hour or two.

>Abstracts often belie their conclusion so you can skim.
So you read a few thousand abstracts or did you read like 10 and extrapolate? The answer is you did the latter and your numbers are made up.

>You're sold on an idea, and you won't spare the time to read that which disagrees
No I'm not. I constantly asked for evidence and you wouldn't provide any because up to this point you hadn't looked into it yourself. You're the disingenuous one.

>Only one study has been linked behind a paywall as if I needed any more reason to doubt its credibility.
Lots of scientific articles are 'behind a paywall' because they were published in magazines or books and it says literally nothing about their credibility but it tells me that you never did any research before, else you'd know this.

how exactly is killing off all multicellular lifeform a scam to take what money?

because they don't like what the information means to their lives. Climate change shows that we've been living the wrong way, and the only think they can come up with to feel better is dennying the science.

>More CO2
>More heat
>More humidity
>Plants consume CO2
>Plants consume water
>Life on the planet depends on plants
>Human extinction
Yeah no, try again user.

literally kill yourself

Colorado river alone is a massive bit of evidence thap proves mankind is causing climate change.

Which groups exactly, what names do you have? and how do they profit? Can you show numbers?

low quaility bait, Yea Forums

Step up your fucking game.

Who are you and why do I care what you think? Post your research paper.

they are not beliefs for fuck sake, they're scientific facts on one side and stupid denial on the other

>is it happening

There's no doubt that it's happening. That debate took place 20 years ago. Anyone with any education or basic understanding of science knows it's happening.

So you're the kind of stupid person who looks out the window to check the climate and think to yourself "yup, all fine, climate change must still be a hoax!"

Dunning Krueger effect in action everybody.

You teach a dipshit words like "infared wavelength" and "vapor phase" and suddenly they think they know more than actual climate scientists who spend years doing research in the field.

it would be funny if they weren't the major cause of the problem

This is what is sad, all you can do is cry that you can't read it in a paper written by another random person. I don't have the time or crayons for someone who isn't interested in the scientific method or intellectual discussion.

Please feel free to keep that pitchfork pointed in my direction because you don't understand facts and theories.

You need to look up the difference between climate and weather dude. Did you skip 3rd grade?

If you keep filling that bathtub, it's going to overflow
So for your roommates sake, stop the fucking flow

>or did you read 10 and extrapolate?
It was more on the order of hundreds. I questioned it, did due diligence, and decided that if I found only about one in several hundred studies where the conclusion was different, that it was worth giving both kinds a look, reading references, and coming to my own conclusions. The result was a day or so of my life I will never get back following petroleum funded studies back to other petroleum funded studies and so on and so forth, half the sources were paywalled and on pro-oil sites. Meanwhile the independent studies all contained references to the work of chemists, geologists, and others, and very rarely referenced studies from the same institutions or with the same funding bodies, and barely a paywall to contend with. The conclusion was simple: one group was larger, had more varied sources from less self-referential studies, and the other smelled of oil and money down to the very last source.

If you had spent any time reading these papers, you would find the same.

Good night.

You are obviously pulling this information from somewhere. I'm just asking you to provide a link. Yea Forums isn't a peer reviewed publishing platform.

>Science has no consensus.
When you don't like the actual overwhealming scientific consensus...

Massive increases in CO2 are bad for vegetation. Go look at the fossil record studies. Periods with high humidity plus high CO2 equal fossil layers with minimal oil and vegetative fossils and higher acidity.

Attached: 1eb6f67f6f96a9744dd0b3e0a6a6b19ab8bbc5b0f5bea2444d21408fb0d87d6e_1_01.jpg (594x629, 71K)

A link to what? Proof that water has absorption at the same wavelengths as CO2? I'll gladly provide that if it's what you want. The rest is just connecting some obvious dots. What scares me is I would expect this to be discredited but my google fu hasn't found anything.

wow, such science! you better run get your nobel prize

You're not very well versed on actual climate science. You just came up with an idea in your head and decided it was true. That's not science. Scientists use data and experiment to back up their claims.

