Have you personally encountered a cult? Even a small one? No internet shit. Real life only. Wat do Yea Forums?

>No science
Someone has never read a paper
>Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of scientists have written papers about how there's no link to CO2
Not a single one. There IS a definite correlation link and even those who deny climate change accept that on the whole- where they differ is that the science favours causation whereas deniers tend to reject that

You don't even understand the absolute basics of what you're talking about, so it's no surprise you're an idiot

>73 scientists say it's so
You've been bamboozled.

Attached: co2-temps.jpg (960x720, 87K)

just go on google scholar and search "climate change", then read some articles.

scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=climate change&btnG=

>4.6 billion year range

Attached: wtf.jpg (480x480, 23K)

Submit to your leader
It's the only way to be truly happy

>has never read a paper
all the time
>There IS a definite correlation
Where? Co far it's been determined that it's the sun and water that controls the climate. NASA/NOAA doesn't even run that in their models, and they've been wrong for many decades.
>deniers tend to reject that
deny what? The climate crowd denies science and....
>the absolute basics
I'm sure I know more than you.

Why would I do that? I have already read hundreds of papers that say AGW is not a thing.

>no CO2 relationship

Attached: 1497572079576.png (288x288, 70K)

>google
c'mon bro

>Co far it's been determined that it's the sun and water that controls the climate.
No it hasn't, again you're misunderstanding what science actually does. Obviously both water and sunlight affect the climate because they're two primary factors in temperature change throughout the world, not to mention seasons etc. The idea that those are the only factors you need to consider is simply childish and retarded as you well know.
>deny what?
They tend to deny causal link, like I literally just said. Don't be dense on purpose.
>I'm sure I know more than you.
Then you're arrogant as well as an idiot, good for you

yeah a correlation. There's also a correlation link between brad pitt appearing in movies and deaths by drowning in swimming pools

Yeah. I went to AA a few times.

That's because you're using the PragerU graph that doesn't account for solar activity (ironically enough).

ow the edge

>hundreds of papers
*hundreds of /pol/ maymays
ftfy

prove me wrong

>No it hasn't
Yes. It has.
>you're misunderstanding
If you understood science, you wouldn't pull out this "consensus" BS. The minute you say "12 scientists and Bill Nye say the world is warming" proves that you don't understand science.
>Obviously both water and sunlight affect the climate
So far it hasn't. All the NOAA/NASA/IPCC graphs don't account for it. They say CO2 is the control knob.
>They tend to deny causal link
Casual link? What is that?
>you're arrogant as well
Because I haven't seen a single piece of proof that humans do anything to change climate? Or because I don't believe all the lies?

>the PragerU graph
I don't know what this is. Post it.

I managed a small cult for four years. Things have disbanded since the leader passed away.

lol user i dont care

I've been in the same one twice, I joined because of a goth chick (as you do) but left when she moved out of town
I rejoined it like a year later and stayed in it untill it dissolved
The cult itself was small, the most people I've seen at a time was 13 (spooky number, that's why I remembered it) but the whole thing was kinda cringy, the only people in it were either really into it and they brought hamsters, cats and other small animals as 'sacrifices' and those were the people that were in the cult from the begining and took it way too seriously and the rest were rebellious kids with religious parents who joined the 'cult' for a few months and then left

list them

google it.

>Have you personally encountered a cult? Even a small one? No internet shit. Real life only. Wat do Yea Forums?

Yes, I met a Japanese once.

that's because you can't prove me wrong.

I met a Mormon once. He was all sweaty in his black suit. Smiled too much, must have been on brainwashing drugs.

>Yes. It has.
Then you might want to tell the rest of the planet since you're clearly God and have decided things in absolutes
>you wouldn't pull out this "consensus" BS
I didn't. In my original comment I referenced 99% of scientists specifically because that's the measure of support for a causal link of climate change and man-made carbon emissions in the last 100 years, incidentally higher than the margin of error
If you're rejecting even that basic measurement then feel free to link everyone to actual contrary evidence since you playing god like before isn't cutting it for me
>Casual link? What is that?
Oh, you're trolling

2/10 had me responding at least

No. You list the irrefutable proof that it exists. No one has yet.

