/sci/ - Science & Math

the climate is always changing. obviously. but you're a retard and don't know the word anthropogenic and why it's important in this discussion.

>>11012840
The climate is changing. Idiots make it a polictal left vs right issue. Both sides twist facts for their own gain.
>inb4 this turns into american shouting.

>"listen to the scientists' ... I want you to listen to the scientists"
Well, it's not as bad as everyone makes it out
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/24/500-scientists-write-u-n-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

>>11012843
>breitbart

>>11012844
To be fair breitbart is 99% garbage but this actually happened.
https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

>>11012840
Do you realize what you've done OP

>>11012840
>>>/sci/
>>>/pol/

>>11012840
The climate is changing, and it has been for millions of years. Thats not the question. The debate is really focused around what our impact on it is.

>>11012840
The polar vortex is real, it doesn't stay exactly that shape all the time but it does bring cold air down onto canada and the US.

>>11012840
its effects are largely overblown

>>11012840
why do climate scientists get to pretend they are Laplace's demon?

>>11012840
Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski thinks we'll have an ice-free Arctic some time in the next twenty years. At that point the Arctic will be absorbing an order of magnitude more energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4U7MGIdo&t=904s

>>11012840
Putting the /pol/ in polar vortex. I guess I should fuck off but I could use a break from this bullcrap.

>>11012843
Cool! Google and I recognize the "above the nose" half. What is the other? (Besides stereotypical.)

>>11013040
People have been putting out predictions of an ice-free Arctic in [current year]+10 years every [current year]+5 years for decades at this point.

>>11012845
Yeah, clintel is totally independent and scientific
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/26/co2-is-plant-food-australian-group-signs-international-declaration-denying-climate-science

>>11013118
at this point it's just shit flinging

>>11012843
>More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields

>""""""""""""""""professionals""""""""""""""""""
>"""""""""""""""'related fields"""""""""""""""""""
WOW A WHOLE 500

>>11013129
>1.Rob Lemeire, Publicist on Environmental and Climate Issues, ECD Ambassador
>2. Eric Blondeel, retired Civil Engineer.
>3. Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp
>4. Christophe de Brouwer, MD, Honorary Professor of Environmental and Industrial Toxicology, Former President of the School of Public Health at the Université Libre de Bruxelles
>5. Christian Dierick, Lead Expert, Energy Technology Solutions
>6. Ferdinand Engelbeen, Former chemical process automation engineer, Akzo Nobel Chemicals
>7. Samuel Furfari, Professor of Energy Geopolitics at the Free University of Brussels
>8. Georges Geuskens, Emertitus Professor of Chemistry, Free University of Brussels and Expert Publicist on Climate Science
>9. Drieu Godefridi, PhD in Law, author of several books
>10. Jan Jacobs, Science Journalist Specializing in Climate and Energy Transition

literally the first 10 names on the list, I'm fucking dying of laughter right now.

>>11013144
>Civil Engineer.
My sides

>>11013097
>soon 2015

>>11013097
and thus that means they'll be wrong forever? scientific understanding of the arctic ice is only improving over time. a continued loss of albedo in the arctic, methane release from permafrost melting, continued population growth, an ever increasing demand for fossil fuels, a loss of the aerosol masking effect in the event of a 20% reduction in industrial activity could all increase the rate at which the arctic ice is disappearing.

it's safe to say by 2050 the world is gonna be in deep shit in one way or another. india, pakistan, and china will eventually go to war over kashmir water. the uk is 30-40 years away from soil fertility eradication. the destruction of the amazon rainforest in brazil. you gotta be a complete retard to think things are going to be hunky-dory for most of the world population born after the year 1960

>>11013097
What a misleading graph. It doesn't even account for the basic fact of logarithmic scaling of warming effect with increasing concentration. That probably explains a good portion of the downward trend in sensitivity over time.

>>11013097
>People have been putting out predictions of an ice-free Arctic in [current year]+10 years every [current year]+5 years for decades at this point.
could you link the papers making these predictions?

>>11013144
That's just lazy, I could find you 500 bona fide climate scientist to sign this if I looked hard enough. Tobacco companies could "prove" smoking doesn't cause cancer too.

I'm noticing the alarmists in this thread are engaging in mostly empty ad hominem
he's got 500 more scientists than you

>>11013471
>this time we'll be right this time we'll be right
>i get my science from michael gove you silly person listening to belgian university professors

>>11013097
Why are the fonts on that graph all mismatched?

>>11013551
INFINITE ECONOMIC GROWTH, INFINITE RESOURCES, FOREVER AND FOREVER AND FOREVER. JEEEEEEEEEEBUS WILL PROVIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LISTEN TO ME WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE. WE'RE UNDER WATER! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>11012840
It's real, it's happening and humans are responsible it. This isn't up for discussion at this point no matter what /pol/ wants you to believe.

>>11012843
>Breitbart
Oh, what a nice reliable, totally non-political scientific source you have.

>>11012842
>Both sides twist it
Oh look, another "everything in life is 50:50" moron.

>>11013700
>It's real, it's happening and humans are responsible it. This isn't up for discussion at this point no matter what /pol/ wants you to believe.

>>11013700
BTFO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6sKPSKkvVs

>>11013703
>>11013707
>Posts an ex-activist sold-out to fossil industry as a source for climate change
Why are you so bent on lying and deciving people?

>>11013724
Can't attack the content can you warmfag? If fossil fuels aren't destroying the world why wouldn't the industry fund science proving this dipshit?

>>11013700
it's not 50:50 the environmentalist left is far worseq

>>11013738
Time is not a scientific journal.

Men argue; nature acts.

/thread

>>11013738
https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

>>11013756
So they just made the coming ice age up?

>>11013738
Guess we survived the ice age

>>11013774

>>11013780
What about "climate change"?

>>11013779
did you expect anything else from journalists?

>>11013810
Is pic related a journalist?

>>11013730
Because on the face of it Fossil Fuel companies accept climate change and even fund research and green technology development. But they also disseminate false information to stifle any meaningful action by governments to combat climate change, such as a reduction in consumption, which would hurt their bottom line. This way they have both bases covered.
>why wouldn't the industry fund science proving this dipshit?
It's not science, it's pseudoscience, and they don't admit to funding it.