>fossil record studies

so I guess humans have been fuckin things up for hundreds of millions of years eh?

m' climate change, humans are the cause

Attached: rosaleen-young-pet.jpg (1024x768, 364K)

Problem with that is that we've never seen it happening on a global scale; "massive" is not a projection of what's going on, we're in numbers we know the planet can take. Are we worried about the human race or the planet?

Actually, we are pushing the CO2 levels far beyond what has naturally occurred in similar timespands PLUS we are doing this while the planet is -supposed- to be in its downtick of CO2

Wow, such reply! You better tell your ma and pa that you replied to someone on the Internet

>Lots of scientific articles are 'behind a paywall' because they were published in magazines or books and it says literally nothing about their credibility
Actually, the ones begins paywalled on sites that are literally agenda based and have no academic basis other than to further that agenda SHOULD be treated as suffering a greater bias than other studies, speaking as a researcher.

If I find an article on a university site behind a paywall I will lend it higher credence than behind a paywall at a climate change only site or a big oil site.

The fact is fact. I am not going to rerun IR on water in all 3 phases and CO2, have what the chemistry community already knows to be fact, have it peer reviewed by a chemist (most boring paper ever), just to check off your checkbox because you don't understand science.

I sincerely hope you didn't study science in college because you clearly didn't grasp what science is about.

What makes you so sure that your theory is sound? Have you ran it against any models or looked for patterns in past cycles of climate change? It sounds like you googled some ideas with a predetermined intent and "connected the dots" that appeal to your bias. That's not research. That's basically masturbating.

It not tho.

If you dont even have a university degree, what right do you have chiming in on these things?

this isn't worth debate anymore, those who know what is going on with the world are making adequate preparations

Anybody who thinks they can control the outcome is a fool.

The fact is you made up some bullshit that makes you feel good and smart and the perfect boy your mommy always told you that you were. Now you're facing the reality that you're nobody with stupid ideas about climate change.

Climate change is real but we dont have that much impact on it, the more co2 the more plant life go figure

Attached: IMG_20190421_100912.jpg (530x318, 32K)

See
Be less of a dogmatic conspiracy theorist.

Attached: 1554671907694.png (1276x714, 771K)

That sure is a nice assumption you got there.

Quite the contrary. I hoped to find evidence or a discussion disproving my theory. Spent a couple days looking for it. Never found it. If anything I am disappointed that such a simple concept slipped past so many eyes, I hope I am wrong.

But yeah keep trying to stereotype me because I disagree with calling man driven climate change a fact.

Have you ever stopped to consider climate science is just a little more complicated than high school chemistry?

If you did, then you have access to almost all scientific peer-reviewed publications. Or does you backwater university not provide this to their alumni?

wut

the sad thing is how climate change became so politicized.

Because it's a part of a much larger problem we face- which is a complete drainage of natural resources and fossil fuels which take millions of years to replenish- coinciding with in an increasingly heated world (whether you believe it's man made or not, it's irrelevant), which will be adding close to 10bn more people over the next 30 years

water, food security, ocean acidification, mass migration, resource depletion, mass extinction of land and ocean life, this is the perfect storm that coincides with everything related to future climate projections and will be the death of us

it doesn't take a fucking college degree to understand this either, which makes it all the more frustrating because, duh

The climate changes sometimes, i wish id of thought of that

Not really, the highest numbers are AKA fabricated bullshit. Climate cycles are not that simple, there are cycles over cycles, but the bigger ones is going up, naturally; CO2 levels are normal for our cycle.

>citation needed

The fact that nobody has disproved it just means no one has tested your dumb idea. Out of thousands of climate scientists working for decades, none of them thought to test your idea that took you probably less than 20 minutes to come up with using only basic chemistry knowledge. So there are three conclusions you can draw there.

>All climate scientists are incompetent and you are far more competent at climate science than any of them.
>They are all lying and are all in league with each other to perpetuate a really dumb lie that anybody with a computer could debunk.
>You're not as smart as you think you are and climate scientists know something you don't.

