MEME SCIENCE MAN BTFO

Quantity over quality. We don't produce as much as any other greenhouse gas other thana water-vapor which self-counters its greenhouse effect with albedo.

...

Reported for AGW support. It doesn’t fucking exist.

Because anthropogenic climate change is a smokescreen for Marxist wealth redistribution schemes on a global scale and do nothing to even limit carbon emissions (which are a total red herring, atmospheric carbon levels and global average temperature levels don't have a 1:1 correlation), they just put financial hardships on western domestic business and benefit transnationalists. When the whole scandal of the ICC revising raw temperature data upwards to try and desperately fit their warming models was the final nail in the alarmists coffin.

You really want to do something t help the environment? Eradicate all the niggers in Africa, all the spics in Latin America and let reforestation reign on those two continents for a couple of decades.

Because anthropogenic climate change is a smokescreen for Marxist wealth redistribution schemes on a global scale and do nothing to even limit carbon emissions (which are a total red herring, atmospheric carbon levels and global average temperature levels don't have a 1:1 correlation), they just put financial hardships on western domestic business and benefit transnationalists. When the whole scandal of the ICC revising raw temperature data upwards to try and desperately fit their warming models was the final nail in the alarmists coffin.

You really want to do something t help the environment? Eradicate all the niggers in Africa, all the spics in Latin America and let reforestation reign on those two continents for a couple of decades.

bill nye was an engineer right?

How many threads on this do we need?

To be fair she's right he's not a scientist.

He's an Engineer.

The generation of wealth always has a carbon consequence.

Control carbon dioxide, and you control all human activity.

...

/thread
even if global warming didn't real the solution is literally better energy sources

Global Warming (now the symbol called Climate Change) is just yet another way to destroy white civilization. You will notice that none of the international efforts advocate true global change. They only want to tax white nations and help "develop" the third world.

What did he mean by this?

Reported for leftist shitposting.

Reported for announcing a report.

Funded by kikes and the green industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that is 100% funded by the government (read: kikes)

They need their alarmists to keep funds coming down from the government to keep their lobbyists and bought off politicians happy.

The methodology for that "study" is completely flawed.

next day

Your magical science man is not an objective arbiter of truth, but rather an advocate who dedicates their life to a theory/idea.

The old saying that science advances by tombstones holds true even more so today.

That's untrue. First off the maymay is 98%, second it's 98% that (((they))) ask. So to answer the picture; as has been shown and proved, it's column 1.

Reported for thinking he’s on cuckchan and not saging.

Is it just me or does the Earth not have a glass ceiling in the sky?

Didn't you hear? For some reason ONLY pollutants stay within the atmosphere forever.

Why are the mods letting this shit get posted again? Having that dumb bitches "support" doesn't help anyone.

A dog is as much a human as she is.

Fucking cunt should fuck off back to obscurity.

Yes goyim, you must reject support from people the left hates. Even though the left NEVER, EVER rejects support from the most extreme and idiotic elements of the left wing, you goyim on the right need to reject the same people on the right. Otherwise people will make fun of you and call you names.

So what you're saying is that we should be like the left?

Your burqa is showing kike

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Just how exactly do you think they have come to dominate everything? By playing fair and trying to remain respectable?

By infiltrating and controlling the media. Not just news. Movies, books, music, everything.

Not by supporting the most extreme and idiotic elements of the left wing,

You're retarded or a shill. Drown yourself.

chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/

When Bill Nye engineers a solution to the literal lakes of CO2 in the deep oceans then I'll give a shit about 340 ppm up here.

I despise Sarah Palin's enemies and take a particularly savage joy watching her trigger those assholes.

Yet it is the most extreme and idiotic elements that now dominate everything in popular media and culture. Have you not been paying attention?

The only people that hate white females that support Trump are leftists, cuckservatives and jews. Which one are you?

Wrong. It's bad. Not sjw bad, yet.

Palin cost Mccain the election. The only people that thinks a moron like palin makes anyone look good are stormfags. Narrows down what you are.

I take that back. You're just as likely a shill

The left never sows dissension among their own ranks. As a result, the left now controls everything.

Yep, you're a cuck.

Very reasonable, rational people that are fucking critical thinker know its a staple to not have 100% complete blind faith on anything and i mean fucking anything.

IF YOU DO NOT THINK LIKE ME 100% YOU MUST BE SPIED ON AND SHADOWED AROUND EVERY CORNER

...

assuming it wasn't a mistake

Those are quite the absolutes goy. The sanders supporters are so in tune with the neo liberals. And the left controls evangelicalism huh?

>but goys she's an attractive womyn. Ignore the verbal diarrhea that usually comes from her mouth. And her degenerate family. She makes us look retarded good

shill

...

Not MEME nye the Cuckhold guy

I believe in climate change and even I think Nye is being a piece of shit here. Science should NEVER ban debate. That is literally the entire point.

Let every one who denies it raise money for more experiments to prove it wrong. The truth will rise. (And I will admit I may be wrong and cyclical ice and warming ages may be overlapping this era and conflating cause and effect.) Let everyone who believes it do likewise.

The more studies you do the more you can refine your theory. Otherwise you run with trash models like Al Gore did in Inconvenient Truth and embarass yourself with ridiculously off predictions.

Then you’re still a complete retard–incapable of comprehending even elementary school-level mathematics.

You're a complete cuck. Or a jew in disguise.

Let me guess… you want to get rid of Sarah Palin, but include respectable right wing jews in the movement, right?

Or they could be behind it to drive energy prices up.

Who really knows? Jews, but we should be post-oil anyways. Fossil fuels are retarded for what we need to do: go into space.

Are there any sources that suggest climate change isn't a thing? Honestly curious.

Leftists only spread awareness about it. They take no tangible action whatsoever.

You unironically believe that alternative energy won't make people lose jobs? The oil industry keeps many other industries afloat like gas stations, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, etc.

I don't need to spell it out for you, you're smart. It's not really worth losing a lot of jobs.

I would go into detail about the ideas surounding of this meme, but instead I'm just going say:

kill yourself

Every single measurement taken by every single organization in every single category of environmental science.

Check the catalog for the other thread about this exact subject (since this one is a fucking slide) for an itemized introduction.

The thread in question

Holy shit are you actually trying to tell me that the climate CHANGES over TIME?

HOLY SHIT

You've already proved you're a shill.

Implement the final solution on your miserable existence.

Answer the question, cuck. Do you want to allow jews in your political movement or not?

You seem upset shill. Did I get under your skin?

Make me

Yep. You're a textbook cuckold. Death is usually the punishment for treason you know, right? You literally support jews.

Figuratively go back to reddit shill. You've already been outed.

You're going to be killed by us when we come to power, you do realize this right?

Executed would be a more appropriate term.

You mean when you and all the other literallys from reddit take over?

Oh no

All cucks and moderates like you die first. Just want to give you a heads up.

wait a minute are you trying to trick me never mind you’re reported anyway.jpg

He wants to include jews in his alt-right fantasy movement. I don't think you've been paying attention.

Fuck, hang on, when you said “respectable right-wing jews”, did you mean ‘respectable’ as sarcasm?

Boy what an edgy guy. Is this what figuratively got you banned from reddit?

Your fellow literallys miss you shill.

Are you projecting or just completely new? You only need to sage the email field.

wew lad

I like to do them all. Don't like it? Fight me irl

Yeah, you don't have to sage all fields. Nobody does that.

What other groups of people should we exclude? Except right wing jews that hit all the right notes of course, they can stay.

Originalfags do, shitstain.

What was that? You can't comprehend sarcasm? And you think he uses sage in all fields because he's an originalfag?

CO2 emissions are a Tragedy of the Commons problem, you are putting things in the air which is owned by no one. This means two things 1. Like a common plot of land it can go to shit very quickly 2. Those who study the science of it can't make that much money off of it UNLESS there is a crisis. 2 is why you should be sceptical of doomsday stuff, they need to keep their funding somehow. Think government anything.

Additionally unlike a regular greenhouse, the earth is covered in water that forms clouds when it evaporates. Clouds reflect light away from the plant so the earth is somewhat self correcting, especially for a 1 degree temperature change.

Despite the above we may have an issue. There are many ways to solve a tragedy of the Commons problem, but they all boil down to cutting usage. The easiest way for humanity to do that is lower it's numbers on earth. WHO is breeding like crazy? That's right, everyone but Japs and Euros. Even in the US, the only group breeding below replacement is whites. Hispanics are popping out 3.6 kids per women, third world numbers in a first world country.

Therefore there is either no issue or the way we solve this problem is elect Trump who will kick out a large number of the excessive breeders and cut the welfare they use to bolster their numbers.

