CLEXIT - Scientists debunk the UN's Climate Change Fraud

Are you retarded? Fossil fuels still pollute the planet regardless. And don't be a fool to pretend fossil fuels will last forever. Better to prepare for the future now.

Obviously but they are improving rapidly. You're suggesting we don't advance in technology? Stay stagnant? Any chance you live in the south? Or are just that ignorant?

properly utilized pollution is minimal.
That's not a reason to stop using them, that's a reason to invest in future technologies.
That's nice, we can use them when they're more cost efficient than fossil fuels.

according to who? Because that's not the argument according to environmentalists. Are you arguing with yourself on Holla Forums?

muh water vapor

i always liked this video
bump

Right. You guys are fucking stupid. What the hell needs to happen for you guys to pull your heads out of your asses?

You idiot don't take into consieration that the earth was hotter than what it is right now before in history and that the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to an increase in marine vegetation all over the planet. The variation is heavily dramatized so it can be exploited politically.

By giving rockafeller and rothschild a way to profit off of carbon when their petrolium runs out?

Like, taxing breathing?

Look, dipshit, if they actually GAVE A SHIT about the environment, they would stop preventing alternative energy sources that are carbon free or neutral.

For example, I have an Idea about a nuclear powered methane production system, that could be used to fuel cars.

And we already have a national natural gas pipeline system for distribution, no more need for petrol tankers hogging the roads and highways.

But, NO, the rock/roth petro hydraulic tyranny system MUST continue, because of fucking REASONS.

You carbon taxers need to get your head out of rothschild and rockafellers asses.

...

Good way to get any normie to just ignore the story even if it was true.

They should be telling China and India about this. I'm sure they can get them to de-industrialize.

Not humanity's fault Shlomo ( ° ʖ °)

What needs to happen for YOU to get your head out of your jewish masters' asses? Sunny days 7 days a week? Endless spring where you can frolic on the cum covered fields of the interracial breeding grounds?

Winter is coming friends

…and? This is apart of a cycle that has occurred far longer than humans. A lot of these fires are started by man, one recently in CA was started cause of a beaner driving on the rim.
I assume youre refering to the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season which was the 3rd largest since record keeping began in 1851, in 1887 the last system dissipated in december. You pulled this out cause it made you feel wrong.
Because we have been exiting an ice age for the past 10000 years
good
This was a direct result of green faggots dumping a shit ton of the water into the sea to save some dopey little fish

There is climate change, there always has been, its just not man made.

don't forget the vostock ice core samples.

sorry about the pic for ants.

Kill yourself you illiterate faggot.

Whatever your opinion is Holla Forums, never forget this:
- trash in the oceans is real
- health issues in heavily polluted cities like Mexico or Bangkok is real
- plastics and heavy metals found in water tables are real

Global warming is but a leaf on the tree of the consequences of human activity. The whole debate is staked on this for some reason, but it shouldn't be, and if anything hints at a manipulation, it's this. Maybe it's not real and some people have known it forever, and it's precisely a weak argument introduced only to be easily dismissed, and used as an excuse to pollute even more as everyone forgets the other consequences.

Don't put everything at stake on what is, at best, the #3 consequence of human activity.

Ill take "medieval warming period" for 200, Alex

None of those things have anything to do with global warming. So just listing them with it is for added alarmist attempts.

Even me with a 5th grade education can understand complex graphs and how energy production technology works.

Wow you really are thick.

The whole fucking point is precisely that it is the fucking opposite: the argument is that global warming may or may not be a consequence of human activity. What I'm saying is that regardless of what causes it, human activity has many more consequences.

Of course everything I mentioned has nothing to do with global warning, but it has a lot to do with human activity, which may or may not be the cause of global warming.

I dont think anyone here is saying we should throw trash in the streets or oceans, or that humans should be living in filthy smog cities run by destructive nonwhites

I think what were saying here is that giving up our sovereignty and halting our scientific advancement for the sake of something which has always occured naturally, and is only suggested to be doing so unnaturally by people who mysteriously benefit from that narrative is destructive.

Yes, user, but global warming is kike way of silencing other forms of pollution. Pollution needs to be fought with, but when you have (((global warming))) or (((climate change))) no one focuses on the real issues.