I went to a church once, and everyone screamed exactly on cue, not randomly.
>argument disproved

Jehovah's witnesses. Despite the fact that their religion has proved itself false, they continually tend to double down on their nutty beliefs. My mother is one, I was smart enough to never join or convert. Made my life a living hell post high school because she treated me less than human because I didn't share her beliefs.

But yeah, JWs, if you ever encounter those idiots and want to shatter their hopes, bring up the multiple end of the world prophecies that never came to pass. When they respond with their only answer, "the predictions were made according to the revelation available at the time", ask them how that reconciles with deuteronomy 18:20-21

When you engage them from afar they are the kindest people on earth, but when you become involved with them all of them will atte pt to control you using shaming tactics and defending their point of view by claiming their god says this is how things must be.

The most interesting part is that they actively recruit university educated individuals for the leadership positions yet they actively discourage their congregation from pursuing such education citing that their god must come first.

Its an excellent scam, a good way to test just how susceptible you are to mental manipulation and how strong you are as an individual.

kek. i knew you were lying about "muh hundreds of papers".

got me there

you caught me. for you

Attached: you.png (1190x906, 178K)

>google it.
What? "Prager U climate graph"? I get a bunch of shit like pic related.

Attached: Solar power.jpg (1390x675, 176K)

yes. jehovas witness. i tell them i can't talk to strangers without my husband present. they leave, praying for me

>since you're clearly God and have decided things in absolutes
No, that's the current consensus. The AGWfags are the ones doing what you say.
>the measure of support for a causal link of climate change
Your number is 97%, and that's a total of 73 scientists. Also, there is no link. There has never been proof provided.

You're gonna have to be more specific. There is no "climate change science". There's hydrologists, geologists, oceanographers, physicists, etc.

Again. Post one undisputed thing. No one in the world has and your deflection is weak.

I heard some shit about them having vaults under utah or some shit. Know anything?

Get Mormons coming by every once in a while. That's about it.

Last Podcast on the Left is currently doing a 5 part series on Mormons. Same kind of shit. Really similar to Scientology.

Lived my life in a cult in Europe. The cult ownes the school i went to. They have controlled most of my life.

4 real nigga? What'd they do to your ass?

link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-16880-3
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X17302753
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018PA003376
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379118309673
and NASA themselves saying they don't know how clouds work
isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS

There's plenty more, but you need to show yours.

Yes. Sat in a Kingdom Hall one evening. I was asked to sit in the “penalty box” at the back of the hall for being apostate, and being with someone who needed to (according to the JW cult) be “reproved”

go on

I can't help you there. I would not be surprised if they have squandered some "donation" money to build bunkers for their top tier people. Ever since their child molestation accusations came to light, they are doubling down on recruitment. I mean we're talking 7 day a week proselytizing using these hand carts. The funny thing is they have absolutely no drive to preach, they wait for people to come up to them and ask questions. Its mandated for fully inducted members lol they have to keep a time sheet of time served or they get a paddlin'.

Ill check it out. Learning the internal mechanics of establishing and maintaining cults alive are fascinating. The psychology of it blows my mind.

The graph used is just two separate graphs superimposed onto each other. That's not how you calculate correlation at all. It was made by a coal mining engineer called Monte Hieb.

Here's what it looks like if you not only superimpose to graphs onto each other, but actually do the calculations needed, and include the solar radiation. Pretty solid correlation.

Source: searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf

Attached: Untitled.jpg (913x851, 296K)

No, you idiot, is the graph from Prage U. Haven't you learned how to find sources at all?

>Post one undisputed thing
I can't post one undisputed thing in all of science. Science is by definition disputed. There's not a chance in hell you have any scientific training at all.

Attached: climate skeptic.jpg (700x800, 112K)

What does the graph look like if you remove CO2?