>>11013832
considering most published work in the 70s predicted future warming, whoever that guy was it he really should have looked harder at the evidence.

>>11013774
>techincally that wasn't the cover
I guess we should just forget about it then

>>11013841
The fossil fuel industry have been in on this scam the whole time. They are heavily invested in "green energy" so will make even more money if this scam goes all the way. They know that the burning of fossil fuels is harmless, and in fact an increase in CO2 is beneficial to the earth. The problem is that fossil fuels are benefiting too many developing countries, as well as making the Middle East too much money.

The powers that be want to get rid of cheap energy like oil and gas, instead replacing it with more expensive alternatives.

During the transition period, oil prices will go up, so they'll be making more money in that regard.

They know that if they fund science proving that burning fossil fuels doesn't harm the earth, it will be shot down instantly because they funded it. However, the "science" that the alarmists are using is from a political organisation (IPCC) - InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, as if government funded science can be trusted without question.

This is a political scam which also involves the fossil fuel industry working together.

>>11013967
>>11013862
once again a couple papers predicted cooling but the vast majority of published work predicted warming or made no strong predictions.

>>11013862
A shitload of published work predicted cooling based on this: https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/

>>11013862
what was the predicted warming of those studies for each year?

>>11014050
>published
>literally just a bunch of fucking newspapers
where the fuck do you think you are?

>>11014060
why don't you find out?

>>11014254
Newspapers quoting climatologists you buffoon. Of course they published their nonsense, they wouldn't get in the paper otherwise.

>>11014329
>>11013862
yes there were 2 papers published in 1970 which predicted cooling as well as 2 which predicted warming and one which made no strong predictions.

>>11014362
>there were 2 papers published in 1970 which predicted cooling
Post them.

Why would an increase in global temperature be a bad thing? Wouldn't a global decrease be more dangerous?
If the climate is going to change, which judging by every record that exists, isn't it better that it changes in the direction of warmth?
What about the last two ice ages, how did the earth ever come out of the Ice age that preceded the last little ice age?

how much of what we think about "Climate Change" is about feelings of pride and suspicion rather than actual science?

>>11012840
Of course it's real. Obviously part of it are caused by people. I think it's too late to do anything about it.

Just let humanity die.

>>11015169
Have you even listened to Al Gore and Greta Thunberg? Educate yourself before talking nonsense. New York will be underwater in 12 years.

>>11012843
>500 scientists
And how many of those are actually climate scientists? Zero?

>>11015229
>More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields
Why don't you read the article you lazy brat?

>>11015169
>Why would an increase in global temperature be a bad thing?
Because it's hot enough as is in the middle of summer, I don't want it any hotter you daft cunt.

>>11015474
Well... this guy's right up there:
>Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout is a Dutch engineer. He has worked for Shell in the oil- and gas industry and served as professor of acoustics, geophysics and innovation management at Delft University of Technology between 1976 and 2007

So.. not a climate scientist AND connected to fossil fuel companies. Imagine my fucking shock.

>>11015404
Well... this guy's right up there:
>Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout is a Dutch engineer. He has worked for Shell in the oil- and gas industry and served as professor of acoustics, geophysics and innovation management at Delft University of Technology between 1976 and 2007

So.. not a climate scientist AND connected to fossil fuel companies. Imagine my fucking shock.

>>11015545
>thinks federal fund dependant academics can't be just as, if not more, biased than a scientist that once worked for the public sector of the economy that employs the largest number of the graduates from the natural sciences

cringe

>>11012848
Not a debate, just retards shrieking in order to avoid scientific facts.

>>11012987
Why are you unable to argue without lying?

>>11015601
>in order to avoid scientific facts.
such as the facts we've measured or the "facts" the death cult has imagined up for us?

>>11013097
Nice cherrypicked graph.

>>11015635
et tu

>>11015635
thanks.

>>11015636
>et tu
That doesn't really work when your graph is missing studies that mine has in every year and somehow happens to miss every single recent study above 3 degrees. What a coincidence.

>>11015565
He was a professor of geophysics so I'm sure he could understand the data.

If oil and gas aren't destroying the world, what is the problem with these industries funding science to prove this?

Fossil fuel industries can only make money if there are consumers. If global warming will lead to catastrophe, then consumers will disappear. There is no incentive for them to convince the public that fossil fuels are harmless unless they actually are.

Banks wouldn't be giving loans out to sea-front properties if the alarmism was legitimate. NASA wouldn't be planning missions in the future if they believed we're in serious trouble.

>>11015169
it's more sustainable (using the electric bill as a reasonable proxy) to keep a room cool in the summer than to keep it warm in the winter.
Keep in mind air conditioning is a very recent invention. Humans do much better in the heat than they do in the cold.

>>11015655
>happens to miss every single recent study above 3 degrees

probably because every "study" above 3 degrees is too embarrassing to even include

>>11015229
If you believe these 500 scientists are full of shit, what makes you think the scientists from the IPCC are completely trustworthy?

>>11015229
>are actually climate scientists
>climate scientists

bruh, who pays climate scientists? oh right, the same people you pay taxes to.
who wants you to pay more taxes? oh right, the same people you pay taxes to.

>>11015656
My point is that it's yet another fake piece of nonsense that's used to suggest that climate scientists are saying something they aren't.
Why are you defending such naked propaganda?

>>11015672
are you catching onto the conflict of interest here that would otherwise be called out and absolutely lambasted if it were the private sector?

>>11015668
Why are these 500 not from the relevant field?

>>11015677
and what does the private sector have to gain from it?
and I really hope you mention taxes.

>>11013787
Here have another

>>11015666
Which is ironic considering your graph cites "studies" like Reinhart 2017, which is so nonsensical it couldn't even get published in a denier journal: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/infrared-absorption-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

Now go ahead and find one study in mine that is as embarrassing. I can't wait to read more of your pathetic hypocrisy.

>>11015680
There are climatologists among the 500. Are you claiming there is a conspiracy among 500 scientists to deny climate change?