Exactly same as how the female wage gap stuff was used to shout down dissent on ALL wages going down for everyone.

Ah found the graph i was looking for with CO2

People also don't know about scrubber stacks on coal plants that get rid of 95% of SO2 and leave only synthetic gypsum which is used for all kinds of building materials

This. Environmentalism is inherent in ethnonationalism. Be in line and in love with nature and your country, not against it.

Reread his post. He agrees that GW is an anti-science, anti-industry kike scam hiding in the dead skin of genuine environmentalism.

I know but he kept saying but maybe but maybe we are causing global warming for some reason

I think that's exactly what this user is clearly saying, but somehow no one gets it and instead reply to him with the exact same arguments.

In case some people still don't get it, global warming isn't the greatest threat on humanity, nor is it the only one, but many people really do assume it is, and come to believe it is directly tied to how relevant ecology is.

What user did is remind everyone that global warming isn't the core issue some would want us to believe, for the consequences of human activity and pollution are countless, and many are greater. So no matter your stance on global warming, the debate doesn't end there.

The point is global warming isn't a threat at all in any form man or natural.

Even in this thread we cant get past man made global warming or global warming being a fake boogeyman because you shills keep mentioning it.

We already agreed other pollution caused by subhumans is a problem but can only be dealt with once global warming and man made global warming are tossed off for being irrelevant.

And the solution to all those problems is to cull the non-white population.

checked
You know user I really don't know what can't be solved by culling non-whites. It is almost a cure all at this point.

Бумп

top fucking keke m8

right?

all the dumb shit people could say about the climate fucking and they choose CO2.

Ah, you're right, I didn't even notice. It's similar to newfags trying to defend NSDAP by saying the holocaust wasn't that bad, or doesn't justify hating the whole government's policy, etc.

Newfags: there was no holocaust but there should've been and there is no detectable man-made climate change as far as we know. They're both paranoid kike conspiracy theories

In any case, if "human" activity actually did usher in a new geological age, it wouldn't be an anthropocene but a capitalocene. To think it's us who are steering capitalism, and not capitalism steering us, is extreme hubris

I would bet real money that everyone in this thread that defends (((climate change))) is a yuropoor or ausfag. The socialist conditioning they've gone through is 10x more than any American.

Yeah, I think a main point is that we are pretty much saying everything you know to be truth is false.
So they just say "well you just think everything is false durhur skeptics".
Because their brains can't handle the their entire existence a literal figment of some kikes psychotic delusions.

Because their brains can't handle that their entire existence is a literal figment of some kikes psychotic delusions.

fixed that being all dyslexic and retard shit is rubbing off on me

it doesn't exactly have to be a kike tho, there are a lot of other crazy people out there too for you to get caught up with.

Bump.

I haven't read it yet but I'll look into it later.

I will say that there has always been some "global panic" that entities keep shilling.

The last one was the whole Ozone Layer crisis, which was supposed to have ended us by now but it didn't and people needed a new global crisis with some eco twist on it so they shilled Global Warming (which, keep in mind, I still believe in to an extent) but just like with the Ozone Layer manufactured crisis they ramped up the alarmist agenda and made the issue look way bigger than it actually was. Oh but it didn't work, people keep forgetting that the whole Global Warming alarmism was also supposed to take a massive toll by now in this Current Year, or actually a past year but then Global Warming stopped being Global Warming and became Climate Change. What will the next eco crisis turn into next, I wonder?

It wuz real in my mind!

And the only way to fix all of this, is to give more money to the world banks, right?

Ocean Acidification. Muh Coral Reefs.

Whites have proven to be the only ones who are capable to be the curators of this planet.
Once we free ourselves from the kike parasite and heal our folk we`ll be able to cleanse the world
from all the sub human filth.

All of my fucking what?

archive.is/88xfO

why are the other planets warming to. am i missing out on mars pussy fueled by martian dinosaurs

That's a big statement, burger. I'm pretty sure global warming is getting promoted in your country as well, if not more so, considering this garbage started there in the first place.

Frankly I do not trust the data they measure or the way they interpret it.
Every day on the earth there is a 100º temperature swing from the poles to the equator.
How do you determine the average temp of the earth?
Then after all this they "forecast" like a .2ºC temp rise.
The measurement error is greater than the forecast.
The whole fucking thing is a shekel grab on a global basis.

