Alright Holla Forums

First you need to accept that evidence can be fabricated, even evidence that seems plain as day. Until you accept that anything, literally anything, can be and probably is in fact a lie propped up by a thousand other falsehoods, you're not actually red-pilled. You've only peeked into the rabbit hole.

AGW doesn't real.

For me, personally, I have visited recycling plants and a relative worked at a hospital incinerator.

It's not so much that Climate Change is a Hoax or Real, but how man made changes are not compared to actual documented events such as volcanic eruptions, nuclear tests, past comet strikes and weather cycles of the earth.

This coupled with how (((They))) want to profit from it, AND control us with fear and climate change - it's just bad news.

Peak Oil. Remember that? We still can't determine when earthquakes will actually occur and some chuckleheads are going to tell me with a straight face that we know everything that happened in the past, present and future. Right.

Now, I don't like plastics, I don't like my water/oceans polluted, and I don't like how any Gigantic Mining Company can assfuck the environment and the town they mine in so that they can get that extra 5% for their boar members, close shop and stick the Taxpayer with the bill and Superfund Site.

Science is the new religion. Sure, predicting future floodzones is great, but you can't stop morons in Florida and Louisiana from rebuilding over and over again on old marshland that was nature's natural dams and levees.

Once the kikes and globalists are gone we can work on desalination, geothermal heating, underwater wave energy creation, large-scale air filtration and other good stuff that will keep our children and amphibians healthy.

But for some 50 year old academic to build his career and theories on the Good FAITH of those who came before him, to look me in the eye and tell me that if I don't pay $18.00 a gallon for gas or the world is over in 10 years, yeah, he can go fuck himself.

fucking pleb.

reported for necrobumping.

LURK MOAR

It's happening, and it's irreversible. Kikes see it as an opportunity to guilt-tax white people even more while selling 'green' 'solutions' to them at exorbitant prices.

Huge copypasta wall incoming

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: >>5763955 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."

▶Anonymous 04/17/16 (Sun) 21:43:33 27db1f No.5767120
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." "

chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/hurst-dependence-persistence-and-a-fatal-flaw-in-climate-science/

chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/well-someone-finds-a-well-proven-2000-year-cooling-trend-with-mwp-and-rwp/

chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/co2-does-not-black-body-radiation-make/

chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/why-land-air-temperature-is-exactly-wrong/

chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-fallacy-of-trapped-heat/

chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/temperature-vs-co2-non-correlate/

chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/admission-that-the-global-warming-scam-is-all-about-the-money/

I commented on a subject that interested me, faggot.
I am aware of the necrobump shills who fucked the board up all last week, but I am not them.

Does my post look low energy to you dummy?

Yeah, those "Green Credits" have reeked of corruption bullshit from the beginning.

I miss my old, "Ranger Rick" magazines about nature. Now, all kids have all multicultural pamphlets about vague evils.

Climate change is real. People here are just retards on this topic. Now fuck off.

Nobody denies that the clamed has and will changed they have questions about why dissent on the topic is met with the same level of treatment as a holocoaster denier and how much its humans affecting the climate but oy gevalt not allowed to ask questions you are a fokin denier.

I'll sum it up for you in poorly written greentext

Friendly sage, redpill me on x threads are frowned upon here.

Only white people care about the environment.

Climate change naturally occurring, or Climate Change significantly affected by human actions?

If we know everything about the earth, environment and weather, when are we going to start predicting earthquakes? Predicting the weather with 99% accuracy?

Science is a guide, and research and hypotheses are just what their definitions are, educated guesses.

This. Most people here are also retards on veganism, because they don't know anything about it. Holla Forums is not always right.

Bleacbleached coral can be explianed by starfishes eating them

...

we all know they're not retarded

climate change has use as a global scare to unite people of the world and thus contributes directly to a NWO

it's also good to make profit off, because normies are stupid and gullible

climate change is indeed happening if we want it or not, but the real problem is pollution, this is something tangible where humans are directly responsible for and can do something about

i dont want to end up living like a chink in beijing or swim in oceans full of garbage

Look at this samefag, don't turn this discussion into a slide thread you disgusting faggot.

Holla Forums claims to be NatSoc, but doesn't support the preservation of nature as did the actual NSDAP.
Sad!