>>11015691
Wonderful propaganda.

>>11015633
>cold kills more people now
>therefore less cold means less people dying
This is like trying to determine who will win a race by their positions at one point in time while ignoring their velocities

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(17)30156-0/fulltext

>>11015695
it's almost like even "deniers" have stricter publishing standards than those that publish +5 Celcius warming papers

>>11015656
>Fossil fuel industries can only make money if there are consumers. If global warming will lead to catastrophe, then consumers will disappear.
You think they really look at the long term picture when there's profit to be made in the present?

>>11015725
>ignore human flourishing after the little ice age
word magic doesn't change the facts as they stand

>>11015730
>he thinks profit is in the moment
>wonders why he was born poor

>>11013700
>noticing both sides lie means you think both sides are exactly equal
>this makes you the enemy because you're not blindly loyal to my prefered side
Don't you have a subreddit to moderate?

>>11015730
>You think they really look at the long term picture
Do you think these people are drooling retards or something? The main aim is to make money, of course they're going to look at the long term picture.

>>11015668
It's called 'questioning everything stringently if it disagrees with me and backing things up when they agree with what i already think'.

I blame the internet, where picking and choosing what to see/read/hear is part of life and not retarded at all.

>>11015728
>it's almost like even "deniers" have stricter publishing standards
>if you refuse to eat shit you must have good taste.

So to summarize, your graph is cherrypicking by ignoring all recent high sensitivity studies, which would only be done on purpose in order to produce a downwards trend. It cites non-published fake studies to further push the trend downward. And your only response is to project your misrepresentations without any basis.

Anything else you fucking pathetic shill?

>Carbon dioxide has a green house effect
>Humans produce carbon dioxide
>Carbon dioxide levels are rising

are any of these disputable?

>>11015750
Is there a conspiracy?

>>11015769
can't be a conspiracy if it's legal

>>11015730
>You think they really look at the long term picture when there's profit to be made in the present?

why trust your lying eyes when you can just trust what some giant government that wants to tax you for emitting what plants require to grow under the pretense they're protecting plants?

>>11015758
How much of a greenhouse effect does CO2 have and how much of this effect is being caused by humans? Is any warming dangerous?

CO2 doesn't have much greenhouse effect, water vapor has the greatest effect. CO2 is creating greener environments all over the earth, plants love this shit if you didn't know. Less people are dying from climate related events than ever before.

>>11015733
>ignore human flourishing after the little ice age
So much stupidity in one little sentence.

Human civilization was progressing before, during, and after the Little Ice Age. So of course humans flourished after the Little Ice Age. They also flourished before it and during it. Choose any point in time and chances are humans flourished after it. The LIA was barely a blip on global temperature. But if flourishing is somehow causally connected to the LIA ending, doesn't that just indicate that the LIA was bad, not that warming of any kind is good?

AHHH THE PLANTS FUCKING LOVE IT
QUICK, WE HAVE TO STOP THE PLANTS TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT

>>11015790
Yeah the crop outputs on Venus are fucking wild dude.

>>11015778
Conspiracies doesn't real.

>>11015769
Simpletons see conspiracies everywhere because they think conspiracies are easy. Actually try to conspire to do something, anything at all. You'll quickly find out that people talk, people fuck up and drop secure information, people break down and tell their girlfriends things. Humans are really poor vessels for secrets.

>>11015711
Yes, with that many people, there have to be a few who can keep a secret.

>>11015799
>Choose any point in time and chances are humans flourished after it.
so why are we suddenly deciding to stop climate in its track, is it purely the hubris of man?

>>11015801
tell me about it

>>11015795
>How much of a greenhouse effect does CO2 have and how much of this effect is being caused by humans? Is any warming dangerous?
What have you tried?

>CO2 doesn't have much greenhouse effect, water vapor has the greatest effect
How does water vapor increase?

>CO2 is creating greener environments all over the earth, plants love this shit if you didn't know.
Great, how does that counter all the negatives?

>Less people are dying from climate related events than ever before.
Less people are dying from diseases, therefore vaccines are unnecessary, right?

>>11015807
So the 500 scientists who deny man made climate change have not conspired with each other to lie, and in fact believe what they say?

>>11015821
Because we have these things called brains that allow us to see when certain things we do have negative consequences. These things called brains then allow us to change our behavior to avoid those negative consequences. Obviously if you don't have a brain you will always think "you can never have too much of a good thing."

>>11015808

>>11015807 thinks you're a simpleton.

>>11015842

>all these retards going back and forth with climate change and co2 when there's a big, well established negative effect from co2 with no debate
>versus ocean acidification the only argument is we should let it happen because short term profits
>climate change is more obviously apocalyptic so it gets 100% of the attention
Someone get their autistic sister to say she can see pH so this can actually get fixed.

>>11015807
>. Actually try to conspire to do something, anything at all. You'll quickly find out that people talk, people fuck up and drop secure information, people break down and tell their girlfriends things.

and yet the Vatican still controls the catholic church - because they conspire to do so. because they believe they're right.
>the Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion baptized Catholics worldwide
The problem is that you've mistaken conspiracies for secrets.

>>11015859
>the Vatican still controls the catholic church
catholics don't even exist, take your meds

>>11015795
water vapour also raises the albedo of the planet cooling it about the same amount that the greenhouse effect warms it

in terms of net warming co2 is greater

>>11015833
>What have you tried?
I don't understand?
>How does water vapor increase?
Solar activity. That big hot thing in the sky. CO2 really isn't that important in terms of warming when it comes to the complexity of the climate.
>Great, how does that counter all the negatives?
What negatives?
>Less people are dying from diseases, therefore vaccines are unnecessary, right?
I don't see connection. According to alarmists, the climate is going crazy due to CO2, but the opposite is true.

>>11015845
>allow us to see when certain things we do have negative consequences

or to imagine those we wish.
show me the proof that warm = bad.

>>11015871
>CO2 really isn't that important in terms of warming when it comes to the complexity of the climate.

being called 'the thermostat of the climate' doesnt come from nothing mate

>>11015845
>>11015875
because all I see is nature doing what it's always been doing

>>11015863
How can CO2 retain heat from the sun if water vapor is reflecting it?

