Climate change denial laws

Who are the scientists promoting the garbage?

Seriously, find out who they are. I'm sure like the lib tards they are, they're parading their names out for support and cred for this schlock.

Find out how they are. You don't need to absolutely dox unless you want to, but the most important is where are they getting their funding from.

Find that out, find out who the funders are, and who the funders are associated with.

Nothing you just said is true according to anthropocentric theory of climate change.

By the way, the climate IS warming, there's absolutely no doubt in that. That's straight up fact.

youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Now is when you learn that most kids didn't read the book and most of the ones who did thought it was about Nazis.

Yes, that would be what I said. The theory is 100% false in every single respect. Are you illiterate?
Sorry, no. It’s actually getting cooler.

It’s mainly kikes and people without degrees or schooling. The ones that do have it do it for the grant money.

I live in Georgia (USA) near Atlanta and have lived here since the early 90s. I can conclusively show you that our summers have gotten up to a month longer and are probably 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter on average. Summer here begins now in early May and lasts until mid September now. It's ridiculously long. We are talking 90-100+ degrees every single day. We don't even have a Fall season anymore - all the leaves fall off the trees in a matter of 2-3 weeks then we go to this weird mix of summer and winter until the next May where some days are 70-80 degrees out, some are 30-40, and every night is cold as fuck. It's fucked with my allergies so badly and I can't deny that things have changed here. I just don't necessarily think it's because retards in China are dumping chemicals in their rivers and polluting the atmosphere.

Sorry, no. You’re wrong. All recorded data says otherwise.

either way, a list needs to be compiled, and listing where they are getting the grant money from and shit.

Seriously, why don't people do this more often? It'd blow the entire global warming scam right out the fucking water.

Basically we just need James Hansen to die. Him and Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc.

Yeah, no. The climate has always been changing. In fact, it'd be strange is it wasn't. It's an entirely normal phenomenon.

Proof? Abstracts from scientific articles. Wont ask for full articles since those are usually behind Jew paywalls, but if you have them good

Prove it.

Just them dying isn't going to be enough user. You gotta follow the bread crumb trail and bring it to light. You expose them as hackjobs and frauds, you kill their legacy, and you set back the push and movement for the global warming scam.

...

Don't you guys get it? We need to pay the environment to get better!

Want to get rid of acid rain? You better be ready to make it rain!

Are we seriously at the stage we're you're arguing one of the basic tenants of meteorology

Not even skeptics argue CO2 causes warming. Ice ages end by CO2 release.

And these same scientists will tell you that baby powder gives you cancer then turn around 4 years later and claim they were wrong, sane people should just stop listing to them because it seems like they are wrong 99% of the time.

Climate Change® is a convenient tool to bludgeon wrongthinkers with, especially because it's flexible. The media treats climate change as if it's a simple yes/no theory, whereas it's far more complex.

There are different degrees to which one can believe in climate change, ranging from "pollution exists" all the way up to "UNLESS WE STOP USING ELECTRICITY ALTOGETHER WE WILL ALL DIE BY 2010".

If you're a member of the Lugenpresse, this makes it easy to manipulate the story. You can say 97% of scientists accept climate change (because they agree that pollution is a thing), then smear Donald Trump as a crazy climate-change denying loon (because he's noticed that it's 2016 and we're still alive.)

It's like using the following theory:
"The sky is blue. The ocean is also blue. Therefore, we are underwater!"
… and if anyone dares disagree with you, you loudly laugh and tell everyone "HAHAHA, look at this retard, he denies the sky is blue!"

Pretty much this

There is no such thing as deniers and believers either.

There are skeptics and proponents specifically of the anthropocentric aspect, which is the most picked on by the media.

The fact is both the left and the right need to just fuck off the science.

Exactly , just like rain or snow its a natural cycle of the earth, if we even have any impact on it, its small as fuck.

You're actually arguing against laboratory tests measuring the warming of CO2? Of course CO2 traps some heat, but as the data shows, it's mostly within the first 60ppm. We're at ~400ppm now.

So controlling for CO2 will have no significant effect unless they plan on reducing it towards 60ppm.