This degenerate has a point on this one: youtu.be/bgyumGSF9-4

That's not how you spell Gaia, faggot

i love how everything ghost talks about on TCR either came from here or gets posted on here when he gets done about it.*it's definitely no secret that he lurks and possibly posts here* He called out bill nye for being a fraud on this most recent week's baller friday. It was glorious.

...

Are you me?

I either came in late newfag or early cancer. I just lurked though. I don't think I've ever made a single post on 4chan, cause I don't even like the place, and I never wanted to support it content-wise. I like Holla Forums though. Who cares what your fag age is? Just be less of a faggot.

Did this tard really said that ?

fuck you fags, it's habidding :DXD

I wish Bill would go back to being the cool guy talking about cool shit rather than "le progressive science=atheism leddit hero" that he is now

Muh magic energy panels and half working windmill attatched to generator spamming will surely make us green, right??

Why so many people in the left deny the absence of data supporting anthropogenic climate change and the plausibility of an environmental science conspiracy?

Its especially weird, given the conspiracy has already been exposed.

Wew.

They have little ability to do math and understand what digging up and burning gigatons of hydrocarbons means, same as people not grasping trillions of dollars in debt.
Big number make the brain go dumb, not much can be done.

Also, few have any clue what an Rvalue is and why nitrogen concentration already has no impact here.

relevant:

Mobilizing the Billions and Trillions for Climate Finance

archive.is/RvFrR
worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance

"Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise."

low-carbon economy is a code word for controlled by globalists economy

WE NEED PROPOSITION "S" TO PASS NOW OR THE WORLD WILL BE OVERRUN BY SNAKES IN 100 YEARS!

pls stop eating my images pls Jim.

You forgot about the plausibility of a banking lobby conspiracy to push for carbon taxes and cap & trade schemes and make trillions of profit by pretending that they care about Global Warming / Climate Change. Read this article and this:

Bank of America Recognized for Climate Change Leadership

newsroom.bankofamerica.com/press-releases/awards-and-recognition/bank-america-recognized-climate-change-leadership

"Since 2007, Bank of America has dedicated $31.7 billion to low-carbon and other environmental business activities. In June 2012, Bank of America announced a 10-year, $50 billion environmental business goal to advance lower-carbon economic solutions through lending, equipment finance, capital markets and advisory activities, carbon finance and investment advice and solutions for clients around the world. The $50 billion commitment followed an initial $20 billion multi-year environmental business commitment announced in 2007 that was achieved four years ahead of schedule. "

Cost of not acting on climate change $44 trillion: Citi

cnbc.com/2015/08/18/cost-of-not-acting-on-climate-change-44-trillion-citi.html

" Up to $44 trillion could be going up in smoke if the world does not act on climate change, according to the latest piece of research from U.S. banking giant Citigroup.

The report – Energy Darwinism II: Why a Low Carbon Future Doesn't Have to Cost the Earth – has forecast that spending on energy will hit around $200 trillion in the next 25 years.

The study then examines two scenarios: one that Citi describe as an "'inaction' on climate change scenario", and another that looks at what could happen if a low carbon, "different energy mix" is pursued. "

Corporations join in White House warming push ahead of Paris

bcse.org/corporations-join-in-white-house-warming-push-ahead-of-paris-july-27-2015/

"Companies as diverse as Coca-Cola and Bank of America will visit the White House today to announce voluntary emissions-reduction pledges to support President Obama’s quest for a global agreement on climate change at the end of this year."
(…)
"The 13 participating companies will pledge to spend a collective $140 billion to combat warming and will endorse “a strong outcome in the Paris climate negotiations,” according to the White House."

"The other participants in the American Businesses Act on Climate Pledge are Alcoa Inc., Apple Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill Inc., General Motors Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., PepsiCo Inc., United Parcel Service Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc."

Monsanto Pays $1 Billion For Big Data Company That Monitors Climate Change

businessinsider.com/monsanto-pays-1-billion-for-climate-corporation-2013-10

"Because Climate Corp. provides crop insurance, it has an incentive to make sure its climate data is right. And Climate Corp. appears to have already decided that climate change is a real thing. "

Global Warming, wait sorry I mean Climate Change is a real thing, 97% of our experts agree. Now you have to pay more for your crop insurance.

…and yet.

...

...

can confirm the first one.

The ice age was stopped by changing the aerosol components leading to it (shame, ice age chan would have gotten rid of the degenerac, course we know why it was stopped)
gone, doesn't count

Stupid, not even the largest rise is expected to remove oceanic island nations, islands yes.

Thankyou actual work on stopping that, logging was the issue there, not climate change.

Failed, smaller, but not enough.

Soon is undefined, snow will be gone soon when the sun goes red giant, ignore people who have convinient times.

yes, if the atlantic pipeline shuts down. Fewer, but more violent. Oh no wait, that's not how it works, its more frequent, more violent canes rocketing off the cancers.

was it? Or was it just a minimum, pretty sure we just hit a new minimum and the ice sheet is now thinner,

Science is never settled, throw your mac book at them.

That graphic ignores all the major non-oil companies that have an incentive to push for AGW propaganda . Look at this graphic instead:

And check out this short list of giant multinational corporations that seem to be all in on the idea that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a huge threat:

And oil companies like BP and Shell have funded pro-AGW groups like the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:

cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history

we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order): British Petroleum, (…) Shell, (…) Sultanate of Oman, (…)

What do two very different companies like Unilever (food and cosmetics) and BP (oil/energy) agree on? The world needs to put a price on carbon:

web.archive.org/web/20160306010540/http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html

"In particular, we believe that putting a price on carbon – one that treats all carbon equally, whether it comes out of a smokestack or a car exhaust – will make energy efficiency more attractive and lower-carbon energy sources more competitive."

bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-21/gore-pharrell-williams-plan-june-18-concerts-for-climate.html

"Al Gore along with Paul Polman, chief executive officer of the consumer goods maker Unilever NV (UNA) are using discussions in Davos to push for limits on fossil-fuel emissions that scientists say are warming the planet. “The cost of not acting is starting to be higher than the cost of acting,” Polman said at a press conference with Gore. “We need to set clear targets. We need a price on carbon.” "

and Shell too wants a price on carbon:

shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html

"The transition to low-carbon solutions is best underpinned by meaningful government-led carbon “pricing” mechanisms."

Because Earth's greenhouse period was hundreds of millions of years ago and has literally nothing to do with human beings, Rabbi.

The problem that is admirably highlighted in this thread is that people should not be allowed to vote, or even express an opinion, unless they can demonstrate even a basic knowledge of reason and scientific literacy.

A 30 second google search disproves 90% of individual post claims.

I am seriously disgusted but what I am reading. The happening can not come soon enough…..

It always depend on what you're looking for.

Did you search for Medieval Warm Period? Did you search for the 97% hoax?

How much emotions did you invest in the AGW theory?

By the way that 90+% figure is false. The most famous of those 97% scientific consensus studies – the one done by John Cook and his fellow activists at 'Skeptical Science' – is a fraud, take the time to read this analysis:

Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%

archive.is/xJqb4

K.

Of course not.

Reported for leftypol spam.

Some of these narratives dont make sense.

Are there Chevron shills on here or something?

People ITT are saying that the establishment is shilling for green shit, but this is the same establishment that relies upon the petrodollar for much of it's power…

First day on Holla Forums, leftist?
Yeah.
NO SHIT, FAGGOT. What’s your point? Do you think they’re not connected? Do you think kikes DON’T own the oil companies? Why the fuck are you still buying into the false dichotomy when you’ve seen it EVERYWHERE ELSE IN LIFE?

No scientific data taken from any organization on any relevant category shows that mankind is in any way affecting the climate. That has NOTHING to do with environmentalism. That has NOTHING to do with oil, coal, and gas. That has NOTHING to do with “green” energy.

The establishment is not a monolith, different groups with different goals.

Kikes don't actually like oil and coal very much. Other than BP and Shell most of the companies are Anglo. And even BP and Shell merely have a few kikes but aren't owned or run by them. Kikes don't like material productivity, it's to hard to kike people out of money when they expect you to provide a tangible product.

So the kikes are intentionally disenfranchising themselves with this initiative? Got it.

Im not even talking about if its real or not at this point, I dont give too much of a shit about that, im talking about your massive narrative clashes. You dont even have your position thought out well enough to have noticed it yourself.

Thats along the lines of what I was thinking.

Thanks for admitting that you “got” nothing.
There is no clash, you braindead faggot.

You dumb nigger. Kill yourself. You dont deserve to live you are so fucking stupid.

The green shit is kikes and is going against the fossil fuel industry, which is also kikes. This would disenfranchise the establishment's main source of power, which is the petrodollar.

Kikes almost never work in industry even as CEOs or CFOs it's like they have a phobia about it. That's why they push for EPA shit to fuck with coal miners and automakers.

The kikes are merely the finance and media industry, they don't actually control the industrial production(the US still has 2.7 times the total industiral product of china) and absolutely hate the resource extraction industry.

