3 more days until the end of the world

[Anonymous No.11262972]

The scientists were clear - by the year 2020, much of the world that is now above water will be submerged. Humanity will annihilate itself in a global thermonuclear holocaust.

We have 3 more days to live. It's over. We're dead.

[Anonymous No.11262990]

>>11262972
Post the source of this "secret report".

[Anonymous No.11262995]

>>11262990
Excuse me, you far-right conspiracy theorist? This is The Guardian. Do you even know that The Guardian is one of the most prestigious newspapers in the entire world? Who the fuck do you think you are, questioning them?
I'll tell you who you are, you're a pathetic dipshit nobody. You're a peasant. How dare you impugn their authority? Do you even have a degree? I fucking doubt it. Shut your fucking mouth and show a little respect to your superiors, stop spouting conspiracy theories everywhere, and maybe one day you'll have sex incel.

[Anonymous No.11263022]

>>11262972
It fucking better

[Anonymous No.11263047]

>>11262995
lol, making some straw man case against some nobody reporter from 2004. Global warming is very real.

[Anonymous No.11263101]

>>11263047
dam dood its very real??? u convinced me

[Anonymous No.11263107]

>>11263101

[Anonymous No.11263120]

>>11263107
man wid big brain white coat glasses make line on circle. dis scary. now me want live in concrete tube, eat bugs. need take action now.

[Anonymous No.11263132]

>>11263120
>I'm afraid so I'll pretend it doesn't exist
gentlemen this is the best argument a climate denier can muster, look at this pathetic excuse for a human being and weep for the future of mankind.

[Anonymous No.11263149]

>>11263132
Hahaha yeah those guys are so stupid! They should just believe whatever the scientists tell them to!
>*munches down handful of GMO cockroaches, takes swig from water bottle loaded with 44 times more BPA than scientists previously told us was in it*

https://news.wsu.edu/2019/12/05/study-finds-bpa-levels-humans-dramatically-underestimated/

[Anonymous No.11263157]

>>11263149
look at his pathetic efforts to redirect the conversation away from a subject has no understanding of, whether it's because he's too lazy or stupid to understand basic physics we will never know. But only one thing is clear, he can't actually give any rational defense of his beliefs so he must avoid actual discussion like a roach scurries into the shadows when the light is switched on. I would laugh but it's really just depressing.

[Anonymous No.11263163]

>>11263157
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Thank you for tacitly conceding the argument to me, and demonstrating to anyone reading this that you're an authority-worshiping fanatic who believes anything that someone in a white labcoat and glasses tells them.

[Anonymous No.11263165]

>>11263149
and please pray tell, how do you know what BPA is or even if or why it's bad for you?

[Anonymous No.11263173]

>>11263163
there is no argument, you've failed to even create a discussion. Calling a fool a fool isn't a fallacy, especially when the fool isn't capable of even beginning a rational discussion. If you wish to engage in any kind of argument, by all means make an argument but until you can do that I'll simply call you out for what you are. An ignorant fool too lazy or stupid to formulate opinions based on reason or evidence and instead simply believes what he is told.

[Anonymous No.11263205]

>>11263173
>"I know how I'll come back from being called out for my ad hominem fallacy - I'll continue engaging in that same fallacy!"
This is the type of person produced by the modern school system. Someone who is only capable of memorizing words, but has absolutely no idea how to think for themselves. All they can do is appeal to their preferred authority, and then launch into a temper tantrum and hurl insults whenever they're contradicted.
Is all of /sci/ nothing but a pack of brainwashed pseudo-intellectuals who think sucking off labcoats makes them a genius?

[Anonymous No.11263215]

>>11263205
still waiting for you to attempt to even begin an argument. State your position and your evidence. You're still avoiding it, I wonder why, surely it's not because everything I've said so far is the simple truth and you can't confront it?

[Anonymous No.11263237]

>>11262972
Ironically, it is the same time Windows 7 support is dropped.

[Anonymous No.11263248]

>>11263215
>everything I've said so far is the simple truth
OK Dunning-Kruger, since you still haven't figured it out for yourself I'll be nice and spoonfeed you: Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the authority you're appealing to (scientists) can be implicitly trusted, even after they've been proven wrong on a subject multiple times. If they cannot be trusted to give us accurate information then your argument falls apart, because you're appealing to the scientists' credibility.
Now scroll back up and re-read my posts. Also, do a little research of your own on the climate change narrative. Scientists have been doomsaying about the climate for several decades straight, and every time they're proven wrong they just push the deadline back another decade or so. And then a decade or so later when they're proven wrong again, they just push the deadline back AGAIN, and all the while they tell us we make radical concessions in terms of our civil rights, diets, living conditions, etc, otherwise human civilization will be destroyed.
Belief in "scientific consensus" has become a kind of secular religion. No matter how many times people are lied to and ripped off they just can't accept reality. Scientists are not special. They're just another class of people with their own agendas, they can be blackmailed and bought just like anyone else, and they can make catastrophic mistakes just like anyone else. Society places far too much trust in them.