Also, I'll wager you don't actually understand the scientific implication of "causation" or how it's even found, because if you did, you would realize that AGW as "caused" by man is ludicrous.

WHAT IN THE SHITTING FUCK IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN?

I worked for an environmental engineering firm bac in the 90's when they tried to get a cap and trade bill in SC.

It's rent-seeking at it's worst; a full-on scam.

Right. The climate has always been changing. It’s not warming due to humans. It’s also not warming at all right now.

Will these do?
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
How about some proof that “peer-review” is fake, too? As well as other documents on the topic.
There is no consensus
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
The numbers are faked
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/
CO2 helps the environment, not hurts
edsanders.com/global/c02up2.htm
Evidence of fakery
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
americantraditions.org/Articles/New Evidence that Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming.htm
aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
They even admit that the scam exists to destroy the industry of ONLY the western world
archive.is/i29K7
rt.com/news/256861-climate-change-un-hoax/
Peer-review bullshit
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/?postshare=5031427452343393

Except, you know, this says otherwise.

I would love a direct link to the whole paper for this, by the way. Chinks are notorious for lying.

Nobody's arguing that man by himself will cause a significant shift in temperature. This is positive feedback. The video series I posted, by the way, explains that.

And the carbon gases serving as a contribution to maintaining Earth temperatures is also empirically observed. CO2, H2O and CH4 absorb long wave radiation and that generates heat.

If we didn't have them, planet wouldn't sustain life.

I'll say this. Meteorology is not my field. I just read a lot of abstracts.
Unfortunately this issue is so politicized you can't get a damn unbias opinion.

Dude do a basic google search on laboratory testing of CO2 vs temperature, I mean this shit is literally the most basic science possible. You can easily experimentally test CO2 heat absorption and measure the temperature.

What are you, some kind of faggot science denier?

I honestly don't doubt the validity of any of those. Like I said, politics should never have been brought into this.

I was not aware, however, the data on the temperature itself had been altered. That changes the entire idea that even the warming is happening.

so climate change is the new holocaust?
you better believe in it or else…

I'm arguing man's contribution of CO2 is neglible and therefore the shift is not significant.

Also, as for the interaction effects of CO2, H20, and CH4, these is all EASILY experimentally determined with minimal lab equipment across every single factor/level combination. Someone with even basic knowledge of DOE (design of experiments) can throw the experimental design together.

The issue is that CO2 itself traps an insignificant amount of heat past 60ppm, so unless the interaction effects (dependent) are MASSIVE, then controlling for CO2 is fucking irrelevant.

Did any of you fags even study statistics?

these are

Presumably the legislators realized outlawing "climate change denial" would be too blatantly unconstitutional and, being aware of the economic agenda, opted to try banning corporations from making business decisions predicated on non-NWO-approved readings of climate data on the grounds that such decisions would be deliberate attempts to circumvent SCIENCE for unethical profit.

Yeah, this is unconstitutional as fuck.

However, while I've never looked that closely into climate change scientifically, this has just put me over the edge into "leaning denial" based on what I know about the holocaust.

You're going to have to refute a lot of evidence we have for things that already happened. It's common accepted that ice ages and warmings are triggered by CO2 (and other such molecules) presence in the atmo.

Anyway, just to be clear here. I'm not in any way defending OP. Even were anthropocentric warming solid, to make it illegal to challenge it would make it dogma, and that has no place in natural philosophy.

Lets be real here people, the climate of the planet has always been changing and will continue changing wither humans exist or not. I don't think global climate change is caused by humans, but its very real, some statistics are also made dubious by phenomenon such as the heat island effect

Whatever your beliefs or opinions, the point of the thread is globalist kikery.

So, California legislature is violating free speech, eh?

Wonder what the supreme court would have to say about this unconstitutional law?

From what I read CO2 increases lag temperature:

google.com/search?q=co2 lags temperature

You see, you don't actually understand any of the science, you're just parroting shit climate faggots have been shitting into your brain.