>>11015875
No need to care about warm=bad, we already know acid=bad. >>11015855

And don't say "I don't care if most marine life dies off because it's not humans" because I know you like seafood.

>>11015888
because it doesnt reflect all of it

>>11015880
>being called 'the thermostat of the climate' doesnt come from nothing mate
It comes from pseudo-scientific computer models

>>11015895
comes from years of study into its effects during various periods of climate change

>>11015889
>we already know acid=bad.

whatever happened to acid rain? I thought we were supposed by dead by now...

>>11015900
>comes from years of study into its effects during various periods of climate change
lol, so niave

>>11015894
But according to your logic, the more CO2, the warmer it becomes, therefore more water vapor will evaporate, therefore more reflection of heat and less retained by CO2

>>11015904
We prevented it by reducing emissions of pollutants that we knew were causing it? That would be a great idea for CO2 too, thanks Anon!

>>11015909
don't ask questions
just consume papers and get excited about next papers

>>11015900
So you believe it's possible to completely isolate CO2 from everything else?

>>11015915
>We prevented it by reducing emissions of pollutants that we knew were causing it?

oh please, tell me how we've already solved climate change - but that we need to solve it again

>>11015907
ironic
>>11015909
water vapour is a green house gas and clouds cant prevent 100% of light from entering the atmosphere so the net effect would be more warming

>>11015923
You don't know the difference between climate change and acid rain?

>>11015871
>I don't understand?
What work have you done to answer these questions?

>Solar activity.
Solar activity has been decreasing for decades and is now near a grand minima. So why are we warming?

>What negatives?
Did you look at the picture in the post you're responding to?

>I don't see connection.
Death rates are decreasing due to increased efforts to prevent them, not because the climate is less deadly.

>According to alarmists, the climate is going crazy due to CO2, but the opposite is true.
You didn't show anything about the climate.

>>11015883
That's because you're only seeing what you want to see, and not reality. There is nothing natural about current warming. Its cause is not natural, its timing is unnatural, and its rate is unnatural. But all you do is post non sequiturs like leaf area.

>>11015922
yes

geological records allow us to isolate basically everything

continental configuration, ice coverage, atmospheric composition among other things

by studying stars we can predict how much heat the sun was putting out based on its life cycle

we can also see how slight changes in earths orbit can effect the climate

>>11015895
The greenhouse effect is determined from fundamental physics and chemistry and can be directly observed. Try again, and feel free to cite sources for your ridiculous pseudoscientific claims.

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>>11015904
Weird how I debunked that image a few days ago yet you post it again.

>>/sci/thread/S10999471#p11001581

Do you enjoy being revealed to be a lying hack over and over again?

>>11015932
>You don't know the difference between climate change and acid rain?
and yet it's brought up every time in any discussion about "climate change" (pretty convenient) isn't?

>>11015941
>hockey stick
l m a o

>>11015955
you might be confusing acidification of the oceans with acid rain

>>11015941
care to explain why you're projecting 2000 years into the future to justify a 100 year prediction?

>>11015955
>and yet it's brought up every time in any discussion
You mean ocean acidification you fucking moron? It's almost like your posts are deliberately constructed to show how utterly ignorant you are of the topic you're trying to discuss. Like some kind of troll.

>>11015958
>no argument, just name calling
LMAO

Can you make a single post without embarrassing your fellow deniers?

again
nobody here has explained why warming is worse than cooling

>>11015961
Where does the graph project 2000 years into the future? I expected the retarded misrepresentations of climate science, I didn't expect that you don't know how to read a graph. Time to go back to elementary school.

>>11015965
how about neither?

and why can nobody fucking explain this to me?
>>11012970

>>11015955
No, actually it's really rare to see acid rain brought up. Which is weird, since it shows that industry can be forced to stop polluting so much for environmental reasons and the economy won't collapse immediately.

>>11015970
What is there to explain?

>>11015968
>how about neither?
because the climate has NEVER been constant?

>>11015970
atolls are prone to changes in land due to erosion and volcanism

>>11013144
Lmao they didn't even try

>>11015976
If your weight has never been constant, does that mean extreme weight loss or extreme weight gain is good?

>>11015973
hm, it's almost like
>>11015875
struck a nerve

>>11015984
It's almost like your posts are deliberately constructed to show how utterly ignorant you are of the topic you're trying to discuss. Like some kind of troll.

>>11015983
define extreme.

>>11015986
>It's almost like your posts are deliberately constructed to show how utterly ignorant you are of the topic you're trying to discuss.

not an argument, are you tro

>>11015984
It's almost like >>11015833 triggered your inability to confront reality so you pretend it doesn't exist.

>>11015993
Projecting is not an argument.

>>11015989
Abnormal amounts causing severe negative effects such as those in >>11015833

>>11015993
I love the phase in these threads when the denier retards run out of canned arguments, and deep down know they've been lied to but just can't stomach the truth so they melt down incoherently.

>nobody in this thread can explain why warm = bad

>>11013144
>Author of several books

>>11016001
and meanwhile, in the reality you defend

>>11016004
the entirety of human civilization is based on like10 inbred plant species who have no clue how to survive outside a tiny temperature window. Significant increases in temperature will massively destabilize agriculture across the globe

>>11016010
show
me
the
proof.

>>11015871
>>11015875
>>11015965
>>11015984
>>11016004
>all these posts asking a question right after it was already answered by >>11015833
This is what cognitive dissonance looks like.

>>11016009
>nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate
>according to anti-nuclear activist's unpublished paper
Deniers are so pathetic.

>>11016014
who said nuclear was the solution? there isn't a solution

>>11016009
So it would take an investment in infrastructure?

>>11016014
wheat
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429014003268#bbib0360

maize
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300116#bib2

need more? i can keep posting all night

>>11016014
Enjoy

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

>>11016016
>isn't compared to global cooling

the climate changes.
would you rather?

this (>>11016023) meant for that (>>11016009)

>>11016028
>ipcc

>>11016031
>The alternative to global warming is global cooling
Wrong, try again, retard.