Also, global warming is a meme. It's more accurate to call it global climate fluctuations, but even then its not the main problem and could be fixed via afforestation and the like

Is it possible we are affecting the environment? We are dumping a shitload of greenhouses gasses into the environment and it doesn't just disappear. Dumping CO2 also acidifies the oceans which isn't good. Say goodbye to coral reefs if we don't stop sometime in the near future.

No I'm convinced they believe in it too but they use it to drain money out of people to pay for windmills.

While I understand were you're coming from, most of us observe board culture and lurk for a while before posting.

One thing that Holla Forums specifically says from time to time, is it's not our job to educate you, only guide you.

We expect you to do your own research, not be hand fed.

It's not that the OP is a newfag, he's getting hostility because he is just asking to be fed the information.

Of the millions of things we spend money on, is green energy really the worst thing? Maybe feeding niggers fried meat on the public dime is where we should be cutting, not in technologies that prevent our air from becoming China-tier smog everywhere.

The primary flaw, from what I've gathered, lies in this sort of context:

Another thing to keep in mind: Don't trust scientists.

Moder science is absolutely fucked.
Peer-review is a corrupt joke, nobody publishes the negative (that is, only studies which prove the testing hypothesis get published, even if such study is totally bunk or was the 5th of its kind and all previous attempts did not prove the hypothesis), money is the primary motivator for scientific pursuit (and in many cases, that means state grants - especially for fields like 'climate science').

Combined, what do we get?
We get studies that don't deserve to be published getting put out, the primary motivator for those studies being to prove their hypothesis, so that they can get the study put out, so that they can apply to get another grant to run studies to prove their hypothesis, repeat ad infinitum.

Check this out:
> narrative.ly/nick-brown-smelled-bull/

If you read that and don't come out of it with a hefty dose of distrust for any encounter with "A new study suggests…" type material, you didn't pay attention.

It's not about what's possible, but what reality shows. And that is: no anthropogenic climate change. There are always those shit boogeymen of global warming and global cooling and when one scam fails, (((they))) move back to the other.

I've begun to question that assumption.

Climate change is real mate, there are just a lot of nutters here.

Reality does support AGW, but probably to a lesser extent than what is put in the media. We probably won't have Florida under water in a decade, but then again I'm more worried about other externalities like food crops being ruined because of changing climes. You can think Al Gore is an alarmist and acknowledge that we probably have an affect on our environment as well.

Deforestation + jewish disregard for goyim's environment + jewish laws written with no accountability = problems for the environment in the long term

oh, no! things are changing and we humans can't directly affect it!

there's obviously loads of people who buy into the bullshit, but the people who originally promoted this crap aren't retarded

it's propaganda like any other

it's almost like the holohoax if you think about, you are not allowed to question it, because it's 'settled science', which is the most obvious contracition in terms i ever saw

I believe the saying goes the opposite way, but I would posit thusly:
Never assume as retardation that which might be born of simple vicious arrogance.

I don't wager the elites are retarded.
I do wager the elites are hugely arrogant, to the point of complete self-assurance.
These are the rats that will be most vicious when cornered.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Problem is, we as a species are fucking retarded. We do this in conjunction with deforestation and that takes the carbon sinks that can mitigate the problem. As mentioned previously, afforestation - something practiced by both NS Germany and the only carbon-negative country (Bhutan) - could easily fix this problem.

Watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Any anons care to comment on it? I think it's good, kikepida claims some of it is false.

Fair point.
They do seem to have grown quite arrogant, having no competition whatsoever for so long.

Forgot to add
Painting roofs white in places where there are no flight routes could also boost albedo levels by a significant amount, which drops temperatures

Fuck off with your lolberg neocon resource burning already.

Listen faggot. Climate change as in temperature rises and drops are natural. They happen due to yet unexplained occurrences that are not limited to: solar activity, core activity, prevalence of life, astral events like asteroid collisions.