So which one is your conclusion?

goddamnit you retards are still getting triggered, I was gone for few hours and you are still throwing poop at eachother, god you have no life whatsoever?

Fucking liberal cuck

I promise that every denier is either a trump supporter or a supporter of the anti-science right wing in the US. Politics informs that view, more than reality or science

You're the true disappointment to society. I respect a flat earther more than you because they at least try to use science, but fail. You made 0 attempt, even when presented with fact. You would probably even require "proof" that water is a polar molecule.
I've given you the innate fact of water and CO2, I've taken that fact and extrapolated my own theory. When I searched for articles to disprove my theory I found nothing. I'm in the gray arguing with newfags who literally jump from bandwagon to the next.

This still works i see.

Lol I can survive in the wild and I know you can't.

by all means continue on the way you are, I won't stop you

A climate scientist lurking Yea Forums on Yea Forums the asshole of the internet.
Sure kid.

Attached: 1555496075503.jpg (579x900, 65K)

I would hope and fully expect 3. But hey anytime I try to bring this crazy simple concept up all you hear are autists screaming (and I don't necessarily mean you).

It's really been the most disappointing part of the whole discussion, no one wants to discuss. No one can discredit the thought, and it seems climate scientists have either written it off for a reason I cannot see, or worse yet, are too incompetent to have ever thought of it.

Sadly, that is the one type of scientist I don't have a contact for to have a REAL discussion.

evidence, that republicunts do not use their brains... that's the kneejerk reaction, it's hilarious how stupid and trained they are

COLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Only required when someone else replies to your no-cited claims right? You don't need a citation to know most numbers that go above the average CO2 are projections of the next 2 years or so.

Attached: C6vr9q_UwAAdWgk.jpg (750x567, 77K)

>scientists don't know what the temperature was 10,000 years ago

Attached: 1548993438587-b.jpg (1280x695, 190K)

>cannot refute, resorts to namecalling

>I've given you the innate fact of water and CO2,
Sure. Not really grammatically correct, but I get what you're saying. "Infared wavelengths" and all that, I'm sure there's some scientific basis for that.

>I've taken that fact and extrapolated my own theory.

All right, you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis. Your science teacher should have taught you this. Do you remember the next step after hypothesis user?

>When I searched for articles to disprove my theory I found nothing.

Hypothesis. If you find nothing on google to disprove your hypothesis, that doesn't mean that your hypothesis is true dude. It might not have been tested by anyone, for various reasons. Perhaps scientists know something you don't and that's why they haven't tested this particular hypothesis? Either way, your idea has to be tested before you can say you did a science. Right now, you just did a google and a think and that's it.

It does. Every academic portal is covered. OnePetro is not because it is not an academic portal, it doesn't contain anything but internally reviewed and heavily biased articles. That site wouldn't know a peer review of it slapped it in the face.

I fail to see the problem

>Climate Change is a HOAX
And other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself

>No one can discredit the thought

This specifically means your idea is not scientific. You need to do more research. If you can't discredit your idea with anything, it's a belief. Not science.

Climate science is much more complicated than basic chemistry. Scientists know something you don't. You should do more research on actual climate science to figure out where you went wrong.

ITT: Everyone knows Climate change is NOT a hoax, but debate whether is caused by human activity and whether it's actually a bad thing for our planets or not.

It is caused by humans, and it is bad for humans. The planet doesn't give a shit, it's not really a living thing.

My bad, didn't have the funds for the equipment to fully test my hypothesis to generate the theory. I suppose I will quit my job, go into debt (provided someone will loan me money for the equipment), to conduct the research to hopefully disprove my hypothesis. Want to circle back in a year once I have some data? Note it won't be peer reviewed at that stage.

>it's not really a living thing
you've got to be fucking kidding me.

This presidency is a hoax.

>It is caused by humans, and it is bad for humans.
A claim only plausible with historical background, of which we have none; the planet does benefit from higher temperatures and CO2 levels.

Sorry but what part of your idea isn't already proven incorrect by rising temperatures and rising seas?