>>11016025
>he eats vegitables
cows
will
be
fine.

>>11016031


> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000482 Based on model experiments, the glaciation threshold depends not only on insolation but also on the atmospheric CO2 content [Archer and Ganopolski, 2005]. Models of different complexity and time series analyses of proxy data have been used to investigate the response to orbital forcing in the future for a range of atmospheric CO2 levels. These results show consistently, that a glacial inception is unlikely to happen within the next approximate 50ka (when the next strong drop in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation occurs) if either atmospheric CO2 concentration remains above 300ppm or cumulative carbon emissions exceed 1000PgC [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Cochelin et al., 2006]. Only for an atmospheric CO2 content below the preindustrial level may a glaciation occur within the next 10ka [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Cochelin et al., 2006; Kutzbach et al., 2011; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2011; Tzedakis et al., 2012a].

a complete false dichotomy

>>11016034
>retard with no argument and no data

>>11016028
>literally the longest subsection of the article
are you serious?

>>11016040
please oh wise one what crop feeds virtually all the cattle on earth? If you say grass i'll no you've never set foot outside you retarded city boy.

>>11016040
Ah I forgot cows eat meat.

>>11016047
oh I forgot grains live or die within a 1-degree Celcius margin

>>11016045
>here's a list of irrelevant criticisms
Ah so please list all of your posts in this thread and let's count how many have been shown to be false (Hint: all of them)

>>11016051
I forgot retards don't know the difference between local temperature and global average temperature

Overblown, so they can justify their power grabs and making us into serfs.

>>11016056
Yup, the Earth is flat.

>>11015833

>>11016056
i hear if you post the same lie enough it becomes true, let me know how it works out for you

>>11016055
explain then, please

>>11016060
I wouldn't know, but it seems like you haven't even convinced yourself yet otherwise you'd have closed this tab long ago

>>11016061
do you think that the temperature is evenly distributed across the entire planet? If not, what do you think global average temperature refers to?

>>11016059
>published scientific research = the Bible
You're a gift that keeps on giving. And the gift is stupidity.

>>11016063
I just like making fun of retards, is there any other reason to be on 4chan?

>>11016060
We just have politicians worshipping a teenager doomsayers. While also proposing that they get rid of beef and private cars.

>>11016071
Good

>>11016071
have you tried living in the real as opposed to a fantasy land where everything you don't want to be true is a straw man?

>this thread
i wonder how much the oil company shills get paid

>>11016071
CONNSUUUUMMMMMEEEEEEE

>>11016083
these gullible fools work for free

>>11013724
Please stop spreading this image. /lit/ got overrun with shitheads coming from /r9k/ and God knows where else -- all because they saw this retarded infographic.

>>11015169
Yes, it would (and already does) lead to the destruction of the planet's coral reef.

>>11016126
Sounds good to me.

>>11012840
we have had this thread 10 times a day for years.
deniers always get btfo.
lurk moar or return from whence you came

IPCC BTFO: https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1yoKMBMPeNnGQ?t=1m14s

>>11015656
>There is no incentive for them to convince the public that fossil fuels are harmless unless they actually are.
Yes there is. The fossil fuel business is inherently short-term. Resources are limited, and the industry knows it. Fly-in-fly-out workers characterise coal mining mining in Australia precisely for that reason.
Even in sustainable industries like the nicotine industry, loads of bogus studies "proving" cigarettes were good for you were funded and published, despite the surface-level take that "they can't cigarettes to dead customers"

>>11016191
hey i clicked that and all my LINK are gone
wtf did you do with my linkies asshole

>>11016199

I'm still not sure why we're sucking off the coal industry so much here when coal peaked years ago and the demand for it is lower than ever

>>11012840
Here is an alternate point of view.
https://youtu.be/Bl4fVY2d5ok
https://youtu.be/3E6An2u8dcA
Discuss

>>11016210
It's just an example, the same applies to any and all fossil industries. If you'd like to make an argument go ahead.

>>11016214
it's all fucking nonsense, these pseuds still can't provide any way to explain heat transfer without changes in TSI

>>11016199
>The fossil fuel business is inherently short-term. Resources are limited
They've been saying that for years, yet more oil is constantly found. It's very plausible that oil is abiogenic, but that's not great for profits, so the idea of scarcity needs to be created to increase value.

Cigarettes aren't going to destroy the world, there will always be people to sell cigarettes to. Global warming is different.

>>11016247
>more oil is constantly found
That does not mean it is constantly replenished. Please, find a source that shows that oil has been found in a location where there was previously none.
>very plausible
Not it isn't. While it's possible some pockets of oil were formed naturally, the vast majority of it is believed to be from decomposing plants and shit.
>Global warming is different.
It isn't. Fossil fuel companies have no motivation to try and prove that climate change is anthropogenic. However, funding studies that say it isn't would decrease the likelihood of anti-fossil fuels legislation, or consumer boycotts.

>>11016269
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2RC9DgbJtM

>>11016321
I am not at all familiar with the scientific consensus on the creation of oil, but all the sources I can find say it is biotic.
Either way, the fossil fuel industry is motivated to fund bogus studies saying global warming isn't real.

>>11015656
>He was a professor of geophysics so I'm sure he could understand the data.
Yeah but is he going to truthfully relay the data?

>>11016376
Is it a conspiracy?

>>11012840
Fake&gay

>>11016389
You're fake and gay

The number is actually much higher than 500
>http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

>>11012840
Climate change has been around for millions of years, man is only accelerating it, but we don't know how much, too many variables and forecasts about the future are just forecasts, we have no idea what the earth will look like in over 100 years. They cannot predict what the weather will be like in 10 days and you tell me they can tell how the world will look like in 50-100 years? We need to change the way we live, eat, consume, etc. We need real changes and solution on the table, and raising taxes is not a solution, most of the world gouvernements are fucking shit at fixing problems and you think giving them more money will it ?
Also the kid who is spamming climate change is just a puppet, do you think the people behind her give a shit about Earth? they just want money and nothing more.

