/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12075882
What's your opinion on if it's justified or not?

>>12075882
i view climate change activists in the same way i view people who believe in the holohoax

>>12075884
I think it is justified. There is so much evidence pointing to anthropogenic forcing being a major influence on changing weather patterns. It seems so obvious to me, and is baffling when someone tries to refute it with pseudoscience.

>>12075897
I agree, I've seen major season shifts where I live (warm autumns, strange temperature oscillations, ect.) and the science is solid from what I've seen. Denial is pretty much conspiracy at this point, and I believe it should be seen as any other conspiracy, if not harsher.

Flat earthers/round earthers don't try to destroy your freedom and well-being. Same is true for moon landing denialists/truthers. But that's pretty much untrue for climatists and especially covidists.

>>12075907
>and I believe it should be seen as any other conspiracy
How should other conspiracies be seen and why?

>>12075912
They shouldn't influence your personal decisions, talking about it with other people, ect.

>>12075897

This. I am just 30 but winter snow cover here is far thinner and doesnt last as long as I remember from childhood. Its pretty obvious something is happening.

I thought >>>/pol/ was made for niggers like you?

>>12075907
>>12075925
Not only is it that, but obviously it is supported by so much data such as; increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, increasing SST, more severe storms, and abnormal weather trends. I find it disappointing whenever someone tries to counter it all by posting some picture of a big snow storm and saying "what about that global warming" or some other comment.

>>12075882
no, climate change deniers are worse - they're actually causing and enabling death and destruction

>>12075926
Oh, I'm sorry anon, but he already posted it here, oh well.

>>12075882
But uh, how do I get muh jobs in muh coal industry

>>12075950
then post it again instead of littering here, faggot
>>>/pol/

>>12075882
no in the case of flat earthers we can prove them wrong experimentally
on the other hand there is no way of proving that climate change is anthropogenic, there is no experimental evidence just statistical correlation and speculation

>>12076059
>there is no way of proving that climate change is anthropogenic
Yeah that's right, it isn't humans that pollute everything its lizard people.

I have important information on this subject.

>>12075882
Climate change denial or skepticism is quite different from the flat earth claims. The flat earth claim is a single and fairly simple claim ("the earth is flat", or alternatively, "the earth's curvature globally is the same as it is locally"), it is easy to experimentally test with both ancient and modern methods, has many consequences that are well understood, and the claim goes contrary to something which has been common knowledge for centuries.

On the other hand, "climate change" is not a single claim, there are many hypotheses conflated under the same banner that could all have different answers. I think climate change is more of a worldview or paradigm than a single theory, which in particular means that you can "deny" it without disagreeing with them on a single fact, but this is not what people usually mean by denying climate change.

For example, first there is the literal question whether climate changes. Of course it does, we have geological evidence that it has changed a lot of times in the past and we partially understand the mechanisms, which continue now as well. The second question is whether climate change has accelerated recently compared to earlier times in human history. There is also some evidence for this, and I think this should be fairly uncontroversial, but this is already a point of debate among amateur climate change skeptics.

The third question is whether this acceleration is anthropogenic. I think this is the line that divides the 'deniers' and 'supporters' of "climate change" most clearly. The proposed mechanism of anthropogenic acceleration via increased emission of greenhouse gasses seems plausible, but there are enough subtleties involved that make it easy for amateur skeptics to try and poke holes in it.

The main thing these groups have in common is that they attract a lot of anti-globalism/establishment people, and not the brightest among those.

you won't believe a word I say, that's part of the conditioning. But you have been brainwashed since you were smoll. Everything you have been led to believe is a lie. The purpose of this is for control. The plan is to absolutely dominate in all fields. This conspiracy extends beyond just physics, but also into medicine. Anon. I weep because I know you won't believe me. The brainwashing has a chokehold on your mind. Your ego which has been artifically boosted through regurgitation of rote memorization keeps you in a false bravado. Abandon your knowledge base in search of the truth and you have to leave your ego behind you.