What the kikes call global warming or climate change is something else entirely. It's false premise that man is evil and produces CO2 that fucks up environment. It's propaganda, because it stops us from talking about pollution and kike cheapskate tactics to lower operating costs. Instead, good goys focus on relatively harmless gas falsely advertised as greenhouse gas. CO2 has been shown to have a capped effect on temperature, but of course the research on this is hush hush. Scientists could lose their grants permanently and never gain another one, were they to promote such bad goy research. You know, like Egyptologists going against consensus or modern historians going against holohoax. So, rather than focus on serious issues like Monsanto fucking with crops, chinks leaking toxins everywhere or kikes cutting down forests en-masse, we have good goys crying about how we have to resort to using faulty or inherently inefficient green technologies. This plays into kike hands, because without stable source of power our nations become weak and unable to resist. Couple bad goys and entire country could be plummeted into dark ages. Call issues by their real name, don't hide them under kike-friendly umbrella term like "global warming".

I agree man, I just dislike how anti-science the right can be. We don't have to give the UN our asshole if we admit that AGW is happening, we could do things like afforestation like you're saying. It's ridiculous to me to hear how many tons of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere and then pretend like there is no impact at all.

True, but that doesn't mean the current rise in temperature isn't being helped along by our actions however.

That's a rather sophistic way of looking at it. CO2 makes things warmer and destabilizes what would otherwise be a natural temperature fluctuation into something more serious.

This is part of AGW. Removing forest from the globe means there aren't as many carbon sinks as there were in the past which means there will be more atmospheric / oceanic CO2 which means more of the bad things. That, coupled with ever increasing emissions from the turd world equals what is known as AGW. It's demonstrably happening and the degree to which the temperature is fluctuating is our fault.

No, it doesn't, hence made up terms like "global warming hiatus".
What happened to global cooling?

Global warming hiatus could be other factors acting as counters to the greenhouse gases. Maybe decreased solar activity cancels out the increase in atmospheric carbon temporarily. Lots we don't know, but ice sheet thickness of many glaciers is decreasing which is no bueno.

This. Vid related includes a whistleblower who details an R+D team "scientist" manipulating data on pharmaceuticals and trying to keep his interns silent about it. This is the tip of the iceberg, a scientist was willing to falsify data just to get ahead and make money, imagine how low the threshold for science corruption is when there are not any lives at stake directly, which there usually are not in most non-medical science fields. Don't ever let a status as a "scientist" or a "PhD" fool you into thinking they are beyond scrutiny or even legitimate, trust absolutely no kind of so called "expert", always verify independently when possible.

The etiquette is lurking 2 YEARS before posting, newfag. No exceptions. Anyone who doesn't will always be obvious as an outsider and should be called out, not ignored.

The worst shit is a newfag making a thread, not just shitposting his cancerous opinions. The solution is sagebombing, but you still get other newfags and shills who bump it. Mods need to be ban them, i.e.:

Anyone who admits to being new deserves nothing less than a year long ban, just like anyone who would admit to being underage.

dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

and heres the 300 scientists that signed wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/300_signatories.pdf

louderwithcrowder.com/climate-scientists-admit-climate-models-are-wrong/

There is never 100% agreement on anything: see the creation science or deepak chopra wackjobs. AGW is supported by research coming out from every single country in the world. Is literally everyone in on it? Doubtful.

That doesn't mean we need to pay carbon taxes however, that's clearly jewish in nature. That doesn't mean that the underlying cause is false.

Global warming hiatus could be other factors acting as counters to the greenhouse gases.
So you admit that there are other factors, so we can't predict what will happen?
You have to go back.
Seriously though, this is another "oh no, something bad will happen" crap. What empirical data do you have showing what its consequences will be?

You know the climate change cucks say that the entire ocean will soon turn into an acidic wasteland? destroying all the poor corral reefs!
seriously nigger. this shit is easy.

yet
AND YOU DON'T SEE THE (((COINCIDENCE)))?
It's one of the subtle Jewish lies: there is no evidence because it's all predictions, but it sounds like it could be true, so almost nobody will oppose it. Add peer pressure and suppression of dissent, how many people do you realistically expect to be aware that they're actively jewing everyone?
Just about the few there are, with the intelligence to see it and the backbone to not accept it.