>>11016828
>but we don't know how much, too many variables and forecasts about the future are just forecasts, we have no idea what the earth will look like in over 100 years.
Speak for yourself.

>They cannot predict what the weather will be like in 10 days and you tell me they can tell how the world will look like in 50-100 years?
Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

>We need real changes and solution on the table, and raising taxes is not a solution, most of the world gouvernements are fucking shit at fixing problems and you think giving them more money will it ?
The solution had nothing to do with who gets money. Making emissions more expensive reduces demand. It's very simple economics.

>Also the kid who is spamming climate change is just a puppet
Then why are you talking about her instead of scientists? Because she's a convenient target that allows you to avoid the facts.

>>11013471
According to the scientific process, it means the hypothesis is shot.
Repeated failures is like being caught out for doping in the Olympics.

>>11012840
Overblown but very real and human caused

>>11016859
It means that fringe hypotheses from a handful of scientists that Arctic ice would melt in the past are wrong. It says nothing about the vast majority of sea ice modelers. You understand little about the scientific method.

>>11012843
looking at some of the signatories, i see a lot of people whose positions are not denial of climate change but simply advocating caution in climate policy and that policy's relation to energy security and economic well-being.

i have to agree that climate activists tend to easily make moral judgements (you're evil for using or producing fossil fuels) when there is no viable alternative and fossil fuels do contribute in large part to our safe, luxurious and free society. that still doesn't mean solar, wind and other renewables can't be installed when they make economic sense.

>>11016828
it's hard to predict the weather in 10 days, that doesn't mean you can't predict summer will be hot and winter cold

>>11016698
maybe your retarded ass should read your own link. here, i'll quote it for you

>To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.

>Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned a degree.

>Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.

>Without formal training in climate science the level of understanding remains unknown among those that signed the petition. A key question is not how many of those that signed the petition know climate exists, but rather how many of those that signed work directly in the field of climate science.

>According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

Jews invented it to sell more stocks and raise interest rates and print more money and stuff. It's Jewish.

>>11016880
And were any of these fringe scientists criticised on their predictions? No, as it didn't stop further predictions on exactly the same.
https://borsen.dk/opinion/blogs/view/17/5021/samtlige_profetier_om_isfrit_arktis_i_dag_er_slaet_fejl_opdateret_status_for_havsisen.html

At this point it has become something of a farce but not an issue of embarrassment to the warmers. Thus it is you who know nothing about heal science.

>>11012840
I want more kids telling me about climate change! Political kids are so great and convincing!
Save the planet to save their future!

>>11016066
Many studies cant even be replicated. But you go ahead and keep on worshiping white robed priests who rely on governemnt subsidies

>>11016930
Theyre always inventing to fleece the goyim

>>11016932
>And were any of these fringe scientists criticised on their predictions?
Yes. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/09/there-are-genuine-climate-alarmists-but-theyre-not-in-the-same-league-as-deniers

>No, as it didn't stop further predictions on exactly the same.
By this logic no one criticizes deniers since they keep popping up.

All you can do is attack the opposing fringe while ignoring mainstream science that you have no answer to. Pathetic.

>>11012840
Why is climate change a problem again?

>>11016952
>Many studies cant even be replicated.
Which ones that I cited can't be replicated?

>But you go ahead and keep on worshiping white robed priests who rely on governemnt subsidies
Hmmm, who should I trust, scientists with data or a retarded anon on 4chan and his posts copied and pasted from blogs? Which one is spouting religious dogma? Such a hard decision.

>>11016932
Here's more criticism of fringe arctic sea ice claims:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year-robin-mckie-peter-wadhams-the-guardian/

https://climatefeedback.org/sensational-headline-contradicts-article-message-arctic-sea-ice-the-telegraph-sarah-knapton/

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/president-trumps-claim-growing-ice-not-reflect-reality/

>>11016388
one person being a liar/idiot certainly isn't a conspiracy

>>11016952
>But you go ahead and keep on worshiping white robed priests who rely on governemnt subsidies
Why didn't climate scientists change their positions when AGW-denying governments were elected in USA, Canada or Australia?

>>11017225
Don't you just feel so sorry for those few poor scientists with integrity who have to go to the fossil fuel industry to get paid? Damn those money grubbing government scientists and their exorbitant salaries!

>>11017255
Not even the fossil fuel industry denies climate change anymore.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/climate-change

>>11017274
Yup, that's why they pay thinktanks to do it for them while they can pander to the public.

>>11015691
Those covers are bullshit by the way.
The big freeze was from Dec 3 1973 and was about the arab gulf states freezing petrolium imports to the US.

>>11013144
kek

>>11016180
if deniers are btfo then why do these threads keep coming up?

>>11015691
Also the one that claims to be 1973 is from dec 24 1979 and is about a coldwave that year.

>>11015833
>note 1: Siginificant is defined here as more than 40%
>note 2: Based on the average rate of sea-level rise of 4.2 mm/year from 2000 to 2080

meanwhile, back in reality, they can hardly even fudge the numbers enough to get to +3.2 mm/year and the actual rate is +0.24 mm/year with no acceleration.

>>11017366
They read another article on Facebook

>>11012843
>Guus Berkhout
>worked in the oil and gas industry
>started his career working for Shell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

>Richard Lindzen
>The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company
>Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

LMAO, that was just two random names from that letter that I googled. What a joke.

OY VEY GOYIM, JUST LISTEN TO THE OIL COMPANIES, THEY KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU!

I'm not antisemitic by the way, I'm just putting it in language that you'll understand.

>>11013703
>>11013707
>>11013738
>>11013787
>>11015169
>>11015691
>>11015711
>>11015795
>>11015800
>>11015883
>>11015909
>>11015918
>>11017415
NO NO NO WHY AREN'T THE PUBLIC BUYING MORE FOSSIL FUELS NOOOOOOOOO

>>11017492
Moshi moshi fellow Moishe, don't forget to mention the carbon tax.
Each goy must pay for the good of the goyim.