>MANY SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN
> CENSORED, FIRED, DEFUNDED, SHUNNED
> THEY TEACH YOU WHAT THEY WANT YOU > TO BELIEVE

Is heat islanding through concrete jungles real? yes. Are we having an effect on the environment? yes. But you see dear boy, the devil tells truths with his lies. The goal is to get you to pay carbon taxes. The goal is not to "fix" the environment from an empending dooms day.

Pollution exists, and it's bad. Deforestation exists and it's bad. How-ever the sky will not fall and we will not be subject to cataclysm as a result of global warming. there is information that is forbidden because it goes against the teachings of the Universities. When you are ready to see that forbidden knowledge you will find it. How-ever be warned. Do not openly allow others to know you know forbidden knowledge as you will make many enemies in doing so. Being aware is bad for your economic health. Would you do what's right in the face of guaranteed financial obviation? I would. But I don't expect others to follow my path.
Seek and yee shall find.

Cont. >>12076119

The final question to consider is what the effect of this accelerated climate change will be for the future. This is where the climate change supporters have shot themselves in the foot, because presenting the extremely uncertain models as definite truth that the earth will have a global increase in the temperature in just a few decades and all the doomsaying that this caused. This strained the credibility of those who supported the climate change paradigm, and probably led to the rise of amateur skeptics.

>>12076073
is there evidence that the issue is "polution"?
what caused the ice age? our polution?

>>12076123
Do not. I repeat do not run around like a nigger and let people know you know. We need you in a well established position so you can shut the system down from the inside out. Just as you judged others you too will be judged. Part of the programming is that you are trained to have beliefs inside their system and to treat outsiders as fools and lunatics.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/06/30/award-winning-environmentalist-pens-eye-popping-mea-culpa-apologizes-for-his-part-in-climate-scare-941292

https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/01/we-dont-just-have-a-bushfire-crisis-we-have-an-arson-crisis-too/

>>12076119
>some evidence for this
I'd say it is quite compelling evidence, we have direct temperature measures, can directly measure incoming and outgoing radiation, and can observe ice being melted by excess heat

>>12076135
Ice age started before homo sapiens was even a thing, retard.

You clearly know fuck all about anything, just shut the fuck up.

>>12076130
>This is where the climate change supporters have shot themselves in the foot
This is where we as a society shot ourselves in the foot, actually. By not taking climate change seriously, we relied on only the most outspoken individuals to be the ones to keep the issue in the public eye.

>>12076139
oh so the ice age was a result of other natural factors, so dear retard tell me how can you exclude that the current climate change isn't a product of natural factors
what experimental evidence do you have?

>>12076143
It explicitly doesn't line up with the factors that caused the ice age. We should be descending in temperature, not increasing at this stage of the cycle, and we are ascending at a rate that makes coastal civilisation an extremely bad idea

>>12076146
yeah i'm not saying that we are in an ice age retard, i'm saying that you cannot exclude other natural factors

>>12076143
because it was literally proven that we're the cause, you inbred ape

>>12076146
>>find: Michael Shellenberger apology

anon I really think you don't want to find out. I think you want to believe what you've been told. To have your while reality ripped to shreds and become outcast is too much for people to bear.

>it's dangerous to let your mind wander freely
>stay safe and cozy in your sell out bubble.

>>12076152
how was it proven?
did we had an exact copy of the earth with the same initial conditions in which though humans didn't start the industrial revolution?

>>12076143
>>12076151

We can directly observe the elements of greenhouse gas theory
-It is directly observable that CO2 can block radiation in a lab setting
-It is directly observable via satellite that outgoing radiation is less than incoming solar radiation
-It is directly observable that burning fossil fuels produces CO2
-It is directly observable that CO2 levels have been rising with time, and that only part of the excess CO2 each year is being absorbed out of the atmosphere
-Same shit for other greenhouse gases like methane
-It is directly observable that sea levels are rising
-It is directly observable that the temperatures are rising rapidly, and at a rate far higher than any rate in human civilization
-It is directly observable that extreme weather events are occuring more frequently this millennium than prior to it

On the flip side we have:
-No evidence that the rise in atmospheric CO2 isn't caused primarily by humans
-No evidence that we aren't warming rapidly
-No examples of periods of warming/cooling in human civilized history that are comparable in magnitude or rate of change
-No evidence that sea level rise is going to stop any time soon

>>12076169
no no dude, we need
>an exact copy of earth with the same initial conditions in which though humans didn't start the industrial revolution
to figure out if we're the cause of not, whatever you just said that I didn't even read clearly makes 0 sense, try again teehee

I guess in the Permian–Triassic extinction event the climate change was caused by insects starting an industrial revolution.