What's the UN or American Government going to do to fix it then?

There are multiple reasons for the correlation between co2 and temperature. you didn't know this but the solubility of co2 decreases when temperatures rise. Meaning the oceans release co2 as temp rises. Seems like a mechanism that could destroy the earth if co2 also made temperatures higher right? Seems like a self destructive mechanism: once the temp rises co2 is released temp rises causing more co2 to be released etc. temps and co2 have gone up in the course of history but never has there been a meltdown so it seems likely that temp effects co2 more than co2 affects temp.

Also if countries actually cares about climate change. They would be more focused on banning coal diesel and gas. Instead they attempt to ban nuclear the safest and cleanest form of energy and the only energy form that can compete with fossil fuels. (((Cohencidence)))?

Just look at this lying sack of shit. Hell is waiting for -that- one
archive.is/xrOhT

I lean on the climate change is probably caused by humans side but you're making shit up.

Never had a statistics class in your life?

1st world increase in wild fires (think alberta) is occurring because humans got so good at putting out wildwires and the green organizations prevent us from doing controlled burns. Eventually the fuel builds up overtime to a point where we can't contain the little fires and you get an Alberta tier run away blaze.

Also in terms of temperature 2016 has been cooler than 2015 with 2012 being the high point. Every year the climate groups just "revise" the previous numbers. I know my region essentially had only two weeks of summer

Actually no I haven't had a statistics class but I have had differential and integral calculus differential equations and linear algebra.
I think what you don't understand is how you take the data they have and make it meaningful. Do you take 3 readings at the north pole add them to 6 readings at the equator and divide by 9? It is obvious you did not watch the video I embedded that would explain a bunch more. And the data error is huge measuring temperature is something I have done many times, but doing it outside is fraught with even more problems if you are calibrated accurately your error will always be hotter due to the sun. There are simple things for example old US weather stations used to be whitewashed with lime and they would not collect heat in direct sunlight but at some point they started to paint them white with latex paint and that effectively reduced their ability to reflect heat and warmed the inside of the station up. Or you look at old stations that were properly sited and then all of a sudden you get a huge asphalt parking lot next to them, or a large concrete building.
Like i said their data measurement error far exceeds what their global warming projection is, so that means it is crap from the beginning.

surfacestations.org

Look at the bottom 2 pictures to see what I mean.
You can also look at the chart for station accuracy and note that 65% of the stations have an inaccuracy of greater than or equal to 2ºC and with data that is gathered like this i am supposed to believe a chart like pic related?
Now granted I could take one area anywhere and with todays instruments accurately measure temp 24/7 365 days a year and get meaningful data for one and only one place on the earth but to extrapolate that over the entire surface of the earth and give an average global temperature is complete fucking nonsense.

That's strange. I hope it is not a college that taught you DE LA but not statistics. PDE is quite handy for statistics so maybe thy will still teach you.

As for averaging. For a single location you can measure temp day and night say 10000 times (so for 10000 different times of the day) and average those. Then do that for every day of the year and average those values. Then you have the average temp for that location in that year. Do that for all locations on earth and average those together and you have the average global temp for that year. The climatologists might have fucked up with the errorbars lots of people are bad with statistics. That's why a lot of bs comes out of psychology and shit like that. These are generally people who shouldn't do science and can't do any statistics.

I studied engineering at a university statistics was so far down the math totem pole it was a given that we could look at it and pick it up. There was a cute girl lived next door to me my senior year she was taking statistics and having trouble I tutored her and she got a B.
Statistics is not my problem accurate data collection and modeling is what I call BS on. Their data is off by a factor of 10 from their projections on over half the weather stations in the US.
all locations on earth
Can you please give me some idea as to how many locations that would be?
And until you are measuring all locations on earth I will continue to refuse to believe you can establish an average earth temperature change of .2ºC with a world wide temperature swing of close to 100ºC
Watch the video I posted.

Not that user, but the way they do it is quite obviously just taking as large a sample size as they can and averaging it. Sure, climate is a complex system and thus growing averages in one location can correlate with falling ones in another. When you do it for thousands of data sets, though, you reduce the chance of such factors.