Same. There's a lot of reading to do when I finally dig into the climate issue. But I'm incredibly skeptical simply because of how self-righteous and authoritarian the proponents are.

It's interesting how 1984 we've become, and under the hippy dippy left, not the nationalist right.

Attempting to set yourself up on a faux-moral high ground through your tone, as an attempt to shame others into compliance with your global tax on breathing, payed directly to the rothschilds, is no way to go through life, son.

Basically:

All the models of global warming proponents predicting rising temperature have failed, while there was an increase in the 80's and 90's we've been in a temperature hiatus since 1998 now.

CO2 emission does affect temperature, but it seems to scale logarithmically and not linearly. This means that the more CO2 humans emit, the effect it has on temperature drastically lessens.

The sun and some other shit is the most important factors with regard to temperature.

This is what the data says, but there are grants and taxes to be had from this so no western government is ever going to do a 180 after they've peddled this shit for so long.

shit, meant to reply to:

Lag temp is one of the things already explained.

Positive feedback. The positive feedbacks in the past weren't CO2, it was possible shifts in Earth orbit. That melted the ice, released the CO2, and that created a loop of increase that eventually lead to warming.

The argument here is if the industry of the modern world increasing CO2 is going to serve as a positive feedback.

No an argument.

But just so we're clear, I'm not in favor of taxing industry to reduce CO2 emissions especially because it doesn't work even we were in agreement that CO2 caused by industry is the biggest cause of the warming.

Which we aren't. Even crazy lefties say that agriculture causes bigger emissions.

And before you go there, no, taxing cow farms isn't solving this either.

CO2 is plant food.

Plants use carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight to manufacture simple sugars, which is the basis of plant metabolism (manufacturing starches and whatnot)

Carbon Dioxide is plant food, an integral part of the growth of all plants on the planet.

In an environment of higher CO2 content, the plants increase their rate of CO2 uptake, growth, etc…

As you increase the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere, plants grow faster because of the higher concentration of their primary metabolic input.

Faster growing plants means higher natural CO2 sink.

IT's called a feedback cycle, and it is related to all of those giant algae blooms near china.

...

Do you even understand positive feedback? I do, I've had courses on controls theory in electrical engineering.

The point is that if people are claiming CO2 is "causing" temperature to increase, then CO2 INCREASES WOULD LEAD TEMPERATURE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

You're an uneducated fuck is what you are.

The glowbull worming scam is complete bullshit.
There'll be a shortage of lamp-posts to hang the anti-human traitors from when The Man comes around.

...

But the fucking people are using the previous cases of warming on the planet to say that temperature happens before CO2

In the previous warmings yes! It did go temperature -> CO2 -> more temperature -> More CO2

The initial temperature spike was NOT related to the gases.

The argument is that THIS TIME it is.

I don't even fucking believe it is. I'm a goddamn skeptic. I just don't want to start buying that the basic model for warming and cooling of the planet is wrong because then you're left with nothing. You need theoretical base to stand on here.

Kinda what I meant about your post…

We are in no such agreement.

There is nothing to solve, it's just a smoke and mirrors ploy based on your guilt, that will get you to straight up GIVE the IMF and world bank, something on the order of multiple trillions of dollars per year, in exchange for fucking NOTHING.

Temperature is rising. We know that much.

It still allows that being skeptical of climate change being bad.

The problem is that modeling the "climate" is fucking nearly impossible, and I'm not talking about modeling individual effects, I'm talking about modeling THOUSANDS of variables with both main and interaction effects, across the entire planetary system and externally with the sun on systems they don't even understand.

I've done more modeling than anyone on this board, from linear controls, state space, statistical, simulations, etc., I can tell you right now with a 100% certainty there is no one on the fucking planet intelligent enough to model the fucking climate.

LOL you've "had courses"! LOL!

Jesus.

Dude didn't you watch An Inconvenient Truth? It's all in the hockey stick graph. I can't believe people can be so ignorant in 2016.

I can't wait for them to pass this law. Then the denialism will really be over. What part of "not up for debate" didn't you understand?

I guess some people will only learn not to spread lies the hard way.

This is the next logical step.