Also you know kikes can be at cross purposes. We have zionist kikes who don't get along with anti-zionist leftist kikes. One wants Jewsrael as a safety net the other just wants to destroy all civilization and suck the blood from the corpse.

Kikes don't really have a plan they are just following their natural predispositions.

Do you have any single fact to back that up?

Exactly this. The whole thing is a wealth redistribution scheme to pump wealth from the West to the mud countries (and the elite).

If global warming was this serious then a ban on imports from China and other countries that don't care about their emissions would be the obvious answer.

It also helps consolidate power when small businesses can't afford licensing/equipment which meets "green" standards etc. They can't operate and are gobbled up by the megacorps.

The "tragedy" refers to the commons being enclosed and taken from the public you colossal faggot.

Never happened because people relied on commons to survive.

"Simon Fairlie describes how the progressive enclosure of commons over several centuries has deprived most of the British people of access to agricultural land. The historical process bears little relationship to the “Tragedy of the Commons”, the theory which ideologues in the neoliberal era adopted as part of a smear campaign against common property institutions. "

thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

This is spot on. Kikes are disorganized, short-sighted opportunists that never consider long-term consequences. There's a screencap floating around about how stupid Jews really are

They already do this shit with stuff like "safety" standards or forcing small businesses to be "handicap accessible". They force us to put sprinkler systems in domestic homes which don't have the water pressure to make them work, get the home inspected, then pull the sprinkler system. I've seen the same system put into 50 homes. But that man hour cost fuckers with both the builder and the buyer.

Yep, one of my relatives owned a sawmill and a major part of his business was nuked by regulation. The EU dictated that a product he made from wood could henceforth only be made in plastic. Obviously a sawmill doesn't have the facilities or floor space to buy a whole new set of injection moulding equipment + the staff to operate them.

yyyyyyyyyyyeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

because the oil industry can't even get air time on fox news they are so maligned.

you can't turn on a tv channel without seeing some climate change / global warming propaganda. I think its more likely that this is a hoax perpetrated by the oil industry its so fucking prevalant.

None. I look only at evidence or at knowledgeable people with underlying motives I understand. The only thing that triggers me is willful stupidity.

The CEO of Exxon, Rex W. Tillerson, has already stated that man made climate change was understood and acknowledged by Exxon scientists since 1977 and the company has been incorporating this into its business model.

It's right there…..like I said…..willful stupidity, good goys, useful idiots….use whatever label you like for these anons. Yet this narrative goes on…..

Take a moment to reflect on the political leanings of the gatekeepers and kingmakers of scientific institutions.
Then remember where you are.
There, feel stupid yet?

in the 70's it was global cooling.

you probably misunderstood or misattributed their meaning. Which is typical of libtards

look up Libyan Desert Glass

...

Because there even more plausibility to an alternative energy conspiracy, and the global warming tripe is a litmus test on whether people will accept anything that "intellectuals" feed them.

K.
Except the kikes own the “green” industries and make more money on them than the petrodollar, you stupid sack of shit.

How fucking new are you

lol

You really are dumb. Half of your contribution to this thread is you madposting, the other half is you making claims without bothering to post evidence.

6 of the world's 10 largest corporations by revenue are oil and gas conglomerates. The total of their annual revenues goes well into the trillions of dollars.

You're a righteous sack of shit.

Im not even advocating for green energy. Ive just been asking why you have been claiming its such a big conspiracy. I mentioned that if what you say is true, that would disempower the elites and jews, instead of empowering them. You make it out to be as if both sides are controlled by the same singular entity with the same goals in mind.

You arent even coherent, you dont have a solid point, you dont have a single concrete idea.

Are there any go-to redpills on that movie that I can show people who still buy into the shit discussed in An Inconvenient Truth in the (((Current Year)))?

>I look only at evidence or at knowledgeable people with underlying motives I understand.

Do you understand the motives of Al Gore and the pro-carbon tax multinational corporations?

Not exactly:

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/exxon-hits-back-on-ridiculous-rico-allegations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/

it looks like The Guardian and other media completely exagerated this whole thing.

The big narrative that is propagated eveywhere is the Environmentalists Vs Big Oil and that's a false dilemma. BP and Shell (and perhaps others) have called for a price on all carbon

I think there was a court decision in the UK that definitively concluded An Inconvenient Truth contained several falsehoods.

"Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise."

There's a lot of profit to be made with AGW/Climate Change.

Wew archive.is/ll3k8

NYE IS A MADMAN

Because it IS a conspiracy. Because there is no global warming.
Except that’s the conspiracy: they’re LYING about it to STAY IN POWER.
Time for you to get fucked, I guess. You’re too lazy to comprehend the discussion.

Well after that 15 year period then the elite class would essentially lose the ability to broker power because energy would no longer be a literal physical resource that you could hoard.

After that 15 year "Great Leap Forward" type deal, the energy sector would no longer be able to act as kingmakers, because its not like they can do some Mr. Burns type shit and block out the sun.

89 trillion over 15 years isnt much of an increase of what oil and gas pull in currently, which tops out at over 5 trillion annually.

You post back with a fossil-fuel shill site? Really?

The transcript from his speech are in the documents section of the Exxon website. You simply have to *look*.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make in my post in

Corporate shills hitting this thread hard now.

...

>implying they don't buy out scientists and lobbyists

There's a great documentary called,

"The Great Climate Change Swindle"

assblasted legions of zombies. they even interviewed some top 'climate' scientists and then after they saw the movie they did the typical,
"b-but i was misquoted"
"muh context"
"i was lieeed tooo"

no faggot, you have outed yourself as a libtard using libtard logic.

where information comes from is irrelevant, its the content that matters. The problem with "climate change" is that the corporate media is knee deep in shilling this. So by your logic, the original source was just a "climate change shill site" therefore we can throw it out.

You see how that logic doesn't work? It's a poor 'appeal to authority' argument. and if any rational person accepted that premise, climate change would be "totes truee guise" because the "authorities" on climate change must by virtue of premise be true. This is why you are a colossal faggot.

go back to 4chan and poison that well.

This is why the current model of climate change is complete bullshit. the current model is co2 is released from combustion and "rises up" into the upper atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect trapping in sunrays heating the earth.

pen and teller did a good job dispelling global warming myth on an episode of bullshit. but theyve since retracted after being harrased from their liberal fanbase that was let down.

chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/
chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/admission-that-the-global-warming-scam-is-all-about-the-money/
chiefio.wordpress.com/ttwt/

t':dr
Anthrogenic contributions to climate change are a drop in the bucket compared to the earths natural cycles and things such as volcanic emissions and deep sea c02 emissions, AGW is pushed by the UN as a de facto wealth distribution of the whole planet, as well as a way of establishing global taxation and therefore, world government, environmentalism is a facade used to justify global socialism. Elites such as Rothschild and others have co-opted the AGW agenda since its start. AGW is real to a small extent, but the alarmist narratives about it are based on false inferences, unjustified extrapolations, bad data, etc. Don't be a useful idiot and shill for AGW and environmental reform.

remember when liberals were blaming farmers for the methane produced in cow farts?

they tried to use global warming as a way to attack the meat industry.

The ability to rig the global economy and implement worldwide de-facto redistribution of wealth is a much, much bigger incentive to the elites than padding the profit margins of oil companies, so they would obviously invest more resources into achieving that, your infograph is flawed for this reason. Carbon credits actually make more even more money for oil companies than merely unrestricted drilling, they are a tradable security that is supposed to represent a ton of carbon that is not emitted, considering OPEC can rig oil production in market with inflexible demand, and as a tradable security you can short-sell carbon credits as well as buy them, oil companies and various elites can control both sides of the equation, elites can have advance knowledge of carbon credit pricing and trade accordingly, controlling both sides of the discourse and policy regarding AGW.

Yea you've drank their koolaid too. Why don't you eat your uninformed words and look up a guy named RICHARD LINDZEN, the Alfred Sloan Professor of METEOROLOGY at MIT. The very guy who made the field of climate science a field of its own is a skeptic, and I guarantee a guy like that is 1000 times more educated than your stupid, gullible ass. But no, keep getting your information from Al Gore, he must be smarter since he invented the internet right?

4) Weather, Climate, Time

The 30 year average of weather is not climate. Climate takes a millennial scale POV. Include various examples of longer term weather cycles, such as PDO, AMO, LIA / Bond Events. Include some of the lunar cycle information:
chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/arctic-standstill-tropical-saros/ So looking at a 30 year “baseline” or a 30 year “average” and trend is just always going to find mistaken trends.

Include ’70s New Ice Age scare, then AGW scare, then 16 year standstill.

Include prior postings on ‘deep time’ events of history ( fall of Akkad. Egypt Old Kingdom. LIA.) So looking at modern temperatures over such a short time span is a bit daft.