>>12076169
the problem is that we don't know whether the amount produced by humans would be sufficient to trigger it and if there are other factors that could contribuite to it
in other words the only thing we have is correlation

>>12076169
All of this still ignores effect sizes, though, which are also needed to conclude the anthropogenic factor is relevant. There is a plausible mechanism by which me telling people on the street to go visit a theme park would lead to more people visiting the park. However, if I only measure the difference in the total number of people visiting the park before and after my "advertising" attempt, I cannot conclude from the fact that the number of visitors has increased alone that the advertising did anything, because it ignores potential other factors with greater effect that renders my advertising irrelevant.

I'm sure the literature covers this point in great detail, but I often see this missing in popular articles, so this is again gives plenty of wiggle-room for the skeptics to try to prove people wrong.

>yo mate maybe we should stop burning fossil fuels the climate is changing maybe it's our fault

>>12076192
you're clearly mentally, during that time, climate was getting colder and we also know why is that the case, its just you being a fucking retard who knows nothing abou history.

>>12076176
you jest but if we don't have any experimental evidence or way of falsifying your hypothesis then we aren't doing science

>>12076195
>the Permian mass extinction in the oceans was caused by global warming that left animals unable to breathe. As temperatures rose and the metabolism of marine animals sped up, the warmer waters could not hold enough oxygen for them to survive
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about anon

>>12076189
>All of this still ignores effect sizes, though
It doesn't though. Climate models relatively accurately predict warming based on the amount of greenhouse gases and other factors, and directly quantify a given amount of warming for every X billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions.

>>12076206
Yes, climate models do, but your explanation did not.

>>12076197
>experimental evidence
Do you not know what evidence is or are you just trolling?
>>12076203
now tell us what started happening once they did die off. faggot literally memes
>maybe its our fault
when yes, it was their own fault for farting that much, wanna repeat the cycle because you're too inbred to comprehend history?

>>12076227
>now tell us what started happening once they did die off
what does it matter retard?
They had a global warming event, which wasn't caused by an industrial revolution.
Also the term history refers to human events you fucking brainded faggot.

>>12076141
>By not taking climate change seriously, we relied on only the most outspoken individuals to be the ones to keep the issue in the public eye.
Climatefaggots seem to make the mistake of thinking that people oppose them because they aren't screaming loudly enough.
Everyone knows.
It's been center stage in the public eye for decades.
That isn't why people are opposing you.
People are opposing you because your sloppy politics risks creating even bigger problems.
If you want support,
*keep*
*the*
*policy*
*narrow*
*in*
*scope*
How hard is this to grasp?
People oppose you because your policy is used as a Trojan horse to push political malware.
If you want people to take it seriously, your activism should be directed at people trying to sneak shit though.
The "climate racism" stuff is a prime example of this.
If climatefags aren't pushing back against people trying to piggyback of climate initiatives to push through their own unpopular policy into potentially global laws and agreements, then they only have themselves to blame when people see climate policy as a vehicle for ulterior agendas, because at that point, you have allowed it to become a vehicle for ulterior agendas.
I look at all of these activist groups like XR, and at the PR level, it's all about muh environment, but the small print is all the usual tripe
>Abolish whiteness
>Abolish property
>Abolish borders
Etc.
If you let these people hijack your position, then you can't complain when others reject it.

>>12075909
What an alarmist.

>>12076059
Ridiculous lie. We know humans are causing the increase in CO2 concentration from isotope analysis and we can directly observe that this causes warming with radiative spectroscopy:

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

>>12076378
This, it's telling that almost all groups supposedly seriously fighting against climate change dismiss nuclear so easily.