That's my post, and it's not from Prager U. I don't even know what Prager U said. It's the general CO2/temp graph.

Attached: CO2-and-Temperature-Changes-Over-Millions-of-Years-Plimer-2009-Fleming-2018.jpg (947x715, 288K)

>playing semantics
>no evidence
>profit
gg

there's often a few jehova's witnesses near the train station, that's about it.

yea it was a jesus cult but weirder.. the only reason i went was because i wanted to hang out with my friend. we hung out for an hour then she took me to see her family shed. this shed was their place of worship. they ended up talking about what animal we are spiritually then i just dont remember much except their books were christian books. they just twisted their meanings.

yeah. Pretty much anytime I run into a trumptard.

>Ill check it out...
I already knew a lot of it, but I didnt' know a lot of the details. John Smith was really a huckster carnie that got ran out of all these towns. He kept trying his bullshit and stories until he found a story that stuck. He continued the bullshit and he kept getting run out of town until his following his a large enough following. It seems the same for all religions. Plus, the show is funny as shit.

I lived in an occult- obsessed cult until I was 15. Everyone else in my family is still part of it, though for all I know some are in prison. Before I left several members had done jail time for killing dogs.

>final fantasy house
I had no idea what this was and now I'm compelled to learn more. Fucking crazy.

what was it called? and where?

Attached: hurr.jpg (512x399, 40K)

Sketch Yea Forumsro. Were they casting spells and shit?

Not really relevant. Species adapt to specific environments, not history. All living species are adapted to the climate over the last couple million years, not to the temperature in the Cretaceous.

When I was real little the neighbor was like JW or mormon. I went to this Sunday school with them to play sometimes because they had 3 sons I could play with. Long story short they were crazy Neo Nazi's. Little blonde boys and girls drawin swatztikas on the playground. Never went back, but fuck.

>link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-16880-3
"muh single scientist says"
there's a reason scientific consensus is a thing.

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X17302753
There's no way you actually read this. It has nothing to do with evidence for or against climate change. It's about the specific mechanisms that cause atmospheric CO2 to be trapped in ice.

>agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018PA003376
You didn't read this one either. This one actually assumes climate change.

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379118309673
This is about how the Greenland and Antarctic climates affect the SW Atlantic.

>and NASA themselves saying they don't know how clouds work
admit it, you're paraphrasing. btw, nasa states pretty fucking clearly that climate change is a thing.

You didn't read a fucking word of any of these.

I don't really want to give the name since it made the news many years ago, but it's in Sweden.

It was more about invoking specific spirits and such for their benefit (that's where the dog-killing came in). There were some spells too, and 'alchemy' which involved making specific mixtures to use in rituals, often containing herbs or incenses and sometimes period blood or semen.

Attached: slide_4[1].jpg (960x720, 61K)

I know several people who vote Democrat

>scientific consensus
It's totally not a thing. As King Science, you would know this.

>there's a reason scientific consensus is a thing.
real science is about individuals, their theories, and being right, it's not about consensus
the only place where it's a thing is in public policy, which is about as far as you can get from science

You're right, it's not relevant.

Just rèddit

Attached: 17BC9A3D-42ED-42F9-A376-5F4A3902417E.jpg (233x217, 7K)

good, glad you witthdrew you stupid graphic

That's just the same two superimposed graphs in different color. The fact that you don't know where your own graphs come from doesn't really lend you a lot of credibility. It just proves that you just save random jpegs from the internet that seem to support your opinion, rather than basing your opinion on science. Fuck, even I know where your graphs come from. Why don't you?

Prager U (which you could've googled a billion times by now) is a Jewish "university" that spouts a bunch of religious nonsense on youtube, and they're one of the main proponents spamming that nonsense graph.

See: Here I explain where your graphs come from, and I show what the graph looks like if you actually calculate the correlation, rather than just copy&pasting two graphs onto each other.