5) Averaging Failure Fails

a) A sidebar on why you can not average temperatures and have meaning. Intrinsic property problem and type of mean problem.

b) The problem of false precision. Averaging can not remove systematic error. UHI is an example of systematic error. Airports are an example of systematic error. The MMTS conversion and Stevenson Screen paint are systematic errors. Any precision beyond whole degrees is false precision.

c) Temperature is not heat. The old two pans example. One at 0 C the other at 20 C and what is the average? Well… how big are those pans and is that 0 C frozen, or not?

d) Ocean surface vs overturning / cooling mixing forces. That can shift temperatures with no heat gain or loss. We are not integrating to depth.

e) Temperature measured in free air is at best an approximation, at worst, an error of large size. (Forest vs tarmac temps and water flow, for example).

f) Where you ‘start time’ determines your trend. ( Uupsalla Sweden trend example. CET.)

what kind of shit copy pasta is this?

looking at 30 year averages is not relevant?

hhahahaahahahahahaahaahaahahahahaha

look faggot, the problem is that if your entire argument rests upon CORRELATION,

and there is no correlation. then it cannot be used to justify the original premise. If you look at rural ambient temperatures for the past 200 years, there is no correlation to CO2 emission. We would have seen it. By saying that it takes X million years, that is simply moving the goal post. It renders any substantive argument void by putting it onto unknowns. It's the same thing as saying,

"well it could be true, we just have to wait and see"

In the mean time i won't be listening and believing. You go right ahead, but the minute you try to install a carbon tax or take away fossil fuels because of some abstract hunch, i will be there with my pitchfork to burn you at the stake.

...

The oil lobby conspiracy is to co-opt the AGW narrative to get their piece of the pie when world taxation/redistribution and government is implemented under the facade of environmentalism by globalists, not to protect their existing oil interests which are already incredibly lucrative and entrenched in government, AGW agenda does not threaten their energy interests at all, in fact it allows them to rig energy markets against their competitors and make even more money from the "carbon credit" ponzi scheme.
The greenhouse effect is real, but the alarmist narratives of AGW are bullshit.

(S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 3rd ed. St. Martin's Press, 1986)

Long term climate trend over last 2000 years is towards cooling, not warming:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm

Did you even read the pic? That's pretty much what it says. The oil companies have little to gain from "bribing scientists lolol," and would instead spend that money cooperating with the global interests through lobbies and contributions.

It looks like the only thing with black body radiation is a real black body and that transparent things, like gasses, are not quite the same. In particular, CO2 likes to heat up instead of emit a photon. Now that also means they will tend to hold onto any energy input long enough to whack into one of the other gasses in the air and thermalize any IR they absorbed. Which in turn means that the bulk of the air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Water Vapor) will be holding that energy, not the CO2. That, then, means were are back to “hot air rises” and all the convective processes of the troposphere as “what matters” and that “back radiation” just isn’t going to cut it. All the calculation and hand waving based on “black body” and “back radiation” needs a bit of a do-over
ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-38-05.PDF
hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-questions-basic-physics.html
>chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/co2-does-not-black-body-radiation-make/

it's real in the sense that it can trap heat on a micro scale. It doesn't appear to be "real" in the sense that it has serious consequences to our environment. That link has heretofore not been established.

But you are absolutely correct, imagine if a global carbon credit were introduced, that means there are a limited number of credits on the market, exxon or GE could buy them all at deflated prices then when zimbabwe or some independent energy firm wants to buy some, they aren't available except through vastly inflated prices. all the while Al Gore's off shore company that directs and supplies these, are raking in the billions by regulating the entire planet's energy industry through a ponzi scheme.

The trillions of dollars that the World Bank is talking about isn't trillions to be taken out of the private companies' pocket to be invested in infrastructures and renewable energy, they're talking about trillions of dollars needed to supposedly prevent the Earth from getting too warm. Where do you think that money is going to come from? The banks perhaps? No, that money – if people are stupid enough to fall for this – is going to come from the public, from the governments. Only a fraction of it will be private funds.

Oil is still going to be used as fuel in 15 years from now and if you think the oil companies – you said yourself 6 of the world's 10 largest corporations by revenue are oil and gas conglomerates – aren't wealthy enough to buy up banks or the companies involved in the carbon trading scheme and make a ton of profit from the other end then you're clueless. Shell and BP aren't afraid of a carbon tax as long as there's a price on carbon, they openly called for one . The head of Unilever who is friends with Al Gore isn't afraid of a carbon tax, he's all for it as long as there's a price on carbon so he can profit from the scam.

Meanwhile all the real environmental problems have almost completely vanished from the mainstream media, it's all Climate Change Climate Change Climate Change Climate Change Climate Change Climate Change.

I don't care if global warming is as scary as the left makes it out to be or is as docile as their opponents claim it to be, I just want a better more efficient energy source.

Nice talking point you got there. You know who got more way way more oil money than the WUWT website?

the pro-AGW Climate Research Unit at the university of East Anglia:

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

the Sierra Club, who had a secret partnership with Exxon to promote taxes on carbon emissions + a cap-and-trade scheme like the one Al Gore has been pushing for years:

ExxonMobil and Sierra Club Agreed on Climate Policy—and Kept It Secret
(Bloomberg.com)
archive.is/T2YSK

Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee
nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
"between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from… Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S…"

nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/27/the-sierra-clubs-broken-moral-compass/

the WWF, World Wildlife Fund, who are big propagandists for AGW:

nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/
"In other words, the WWF’s very first corporate sponsor was an oil company – one which wrote it an enormous cheque. The WWF then continued to accept oil money from various sources for another four decades."

and the WWF also receives a lot of money from big agribusiness corporations like Monsanto. They even had a partnership with Monsanto to promote soy agriculture in South America.

the EDF, Environmental Defense Fund, who also has good relations with the CIA for some reason:

nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/03/the-environmental-defense-fund-the-cia/

Conservation International and Nature Conservancy, two pro-AGW groups (they got millions from BP):

nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/06/04/bp-greenpeace-the-big-oil-jackpot/

the BBC, big AGW propagandists in the UK, their pension funds are heavily invested in oil companies:

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/bbc-pension-heavily-invested-in-oil/

The UK's Royal Society, they had something called the Royal Society Esso Energy Award for 25 years:

nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/11/29/the-royal-societys-big-oil-award/

'Skeptical Science' an anti-AGW skeptics group, via Dana Nuccitelli the propagandist who writes for the Guardian. He works for a company – Tetra Tech – that does business with oil companies (and he has called for a carbon tax, a pure coincidence of course):

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/22/dana-nuccitellis-lie-of-omission-in-the-guardian/

There's a short ist here of pro-AGW groups or universities who have received oil money:

notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/

just a few names not mentioned already:

3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
5. 350.org
6. Union of Concerned Scientists
9. Climate Institute
14. Green Energy Futures (sponsored by Shell)
15. World Resources Institute (sponsored by Shell + a lot of other multinational corporations and banks)

and by the way the WRI report on the 'New Climate Economy' is the source of the trillions mentioned here: If you click the link on the WorldBank.org page you'll get a PDF of the WRI's report. (No I haven't read it yet).

I could go on and probably fill pages and pages. This myth of the Oil Industry lobby financing the AGW skeptics while the other side the believers doesn't receive corporate money is complete bullshit, they get millions from Big Oil + millions from other corporations + billions from governments. Well funded corporate environmentalism is real.

Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry
joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/

"Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration, renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. For comparison global retail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion."

And if you really want to have a better understanding of the corporate roots of the Green 'non-profit' industry and see how deep the rabbit-hole goes you can read these two lloonngg articles on Swans.com

(it's a socialist website but more focused on economics and social causes than the environment so I presume you won't be able to accuse them of being fossil-fuel shills):

The Philanthropic Roots Of Corporate Environmentalism
swans.com/library/art14/barker07.html

"Thus it is fitting that when Prince Bernhard was forced to retire from WWF International's presidency in 1976, his replacement for the next five years was none other than John Loudon, the former head of Royal Dutch Shell (from 1951 -65), and son of former Shell board president, Hugo Loudon. During Loudon's first year as president of WWF International he additionally served as the chair of an advisory group put together by David Rockefeller to counsel his Chase Manhattan Bank"on its growing international business"; while the following year Loudon was joined by fellow oilman and former IUCN chair Maurice Strong, who fresh after presiding over the operations of Petro-Canada for two years, became the vice-president of WWF International (1978-81), remaining a member of their executive council until 1986. "

If you don't know who Maurice Strong is you can read that article:

nature.com/news/2009/090722/full/460454a.html

Taking Strong Action For Capitalist-Led Environmental Destruction
swans.com/library/art16/barker40.html

"To this day, Strong's dedication to corporate liberalism remains strong, and in the wake of the Earth Summit he took up the chairmanship of both the World Resources Institute and the Stockholm Environment Institute. Then in 1999, Strong, the former CEO of Petro-Canada, felt it was time to retire from the board of directors of the oil and gas company Cordex Petroleums – a company that had been managed by his son, Fred Strong. That said, despite maintaining his commitment to managing the environment, Strong continues to enjoy harvesting the planet, as he is a board member of Wealth Minerals Ltd – an organization that describes itself as "a well financed and managed leader in uranium exploration focused on identifying world-class discoveries in Argentina." "

Don't forget what Christina Figueres said:

Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally

unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.