>inb4 waste, muh chernobyl
I think screwing up a few caves deep in the earth for a couple of aeons is worth it to save our ecosystem from collapsing, and coal has killed more people than nuclear ever did. And no, solar+wind+hydro will not have the capacity to displace coal anytime soon. (in fact, coal is displacing nuclear right as we speak! Take a look at Germany)

Of course, building nuclear power plants is very expensive, telling people to consume less is far cheaper, but don't claim to be fighting tooth and nail if you're leaving obvious tools untouched due to FUD.

>>12076143
The ice age was the result of continental drift blocking the flow of warm water to the poles. Do you know how long that takes to occur? The main thing deniers don't seem to understand is the diffrent timeframes involved in climate change. They don't see changes occurring over millions of years, thousands of years, and hundreds of years as any different, because they all "warming." Current warming is 15 times faster than the last interglacial warming. They are completely different things.

>>12076156
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-science-and-bad-arguments-abound-in-apocalypse-never/

>>12076168
Oh shit, you're right. I guess we have to throw out all scientific understanding of the Earth because we don't have a copy of the Earth. Those dumb scientist nerds forgot this.

>>12076177
>X is occurring now
>nuh uh, X didn't occur in the past
Are deniers really this stupid?

>>12076183
>the problem is that we don't know whether the amount produced by humans would be sufficient to trigger it
We do though. We can directly observe it and other factors and compare them. If you had done even the most basic research on the topic you're trying to discuss you would not be spouting such nonsense.

>>12076183
>in other words the only thing we have is correlation
The greenhouse effect is causation, not correlation.

>>12076540
read about the little ice age from 13th to 19th centry
we literally just recently exited an ice age lol

>>12076342
>They had a global warming event, which wasn't caused by an industrial revolution.
And? This is like saying a guy with a knife in his back couldn't have been murdered because people die of natural causes. You're ignoring that there is a knife in his back and no other way this specific person could have died.

>>12076551
you can't even make a proper analogy retard
i'm saying that the event already happened in the past, and it was clearly not caused by why you think is causing it now

>>12076378
>Everyone knows.
Then why are there people here ignorant of basic scientific facts?

>People are opposing you because your sloppy politics risks creating even bigger problems.
This is pretty laughable. Scientifically illiterate people who deny problems exist they are politically inconvenient are the ones taking a risk.

>People oppose you because your policy is used as a Trojan horse to push political malware.
The same is said about all legislation and all counter-legislation.

If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to actually give substantive arguments instead of just spouting conspiracy-logic that can be applied to anything anyone doesn't like.

>>12075907
>I've seen major season shifts where I live
confirmation bias, changes are normal, climate change is supposed to be on a more long term scale with like a 1 degree increase in temperature over 100 years...

>>12076567
>read about the little ice age
So small cooling over 400 years is the same as massive warming over a hundred? Pic related.

>we literally just recently exited an ice age lol
No, we're still in an ice age and have been for millions of years, the entirety of human life. We exited a *glacial period* about 10,000 years ago with interglacial warming. Then the climate was stable until about 150 years ago when we started warming on top of interglacial warming, 15 times faster. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Thank you for proving my point better than I could have by myself.

>>12075882
you arent openminded, bigot

>>12076576
>i'm saying that the event already happened
It's a distinction without a difference. You're saying warming caused by humans can't be happening now because warming caused by something else occured in the past. No one said all warming had to occur this way, so you have no actual point. If you do, please explain it.

>>12076593
Changes are normal. Changes all going on one direction is not normal.

>climate activism is predominantly a leftist cause
>leftists are hypocritical dishonest sheep (as evidenced by for example the relentless shilling by CNN since 2016)
>dissenting scientists get cancelled and defunded
>third world countries are encouraged to grow their population and migrate to first world countries while white people are told to have fewer children for the sake of the climate
>china, politicians, corporations etc are given a free pass on their carbon footprint while citizens are told to suffer and pay more taxes
really makes you think

>>12076616
zoom out and consider that what you are showing is a future projection not actual data retard

>>12076640
this gives a bit of a better perspective

https://www.bitchute.com/video/G1t0JKYzZVwL/

>>12076626
>You're saying warming caused by humans can't be happening now
no, i'm saying that you have yet to prove that it is, since there are potentially different causes at play here

>>12076640
>zoom out
But you haven't zoomed out, your graph has the same timeframe but it's showing Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

>what you are showing is a future projection not actual data retard
What are you talking about? There is no projection in that graph.