>real science is about individuals
Nope. That's the exact opposite of science. It's about the evidence, not the people. Consensus is important because it means the majority of scientists researching the topic found evidence for the same conclusion. So if you have 10 000 papers that come to one conclusion, but one paper that comes with the opposite conclusion, it's a statistical outlier, and most likely there was a mistake made. To trust that one paper over the other 10 000 would be insane.

For example, 10 000 experiments came to the conclusion that bumblebees weigh from 0.04g to 0.6g, but one experiment concluded they weight 60g, then you can be pretty fucking certain there's a mistake in that last one.

My neighbor had someone who works for David Icke over when I dropped by. It was like talking to someone from another dimension. Very frightening that a human brain can think that way. I left as soon as I could & havent been back

>basing your opinion on science
Opinions aren't science. Since you've shown so much evidence to the contrary to my claims, I can only believe Lord Science's opinions are the consensus and I relinquish all above stated claims. I'll be at the march tomorrow bashing Trump and Exxon. Because I also have opinions about science.

>you stupid graphic
You made some post about adaptation. WTF does that have to do with CO2 scams?

>Nope. That's the exact opposite of science.
No, individuals and theories and being right is the exact core of science. Consensus is nothing. Stop pretending you know anything about science.

>most likely
I like you Feynanon

I never made any post about adaptation, faggot. I just pointed out that the temperature tens and hundreds of millions of years ago has fuck all to do with the environment and the species that have adapted to it today.

>It's about the evidence
Post it.
>Consensus is important
It's anti-science
>papers that come to one conclusion, but one paper that comes with the opposite conclusion
It only takes one, user. One factual paper to prove that it's not correct. There is no such thing as consensus. One paper would destroy the /Theory/ of Relativity. AGW hasn't even become a theory yet.
>10 000 experiments
There's 0 when it comes to Climate Calamity.

>being right
You have no clue, do you?

Then you replied to a thread that said:
>Species adapt to specific environments
and I mistook you for that irrelevant bastard.

We already knew that shit was a cult. Talk about attack of the fanboy

So you're arguing that being wrong is the core of science? You're a fucking moron.

For over a century, nearly all paleontologists were sure that sauropods were semi-aquatic, and not for any good, scientific reason. Someone threw out a theory, everyone accepted it, and nobody questioned it. But guess what? They were completely the fuck wrong, and to be that wrong they had to completely ignore a massive amount of skeletal and taphonomic evidence. It's not about consensus, that's just you're ignorant anti-science bent showing. It's all about being right. One paper at the right time overthrow any theory, and change how we think about everything. That's. How. Science. Works.

If you want irrelevant, look at your stupid graph of paleotemperatures. WTF does that have to do with anything?

Wtf are you trying to make this into partisan politics? Facts don't care about your political affiliation. Science is unrelated to who you want to vote for. By all means, vote for whoever you like. The facts don't change.

Here, learn something
m.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Dude, stop. You're killing yourself.

Let's walk through this, Duke of Science:
Gravity is still a theory. We know it exists, we can apply math to it, we can perform experiments, but we don't know where it comes from. You could say there's a consensus, except fot the origin part.

All it takes is ONE guy to write ONE paper explaining where it comes from. He posts his experiments, he shows his work, and others test it. It is still a theory until they find a definite source. Something where the math adds up perfectly. It's STILL a theory.

In the case of climate change, ONE guy made some predictions, a second guy fudged some data, and now there's a handful of "scientists" (Bill Nye, Gore, Greta, AOC) that are pushing this nonsense. Not one experiment, no reliable data, nothing that even follows the rules of thermodynamics and conservation of energy...

And here you are, calling names and acting like everyone is an idiot because you believe the doctored hockey sticks. You are in a cult.

Attached: Temperature-anomaly-reality-vs-models.png (862x665, 136K)

>watisatheory.jpg
you're squirming. time to pack it in.

Attached: a0NjbK02_700w_0.jpg (700x784, 42K)

Dude, stop. You know nothing about science.

Does Christianity count?

Attached: 87bfc9440cbc2b071833e0c13d8e4fc4.jpg (569x600, 83K)

>There's 0 when it comes to Climate Calamity.
That's because you just made up the expression "Climate Calamity". There's also zero experiments when it comes to Oil Company Utopia, for the same reason.