>>11012840
Real and misinterpreted deliberately for political advantage, this shit is ridiculously complex, most of the data is a fraction of a fraction of a second on the geological clock, the energies being dealt with (such as that received by the sun, that expended through volcanism and geological activity, and the recyling of energy through the various cycles) are beyond humanity. I think the best course of action would be to anticipate that we are not the gods of the climate like some doomsday cultists want to believe and aught to begin adapting ourselves to an environment which will not remain comfortable for us forever.

>>11017513
So, you don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring or that it is anomalously rapid compared to known natural variations. In other words, you deny evidence and equate the science to a doomsday cult.

>>11017384
Wow what a revolutionary conclusion, all other scientists must be wrong. Oh, wait it's bullshit.

https://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00005.1

All we really know is that hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon have been released in two centuries.

The rest of the story is so complicated nobody really know fuck for all.

>>11018060
Speak for yourself and your fellow retards only.

>>11018033
>Therefore, their records can contain contributions from changes in land level, as well as from changes in the level of the sea itself.

but the author clearly states that he's referring to the planning for land being measured.
hence the bloody title of the paper: "Coastal Planning Should Be Based on Proven Sea Level Data"

Why should coastal planning use a measurement that is separate from what is actually measurable at the coasts? If the land changes then coastal planning should absolutely take that into account, right?
https://sci-hub tw/10.1038/nclimate3111

>>11018033
what excuse will you come up with 15 years from now when sea level rises 0.375 cm but everyone was told it would be 6 cm?

>>11018114
What he said is accurate. So you are the retard, retard.

Except Al Gore himself warned in his infamous movie that the melting of Greenland will cause sporadic freezing of the northern latitudes. The gulf stream will be permanently disrupted by the Greenland ice melt, causing Europe to return to the icy temperatures it was meant to exist in.

>>11018136
>but the author clearly states that he's referring to the planning for land being measured.
And your point is? The sentence you quote is merely explaining that relative sea level changes have contributions from land level changes and from sea level changes. They then go on to show that the choice to only look at 80 year old records introduces a bias which splits the data between regions experiencing glacial isostatic adjustment and those that are not.

>Why should coastal planning use a measurement that is separate from what is actually measurable at the coasts?
If you read past the first fucking paragraph you would see that they never said they should.

>>11018151
So somehow sea level rise is going to go from its current rate of 4.5 cm per 15 years to 0.375 cm? How?

>>11018158
>I dunno nuffin
See >>11018114

>>11018191
He's going to pray REALLY hard.

>>11018191
in 0.25 mm/year increments

>>11018236
Is that an acceleration? That doesn't explain shit.

>>11017510
NO NO NO STOP BLAMING FOSSIL FUELS THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING NOOOOOOOOOOO

>>11016922
You seem to have trouble with math. Let me help you: 12% of 31000 = 3,720.

But maybe you think that isn't a significant number of qualified scientists? You're grasping at straws at this point.

>>11016980
It's 3 degrees warmer. That means the earth is going to crash into the sun.

>>11018843
>According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

self reported garbage with 0 verification. It's irrelevant either way, I don't care what your job title is, I care about the evidence you've submitted for peer review.

>>11017492
>>11018412
>anyone that doesn't eat the climate propaganda must be a coal/oil shill
Nuclear is the way, you brain damaged cultist
now fuck off

>>11015198
t. Low IQ

>>11018914
> Nuclear good!
>Socialism bad!
What did he mean by this?

>Tim Ball: 1
>Michael Mann: 0
climate alarmists btfo

>>11012844
>>11013118
>I dont listen to Breitbart nor clintel.
Only CNN for me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBppdC1h_Y

>>11015635
kek, so one study suddenly claims TCR is over 4 so up it goes.
I think lucarini et al. should be fired.
You too btw.

CO2 already went up 50%
Methane a.o is doing the equivalent of 20%
So CO2 equivalent is already up 70%.
Warming after a 70% rise is 1 degree but at 100% it will be 4.
Ok.

>>11019622
>all systems are linear or I am incapable of understanding nonlinear systems
Also, how are you reading this out of that graph?

>>11018914
I KNOW I'LL PRETEND TO SUPPORT NUCLEAR, THAT'LL MUDDY THE WATERS!

COME ON GOYIM BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX, I NEED YOU TO KEEP LINING MY POCKETS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>11012844
>>11013129
>>11013144
>>11013700
>Gee maybe if I dismiss the source I won't have to actually think for myself and research on the topic being discussed
This is you.

>>11017492
>thinking oil industry doesn't already have a share of renewable energy plants and products
I thought nerds were smart

>>11018412
>thinking carbon tax is going to be a loss for bigoil while its an inelastic good
Its gonna make people poorer dumbass

>>11019596
Breitbart is literal fakenews and please look at clintel's list of signees.Scroll through the list, it's full of literal corporate shills or (mostly retired) scientists who have no expertise regarding climate. Stuff like
>retired Civil Engineer
>Emeritus Professor of Economics
>MD, Honorary Professor of Environmental and Industrial Toxicology
>PhD in Law, author of several books
>university professor (ret.),
>Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Were all those geezers tricked by the "gradnson trick"?
>guess who's calling?
>> is that you Paul?
> Yes grandpa, it's Paul, say, you're a scientist, right? Wanna sign this for a school project?

>>11015848
We need to get to 700 at least to have crops grow in their optimum conditions.

>>11015941
Can you indicate on this graph what the ideal temperature is?

>>11019625
That graph is not depicting a system
It's just a random bunch of spots that people decided to put in different years.
i.e. in the year 2016 mr lucarini decided to put his dot at 4.1 degrees or something.
Trying to attach a trendline to these dots is intellectually dishonest.

>>11019636
at least these engineers already have a high school diploma, something Greta will never have at this rate.

>>11019662
Since when is Greta touted as a scientist?
She's there to get awareness since everyone has ignored scientists

>>11012840
overblown

>>11012843
At least you're going down with us. You only get to enjoy the peace and quiet of your ignorance a little longer than all the others.

>>11019662
>That graph is not depicting a system
Earth is.

Also
>thinking that Greta is the IPCC and the author of climate reports.

>>11019671
Scientists don't want to be in the public eye like Greta is because they know it's a scam.