>>12076651
>this gives a bit of a better perspective
Not really, the graph is just showing one ice core temperature reconstruction from Greenland and fraudulently calling it "global." The data ends in 1855 yet it calls this "modern warm period" while completely missing global warming.

>>12076656
>no, i'm saying that you have yet to prove that it is,
I already did. Ready the thread. >>12076524

>since there are potentially different causes at play
Like what?

>>12075892
Based

>>12076733
oh noooo

>>12076766
Why do you keep posting graphs that don't show modern temperatures? Do you think ignoring them means they don't exist?

>>12076818
at 0 it show the modern temperatures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdWk18AZnpc

sweden is one of the big climate activism shills, since when is sweden setting a good example

>>12076823
No it doesn't. Those graphs are based on ocean sediment cores that don't have the resolution to show modern warming. This may prove my point here >>12076540

>>12076865
>Assumptions are required to estimate global surface temperature change from deep ocean changes, but we argue and present evidence that the ocean core record yields a better measure of global mean change than that provided by polar ice cores.
also
> In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.
literally from nasa

>>12076906
>>Assumptions are required to estimate global surface temperature change from deep ocean changes, but we argue and present evidence that the ocean core record yields a better measure of global mean change than that provided by polar ice cores.
How does this respond to what I said? Where did i say anything about ice cores?

>> In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.
You realize the Early Pliocene was millions of years ago, right? Humans didn't even exist. So what does the climate then have to do with the climate now? You again fail to understand that the issue is not simply temperature, the issue is rapid change in temperature.

>>12077003
>How does this respond to what I said?
that the data included present temperatures as mentioned in the statement which implied that in the pliocene the temperaturess where 1-2°C warmer than today
>Humans didn't even exist
That's the point, the temperature was not determined by human activities and yet it increased multiple times.
>the issue is rapid change in temperature
oh so now it's rapid change and not the change in itself

>>12075882
yes, climate change deniers are actual retards. it is obviously that earths climate was never constant and changed all the time. people who deny that should be put in cages and dropped into the ocean. the same goes for people who say climate change is human made.
in reality humans just speed up natural climate change. what needed 1000 years before will change much faster now. too fast for the fauna and flora to adapt to it.

>>12077231
>that the data included present temperatures as mentioned in the statement
It didn't say present temperatures were in the data. Read it again.

>That's the point, the temperature was not determined by human activities and yet it increased multiple times.
So what?

>oh so now it's rapid change and not the change in itself
??? Temperature change is not a problem if it's not rapid.

>>12077260
That's wrong though, the climate would be slowly cooling if not for human emissions. So we are not simply "speeding up" already occurring natural change, we are making it go in the opposite direction.

>>12077339
we just come out of a small ice age from 14th to mid 19th century.
if you know better post proof.

>>12077363
>we just come out of a small ice age from 14th to mid 19th century.
The "Little Ice Age" is not a small ice age, that's just a name. We are still in an ice age, the same one that's been going on for millions of years. The LIA was very mild compared to current warming and doesn't explain anything. See pic related and >>12076616.

You are probably confusing glacial periods with ice ages. Within the current ice age, there is a very predictable cycle of cold periods and warm periods called glacials and interglacials, a cycle determined by the effects of Earth's orbital eccentricity and precession. The warming in between glacial and interglacials is the fastest warming humans had experienced until now. We are currently in an interglacial period that began about 10000 years ago. So we should be slowly cooling back into a glacial period. Instead we are warming at a rate 15 times as fast as interglacial warming, on top of the warming that already occurred 10000 years ago. All of this is basic climatology climatology you should already know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

>>12075882
No, flat earthers don't do much harm, climate change deniers on the other hand...