What do you, he's talking about what's wrong, and what's right. Not consensus. Turns out, he understands science. You do not.

>What do you know

NPR has started to call it the Climate Crisis.

It's "the consensus" that CO2 doesn't match temps.

>Climate Calamity.
I think I found your problem. You've been following your precious feelies and angrily search for the wrong term. The correct term is "Climate Change". If you do that in any climate science database, you should find several thousand articles.

How did you get past the captcha?

Don't care. Just pointing out your idiocy.

Well, the current term, as of last week, is now "Global Heating". But whatever you call it, zero experiments.

The term changes every week by the alarmists. I can't keep up.

I live In a maga heavy state so yes, every day

Violet flame

m.youtube.com/watch?v=NfS-79SNpy4

>your idiocy
I posted 2 graphs showing that CO2 doesn't relate to heat. How is that idiotic? Should I go on about how species have adapted to certain conditions?

>The correct term
is Global Warming you fucknut. No wonder you fail so hard at this.

You posted a chart showing the temperature over the last several hundred million years, which has nothing to do with the current climate.

which state?

It's Global Cooling, you screwlegume. Keep up with the times.

1ka bp, frogs didn't used to be gay. Then in the 1990s, the city of Davis recognized that there is a booming frog population, and since most of the residents are either gay or gay-allied, they decided to make most of the frogs gay. They built tunnels for them to travel underneath city streets. Although hardly used, the townspeople felt their plight for road crossage. Therefore, CO2 controls the climate.

Better?

Encountered 12 Tribes of Israel

stayed for a week

Escaped.

dz

>ONE guy made some predictions
Try several thousand scientists.

>Bill Nye, Gore, Greta, AOC
There are popular culture and political figures and have nothing to do with the topic. Trying to draw them into this discussion is just muddying the waters.

>Not one experiment
More like thousands

>no reliable data
More like millions

>the rules of thermodynamics and conservation of energy
Assuming you're going for the standard creationist/flat-earther/every consipracy theorist angle (second law of thermo dynamics), earth is not an isolated system so that argument doesn't hold water.

Did you say gay frogs?

Attached: 1560341738955.gif (684x678, 1.07M)

Pop culture =/= science

continuing from I assume you want some sources for the consensus:

page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity

>several thousand scientists.
still can't post evidence
>have nothing to do with the topic
they're the only ones
>thousands
not one yet
>millions
not one yet
>standard creationist/flat-earther/every consipracy theorist angle
I'm not a cultist, especially of AGW
>not an isolated system
No fucking shit. Why does your religion say it is?

See

>97%
Fucking hell, they cherry picked out of thousands of papers and whittled it down to 79. Of those, 97% said something about global warming. It's fucking nobody.

Hey climatefags

Attached: 1567895042576.png (1004x534, 462K)

>I assume you want some sources for the consensus:
Why would you assume that? We've been trying to teach you about science, and how it does not work on a consensus model.

>they're the only ones
Nope. You think they're the only ones because you live in an information bubble and only get your information from /pol/ and other conspiracy sources.

Read the article, their methods are explained. You have to actually read the article.

That's 3893 research papers supporting AGW, 121 not supporting.

>teach you about science
With Prage U graphs and shitposting. That's not science.

>how it does not work on a consensus model
It does, though. That's why peer review is important.

climate change deniers are getting fucking rekt itt

Quick. Define consensus

Okay, let's say every single "climate scientist" was polled. 97% is still not science. It needs to be 100.0% with no opposing research or otherwise. AGW is still a hypothesis.

Now please, show evidence of your experiments.

All with no facts or evidence. Tell me more how scientific that survey is.

>It needs to be 100.0% with no opposing research or otherwise.
Welp. I guess all of science is fake then.

I haven't posted any graphs, faggot. Stop lying.

And peer review isn't about consensus, it's about poking holes, and keeping unsupported claims out of the literature. Reviewers don't have to agree with any of the conclusions, just that they were supported.