If they absorbed the same wavelengths TO THE SAME TOTAL NUMBER OF JOULES, maybe your argument would go somewhere, but as it stands, there had been plenty of 'work done' that proves your weed-epiphany wrong.

Forgive my puns but at this point you're barely even worth properly mocking.

the entire world agrees that climate change is real, and that its harmful to the planet which in turn is harmful to the people that live on it.

only Americans think it's a conspiracy to
>save your own fucking lives
OH MY GOD HOW TERRIBLE!? IMAGINE IF THEYRE RIGHT AND THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT BETTER. THE UTTER FUCKING HORROR OF IT.

stupid faggot americans.

Fucking all sorts here buddy.

Are you complaining that science is just too hard for you or something? Just shut the fuck up then, let the people who do climate science for a living draw conclusions then. Not everything is a conspiracy that can be uncovered with a few google searches.

God you kids love to put words in my mouth. I never said my hypothesis was fact, simply the IR wavelengths.

Even if I rattled off credentials you wouldn't care. At this rate you don't have the knowledge to help me understand why the scientific community may have disregarded a very simple concept. The research isn't available to discredit my very basic concept. Noisey graphs with shitty timescales and a correlation isn't enough for me to call something fact.

I call it independent thinking

Nuclear energy is more efficient and has less waste than solar and wind lol. Nice try

>the entire world
More like Facebook grandmas and silly kids that think Bill Nye is a big deal
>agrees that climate change is real, and that its harmful to the planet which in turn is harmful to the people that live on it.
Facebook grandmas also believe Noah built an ark to save every animal on the planet

It's more time than I would like to spend just to satisfy your need for absolute proof. I'm fine with being in the gray until someone else does something about it. Until then I will be skepticle. No harm in that.

I think the irony here is that your argument is to follow the herd. Definitely a flat earther back when everyone knew the earth was flat.

>More like Facebook
You mean that thing that....services the entire fucking world and not JUST american grandmas?

the fucking ego it takes to assume that there is no other world outside of your own country is staggering. the entire world showed up in Paris to curb this issue. they're still curbing it whether or not you're on board. because there are 54 other countries on this fucking planet. it's not JUST about you and your fucking leftist conspiracy bullshit. you are not the end all be all of the human response to climate change. you're just the idiot in the back of the class screaming about how its not real. no one fucking cares about you anymore. real or not, just on the off chance, why dont we just go ahead and ignore the retards who elected a traitorous retard to rule them all? thats how little you fucking matter. you're expendable. the paris agreement is still a thing with or without your participation so take your god complex and go fuck yourself.

I'm not American.
You don't need to be American to know how thermodynamics work with out planet.

>services the entire fucking world and not JUST american grandmas?
They don't serve me, or anyone who knows what Facebook actually does.
>the fucking ego it takes to assume that there is no other world outside of your own country is staggering
The fucking ego it takes to make assumptions

>They absorb the same wavelengths
>Gee I wonder how much energy they both can store, relatively, before temperature change and radiation?
There is a really simple reason your marijuana revelation is not being studied by climate scientists, and that is a thing called SHC.

You're also not a scientist. Just someone who took physics in high school. The entire worlds
>scientific professionals with degrees who get paid to do this for a living
say that this is real. its not telling that america is the ONLY COUNTRY saying that its not?

>The fucking ego it takes to make assumptions
Like you did, about me being a fucking grandma?
Jesus christ your logic is all over the place. Go take melatonin and calm the fuck down. maybe then you'll start making some form of sense.

this. only country, out of everything located on pic related.

Attached: yourstupidfuckingproblemishere.jpg (620x387, 99K)

>You're also not a scientist.
And you are? Explain how thermodynamics and CO2 levels are bad for a planet whose inhabitants benefit from vegetation who happens to consume CO2 and water.
Go, chop chop Mr. scientist.

I get it. It's big and scary. No one wants this to be real, but it is. And thats okay because we have each other. Together we don't have to fight this gigantic, intangible thing alone. People who fret about it not being real should be pitied. Its bigger than they are, and out of their direct control, so they're scared. And that's okay. We all are.