How do flat earthers even exist

>>12075882
I view climate change alarmists the same as I view blue haired tranny communists and critical theorists and I know it is justified.

>i desperately cling to the word "science" because if i do that means i can never be wrong, cuz thats the definition of science
>i cant make any argument on my own without just repeating what people smarter than me said
>so long as i get scared into thinking something is a big deal and will kill us all, then ill totally objectively believe it because im not being emotionally manipulated
>ill buy into anything so long as a lot of other people do, and then mock the people who dont, cuz that means theyre wrong
how many times do you want to play this same hand

>>12079676
don't worry, trump won, right wing content dominates on facebook, these twitter checkmarks and greta shills are just a vocal minority, shitlibs think it's ok to be communists but we know what's up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHVh8FEmrR0
check the likes to dislikes ratio, people aren't falling for this crap

>>12075892

>>12075882
yes

climate change deniers are part of the second dumbest tier

>first tier stupid
holocaust/genocide denial
flat earth
etc
>second tier stupid
climate change denial
moon landing denial
etc

>>12075925
you know there was a mini ice age when Marry Shelly wrote Frankenstein. Your anecdote means nothing. Weather doesn't just repeat in 4 yearly seasons, there are numerous other seasonal patterns as well. Wheels within wheels. What is the snowfall for the last ten years to the previous ten years, 20 to 20? I bet you have never even checked. Just because you are applying the only metric you understand to something you don't understand doesn't mean there is meaning there.

Your argument could just as easily be that if you watch the first ten minutes of a movie and figure out the plot that you can watch the first ten minutes of every movie and figure out the plot. Taking a tiny dateset like comparing snowfall in the winter from year to year for a few years, from an unfathomably large dateset like weather and thinking you have a meaningful pattern to make predictions from just makes people who aren't retarded lol at how retarded you are

>>12082011
>t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48

VETERAN CARLOS ZAPATA RETURNS TO EXPOSE COVID TYRANNY
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KX8j6KB4BipY/

>>12082011
OK Shlomo

>>12082011
questioning numbers is second tier
complete denial is first tier

>>12082011
holocaust denial is only stupid when they deny that it physically happened
what most people are doing when they deny the holocaust though is something different - they're saying they don't care about it, but because the predominant belief system in modern life is scientific materialism, they can only express this by making claims about the physical world. thus, "i don't care about the holocaust" gets turned into the holocaust didn't happen, it wasn't that many, there were no gas chambers, etc. the claim is physical, but only because the people making it aren't smart enough to realize that there are alternate epistemologies that make much more sense for moral assertions, which is fundamentally closer to what they're interested in saying
i personally think the numbers are probably lower than reported, but really i'm not that interested in the physical reality - i just don't care about what happened there, whatever happened, they deserved it

>>12082080
>>12082117
>>12082138
>>12082192
shit like this makes you realize how many Muslim and/or neonazi shills are patrolling this site. one mention of how objectively retarded holocaust deniers are and multiple astroturfers flood the thread. this site is basically a microcosm of idiocracy

>>12082203
>patrolling this site
it's true, hitler's alive and living in his moon base where he sends me moon shekels to shill for holocaust denial on an online tibetian yak husbandry forum
pm me if you want in on it, the pay is great

>>12082214
holocaust deniers are as rare as flat earthers and just as stupid, but if you whistle for them anywhere on this site they will come shilling and screaming. must be a coincidence.

>>12082225
Funny that you consider difference in opinion to be ”shilling” when you’re attacking people based on their opinion

>>12082203
stfu Moshe you aren't fooling anyone

>>12082284
Im on your side schizobro but if you’re going to disprove claims and not look retarded you have to use more than a fucking picture of anpaper that couldve been shopped

>>12082277
holocaust denial is objectively incorrect, it’s not an opinion. also
>blaming people because they have enough IQ points to notice the pattern that holocaust deniers are ALWAYS either neonazis or muslims and 0% of the time are interested in truth

>>12082291

>>12082292
>objectively incorrect
You dont know this. You can read all you want about how this and that happened but for all everyone knows it could all be fake. So it is in-fact an opinion.
>>ALWAYS either neonazis or muslims and 0% of the time are interested in truth
Im an exception so you’re a faggot liar

>>12082277
you might just be retarded anon. either that or your perspective is so warped from browsing this trash heap of a site that you think neckbeard incels who talk about jews more than sjws talk about gender and white privilege is normal.