I look to business for relatively anecdotal yet consistent data. Take a look at farmers and how they all predict that their crops will be negatively affected by changing environs. For example, avocado production is expected to come to a screeching halt relatively soon since the drought in California is only going to get worse and worse as it gets hotter. Avocado production is expected to go down 40% in the next 20 years, and I have to ask why a company whose livelihood depends on the sale of goods would push a supposedly false, baseless narrative when it would hurt their bottom line. Assuming rational actors, that wouldn't be the case. There's millions of these examples that all lend themselves to forming an aggregate paradigm that supports the warming of the earth even without looking at NOAA data. The conservative estimates of global emissions hovers around 26 billion tons of CO2 every year, and if I'm to believe we dump that much into the environment and shouldn't expect a change then I guess I need to rewrite all my opinions on causality.

I worked in a lab that had nothing to do with direct AGW research but we were testing the affects of it on fish populations. It depressed some and caused others to modify their levels of body fat. Boring stuff but relevant.

instead of replying to this shit thread check out kim dotcom's extradition hearing

youtube.com/channel/UCw7XhgJhQDHkVrJjiw4CONg/live

The US is trying to get him from NZ

sasuga

There's a year-old ongoing pedophile scandal involving basically the entire youth population of Britain, an attempted coup in Turkey, countless documents defaming Hillary and George Soros, a proven Jewish conspiracy to control the world, several documentaries arguing Hitler was right… and you're interested in global warming?

Why can't we talk about more than just one thing at one time? We have board space not because we need 25 brit/pol/s on there at one time.

Nah, that's how you know they may be telling the truth. Besides, farmers have much more experience in their subject than climate scientists who copy other climate scientists and will be ruined not if they give out bad predictions, but good ones.
Don't consider one cause when there are many, for starters.
You already believe the change will correlate with what you expect. Yet e.g. a drop in solar acitvity could make it completely different. archive.is/pDgKa
That's the point. You were testing. You can't test climate models easily - other than by waiting, which shows them to be crap.

Show me research from the Congo, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran, the Vatican, etc. that supports AGW, if every single country in the world supports AGW surely you can find research sourced from all the above places…
How can every country in the world have AGW research when not every country in the world even has a functioning scientific apparatus or academic community?

I don't give a fuck about science anymore, it's been corrupted by low test cucks who have no idea how to come to their own conclusions about anything and who operate not on logic, but on following groupthink and virtue signaling.

That being said, I do believe that human driven climate change is real and accelerating, and that it is a major problem that needs to be solved.

I say this just based on my own observations in the change in weather patterns and on talking to older folk and asking them how things have changed over time in their own areas. I've met a lot of people, asked a lot of questions and everything fits. Also we are supposed to be in a cooling period right now but things just keep getting hotter and hotter.

I don't see how a rational person could come to any other conclusion. You guys are so busy trying to be contrarian that you are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and make a huge mistake.

I think the problem is that you guys are too untraveled, too comfortable, too tucked away into communities that haven't been affected yet.

So as far as what ((they)) are doing with false data, probably trying to shock people into action for their own profit, but that doesn't mean that it isn't habbening. It just means that they are being manipulative in their methods.

Respond to the data here please. It should be trivial to refute information showing a 2000 year cooling trend, the fact that Co2 is not a black body and has no correlate with tempurature, etc. if Global Warming is such an absolute truth, now should it?

Carbon-dioxid is good, it's an important source for plants to grow.

More plants, more oxygen in the end.

But still, the climate-change is a hoax. It's a scam of sort to sipher loads of money and throw in tons of regulation on normal people and unite countries through taxation, to instill power and take over people's resources "legally" and without protest, because hey, they save the environment.

What is important to notice is this is not connected to problems like Smog, like dumping shit in the water-supply and stuff like that. That is a problem but since that fucking politician made a movie about how climates change over time and threw in some scary scenarios that is in no way or has been confirmed will happen, all people talk about is some weird apocalypse of the earth, due to people driving cars and eating cows.

I could probably find research from South Africa but the rest are just jokes. Africa is just a huge land zoo for niggers, it's obviously not a country. Don't be a nigger, user.

Suppose I am right for a second. Would replanting forests and curbing emissions hurt anything other than kikes? Have you ever seen the Shanghai skyline? No one else has either. It's completely covered in smog. My car has little droplet marks on it from where acidic rain ate away at the paint when I was working. These are due to emissions hitching a ride on the precipitation cycle.