And that's pretty funny by the new term alone. Why isn't it called global warming anymore? I've even heard global climate change.

Also, how does Holla Forums feel about this website?

geoengineeringwatch.org/
Does it have any weight or is it just completely loony? Maybe they'll make it warm up on their own?
I

Why do so many people on the left deny the existence of a global banking lobby to institute a global tax on breathing?

Q: why do jews have big noses
A: because air is free

That's it, that's the final Elders of Zion plan: TAX AIR.

When air is no longer free, through millenia-honed econogenetics, Jewish noses will shrink to mimic those of the goyim. It will happen over the course of 2 or even 1 generation. Then they will be virtually undetectable, and be able to parasite for eternity in white lands, all the while raking in air tax shekels.

Rabbi, you scheming bastard.

See kids what happens when you don't finish school?

You end up dancing for nickels to some oil lobbyists tune, shitposting on anonymous chan image board sites desperately trying to get one more reply to buy a can of beans today.

This thread is virtually a library of shilling sites.

That one post was hilariously stupid.

The information source is irrelevant….lol…..fucking gold.

youre both describing jews (first image) and not realizing facts (second image)

OP is a anti-science flat-earther shill

he actually isnt a scientist

I have no arguments so I'm going to call them uneducated suckers who believe in fossil fuel industry propaganda. That'll work.

Yawn. As if you weren't the sucker who believes in Al Gore and who is in favor of carbon taxes and this whole cap and trade scheme that at least two major oil companies are also in favor of – not to mention all the other giant multinational corporations and banks. They all want a price on carbon and that doesn't raise a red flag in your mind?

Come back when you're able to have a debate with sincere AGW skeptics. I'm not an expert but it looks like my level of knowledge on this topic is above yours.

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing against the CEO of Exxon, Rex W. Tillerson as I already stated in

He has already stated that man made climate change was understood and acknowledged by Exxon scientists since 1977 and the company has been incorporating this into its business model.

I choose to listen to the CEO of Exxon over some image board shitposter who has only made-up sources.

you mean the oil lobby conspiracy to promote belief in global warming?

...

Where do you think you are, kiddo?

I'll never forget being force-fed green propaganda in HS, we were shown a video in which the London Underground was violently destroyed by a subterranean tsunami because the ice caps melted.

What a jackass you are.

Whoa there Mr. Fallacy, opposing the anthropogenic climate change bullshit doesn't mean one supports oil companies or their agenda. Green energy is a fucking joke which relies on rare earth metals more scare and controlled than oil, some of which are more polluting in their extraction and processing for use as fossil fuels.

The fuck are you talking about? There isn't a form of green energy that's not infinitely more controllable than fossil fuels, green technologies rely on rare earth metals in scarcer supply than fossil fuels. Energy will always be a physical resource that can be hoarded unless you break physics and discover free energy, because energy production relies on fuel and processes, usually involving technological means, to extract, convert and distribute the energy from the fuel.

A thread this long and noone has yet posted this.

Sauce on the quote?

Source on the quote?

emissions aren't the issue kiddo

Considering the fact that Bill Nye's most noteworthy achievement in life other than acting for a kids' show is his Bachelor's degree, I would say her statement on Bill Nye is correct.

I choose to listen and believe to a single individual and ignore everything else.

…Why?

When I posted this link here all you could reply was that WUWT is a fossil-fuel shill site. Yes they posted the Exxon press release but WUWT isn't financed by the oil industry for the sole purpose of counter-balacing all the AGW propaganda and the oil industry has given (or invested in) a lot more money to Green groups than to AGW skeptics websites.

Exxon scientists were aware of the AGW theory when it started to become popular and also aware of all the complexity and uncertainty of the climate models. The climate models predictions that were made in the past didn't predict the present temperatures. That's pretty much all you need to know about climate models.

There's a 3 part series on this 'revelation' that was posted on WUWT:

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/24/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-3-exxon-the-fork-not-taken/

This whole thing was completely exagerated.

And don't forget the secret agreement Exxon had with the Sierra Club to promote carbon taxes + cap and trade and Tillerson's public support for a carbon tax:

ExxonMobil and Sierra Club Agreed on Climate Policy—and Kept It Secret (Bloomberg.com)
archive.is/T2YSK
"Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive officer, publicly embraced a carbon tax in 2009, two weeks before President Obama's inauguration."

"A final document from the ExxonMobil-Sierra Club group, dated Sept. 8, 2009, set down guidelines conceived to help Congress write carbon tax legislation. The document was provided to Bloomberg by Bookbinder. "

Exxon isn't afraid of a carbon tax because they know their own lobbyists are going to write the law. Exxon can now pretend in public that AGW is totally real and proven – it's not – and then propose to pay a little tax and it's not going to truly hurt their profits because they can afford it and because they know they're powerful enough they'll get to write the law and control the regulation panel.

So Exxon's so-called private 'admission' that they knew AGW was real isn't what you think it is and their public admission isn't worth a lot, it's a PR move more than anything else.

And also a carbon tax would hurt the coal industry more than the gas industry. Oil companies have much more money invested in gas than in coal. The coal industry is the weak section of the fossil fuels industry in western countries.

I choose to listen and believe to a single individual and ignore everything else.

…Why?

When I posted this link here all you could reply was that WUWT is a fossil-fuel shill site. Yes they posted the Exxon press release but WUWT isn't financed by the oil industry for the sole purpose of counter-balacing all the AGW propaganda and the oil industry has given (or invested in) a lot more money to Green groups than to AGW skeptics websites.

Exxon scientists were aware of the AGW theory when it started to become popular and also aware of all the complexity and uncertainty of the climate models. The climate models predictions that were made in the past didn't predict the present temperatures. That's pretty much all you need to know about climate models.

There's a 3 part series on this 'revelation' that was posted on WUWT:

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/24/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-3-exxon-the-fork-not-taken/

This whole thing was completely exagerated.

And don't forget the secret agreement Exxon had with the Sierra Club to promote carbon taxes + cap and trade and Tillerson's public support for a carbon tax:

ExxonMobil and Sierra Club Agreed on Climate Policy—and Kept It Secret (Bloomberg.com)
archive.is/T2YSK
"Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive officer, publicly embraced a carbon tax in 2009, two weeks before President Obama's inauguration."

"A final document from the ExxonMobil-Sierra Club group, dated Sept. 8, 2009, set down guidelines conceived to help Congress write carbon tax legislation. The document was provided to Bloomberg by Bookbinder. "

Exxon isn't afraid of a carbon tax because they know their own lobbyists are going to write the law. Exxon can now pretend in public that AGW is totally real and proven – it's not – and then propose to pay a little tax and it's not going to truly hurt their profits because they can afford it and because they know they're powerful enough they'll get to write the law and control the regulation panel.

So Exxon's so-called private 'admission' that they knew AGW was real isn't what you think it is and their public admission isn't worth a lot, it's a PR move more than anything else.

And also a carbon tax would hurt the coal industry more than the gas industry. Oil companies have much more money invested in gas than in coal. The coal industry is the weak section of the fossil fuels industry in western countries.

And who was one of the most vocal accuser of Exxon? Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, he wrote editorials for the New York Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, USA Today and many others about this story. He wants an investigation against Exxon and he makes the analogy between the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry.

350.org has received officially at least almost a million dollars from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (oil money):

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/29/is-bill-mckibben-350-a-liar-idiot-or-both/

"McKibben: Rockefellers is one of our… is a great ally in this fight."

and McKibben's previous activism was also funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund so he got a lot more than 1 million:

business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/rockefellers-behind-scruffy-little-outfit

"Since 2006, McKibben has led three campaigns: Step it Up, 1Sky and 350.org. Each campaign built on the previous one. In the summer of 2006, Step it Up organized a protest walk across Vermont to push for a moratorium on coal-fired power plants and other federal actions. Created in 2007, 1Sky began a national movement to jump-start a clean energy economy. 350.org built on 1Sky and in April of 2011, the two campaigns officially merged.

More than half of the US$10-million came from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, where McKibben, a trustee, was paid US$25,000 per year (2001-09). Since 2007, the Rockefellers have paid US$4-million towards 1Sky and 350.org, tax returns say. The Schumann Center provided US$1.5-million to McKibben’s three campaigns as well as US$2.7-million to fund the Environmental Journalism Program at Middlebury College, in Vermont, where McKibben is on staff. "

(I couldn't confirm this information but apparently the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy's investments portfolio includes the oil industry (Exxon, Chevron, Shell), banks (Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wachovia) and junk food (McDonald’s, Coca-Cola).)