[Anonymous No.11263264]

>>11263248
Who's appealing to credibility? I simply understand basic physics

1.Fact: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, by which we mean a gas that traps heat and makes a planet (like Earth or Venus) warmer than it would be otherwise.
2.Fact: Human activity, especially the use of fossil fuels — by which we mean coal, oil, and gas, all of which release carbon dioxide when burned — is adding significantly more of this heat-trapping gas to Earth’s atmosphere.
3.Inevitable Conclusion: We should expect the rising carbon dioxide concentration to warm our planet, with the warming becoming more severe as we add more carbon dioxide.

Either disprove these basic physical principles or fuck off.
You'll also need to either prove every temperature monitoring station and agency on the planet is lying. Or provide another explanation for recent anomalous warming.
And by the way you've failed to provide a single scientific source that hasn't been proven true. and no random quotes from journalists don't count.

[El Arcón No.11263276]

>>11263173
>Calling a fool a fool isn't a fallacy
It speaks to profound idiocy of so many posters when they say name calling is the same fallacy as saying someone's argument is wrong because they are ~NAME~. If name calling is fallacy, then what argument is fallacious? Indeed! Huzzah, for you based logician.

[Anonymous No.11263285]

>>11263264
>Who's appealing to credibility?
You are appealing to credibility you stupid fuck. Yet again. You're still appealing to the very same scientists who have shredded their own credibility. You have no reasoning skills whatsoever, it's just like I said earlier >>11263205
The scientific community has successfully lied to the world, in unison, about all sorts of things. For decades people thought cocaine and ether were healthy. For decades people thought tobacco was healthy. For decades people thought BPA in plastics was at "safe" levels.

You're just like the rest of the "I FR*CKING LOVE SCIENCE!1!!!" types. You're not even half as smart as you think you are. All you do is appeal to MUH SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS without giving any thought to whether or not you can trust the scientific consensus. You think you're a genius, but you're just a brainwashed tool who points to scientists and shrieks at everyone else, "HE SAID YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE x, y AND z AND IF YOU DON'T YOU'RE AN EVIL LUDDITE!!!!"

No thanks. I'll look at the "scientific" community's track record and decide for myself if they're trustworthy.

[Anonymous No.11263302]

>>11263285
Your post is a wall of pointless ranting so i'll ignore most of it, but I want to get to the bottom of this. You claim scientists can't be trusted at face value. Fair enough, so please present your evidence which supports your belief that current warming of the earth either doesn't exist or is not caused by human GHG emissions. After all you claim to be a rational person so present your evidence. That's all I want, you can start by disproving these basic facts >>11263264

[Anonymous No.11263309]

>>11263302
>Your post is a wall of pointless ranting
"pointless ranting" AKA inconvenient facts I have no answer for. Get fucked, bootlicker

[Anonymous No.11263317]

>>11263309
you haven't posted any facts or evidence, so please answer >>11263302

[Anonymous No.11263547]

>>11262972
God damnit, god fucking dammit, damn it all to hell. I went back to the Midwest for the holidays instead of riding out the greatest storm of our lives in my new beach side city home and fighting for survival. And for what? 2 sweaters, Bose headphones and some cash? Fuck Christmas

[Anonymous No.11263560]

[Anonymous No.11264327]

>>11263264
I've seen this graph before and I've sourced it to this article, which seems to imply there is a saturation effect with CO2.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.615

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding things?

[Anonymous No.11264338]

>>11263120
>>11263149

[Anonymous No.11264402]

>>11264327
Additionally, that water vapor is the main cause of the greenhouse effect.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

[Anonymous No.11264405]

>>11264402
As shown by the absorption bands
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

[Anonymous No.11264441]

>>11264405
Finally, there's claims of it being a cycle, this graph:
https://mastertheedge.com/climate/

Which is sourced from this article:
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/history/bradley%201991%20earthquest.pdf

[Anonymous No.11264455]

>>11264405
There's claim that it is based on cycles such as this graph,from
https://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html

Which is sourced from:
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2011/10/05/teil-8-dynamisches-sonnensystem-die-tatsaechlichen-hintergruende-des-klimawandels/

[Anonymous No.11264464]

>>11264455
Or this image from:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig1.html

Which is sourced from:
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/history/bradley%201991%20earthquest.pdf

[Anonymous No.11264478]

>>11264402
Found the actual page with the image:
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Which I found from:
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

This same image also shows that man made effects are minimal.

This article which endeavoured in calculating the effects of CO2:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

Found that at the end, that
"equations used to derive the 4 watts/sq m radiative forcing by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere..."
"It would appear that in order to derive the factor f the IPCC assume that all of the 0.6 degrees warming apparently seen since the industrial revolution is due to CO2 and thereby derive the constant"
"If it is really true that this formula has been derived only by assuming that all “observed” temperature rise since 1750 is caused only by CO2 increases, then I fear this is a circular argument !"

So... I have no idea what to think.

[Anonymous No.11264815]

>>11263309
Gotta love how AGW deniers always crawl back to their hole when asked to provide evidence. You can rant about previous flawed studies all you want but at the end of the day: 'i dun trus sientis' isn't an argument against AGW and it will never be. Side note: We had to rename it AGW in the first place because when hit weasels finally got backed into a corner about the planet warming up at an abnormal rate, you moved the goalpost from "prove that it's getting warmer" to "prove that it's getting warmer because of humans" and now you're slowly moving them to "prove that it's getting warmer because of humans outside of China". Seriously, go back to /pol/ and stay there.