I still don't know what to make of the climate change crap myself, as I haven't seen anything convincing on here to disprove anthropogenic temperature change - mostly just "if the kikes say it's true it must be false", with the few exceptions mostly being rather tangential and hypothetical. And it's simple physics that CO2 increases the energy retention of the earth's atmosphere (though what it does in long term is a far more complex question due to increased proportion of the energy being directly reflected by clouds etc). On the other hand, the doomsday prophecies are an obvious cashgrab, even if the underlying phenomenon exists.

Whatever the case may be, it's hard to be totally unwary of a massive increase in CO2 levels just since the start of the industrial revolution exactly because the climate is so complex. Who knows what might get fucked up.

CLIMATE CHANGE ASIDE FOR A MOMENT
Fossil fuels are still shit. See pic related. They won't sustain our race and civilization forever. Go nuclear and go to the stars.

I agree with you that there are problems in data collection and that there is no way they have a global accuracy of 0.2C.

You can't measure all locations just like you can't measure for all Timepoints since their are infinite locations and Timepoints. What you can do is come up with a smart way to interpolate between stations this is probably where the biggest errorbars enters the equation since we have vast areas of land and ocean void of weather stations.

So we can't measure precisely what the global average temperature is atleast not down to 0.2C. We can however see local climate change. The main question is wether or not this is man made. Its probably not man made since the theory doesn't fit te data very well.

Local climate change is an awful predictor for global trends. Knowing what we know about the oceanic heat conveyors, a global increase would likely lead to decreased average yearly temperatures in many places. At least in the short (few years to few thousand years) term. The place where I live gets warm summers and mild winters, despite being on an equal latitude with much of the Siberian Taiga and middle Canada, because of exposure to the heat transfer of the Atlantic.

Honestly the debate about climate change is retarded from any standpoint, because isn't pollution, especially water pollution the thing we should most be worried about? The one thing leftists EVER got right was campaigning against unnecessary pollution of public resources, but now that """climate change""" has turned into a massive funding cash-cow for every NGO and scientist on the planet, the real problems have once again been sidelined.

Next thing to consider

In chemistry 100ppm is considered a "trace amount" that is about how much the CO2 has increased
90% of the earths ability to retain heat is due to water vapor or clouds otherwise we would be an ice bound orb circling the sun.
Now of the remaining amount of the atmospheres ability to trap heat I am not sure what % CO2 factors in but it is far less than the 10% left over.
Now lets really sort the flyshit from the pepper and see how much CO2 people put in the atmosphere vs nature and equate that to "global warming"
See where I am going with this?
We are looking at fractions of fractions that people are supposedly responsible, and mark my words it has nothing to do with climate change at all.
It has everything to do with a global carbon tax because all the best ways to make energy for human use also involves producing CO2

I concur user

Care to explain how it isn't? It's a greenhouse gas anywhere.

Just like a greenhouse prevents heat escaping through convection, CO2 prevents heat escaping through radiation.

Fucking this. Keep a journal, write down the temperature every day, check the highest, lowest, average and median temperatures yourself. We're being fucking lied to. Every year for the last 5 years it's supposedly been "THE HOTTEST YEAR EVAR!", but it fucking hasn't been.

Yes, but it's the delta not the total we're looking for here. Water vapour fraction is slave to the average temperature. There is no point in looking at constants.
I don't think myself (and probably you, either) qualified to make a statement on this one. Unless, of course, you can provide some math behind that. It's just another way of writing 0.001%.
I did the math the previous time Holla Forums had this thread, it works out to nature being a completely negligible factor in CO2 emissions. Something like volcanoes accounting for barely half a percent, dont have the data one me. No study does this afaik, but you can estimate it by looking at the eruption size in km^3, the co2 content in a typical eruption plume (I took Pinatubo, not a volcanologist so don't know how typical it is), and then making a rough guess. The difference is large enough even with fermi estimation (rounding everything upward).
Yes, I have seen this line of argumentation a thousand times and don't find it honest.

Reported.

Fewer than ever.
Always happened; currently longest drought without the US being hit by one EVER
Happening for 14,000 years.
Nope, they’re growing.
Good. Kill them all. Also it’s not as hot as in the 1920s.
But is wetter than 400 years ago.
We’re going to kill all of you. Literally.