I don't mind that people are uneducated like the faggots above, not everyone can specialize in relevant subjects, but what really sets me off is that EVERYONE seems to have an opinion on shit they don't even understand the basics of.

This is why humanity is fucked, these fucks vote.

You mean skepticism*

You can get close enough.

There is a logical explanation for the temp lag. It even fits, the change in Earth orbit to the periods of warming and cooling.

If you don't get your babies vaccined and RFID chipped you go to jail.

When I was a kid you couldn't attend school unless you'd been vaccinated against MMR.

I think that's the fair way to deal with parents against vaccinations. Homeschooling your un-immunized kids is safer for your kids, and everyone else's.

I was only pretending to be retarted. The T lag phenomena actually clinches it for me.

"close enough" is literally meaningless scientifically. And please feel free to find that "logical explanation", because right now there are thousands of PhDs across the planet trying to explain it. Clearly they need your valuable perspective to crack the problem.

I hope you enjoy your Nobel Prize, you will have earned it.

Yes I realize that, perhaps you should re-read my post?

Do we?

Yeah, but I want THAT paper specifically, since “google searching” always pulls up kike sites.

This is their testing ground for banning holocaust denial in the US
If they can stop freedom of speech in a scientific topic, they can stop it anywhere

...

And most kids didn't realize that sexually promiscuous women would eventually and enthusically become The Anti-Sex League

*enthusiastically

There is a concensus on the temp lag issue, but sure whatever, I wont push this.

Yes, yes we do. Even the scientists on "your side" agree with this.

Yeah, that whole scandal was a boner inducing, one month long smug-festival for the "paleocon"/libertarian/patriot movement.

I remember being glued to my laptop listening to Alex Jonestein "dissect and analyze" the scandal.

I literally thought that it was the final nail in the coffin for the "globalists" and trying to get their oxygen tax. I was so fucking pumped and jacked.

However…Like Hitler illustrated in Mein Kampf, the Jew came back the next day and acted like the whole thing never happened. The jew just continued arguing for his extortion scheme.

Of course at the time I was only mildly aware of the jew angle.

Keep going gentleman. I like threads like these. It's really comforting to know the high intellect and the wide ranging areas of expertise that Holla Forums has in it's ranks.

It's encouraging as fuck.

How does one determine the total specific heat content of an entire planet, anyways?

The worst you can do to a jew is call them a jew.

A scam, you provide proof it's a scam. You show the scientists are getting paid by special interests or think tanks, and shit will go crashing down as they push hard for damage control.

That kind of info would be good for sure. The MSM wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole though.

It would have to be a book with a well made documentary that you could put on youtube.

Places like Kikebart and Drudge would give it exposure only if it was 'kosher' and didn't name the jew.

Surface heat data and usually also troposphere heat data. Obviously taken at different points.

however, given earlier in the thread sources for data tampering were posted, well, best you double check the sources you use.

You think they'd want any info going against their narratives to get out there?

But thanks to the internet, it finds a way.

Swamp gas

When I was a little kid, warmists said that New York would be under water by the time I grew up. They were wrong. Even though they are always completely wrong about everything, all the time, warmists never stop making up dumb predictions.

First they claim ice age, then they claim hot summer all night long, then waterworld, then ice age again and then later on that's it's going to get really really hot again guys, think Desert hot!

Scientists, especially within the climate-field is nothing but the loons of yesterday that would scream the world was ending.

Throwing money at it, won't solve it either way.

And the sheer delusion of grandeur to think humans have such an impact on the climate is ridiculous.

Atlfag reporting in.

The explosive growth of the city is to blame for this. Turning forests into concrete jungles significantly impacts the local environment. You can't go from ~70k to ~700k in a place like Lawrenceville since the 90s, with all the infrastructure that goes with it, and expect not to impact the local environment.

Cities are fucking cancer.

Not only that, but none of these faggots understand how science works, nor do they give a shit about actual science. Realistically, one would need to study the climate for many lifetimes in order to take a guess as to why certain things are occurring.