"What 350.org’s list of donors fails to convey is that some foundations provide only US$5,000 or US$10,000, while two unidentified donors provide half of 350.org’s budget for 2011, according to its financial statements. Four grants accounted for two-thirds of 350.org’s budget. 350.org declined to identify the donors of those grants."

So the Rockefeller Brothers Fund + a couple of rich unidentified donors fund 350.org

"Bill McKibben has been a director of 1Sky since it began, so one would think that he was aware of the organization’s finances. And yet, to hear McKibben tell the story, he started the climate movement and the protests against Keystone XL with nothing more than a few students and “almost no money.”"

and McKibben lies about his sponsors and pretends he's just a poor little environmentalist activist.

And when McKibben went on a tour to promote divestment from the fossil fuel industry he was sponsored by Ceres. CERES stands for The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies. They're an investment network that invests in 'Green' causes and one of their divisions is the "Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a group of 120 institutional investors managing about $14 trillion in assets focused on the business risks and opportunities of climate change."

On the board of directors of Ceres there's the Vice President for Science and Research at the World Resources Institute, the same WRI that published a report that concluded the world needs to pay almost a $100 trillion dollars to avoid the global warming catastrophe

When will you start to realize there's a gigantic profit opportunity in promoting AGW? Al Gore knew this a long time ago.

here's some information about Ceres:

wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/03/11/350-orgs-friends-on-wall-street-the-climate-wealth-opportunists-part-ii-of-an-investigative-report/

(Wrongkindofgreen.org is an independent Green website that criticizes the major corporate connected Green groups. They're AGW believers by the way so you can't accuse them of being a fossil fuel industry shills.)

and look at their website, you see the sponsors at the bottom

ceresconference.org/

JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Prudential, Bloomberg,

And oil companies like Chevron, Shell and Suncor have been sponsors of Ceres' past conferences

And who was one of the most vocal accuser of Exxon? Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, he wrote editorials for the New York Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, USA Today and many others about this story. He wants an investigation against Exxon and he makes the analogy between the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry.

350.org has received officially at least almost a million dollars from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (oil money):

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/29/is-bill-mckibben-350-a-liar-idiot-or-both/

"McKibben: Rockefellers is one of our… is a great ally in this fight."

and McKibben's previous activism was also funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund so he got a lot more than 1 million:

business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/rockefellers-behind-scruffy-little-outfit

"Since 2006, McKibben has led three campaigns: Step it Up, 1Sky and 350.org. Each campaign built on the previous one. In the summer of 2006, Step it Up organized a protest walk across Vermont to push for a moratorium on coal-fired power plants and other federal actions. Created in 2007, 1Sky began a national movement to jump-start a clean energy economy. 350.org built on 1Sky and in April of 2011, the two campaigns officially merged.

More than half of the US$10-million came from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, where McKibben, a trustee, was paid US$25,000 per year (2001-09). Since 2007, the Rockefellers have paid US$4-million towards 1Sky and 350.org, tax returns say. The Schumann Center provided US$1.5-million to McKibben’s three campaigns as well as US$2.7-million to fund the Environmental Journalism Program at Middlebury College, in Vermont, where McKibben is on staff. "

(I couldn't confirm this information but apparently the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy's investments portfolio includes the oil industry (Exxon, Chevron, Shell), banks (Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wachovia) and junk food (McDonald’s, Coca-Cola).)

"What 350.org’s list of donors fails to convey is that some foundations provide only US$5,000 or US$10,000, while two unidentified donors provide half of 350.org’s budget for 2011, according to its financial statements. Four grants accounted for two-thirds of 350.org’s budget. 350.org declined to identify the donors of those grants."

So the Rockefeller Brothers Fund + a couple of rich unidentified donors fund 350.org

"Bill McKibben has been a director of 1Sky since it began, so one would think that he was aware of the organization’s finances. And yet, to hear McKibben tell the story, he started the climate movement and the protests against Keystone XL with nothing more than a few students and “almost no money.”"

and McKibben lies about his sponsors and pretends he's just a poor little environmentalist activist.

And when McKibben went on a tour to promote divestment from the fossil fuel industry he was sponsored by Ceres. CERES stands for The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies. They're an investment network that invests in 'Green' causes and one of their divisions is the "Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a group of 120 institutional investors managing about $14 trillion in assets focused on the business risks and opportunities of climate change."

On the board of directors of Ceres there's the Vice President for Science and Research at the World Resources Institute, the same WRI that published a report that concluded the world needs to pay almost a $100 trillion dollars to avoid the global warming catastrophe

When will you start to realize there's a gigantic profit opportunity in promoting AGW? Al Gore knew this a long time ago.

here's some information about Ceres:

wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/03/11/350-orgs-friends-on-wall-street-the-climate-wealth-opportunists-part-ii-of-an-investigative-report/

(Wrongkindofgreen.org is an independent Green website that criticizes the major corporate connected Green groups. They're AGW believers by the way so you can't accuse them of being a fossil fuel industry shills.)

and look at their website, you see the sponsors at the bottom

ceresconference.org/

JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Prudential, Bloomberg,

And oil companies like Chevron, Shell and Suncor have been sponsors of Ceres' past conferences

letmepost
letmepost

...

There is no AGW. Emissions are meaningless. Kill yourself.

Yeah fuck this stupid science bitch using his long fancy words that probably don't even mean anything.

Reported to the NSA for clogging the tubes with mindless chatter.

this guy sucks

the evidence does not support AGW

lol kill yourself

C02 emissions increasing means nothing about climate change, and your graph only indicates that the economy runs on physical energy, no shit sherlock.

It looks like the only thing with black body radiation is a real black body and that transparent things, like gasses, are not quite the same. In particular, CO2 likes to heat up instead of emit a photon. Now that also means they will tend to hold onto any energy input long enough to whack into one of the other gasses in the air and thermalize any IR they absorbed. Which in turn means that the bulk of the air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Water Vapor) will be holding that energy, not the CO2. That, then, means were are back to “hot air rises” and all the convective processes of the troposphere as “what matters” and that “back radiation” just isn’t going to cut it. All the calculation and hand waving based on “black body” and “back radiation” needs a bit of a do-over
ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-38-05.PDF
hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-questions-basic-physics.html
>chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/co2-does-not-black-body-radiation-make/

Human made Co2 emissions are absolutely dwarfed by emissions in nature, deep sea volcanic vents release orders of magnitude more C02, even the fraction that makes it to the surface and atmosphere is greater than man made carbon emissions
chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/

I am an enemy of the dominionist Palin and her army of thought killers and know-nothings.

So bring it on, turd sucker.

What i would really love to see is all the people that shout about green energy actually having to depend on it to heat/cool their homes give them hot water electricity and so on. They will soon figure out they are now living in the dark ages.
Anther thing for everyone to red pill normies with is this.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is approx 400PPM which is fine if you are heavy in chemistry or maybe the medical field and you realize that is considered a trace amount.
For those that don't understand this use this analogy
If you were to contrast CO2 in terms of distance and the total atmosphere is from LA to Newark the distance related to CO2 would be that the airplane is not quite to the end of the runway.
All our friends from around the world can use whatever 2 cities local to them to that would be close to 2430 miles/ 3920 km.

i think only complete retards deny the greenhouse effect. Anyone with a brain knows humans effect the climate to SOME degree. The keyword being some.

People like Michael Crichton (who I trust more than fucking bill nye, embed related) have said as much, but also that while there would be an effect it would be negligible or at worst notbad. We are still leaving an ice age, you got ice on massive swathes of land (russia, canada, antarctica), so the idea that the world would sink is fucking retarded. You'd lose a little coastline and regain a huge amount of land. Of course this is all conjecture; humans aren't gonna make the fucking earth melt

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% is “some”, yes.

yes it's some, to say otherwise is lying and some thermogeddon douche will call you on it and make your argument look bad whatever it is

What university and what degree?

No it isn't 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000% is nothing can you even basic maths?

Keep this bumped

Here is a nice introduction to the correct "greenhouse" theory:
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=maxwell gravito-thermal

The greenhouse effect is essentially an effect of an atmosphere trapped by gravity. Most heat transfer is convective, i.e., hot air rises, cool air sinks. The rate of this convective transfer determines the strength of the "greenhouse." It has very little to do with radiative effects, like light-absorbing properties of CO2.

corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/news-and-updates/speeches

Unleashing Innovation To Meet our Energy and Environmental Needs
by Rex W. Tillerson Oct. 7, 2015 - CEO Exxon/Mobil
Rex W. Tillerson, 36th Annual Oil and Money Conference, October 7, 2015

….