Climate change is bullshit. On one had you have people wanting to control way too much stuff. On the other, you have a side that's basically pro-pollution. The whole thing is fascinating, it's taken a core concept of "stop polluting and shitting up the Earth" and turned it into people who don't care about the Earth and people who want to exploit the idea of pollution to make bullshit deals (like Obama giving tons of federal money to pals in alternative energy). What the fuck ever happened to things like not wanting to destroy the ozone layer, preventing acid rain, maintaining healthy drinking water, and not having smog?

No one even talks about that shit any more. It's either climate change or it doesn't exist. It's one of the most fucked up things I've ever seen regarding environmental issues.

Not how science works, dumbass. You can't just take their hyposthesis as given and then expect us to falsify it. That's like holohoaxers demanding we prove it didn't happen, when they haven't shown decent evidence that it had.

That being said, we attack their methodology, which is good enough. Their methodology is shit and cannot actually establish their hypothesis as correct or not.

Yeah the difference in temperature correlates with differences in atmospheric carbon

im from the US

Give the same subsidies to renewable energy startups that oil companies enjoy. Fund carbon sequestering. Carbon tax is bullshit; we should push to get to a point where nuclear, wind, and solar energy + batteries or biodiesel are cheaper than burning fossil fuels.

wow nice fetal alcohol logic, I'm sure it's not anymore complicated than that since you said there hasn't been a meltdown.

you know retarded pussy faggots are getting thrown in the gas chamber also, right?

You are a fucking idiot. Kill yourself

sorry faggot but I don't just believe whatever's popular on Holla Forums

the facts say that niggers are the dumbest species, that means I believe niggers are inherently inferior. The facts also say that greenhouse gases contribute to increased temperatures. That doesn't mean there isn't kikery involved, but the majority of Holla Forums didn't study the environment and then they see this shit and say "Yeah fuck global warming it's all a scam!"

regardless of weather the ice caps are going to melt, You WANT to live in a planet with less bullshit floating around in the air particles you have to believe. It's hypocritical to come to this board and cry about contaminated drinking water but being perfectly fine with polluting the air and ocean.

you have to breath*

Nothing you just said made any sense. So I will assume you didn't even read the thread, or like I said a fucking idiot. Go ahead keep being mad tho.

...

Well thanks for confirming you are a idiot

They don't have any proof it is true. So nothing to disprove.

Let me give you my expert analysis.

Climate change is real. Its not caused by normal human activity. The government however claims it will have total control of the weather by 2025. So who knows what they will do.

All life on the planet is carbon based. If you tax carbon dioxide you tax all life on the planet as it produces carbon dioxide. This gives the UN or the banks total control over all life on the planet under Carbon Trading markets.

There are real environmental issues, but none of them will be solved by the climate treaty. The treaty is about maintaining Western Hegemony over the third world, while bringing India, China and Russia to the table. Since the banks are owned by the (((West))), we will still be the top dog in the Global economy when we shift from Oil based economies and Oil backed currencies.

The west has been suppressing fusion and solar technology for a long time to maintain control over oil and therefor food production. This keeps the population under control. Pic related.

...

Good stuff,user

I dream of the day fusion and legitimate solar technology is actually mainstream. Solving our energy problems is going to be such a huge hurdle but the fruits will be well worth it.

user give me the normal ph of rain and remember orange juice has a ph of around 3,
and the PH scale is not a linear function

chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html

I only ask this so all anons realize rain is not the same as distilled water and all rain on earth since the beginning of time is acidic.
I am not in favor of wasting energy or polluting the earth, I also am not in favor of our country reverting to 3rd world status due to highly sketchy unprovable and just plain alarmist policies that equates our current energy usage with the destruction of the planet we live on,
Now everyone can push for alternative "green energy, to replace everything we have now and I can show you it is not as green as they espouse.
So lets proceed to back up some of my earlier assertions with good old hard plain science.
This will require reading I did not come to this conclusion in just a couple days I have looked at it for a long time.

  >Politics messes up everything it gets involved in and we see what it has done to the global warming discussion, the image of science, and in the taking of science out of the scientific process. 