>>12082309
holocaust can’t be fake actually, since tens of thousands of people who had no contact with each other all told the same stories about what happened. plus the photographs and mass graves everywhere. there is zero doubt that the holocaust occurred more or less as described in mainstream history. Zero. If you do doubt it you have brain damage.

>>12082316
>[/pol/] who talk about jews more than sjws talk about gender and white privilege
Never thought about it this way. Holy kek that’s true.

>>12082316
What does that have to do with what i said

>>12082319
>If you do doubt it you have brain damage.
If you believe it blindly you have brain damage.

Insults that carry the same weight when redirected arent effective and nullifies you’re entire argument

>>12076378
but isn't abolishing borders mainstream in sociology?

>>12082349
not really, believing the holocaust “blindly” is a rational position since logically such an event is impossible to fake or significantly exaggerate. denying it blindly to on the other hand is clear proof that your IQ is monkey tier

>NOOOO YOU CANT BLASPHEME SCIENCE

>>12077428
thanks for debunking this bullshit

>>12082367
<impossible to fake or significantly exaggerat
Literal NPC holy shit man
>denying it blindly to on the other hand is clear proof that your IQ is monkey tier
125

>>12082367
Kike

>>12082381
not him but a genocide in a european country on the scale of the holocaust is completely impossible to fake and you are over-estimating your IQ by at least 40 points. thinking you can fake a genocide is one of the most NPC things I’ve ever heard.

>>12082398
>you are over-estimating your IQ by at least 40 points.
I wasnt the one who administered the test weirdo wtf do you mean

>>12082225
most people who weren't brainwashed and have studied the subject matter have come to the conclusion that the claims have been grossly exaggerated and it's a massive money and power grab by jews, including jews who straight up admitted they lied

similar story with climate change denial, it's just fucking pozzed to claim we need to start driving electric cars etc, same as with the coronavirus mask hypocrisy

>>12082398
In response to holocaust deniers I only ever see these as-fact refutations that it was impossible to fake because it obviously was, is this just a case of bad argumentation from people that haven't really thought about things as much as they feel they have, in turn feeding the notion that it really was faked?

>>12082381
humans can’t keep a secret between 3 people and you’re saying a historical event witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people from dozens of countries is fake kek
the only NPC here is you. photos ALONE would be enough to convict nazis of mass murder

>>12082415
if your IQ were 90 or greater you would understand naturally that it would be impossible to fake a holocaust. there has never been a conspiracy to even .0001% that large. you’re just stupid anon.

>>12082412
there is not a single person who has done research that concluded the holocaust was fake or exaggerated. not one. you are not a person and you should have been aborted by force.

>>12082412
>le people who admitted they lied
the importance /pol/ places on this stuff is proof everyone who insults their intelligence is right. far more nazis have lied about the holocaust than victims have.
>incel brain divides by 0

>>12082431
And here it is again, your only argument is that if everyone else were smart like you, they'd see the obvious truth that a death count couldn't be inflated, I don't even deny the holocaust, but I'm at least mindful enough to know that this shit tier argument isn't going to convince any of anything, ever.

>>12082422
>you’re saying a historical event witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people from dozens of countries is fake
When did i say that?
>photos ALONE would be enough to convict nazis of mass murder
im losing my shit kekeke

>>12082415
you have an actual subhuman brain if you think it’s feasible to fake something like that. god himself would need to fake it and plant the evidence. I can’t believe how stupid you inbred losers are. the evidence is so convincing that deniers can’t do anything but mumble about typhus and spam fraudulent holocaust stories. Christ you are stupid

>>12082448
deniers mentioning the debunked auschwitz plaque argument for years should convince you they never had an argument to begin with.

the perspective you’re lacking is that all sentient humans know neo-nazis/pol type people are subhuman stupid and don’t deserve to breathe. you’re asking for respect for people that should have their limbs broken to put it mildly.