Acknowledges that Climate change is real and a genuine threat.

"From the very beginning of concern on this issue, ExxonMobil scientists and engineers have been involved in discussions and analysis of climate change. These efforts started internally as early as the 1970s. They led to work with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and collaboration with academic institutions and to reaching out to policymakers and others, who sought to advance scientific understanding and policy dialogue."

"We believe the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action. We also believe that by taking sound and wise actions now we can better mitigate and manage those risks."

Does not want government involvement in its activities. (motive)

"Government works best when it maintains a level playing field; opens the doors for competition; and refrains from picking winners and losers."

Advocates for the dreaded 'carbon-tax'

"For some years now, ExxonMobil has held the view that a “revenue-neutral carbon tax” is the best option to fulfill these key principles."

……

Credible reports from non-lobbyist sites.

scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Oil companies business model built around climate change

graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/

BP and nine other oil executives call for action on climate change from BP's own site.

bp.com/en/global/corporate/press/press-releases/oil-and-gas-ceos-jointly-declare-action-on-climate-change.html

Deniers are absolutely BTFO by oil companies!!!!

This thread is a model of a psyop on the internet to hide reality. ALWAYS dig for corroborating info on neutral or opposition sources.

If you read this 3 part series you'll understand Rex W. Tillerson's 'admission' isn't really an admission and it doesn't confirm that the AGW theory is real and proven:

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/23/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-deux-same-as-it-ever-was/

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/24/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-3-exxon-the-fork-not-taken/

nah that's false because

a tax is still a form of government involvement but if they write the law and decide who gets to be on the "independent" panel who reviews the tax then the tax is going to be a small nuisance compared to being constantly under attack and pointed at for being the largest oil company in the world and one of the largest companies in the world period.

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap and trade, the big oil companies aren't going to lose a lot of money. They can afford to operate in a system with either one of those or both and they're wealthy enough that they can position themselves to profit from such a system by investing large sums in the financial institutions who are going to profit from the transition to a 'low-carbon' economy.

Why do you think BP and Shell and others have called for governments to establish a carbon pricing mechanism? And Unilever too and this company isn't even in the energy industry.

If oil companies are all in on the AGW train then doesn't that mean there's no organized campaign of AGW 'denial' by fossil-fuel shills like you implied earlier in this thread?

I wish I would receive a cheque from the fossil fuel lobby when I debunk climate alarmists' arguments but I don't. I still drive a used car and I have an old computer.

You ignored all the arguments I posted in this thread. You're not a good debater or a good researcher.

Neither. The reality is that a small group of Jews are bribing the scientific community to lie about the existence of a so called global warming. Why? Well lets look at what kind of behavioral effect the threat of global warming has caused on humans:
Whites: Have a big conscience and love of nature and animals, have begun to breed a lot less in order to preserve nature.
Every single other race on the planet: Does not give a fuck, is outbreeding the Europeans at current pace

Oy vey, looks like I found out your plan Shlomo

Yep. Found the cuck. Problem solved guys, just ignore this guy and continue on with the thread.

We'll hes basically unemployed now. Didnt he work as a janitor for a long time at some point.

Shut up retard, it's a thread worth reading so your stupid speculations have no place here

Democratic AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show

washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/17/democratic-ags-climate-change-groups-colluded-on-p/?page=all

In the hours before they took the stage for their March 29 press conference, Democratic attorneys general received a secret briefing from two top environmentalists on pursuing climate change dissenters.

Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute’s Matt Pawa spent 45 minutes each providing talking points behind the scenes on “the imperative of taking action now” and “climate change litigation,” according to a cache of emails released over the weekend by the free market Energy & Environmental Legal Institute.

For climate change groups, the New York press event was the culmination of four years of planning and advocacy in support of an explosive proposition: using the legal system to link fossil fuel firms and others challenging the catastrophic global warming consensus to fraud and even racketeering, the emails and other documents show.

The effort paid off. At the press conference, which included former Vice President Al Gore, a coalition of 16 Democratic attorneys general and one independent — Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker — announced that they would use the power of state government to explore legal avenues to challenge climate change dissent.

(…)

The collection of emails sheds new light on the close working relationship between the climate change movement and Democratic lawmakers. The emails were obtained under the Vermont Public Records Law. Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell’s office helped Mr. Schneiderman’s staff organize the event.

This publication is about as Jewish as you can get.

The Jew has outed himself and his newspaper.

dont you see this will make him EVEN MORE "valid" to the arrogant SJW crowd that prefers infotainment instead of having a brain.

Notice he underlines the fact that his opponent has a conflict of interests but he doesn't mention he also has a conflict of interests because he earns money for promoting AGW:

Bill Nye's $20K wager between him and a 'denier'

adam.curry.com/enc/20160421192753_billnyechallengesclimatechangedenierwith20000bet.mp3

and by the way the real quote by Upton Sinclair is:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-get-a-man-to-understand-something

You're an emission from a penis you stupid faggot.

TOP LEL

bump

Climate change is a hoax created to drive a globalist agenda. Global policy, taxation and financial controls are the end goals. The means are scaring the shit out of the public into thinking there is an existential threat so that they let you do whatever the fuck you want. It worked during the Cold War. Funny that as soon as it ended the UN got serious about "Climate Change" all of a sudden.

...

Reminder that the same Jews who pushed black actors into mainstream TV in the 90s are now pushing AGW propaganda in media on behalf of the globalists.

Climate Change denial is a form of mentall illness according to Alec Baldwin

adam.curry.com/enc/20160424194430_alecbaldwinonclimatechangedenial-wehavetotreatasifitsamentalillness.mp3

this is great

I don't know who Bill Nye is and i don't care bur there is one thing i've notcied in the 30 years i've lived so far and that is that each summer is more suffocating than the last while on contrast each winter get's even more comfortable than the last

Global Warming is real! and we get a remainder every year when we suffer the heat of summer, for the past 3 years in my country, we've had record heat strokes during summer, each year breaking the record of the previous years, that is not normal

Bit of a leap? Even for a nigger.

Jesus you guys are delusional.

When the coastal cities flood and the coral dies you'll still deny the truth because there's obviously a Jew somewhere just making it seem like Florida is underwater, right?

HERE HERE

I know I'll get some flak for this, but TOBACCO DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER.

Just look up the studies done by Phillip-Morris you chewing-gum industry shills!

Libtards
Libtards
Libtards
Libtards

Didn't have a reason for typing those, it's just my favorite word. : ^ )

Reported for shitposting.

...

I am not a conspiracy theorist of any sort. I don't know if global warming is happening, anthropogenic or not.

What I do know is I have seen the the climategate emails and know how much they lie and manipulate and make up data, they admit it to each other when they talk amongst themselves.

di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html
di2.nu/foia/foia.pl

If you are going to get sucked into millenialism, at least do it so that kek and RP would approve.

Bump to save the world.

the only AGW thread right now, so bump

Reminder and undeniable laboratory data shows CO2 concentration only has a significant effect in the first 20 ppm.

We're currently at ~400 ppm, any additional CO2 increases in ppm will have near-zero impact on warming.

GAME OVER GLOBAL WARMING FAGS

i think the greatest manipulation the kikes have is fucking over the (1) terms, (2) methods, and (3) citations of speech.

co2 is not, nor has it ever been, 'global warming' gas. it's specific heat is abysmal compared to water. it's total spectral reflectivity is abysmal compared to water (as a gas). it's total spectral reflectivity is extremely high – as soot, rather than as co2.

want to cool down a concrete jungle? make smoke stacks, and make evaporation pools. the soot in the air (needs to be airborne) stops new radiative heat, while the water (needs to be a high surface area pool in liquid form) absorbs the heat latent in the air into capacitive heat. the partial pressure of h2o inclines evaporation (humidity) and lowers the present atmospheric heat (inter random molecular path transfer to intra molecular electronic bond)(e.g. thermal to capacitive heat transfer).

want to cool down the air faster? add more co2. co2 will reach it's specific heat capacity faster than water, so intra-molecular capacity is reached quicker, and the radiative energy must now go to inter-molecular random kinetic heat. see mars: very high co2 percentage: what radiation in does get rapidly rises and lowers temperature. co2 is simply a much smaller buffer for heat, and can't affect the reflection of radiation to any relative significance.

to have co2 be a primary driver of atmospheric temperature, you'd have to remove most of the water on earth.

Not the biggest Palin fan in the world but she sure knows how to buttfrustrate libcucks.

(cont)
it gets even more ridiculous when you look at a greenhouse or plants. make a greenhouse, add massive amounts of co2. now, what do plants do? suck up co2. a boom of growth and then plateau results, and all the co2 is back down to trace relative percentage.

greenhouses alone are also funny. make a green house, and add no water. at night, it'll be damn cold, and at day, it'll be damn hot. like a dessert. now make a green house, and add water. at night, it'll retain heat and be warm, and at day it'll be humid but cooler than otherwise. like a rainforest.

just plain laughable in all directions. water is the greenhouse gas. always has been.