Paper is here
arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

Website that directs the link and contains his quotes along with many other short summaries is here

intellectual-thoughts.com/The Real Climate Change Debate.htm

A short summary of the full paper on Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics is here

schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf

The tldr full 95 page paper is linked in the prior paper but is also here. (an underlying understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer would be helpful for reading and understanding but even if you skip the math the narrative is beneficial)

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide paper is here

petitionproject.com/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

I have read all these papers in an attempt to familiarize myself with the real science behind climate change.
Now I am forced to the realization the narrative is not science driven and is not being purported to save the polar bears as well

Funny how this fat fuck can't even control his own eating habits.

Don't forget he is wanted for war crimes and extradition to the hague to stand trial in numerous countries.
He kinda can only waddle between the US and israel now.

Your argument books down to "pollution is bad, therefore global warming hypothesis is true." It is a non sequitur. You want the hypothesis to be true because you believe it can be useful to reducing pollution, but that doesn't mean it is true.

user your third picture is a classic presentation of why I totally do not believe the assertions of the climate scientists.
You have 73 graphs of climate model predictions the steepest line is about y=x, y being 0.05ºC and x being time (years).
The shallowest line is y= some fraction of x while the observed is half the slope of the shallowest line.
Not one of the predictions from the climate models even comes close to what the report as observed temperature.
But they all have one thing in common they all go up at a constant rate with the one closest to reality ascending at almost a factor of 2.
This only reinforces my belief that their models are more a function of how much money will be required in order to continue with their highly suspect and obviously flawed research programs.

Earlier I posted about how the data was suspect to begin with, and if you have bad data how can you make reliable predictions?
The picture shows the inherent error in 70% of USGS weather stations. The difference between a sunny day and a cloudy day can make the data swing wildly when you are predicting down to 0.05ºC

Here is a paper (with lots of pictures) that show the problems with our current USGS data collection.
You have to remember this is what they are using to promote the climate change theory.
And also don't forget our good friend BOIRNEEE constantly harped on the fact that climate change is more terrifying than anything mankind has ever faced while a couple BLM hos stole his mic and gave him a time out.

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Bump
To see if I get a reply to my last few posts

I blame the americans.

Kill yourself.

Huh, yeah if you use the most generic definition of Capital then that actually makes sense. Even animals are using their own form of Capital to get ahead. Squirrels take advantage of human's love for birds to steal birdseed, crows use traffic lights to break open nuts to eat by dropping the nuts into traffic, and I recall a number of scavenging species are moving into cities and suburbs as a survival mechanism.

But this has always been the case for living organisms. I don't know what makes this era of survival any different from previous eras…. I would thing the biggest defining moment for an era like this the Space Age. This to me is the moment that a species proves itself superior to geological conditions. Because if humans become a space faring race then geological shifts and temperature fluctuations no longer play the huge role of selection that they did in the past. Until humans achieve sustainable space travel I refuse to believe we are in a new age.

Going to throw on my tinfoil hat in an attempt to shamelessly derail slightly.

You made me think about the movies "Cube" where they are locked in a giant machine made of cubes all with different types of traps and if I remember correctly some rooms were "safe rooms" tho we could just call them "containment boards" since they would stop you from progressing.

Now assume we are all trapped in a cube our "reality" we can see the stones and cliffs to not stumble over or fall off. Now take a capitalistic creature smart enough to know that WE know about those variables and constant things and concepts like preparing for say winter or something like that.

We may end up in a cube or "age" where we think those things to stumble over are gone, effectively being contained. That is exactly what these creatures rely on. I might as well be describing the movie "they live". They could be jew,aliens or just cannibalistic humans who quite literally use our very own nature against us.