Do Trump supporters count as being in a cult?

Why? It's a grade school word, and lacks a technical definition in this context.

>all of science is fake then
This is the shit I expect from the new Marxist generation.

Yes, yes, they do! Have a tasty NPCsnack!

Science isn't like your religion. 100% sure user

Attached: 1496781292511.png (500x501, 19K)

Attached: 1455057891305.png (618x618, 98K)

Attached: 1516225573943.gif (212x176, 925K)

Wrong answer

jehovah's witnesses are retarded sociopaths. the reason they try and go on personal missions on bicycles to everyone's door is because they believe exactly 144,000 people will serve alongside jesus in the millennial kingdom.

if you actually buy that, you will be a slave on earth to be one of the chosen few.

It wasn't a question.

wut. You just throw in the towel there? Show me proof faggot. You're so damn sure that you're willing to spew your ignorance all over the internet, you have to have some kind of foundation for your beliefs other than some Michael Mann shit.

Attached: Hansen-predicts-20-C-hothouse-by-2130-due-to-fossil-fuel-burning.jpg (1414x820, 269K)

All these loli pedos around here are def. a cult shit is gross

>too close for argument
>switching to bait

Attached: 1567204408452.jpg (800x800, 132K)

No evidence
No evidence
Nice deflection, shitfist.

first off muslims aren't are rivals and neither are jews, you would have to be autistic to think that

Typical denier tactic. No proof, insults, derail the topic. Weak and expected.

Attached: 500-million-years-of-ocean-temps-Voosen-2019.jpg (1008x540, 172K)

my theory about scientology is that it's actually not that "stupid" to use it to recruit celebrities. think about this.

it starts by telling celebrities that they are inhabited by "thetans" that are like extra souls in them. that makes them feel special because their life as a celebrity makes them feel like a special "ride" for their particular thetans.

it doesn't end there, it only begins. the REASON celebrities are valuable is NOT their fucking MONEY. it's simply the fact that people FOCUS on them. leah remini is an ugly, worthless piece of shit and she was dumped when her stupid, ableit extremely popular with the white trash crowd show ended. now, she's livid and going off on them but she is of no use to them. tom cruise still IS.

it's about being a psychosexual lightning rod. that's why, when there was a new pope in 2005, they had him on ever channel, staring at you LIVE.

youtube.com/watch?v=Oo-o74K9TnI

>OT49 reporting

Lol. The conspiratards got so roasted they're resorting to shitposting. If you can't win with fact, you can win in butthurt. Weak.

ok, wrong not a definition

Attached: 2000-years-of-global-temperatures-industrial-revolution-start.jpg (3000x2250, 327K)

I'm not him. He left to get treatment for the cancer your stupid inflicted on him

Still no evidence? Just more insults?

Attached: CO2-Emissions-and-Greenland.jpg (900x817, 222K)

It wasn't supposed to be. If you don't understand why, that's on you. I was clear.

>cancer

Attached: Atlantic-Tropic-JUly-Relative-SST-2018.png (1149x834, 668K)

>your stupid

Attached: Atmospheric_Transmission.png (850x857, 91K)

>inflicted

Attached: Arctic-Sea-ice-April-1-volume-2003_18-1.png (662x438, 21K)

>on him

Attached: NASA-Global-Temperatures-Massively-Adjusted-1910-to-2000-climate4you.jpg (736x756, 154K)

If your religion was "settled", these wouldn't exist:

The doi on your meme chart is wrong

Go Liberty U !!!

Science isn't about facts, it's about faith. AGW get rekt.

Your evidence is missing.

>global warming
>global
>greenland
>greenland warming
Nice bait and switch. You're so fucking bad at trolling. Fucking hell.

Attached: 1291936772869.jpg (533x401, 58K)

>still no evidence
>imma insult that fucker
>my feels are all I need

That's the correct use of "your", fuckwit.