>>11019630
NO NO NO WHY AREN'T THEY READING MY DENIALIST PROPAGANDA NOOOOOOOOOO

>>11019631
GOYIM I SWEAR MY COMPANY ISN'T COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON OIL MONEY! HONEST! I AM ONLY ADVOCATING FOR FOSSIL FUELS BECAUSE I'M LOOKING OUT FOR YOUR INTERESTS! PLEASE BELIEVE ME GOYIM I NEED YOU TO BUY THIS PETROL DON'T LEAVE ME NOOOOOOOO

>>11019634
NO GOYIM, ELECTRIC CARS DON'T EXIST! IT'S A FICTION, IT'S PROPAGANDA MADE UP BY CLIMATE ACTIVISTS! YOU MUST BUY MY FOSSIL FUELS! DON'T LEAVE ME GOYIM NOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>11019721
By the way I want to stress I'm not antisemitic, I am only using "goyim" to use language that denialist /pol/tards will understand.

>>11019671
I think those 500 civil engineers deserve more attention.
And if you have 5000 climatologist claiming the opposite then they deserve even more attention.
But the mere fact that we're giving a semi retarded girl, an ever fatter growing washed up politician and a someone who calls himself a science guy despite only having a bachelor degree the most attention of them all shows me this is pure propaganda.

PURE PROPAGANDA

>>11019721
>NO NO NO WHY AREN'T THEY READING MY DENIALIST PROPAGANDA NOOOOOOOOOO
Should I watch Al Gore's documentary instead?
>I SWEAR MY COMPANY ISN'T COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON OIL MONEY!
What about being completely dependent on government money?
>ELECTRIC CARS DON'T EXIST! IT'S A FICTION
Do you know how electricity is produced?

>temp is increasing rapidly
>carbon isotopes indicate dinosaur remains in the air
>biggest mass extinction (that isn't a catastrophe) ever is happening right now
C'mon man, it doesn't get any simpler and obvious. Denialism is nutso insane.

>>11019730
Good goy.
>NO NO NO WHY AREN'T THEY READING MY DENIALIST PROPAGANDA NOOOOOOOOOO
Because only the other side stands to make money from misrepresenting the truth
https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1yoKMBMPeNnGQ?t=3m23s

>>11019662
I find it funny that the denier is complaining about a style of graph made by a denier:>>11013097 . But he's only complaining about the non-cherrypicked version because it shows a result he doesn't like.

>>11019648
>I'm not obese!!!
>if I was you'd be able to give me an ideal weight!!!!!

>>11019750
>temp is increasing rapidly
False, which is why they stopped calling it global warming.
>carbon isotopes indicate dinosaur remains in the air
Dinosaurs are for children, they're not real. Just another scam branch of "science". They got real cocky with the T-Rex arms but people still buy it.
>biggest mass extinction (that isn't a catastrophe) ever is happening right now
You're just another death cult consisting of bored middle class eco-warriors who want to feel like they're doing something.

How dare you!

>>11012843
>breitbart

This is /sci/, take your non-scientific bullshit to /pol/

>>11019779
Nice way of ignoring the fact 500 scientists wrote to the UN saying there's no climate emergency.

I wonder why they don't get a platform to make a televised speech in front of the UN?

>>11019778
IM GONNA SAY IT
GREEN C-

>>11019811
Out of which most are corporate shills. And the rest is retired people from other fields.

>>11019761
>which is why they stopped calling it global warming.
Stop lying

>>11019816
Are you claiming those 500 scientists are conspiring with corporations? Are you a conspiracy theorist?

And Greta is a totally organic activist with no corporate backing, correct?

>>11019743
NOOOOO DON'T USE CARS POWERED BY WIND, SOLAR, NUCLEAR, AND HYDRO, THIS ISN'T FAIR, I NEED MY OIL SHEKELS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>11019740
>>11019752
>>11019761
>>11019811
>>11019824
NOOO DON'T READ THE SCIENCE, READ MY DISCREDITED NUTJOB PROPAGANDA INSTEAD, I NEED THOSE OIL SHEKELS NOOOOOOOOOO

>>11019824
I'm saying I rather listen to climate scientists than to retired mathematicians. When you have ass cancer, you go to a medical doctor and not to a retired chemist, don't you?

>>11019822
Okay I'll listen to Al Gore instead.

>>11019832
Oil companies are on your side - they publicly admit that it's real. Do you honestly believe the government and oil companies are enemies? And the government are the good guys?

>>11019836
Which climate scientists are saying there's an emergency? I only ever hear this from the media, Greta Thunberg, Al Gore and eco-warriors.

>>11019851
NOOOO YOU MUST KEEP BUYING FOSSIL FUELS YOU STUPID PLEBS, I'VE GOT INVESTMENTS IN THOSE OIL COMPANIES! THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING! NOOOOOO!

>>11019858
Does anyone have any investments in green energy companies? Is there any financial incentive for people to push climate alarmism? Does Greta help their stocks go up?

>>11019758
We unironically give people an exact target range based on height.

>>11020087
>>11019758

>>11019872
>IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY I SWEAR!

>>11019872
Watch link posted here, it's about carbon credits.
>>11019752

>>11020087
>target range
So you can't give me an ideal weight. Therefore obesity doesn't exist.

>>11020228
Yes I can, how tall are you?
Oh, you're a 5'1 manlet?
Well you're ideal weight is 115 pounds, try to keep it close, namely between 100 and 130 pounds.
What? You weigh 185 pounds?
Well aren't you a roundest leprechaun i've seen! You are most definitely obese.

>ITT: People who aren't scientists argue about things scientists argue about.

320 posts worth of shit flinging and counting.

>>11020331
>ITT: People who have read the science and butthurt conspiracy theorists who haven't
Fixed that for you.

>>11020470
I don't think you fixed anything, fren.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/09/29/the-blizzard-in-the-rockies-doesnt-disprove-climate-change-but-people-will-say-it-anyhow/
The climate is in a state of accelerated change, but the science about it is fake.

>>11021216
>the science about it is fake
No it isn't conspiritard. Sorry you're too dumb to understand this.

>>11015198
According to Al were supposed to be in water world by now