Weather Channel founder calls Bill Nye ‘a pretend scientist in a bow tie’

archive.is/zNzkw

Question as you seem knowledgeable about CO2. I read somewhere that it only has its absorption/re-radiate properties if its in a polarized (or non-polarized?) state. Is that true?

i never heard of such a thing, so i can't comment on whatever you read. and dear lord in heaven i hope you're not a kike with yet another kike question derail tactic. science guy needs to burn for his shameless lies.

if science guy said your question to me, i'd say: co2 is a linear molecule. it has no right or left. it has no mirror images. you can pass light through it all day long, and it won't rotate the light; there will be no change to exit polarity vs. incident polarity.

if science guy said that to me, i'd say light is a molecule and wave. so things do get nutty. but the term "polarization" and "co2" and "radiative" don't go together. also, "absorption" and "polarization" don't go together either, in any light study. the ability of a gas to rotate or polarize is not part of it's boltzman electronic state absorptive property. those equations don't even remotely touch each other. polarization is an effect of waves, absorption is an effect of quantized energy (photons).

if science guy insisted that he heard something, i'd say: well, co2 and polarity do come together, but only come together in applied science when discussing lasers. co2 lasers have an emit source that induces/simulates more emission, in which all light is in the same phase and polarity. but this is irrelevant to infrared spectra, nor does it mean co2 changed its properties – the emit source and method changed, not the gas.

so if science guy said "co2" "absorption" "radiate" blah blah blah muh "polarized", i'd sprinkle magical polarity to the studio floor, glue down a penny, and when his kike itchy fingers couldn't resist picking it up, he'd get radiated into co2 absorption.

if that last sentence makes sense to you, then yea, sure, co2 has absorption/re-radiate properties in a polarized nonpolarized true true state.

also: co2 still not a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is excluded.

Who gives a fuck if CO2 is creating warming or not. Earths climate has always been and will always be changing, deal with it. I for one welcome the Neojurassic period.

hahaha, i love that graph. what a fanciful load of kikery. that was made to study atmosphere, and in that study, they 'chose' to exclude water. because the earth is mars, and has no water.

i mean, if you wanted to look at that data, you'd have to exclude water. water completely masks such trace gases (on the earth's surface), and completely masks radiative absorption. specific heat co2 at 20C: 0.819; specific heat h2o at 20C: 1.859. you'd need a log graph just to compare the trace gases to water.

Assertion:
Proof:

You have been shown to be a liar.

I'm not trying to derail anything, I am a rabid skeptic. I wish I could find where I read that, but I can't remember. Oh well.

if you remove whites, i'm sure you can prove that the jews made civilization.

it is nevertheless a very odd way to slice the data – throwing out the biggest effector by over an order of magnitude more. but you can do it.

best part isn't that you tell lies by omission (-completion). it isn't that you tell lies by misrank and misattribution (+confabulation). it isn't even that you can flame-out over the horse-blinder data you got 'right' (+correct).

the best part, is that your selection of such fiction over truth, over might, is the confession that declares your allegiance. you are a parasite.

i may be a fucking sperg retard for replying to you, but you are still a kike.

i have an assertion of my own to make. this craziness will continue until the entire world knows you, kike. and then you'll declare that truth doesn't matter. and then we'll be in total war. maybe you'll win by sending whites to fight whites – like you did last time. but you'll still be poorer. and you can still burn.

...

This is stupid, clouds don't reflect heat from the sun. They probably absorb most of it being mostly water

Page 24 already? Bump. It's worth keeping alive for a while.

Kill yourself you brainwashed degenerate commie faggot.

how much do those exxon kikes pay you

mini bump, keeping the thread alive

I don't know why do so many people on the Left not LOOK UP WHAT THE FUCK CLOUD REFLECTIVITY MODIFICATION IS?

IF GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL THEN WE COULD FIX IT IMMEDIATELY WITH THIS TECHNIQUE INSTEAD OF SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON USELESS SHIT AND COLLAPSING OUR ECONOMY AND THAT OF THIRD-WORLD NATIONS

YOU FUCKING GOY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_modification

You "new atheists" really are a pip

government sponsored Climate Change propaganda broadcasted on Jimmy Kimmel last week

...

bump, before it ends up on page 26.

...

Fuck off.

Almost as though I was mocking the retards who said that it is in any way anthropogenic or something.

And yes, I AM replying to this 21 days later.

On the off chance that 11 days ago guy is still here and sees the thread despite my saging it:

Since the specific heat of CO2 is, to my memory, a quarter of that of argon, shouldn’t we be more worried about the argon? Couldn’t we be harvesting argon to use for humane executions since it’s inert?

longevity bump.

Who really thinks it's a good idea to spend a 100 trillion dollars to try to change something that could very well be a natural variation?

I'm here, thanks.

bump, because of the other thread

Very good observation.

Why, motherfucker?

Because this thread is as good or better than the other one and if the other guy knew how to check the catalog he would have posted in this thread instead of making another one.

Right side is done correctly, but left side is not.

And I just noticed the other thread has been bumplocked for some reason.

8ch.net/pol/res/6002805.html

Because the alternative funneling trillions of dollars into ineffective "green energy" initiatives. It's literally the other side of the same coin, you would create just as much or more pollution in the process of manufacturing all of these solar panels and windmills. It's the same fucking situation, only you have to give away countless manufacturing opportunities to countries like China that don't give a fuck to get there.

If the climate change lobby was in favor of nuclear power and trade sanctions for China, I'd be all for it. Instead, I accept that their premise is correct then tune out everything else they say.

Its a much more lucrative skill, honestly. Hands are hard as shit

When the majority of greenhouse gases are emitted by ocean tankers and livestock, why would there be an oil lobby conspiracy?

Bill Nye was cool, shame he had to ruin it by being too opinionated, people in his position gotta just learn to keep their gay mouths shut when it comes to political matters and just talk about science stuff. No one wants to hear his opinion on global warming just like they don't want to hear Neil Tyson Chicken Grassoio or whatever the fucks opinion on social matters

NDGT recently said something that wasn't stupid, he said about the 97% consensus that science isn't a vote and one scientist who is right has more weight than a thousand who are wrong. I don't have the link I just heard the clip somewhere.

They don't. At least not in the context he's using them. Reddit fags have killed this site

I'm not well read enough to opinate about this, but I can tell you that when I first heard about global warming as a child it scared me shitless, made me lose many nights of sleep.

Whats next? Epic detective for the country crime stopper extraordinaire Steve Burns?

CARBON IS A POLLUTANT. KILL ALL CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS!

page 25. thread saving bump.

rethygtryhb56yu7 uty6juhytn u56 yu6uhjtr uuyh56 y56 yry6 r

Bump. In case there are still people who believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change / Global Warming.

Good news:

Trump sends shivers down spines of nations trying to solidify global warming pact

japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/26/world/trump-sends-shivers-spines-nations-trying-solidify-global-warming-pact/

"More recently, he said he was “not a big fan” of the Paris Agreement, the fruit of two decades of stop-and-go (but mostly stop) wrangling between rich and developing nations.

“I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum,” Trump told Reuters in an exclusive interview last week, betraying an unfamiliarity with the U.N.’s consensus-based process.

“And at a maximum I may do something else.”

Under the Paris accord, 196 nations have pledged to hold global warming to well under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and to help poor countries cope with the impact of climate change while weaning their economies off fossil fuels.

Sidestepping a recalcitrant Congress under Republican control, U.S. President Barack Obama has used executive power to aggressively confront global warming at home and abroad.

Especially during his second term, the U.S., along with China, has been a pillar of the tortuous — and sometimes torturous — U.N. talks.

The prospect of a Trump presidency precisely at the moment when nations are inching toward ratification of the delicately balanced deal sends shivers down the spines of negotiators here.

When asked what worried him most at this stage, Seyni Nafo, climate ambassador for Mali and president of the Africa Group, snapped: “Trump winning the election.”

It is at least reassuring, Nafo added, that — according to the rules — it would take four years for the United States to withdraw from a ratified treaty.

France’s top climate diplomat, Laurence Tubiana, agreed that Trump in the White House could do serious damage to the new climate regime.

“If the U.S. government is implacably hostile to the Paris Agreement, it won’t help,” she told journalists on the sidelines of the talks.

“But I don’t think it will derail it,” she added.

Historical precedent, however, is not especially reassuring.

The Kyoto Treaty — which dangled in limbo for seven years before entering into force — was fatally weakened from the moment the administration of George W. Bush refused to ratify.

Japan, Russia and Canada later pulled out."

People who still believe? R U Kidding?