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Central-Balkan-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1085x561, 153K)

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Central-China-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1073x543, 138K)

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Central-Siberia-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1062x537, 195K)

The doi on your meme chart is still wrong

Is that the consensus? I never said it was wrong, but now I'm 97% sure it is.

>more extreme temperatures over the years
That's perfectly in line with AGW.

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Central-South-America-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1118x567, 149K)

Name a source of evidence that you'd consider expert

Cool story bro.

Your evidence is still lacking.

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Pakistan-NW-India-Area-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1104x560, 152K)

>perfectly in line
Those are the adjustments made to the record.

Jeez, the conspiratards got really livid. Didn't like getting owned. That's for sure.

Attached: alex jones angry.gif (448x252, 1.67M)

Something that isn't disputed. Some kind of hard data. Faggots keep talking about thousands/millions of experiments. I'll settle for one legit experiment.

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Sahel-Area-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1106x555, 171K)

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Scandinavia-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1087x561, 171K)

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-SE-Australia-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1109x553, 172K)

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-Southern-Africa-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1109x557, 139K)

Name a source of evidence that you'd consider expert

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-USA-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1077x540, 151K)

You're fun :)

The source doesn't matter in science. The fact that you even posted that shows you don't know how this works. Don't bother.

Attached: Instrumental-Temperatures-World-10-Regions-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg (1486x788, 239K)

Show us the whole planet at once. Why are you cherry picking specific weather stations?

Attached: tenor[1].gif (160x90, 221K)

If I post evidence you won't dispute it by challenging its source?

Attached: Medieval Warmer.png (1532x998, 445K)

Science isn't about evidence, it's about conviction.

Fuck ma dude. There is no global temp. You should know this as Squire of Science III. They take pic related...

Attached: NOAA-July-temp-real.png (837x624, 599K)

No. That's Conservatism
lol

...and turn it into this.

Attached: NOAA-global-temp-july.png (874x631, 672K)

Hey lurkanon. Get in here

I hate faggots that sacrifice animals. Your group sounded like it was retarded.

Yellow deli in Oneonta NY. They dressed in burlap. It was fucking weird but they made great food and didn't charge much for it. I'd go and eat and listen to them as they prosylatized at me because it would get me a discount. The one chic was super hot. Cool people but always had a creepy vibe.

Learn to science commie. Science is about cherry picking evidence that support your hypothesis.

Yes. It was a cult of about 12 people. All lived in one apartment. Did a lot of drugs. Probably weird sex stuff. Believed one of the girls was some returned goddess and one of the guys was something of they same. They moved from the US to South Africa for some reason, and the whole thing fell apart within six months.

I also hung out with the Branch Davidians, but many years after the assault and Koresh. They're actually really nice people, just weird with their religion. They also believe Koresh is risen again.

I'm not a lib, you can even remove the source. But I asked for an experiment. Show me an experiment. You've already shown that you don't understand how science works, so I have my doubts that you'll show anything than can't be disputed.

>i'm with her
Oh, we got a commie nazi in here. We won, get over it.

Learn to color in the lines derp.

Shit, that's pretty damning. We're fucked.

>samefagging with this amount of butthurt
still no evidence, Kyle?

Attached: 9f7.jpg (406x480, 57K)

Are you a climatologist?

>cold spot centered on western Russia
>is Putin the devil?
>hell is freezing over!

Attached: 1535509358195.jpg (750x811, 329K)

What if I am?

Friend of mine started going to AA and 2 years down the road he still drinks but fuck he has become a brainwashed jesus freak . It's fucking annoying and scary

One month doesn't prove anything, just like one storm doesn't. It's about statistics, over time. You sound as stupid as George Clooney.

Won what? Most dangerous shithole country?

> Have you personally encountered a cult?

I dated a vegan girl once

What if you aren't?

Attached: 1534983232828.jpg (900x900, 80K)

oof. you make it out okay?

I'm so sorry

What if I was?

>didn't read the text

Attached: 1488062693430.jpg (237x229, 13K)

AA knows a good supply of damaged prospects when it sees them. Just like any other cult

Did you like the food?