This guy doesn't know the difference between laws and theories

>Like you did, about me being a fucking grandma?
You're a special kind of retarded aren't you? They say autistic people can't understand a deceptive tone of mockery.

>Go, chop chop Mr. scientist.
Difference is I never claimed to be. You're the one childishly claiming to know the laws
>while ALSO providing none
and telling everyone that they're wrong. I'm not doing that shit because I didn't peak in fucking high school.

>Difference is I never claimed to be.
Then shut the fuck up. I understand something, I'm going to defend my point, you don't understand anything, you should not try to defend anything.

>Climate Change is a HOAX

climate change caused by man is a HOAX

climate change itself is not

Attached: OCASIO3.jpg (1179x742, 183K)

If you're begging for an explanation of basic greenhouse gas and how it relates to the planet then you should go retake a 7th grade science class.

No you're just a special kind of autistic. You can both assume, AND JOKE, at the same time. What a novel concept I know, a possible duality. I know you're not used to thinking quite so extensively so it must be exhausting having to navigate a complex concept like "im joking about an assumption i made thats actually an insult to your intelligence". that's a lot of words isn't it, champ?

Don't be a fucking moron kid

>Then shut the fuck up. I understand something, I'm going to defend my point, you don't understand anything, you should not try to defend anything.
You're not defending jackshit except what a utter fucking retard you are. You're NOT a professional, you DONT know jackshit, and you BARELY have a grasp on the English language. You should just shut the fuck up in general. I'm sure you exhaust everyone around you with your tangential thinking that protects some kind of narcissistic god complex that you rely on to justify what a shitty fucking person you are.

At a glance SHC doesn't seem related, but I'll continue to dig. I appreciate the information, but I don't actually smoke weed. You should try to keep your ego out of these things, makes you look mad weak.

You mean as how a dense atmosphere absorbs more heat and humidity that allows plants to grow? Dammit, I forgot to take that class...

>I understand something, I'm going to defend my point
I I I. I know better, I understand, I'm going to defend MY point, I I I. Everyone should listen to me, because I said something that only I know something about. Fucking americans man.

>You're not defending jackshit except what a utter fucking retard you are.
Nice opinion, now if you want to take a chance and prove me wrong, that would make you less of a retarded, I guess? I mean, you're insulting someone you can't disprove, what does that make you?

Pretty sure everyone is worried about the land glaciers melting and raising the sea level more than a few extra plants. Move inland folks.

>Don't be a fucking moron kid

are you over 70?

I'm actually waiting for someone to explain this: Explain how thermodynamics and CO2 levels are bad for a planet whose inhabitants benefit from vegetation who happens to consume CO2 and water.
Makes no sense from a thermodynamic point of view, and little I know about plants; I'm aware I may be retarded, but no one has replied to me, so I'm not buying the "no no no, you're wrong" bullshit.

Cancer from windmills is real

Listen, armchair physicist, SHC is the energy taken for a substance to increase one degree. If you can't figure out why a difference in the Specific Heat Capacity of two materials means that their absorption spectra being the same makes your entire hypothesis fall apart, then you don't understand enough of the science and need to go back to school. SHC is junior high school science.

Acid. Rain.

The concept is the CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing beyond the rate the plants are consuming. CO2 is also absorbing heat from the sun, and also absorbing heat that is reflected from the surface that would normally escape our atmosphere. This subtle heating affect is accelerating. Now the real fear isnt that sea glaciers are melting, those are already in water and not raising the sea level. The fear is that ice masses on land will melt and raise the sea level. I believe it is projected to reach as far inland as North Carolina, displacing people into more condensed space. People don't like change. This would ruin many peoples way of life.

Plants are affected by extreme temperature.

Rain forests which produce most of the oxygen in the atmosphere have been mostly demolished. Deforestation is another human activity accelerating climate change.

It's the same as when the dinosaurs went extinct.
The temperature rises and then the bees die, Then plants die and stop producing oxygen.
Then there is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere for animals to breath.
Mass extinction.

You may be right, this is where I'm proud to live in a fuckin' mountain