There is such a fucking thing as galactic weather, for example. I guarantee almost no one has heard or it, nor will they care, because it would take hundreds of thousands of years to change appreciably by one "season" or so (just like it takes hundreds of thousands of years for constellations to change their orientation relative to ourselves).

If they were legitimate scientists, they would talk a lot more cautiously, a lot more about what they don't know, and everyone would tune it because they're not smart enough for science.

"Popular" science is an oxymoron. I am into more than one profession at a significant level, and anything beyond the basics is something most people will never, ever learn. That's why not everyone is an expert on everything to begin with. Also note that some kosher rag calling someone an "expert" doesn't make it so.

You have to back up what you say with data and logic to expect to be taken seriously. I have never seen any of that from the "climate change" fags, formerly known as the "global warming" fags. All they want are shekels and compliance–the opposite of learned men.

Well, yeah. Do you think anyone really believes the earth is flat? Free speech, niggers.

It’s not rising.

No. They do not. The temperature is not rising. There are zero measurements taken anywhere on the globe that agree with you.

Of course not. Flat Earth is a psy-op to discredit legitimate conspiracies.

See images!

The two best reasons I think to be skeptical of climate change are that the majority of the research is government funded and every prediction scientists made hasn't come true.

This. Greenhouses artificially pump-in CO2 to around 1500 ppm so their plants grow faster

But why male models?

Yes.

The 'acute lead deficiency' meme is awakening

...

Right up until the plants mature and slow or halt their uptake achieving an equilibrium.

Particularly as said trees would have to be stored once grown to prevent the reintroduction of said CO2.

I've got a great idea, stop fucking digging up gigatons of carbon and burning it!
Gee fuckking gee, its almost like introducing previously sequestered long term stored materials, of which quite a lot is not fossil fuel but rather abiogenic, rather is the opposite of planting trees.

Also all loads of shit since we can extract CO2 from the atmosphere and put it to work making carbon neutral hydrocarbons.

Also you know why there is so much antagonism against the left over this?
Most of the conservative states are heavily involved with hydrocarbon extraction and have little else (ha, not true at all) to go off of.
Quite simply its trying to keep up political power bases and how to war.

Also, if the burning is all nice an kosher, what's the issue with China burning it all?
After all, it should be just fine if you're not in the Beijing smog bowl (really, our issue is that its Like your LA. There are winds, thermal inversions, and a desert nearby that come into play)

Global warming is wrong on both counts.

this bill basically states saying it isnt carbon dioxide causing it is denying muh 6 gorillion

It was actually an issue in the past.

The cosmos whatever the fuck series took a dive at this, but how one scientist was getting paid by special interests to write up a whole shit ton of schlock in support of lead, even though it was clearly giving lead poisoning.

But then there was another scientist that fought hard against that scientist in trying to prove (and eventually did) that not only was the scientist getting paid to make up bullshit that lead poisoning was not a thing to be concerned and was a-ok, but also that lead poisoning was a thing to be concerned about.

Fast forward to now the complete shindig of Global Warming, along with GMO's, and no one is even bothering to ask the basic fucking questions here. Like, Who the fuck is paying these guys.? It's all being treated like the scientist's "conclusion" is some "word of god" kind of mentality here. And it's absolutely asinine to even assume that the scientists of today are pure and clean and wouldn't cave their studies, test findings, and data to special interests.

Everybody is paying everybody right now.
The days of getting results from your own lab are over, now if you do it means you're the one paying out.

The question that should be asked, is why is the concept that digging out gigatons of carbon is not going to lead to results, when its admitted that the past had much higher levels and warmer temperatures?

My ice cream once was warmer and had more water, I'd rather not go back tot hat, just as much as I'd rather not have the changed climate redistribute American hegemony.

NEVER FORGET THE 400 PARTS PER MILLION

Climate change is natural and it is beyond our controls so we shouldn't fight against the mother nature otherwise it will come back and bite us. Attempting to control people's speeches will not affect our dearly Earth that we call our home. That is extremely dumb thing for them to do.

well, the bill isn't going to happen, so i don't know why you made this thread

...

You are not qualified to speak on the issue.