I don't really see much harm in assuming the worst and trying to prevent what could be a calamitous event simply because don't have a smoking gun yet.

We are supposed to be in a cooling trend but a majority of the hottest years on record have come this past decade iirc

Because look around. This is such an overused topic that our parents got bored of it at our age. Keep in mind this is global warming, not pollution in general.

It's also stagnant because EVERYONE has an unmovable opinion now. I didn't come to Holla Forums for the same shit I can find on any kosher right wing news station.

You said, every country in the world supports AGW, don't be a nigger by moving goalposts, you nigger.

No, you prove that you are right. and refute the data contained herein:

Pollution causing acid rain is nothing new, the specific claim of AGW is that manmade carbon emissions are the primary cause of global temperature increase, that the temperature actually is increasing (in the short term this is true because Earth's climate follows a sinusoidal pattern in terms of temperature in about 200 year intervals, in the long term there is a well established cooling trend, the AGW extrapolation is unjustified)
AGW also claims that the results of this will be catastrophic and you would do anything to save the world wouldn't you, goy? Don't forget to pay carbon taxes and allow the UN to regulate your industries and laws to save the planet.

Assumptions are fucking gay, and the problem with "assuming the worst" is that it is a fear mongering strategy to assert control.

"Putin is going to start WW3! We need boots on the ground in Syria to stop him, it could be a calamitous event goy, isn't it worth it to assume the worst will happen without your actions?"

If you "assume" the worst about every propaganda boogeyman that is pushed on the public and "act to prevent it" you are a slave, whether you know it or not.

That guy is a fucking faggot, he clearly states in one post that you can't reliably tell temperature difference when there is ice involved, yet fails to make the simple mental connection between the ice in his experiment and the ice that the earth has at its poles which are fucking melting

CO2 blocks more light than it traps, causing a cooling effect. Cold water can store more CO2 than warm water, so when CO2 builds up, the earth cools down, the ocean traps the CO2, warming the planet back up, releasing the CO2 trapped in the oceans, repeat. The amount that man has affected this process is so minuscule it's ridiculous.

"climate change" is about the elite seizing control of energy sources, generation, and distribution for themselves. When they control the utilities under the benevolence of "saving the plant" they can get away with even more shit.

another fucking idiot here

co2 blocks more IR than light, but the suns energy reaches the earth as LIGHT and then bounces back at the atomosphere as IR which is then trapped

fuck all of you faggots for being so dumb

Protecting the nature is a given. My beef is with climate science (specifically, that it's not science), fearmongering and the global guilttripping - kikery and strengthening globalism.
Chinese pollution is the result of Chinese industrial activity, not a global thing. Therefore, environmental damage should be treated locally; it should stop being a big business, all related science should be defunded and suppression of dissent should be treated legally as First Amendment violations.
That's what AGW really is about, not protecting nature.

False
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Chinese industrial environmental effects
>nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Reading the title and not the contents… silly goy.

It is adding ice at a rate greater than it is losing it due to a process that started 10,000 years ago.

That doesn't mean that AGW is false, all it means is that it is adding ice faster than it is losing it.

Continuing my broken post from before:

Chinese industrial environmental effects aren't a local problem, just ask Korea….

Also, the simple act of China coming 'online' and catching up to the west had a huge effect on our weather here, quit being so stupid

Right, but truth is not concerned with what kikes are doing currently, in principle anyway. The truth is isolated from all that other noise. Yes it's true that the Jews are using AGW (usually paired with insane alarmism) to push for their agendas, but that doesn't, be definition, make AGW bullshit simply because the solutions to which are being coopted by kikes. Do you see what I mean?

You can separate those two things. Thinking we have an impact on global warming doesn't mean you have to want to go give up national sovereignty at the UN. Maybe we could impact domestic emissions and protect our industries from externalities by imposing tariffs.

To add to this post that I agree with:

Kikes have understood that global warming is inevitable and real and have positioned themselves to benefit from it.

They have invested in it because they know it will happen. Sooner or later you goys will come around and the only way to salvation will be through their pathways.

So it is adding ice/water (precipitation) to its polar caps faster than it is losing it (melt/evaporation), you know what another term for water being evaporated and then precipitated is? THE FUCKING WATER CYCLE YOU DENSE CUNT

Not an argument.