GLOBAL WARMING BTFO (now climate change (NO SHIT THE CLIMATE CHANGES))

MORONS DONT REALIZE C02 FEEDS FUCKING PLANT LIFE
PLANT LIFE CREATES OXYGEN
THEREFORE THE MORE C02, THE MORE OXYGEN

dailycaller.com/2016/08/30/study-global-greening-will-stave-off-the-bad-parts-of-global-warming/
archive.is/oMLyg

dailycaller.com/2016/08/30/earth-is-gaining-land-despite-warming-fueled-sea-level-rise-study-finds/
archive.is/Rm1h7

you must be trolling

venus has many more kinds of gasses than just c02 you fucking chode

Actually, plants eat CO2, and shit out O2. Technically it doesn't create more oxygen, but it does feed plants, which is good.

kill yourself

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/venusenv.html

Retard

so what do we do?

at the end of the day this whole climate change bullshit is just a scheme to tax you more without actually solving anything.

its a money making scheme and youre all a bunch of cucks for sucking it up.

venus has extreme acid rain. compared to earth we have almost 90% less c02 than venus anyways so youre still faggot. youre right in that specific situation but overall youre still wrong.

first these kikes say its global warming muh icecaps.
then they got btfo when global cooling was the proven theory.

so then they scrambled to make it seem like ANY kind of cooling or warming is some horrible thing that must be stopped, of course by your tax payer money, through carbon taxes, cucking the shit out of all businesses, then these fuckers propose to spray the sky endlessly with toxic shit.

yeah climate changes you fucking smart ass, it doesent matter how intelligent on scientific your faggot ass tries to sound, and this whole thread can develop into a complex pile of bullshit, at the end of the day its still just a kike scheme to take everybodys money and regulate the fuck out of everything.

its really simple when you just look at how they are trying to kike you, with global warming being the excuse. everything else is just a cloud of inflated illusions.

at the end of it all youre just getting over regulated and taxed to hell, so you can fuck off with your parasitic bureaucracy

I linked a whole bunch of good papers on the subject here and another one here

Read some of it familiarize yourself so that you can give actual sound logical arguments against the the whole carbon tax scheme.

If you read the stuff and you don't understand I can help answer questions.

Here is an excellent blog on the subject he has been going after the data manipulation aspect of the AGW crowd I check what he puts out about once a week for years now.

realclimatescience.com

One other thing there is no such thing as a "proven theory" once a theory is proven then it becomes a law.
That is why the most famous genius juice physics guy only has einsteins theory.
Not like Newton
Or Ohm
Or Boyle
Or Kirchhoff
Or even my favorite Tesla which has a unit named after him.
But they had to give the famous juice something so they named a really rare element after him

...

In the mathematical field of dynamical systems, an attractor is a set of numerical values toward which a system tends to evolve, for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system.
That makes 2 of us.

Of course the best replies will be buried in all the shill posts. This is basically an /thread post but what can ya do?

The only people shilling were faggots going MUH POLLUTION every 2 seconds like it isn't a symptom of kike greed and subhumans.

You can spot the retards by their view on fossil fuels because it will show how little they even understand it. Lets shut down coal/oil because those totally aren't 100% white jobs between the US and Canada that produce virtually no pollution, so we can sell our fossil fuels to gooks to make us some solar panels with their zero pollution control plants.

You ever think of calling it petroleum or crude oil?
Watch any bernie campaign speech is all he rails about.

rense.com/general67/oils.htm

Big sky montana today
Lots of warming to look at

wow, this is big!

It's wrong to blame corporations for climate change. Global warming is a completely natural and inevitable occurrence like miscegenation.

Not all that massive especially considering it was preceded by a 100 million year trend of CO2 depletion.

There's an important point about averaging climate data that people tend to overlook, namely that increasing the amount of recording stations and defining the average temperature to be the average of a large amount of stations (essentially taking the limit as the number of stations grows arbitrarily large while the distance between them grows small) may not give the right answer anyway.

To explain, think about atmospheric pressure. It's defined by "force divided by area" or "F/A", and the force is caused by the aggregate collisions of nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. Now if we want to measure the pressure at a given point, we camake the measuring device smaller and smaller and measure the pressure in smaller ares, but we run into a problem. Once we get to sizes smaller than the distance between molecules, the pressure drops to zero almost everywhere, except for the finite amount of cases where it's extremely large due to the pressence of a molecule.

So if we tried to average the pressure data by making extremely precise measurements everywhere, what we would get is the meaningless result that the average pressure is ZERO EVERYWHERE. And temperature averaging faces the same problem since temperature is just the average speed of particles.

What this means is that the concept of an "average global temperature" is not mathematically well defined, because increasing precision in your measurements leads to meaningless results. You can think of "average global temperature" as a four sided triangle, it doesn't make any sense at all because it's inherently self contradicting.