Then you would be

My sister got sucked into an HK sect. After 8 months we basically had to kidnap her and my parents paid a ton to have her deprogrammed. It was some fucked up shit and I still don't think she's "right" in the head. Her personality is still "off," after being out more than a year.

>record warmest
>much warmer than average
>warmer than average

Attached: everything is fine.gif (500x282, 1.22M)

Fact and evidence doesn't prove anything. It's about the individual.

>record warmest
>straight lies
You believe that?

we haven't set a record since the 40s. th'fuck you talking about?

It's has to be a record sometime, doesn't it? Learn how statistics work, child.

Your conspiratard friends said earlier it's not about the statistics, but about the outliers. But I'm good with you going back to statistics, because the statistics say AGW is happening. You can't defeat facts, mate. Give it up.

>the statistics say AGW is happening
Except the part where they don't, but yes, I agree.

Come back user. Your interesting insanity was distracting me from going on drunken, pot fueled fap marathon. I'm trying to cut back

I have no friends here, neither do you. This is an anonymous image board. Stop inventing relationships as an excuse to change the topic. You made a basic mistake when it came to statistics, man up and admit it.

That's true. It was way hotter in the Precambrian era. Fucking libshills.

>climate scientist needs more info

You guys have a really hard time seeing clear patterns that go against your political views, don't you?

yes they do. see:

How much more specific can I be?

>clear patterns
post it, stormfag

>I have no friends
ftfy

Already debunked. Try again.

>Precambrian
>1940s
ummm...

yup witchcraft stuff. some oak leaf god

One piece of data isn't a pattern. And if you assume facts and data have a "politics", you're lost to the world.

>I am a colossal faggot
Yes, you are.

Finally! Some real proof! Thx user.

>i gargle balls for iphones
ftfy

Depends on where "we" are located, fuckwit.
Your own evidence "against" AGW says it's record warmest Why would you post evidence you disagree with?

Only in Dnd

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 113K)

There is only ONE!

Attached: images.jpg (323x156, 9K)

Where?

NWN? My nigger

I know this! That adjusted map totally shows the highs. I don't even know why that other map with all the gray ares is above that.

Your conspiratard friend already did.

I cast magic missile at the darkness

Everywhere but your house.

Prove it.

I can see at least 2
>meatballs

Debunked, as in, it already happened. Stop living in the past. We need to look toward the future and get rid of cars and children NOW!

Prove it.

Fuck you racist. No one posted shit.

What do you mean "prove it"? You can just read the thread.

You can read my balls, pedo science-denier.

How was it debunked? Which post debunked it?

Prove it.

Prove it.

What do you mean?

The part where you deniers posted lame shit from Breitbart. Eat shit, stormfag.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Change the climate or die, boomer.

If these "scientist" are really doing science, why are all of there predictions so wrong? And always wrong in the same direction? Answer: because they are a cult.

The One. Mocking blasphemer

Major/minor religions are just cults that worked. Fuck what anyone else says.

Facts say kill your kids. The Earth depends on it.

Scientology. Nuff said

Are conspiratards are race? Where they from?

Because boomer stormfags want yyou to believe nothings happening. We only have like 7 months left. Sell everything and live off the land, racist.

Shitposting is admitting you've lost.

Attached: that's a nice pair a meatballs.png (323x400, 113K)

Your mom, stupid denier.

I don't have any kids, so I'll just kill you instead.

Prove it.

Props where props are due.

Prove it.

I'm a cannibal. The only truly earth-friendly diet choice

You lost, get over it. Science prevails yet again.

Give us your address

IT"S MADE OF PEOPLE
>yummmy!

Prove it.

1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Prove it.

Givit

Givit

stormfag. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I want it

What are you? Some sort of reptilian?

Givit mayne

Sure. Come over for diner user. I'll show you ALL the evidence

What are you serving?

a pair of nice meataballsa

You lost, get over it.

RethugliKKKan lies about the weather.

That's not 2 meatballs, that's three fours!