>>12082455

the perspective you’re lacking is that all sentient humans know neo-nazis/pol type people are subhuman stupid and don’t deserve to breathe. you’re asking for respect for people that should have their limbs broken to put it mildly.
>Intellectually dishonest and emotionally driven
Discarded

>>12082450
Obviously you couldn't fake it without some heavy duty manipulation the likes of which the world has likely never seen, but a total death count could still be inflated to some degree, not even saying it is, but there is motivation amongst some parties to make it seem bigger the same way there's motivation to make it seem smaller or non-existant.

>>12082455
Then go break their bones and stop shitting non-arguments into the void you dumb cracker.

climate change is real but shouldn't we all be more worried about pollution

>>12082455
>the perspective you’re lacking is that all sentient humans know neo-nazis/pol type people are subhuman stupid and don’t deserve to breathe
a lot of people feel that way about commies/antifas

>>12082467
>coronavirus is real but shouldn't we all be more worried about the flu

>>12082431
It's not a "conspiracy". It's a war propaganda lie from which too many powerful, and even not so powerful people benefit. Just look at today's EU and Israel, both would have been impossible without the holocaust narrative. As we speak cosmopolitanism (aka. liberalization of the labor market across borders) is still pushed thanks to the holocaust story.

>>12075882
But flat earthers are a harmless joke.

>>12082480
if you collect life insurance because a family member died, that’s evidence they didn’t die? we need new words to capture how stupid pol is.

>>12082319
>holocaust can’t be fake actually, since tens of thousands of people who had no contact with each other all told the same stories about what happened

your claims are so ridiculously retarded you can only be a shill. I know there are really stupid people on this board but no one so stupid enough to think what you put forward as "proof" is actually proof of anything.

>Bigfoot is real because everyone describes it the same and there are pictures

You are fucking retarded trying to use this method of shilling on a science board and should be fired.

>>12082367
>blindly believing things is a rational position
get the fuck off this board rabbi

>>12082527
neonazis are the only ones who say things so stupid it has to be satire but isn’t. even flat earthers aren’t this stupid. for the record there is literally several million times as much evidence for the holocaust as Bigfoot and thousands of times as many photos. if there were thousands of photos of Bigfoot and we had his skeleton and non-inbred trailer trash with phds saying he was real I would probably believe in Bigfoot.

this might be the dumbest thing ever said by a human. Pol does it again. You guys flat are not human beings. you’re too stupid by far to be

>>12082554
>neonazis are the only ones who say things so stupid it has to be satire but isn’t.
The fucking fallacy cope never ceases to amaze me. holy shit kek

>>12082554
>cue kosher histrionics
>Reeeeeeeeee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ6FXzVZBUg

>>12082573
what a (((coincidence)))

>>12082557
comparing the holocaust to Bigfoot is one of the least intelligent comments I’ve ever read but it’s just typical /pol/ stuff. there’s no chance you’re human.

>>12082587
you are (((subhuman))) anyway nothing you say is to be considered even human speech so your comments can be completely ignored and trashed

>>12082587
>comparing the holocaust to Bigfoot
Wasnt me

>>12082594
must be a coincidence that holocaust deniers always reveal themselves to be pathologically obsessed with jews

>>12082573
>(((wiener)))

>>12082602
Yes I am obsessed with making your masochistic oppression fantasy a reality. I do it out of love, you want it so bad I want to give it you. Don;t worry friend this can't end any other way, just let the warmth come over you and put you to sleep

>>12082080
God I love that song and the tranny Jewess singing it

>>12076651
>>12076640
>posting the same tired graph from a single ice core that ends in 1850 passing it as modern warming

>ah yes, the climate alarmism disguised as science, brought to you by credible sources such as al gore and alexandria ocasio-cortez
>i donated to bernie's next beach house even though it will succumb to the rising sea levels any day now, that'll show the magatards
>i'm such a free thinker, not just parroting the left's political agenda