Honest, open debate about climate change

I just wanted to have this conversation to come to the truth. I am not a shill, this thread is not about dividing the community or shitposting. I honestly just want to have a civil debate.
I believe in global warming. Here is my reasoning:

The suns radiation goes through our atmosphere. As it comes in, it has the energy to penetrate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, once those rays hit the ground, their frequency and energy decrease. This means fewer will be able to escape into space with more and more CO2 blocking them in.

Why is this logic wrong?

Attached: feb002132fffa1e13e351dfc5f8d8d9d0fb7055a9bfa899e780169b2d89ccf2b.jpg (338x338, 32.65K)

Other urls found in this thread:

populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
archive.is/xJqb4
oil-price.net/
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
edsanders.com/global/c02up2.htm
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
nytimes.com/2000/04/25/science/persistent-and-severe-drought-strikes-again.html
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html
theregister.co.uk/2015/06/26/gates_renewable_energy_cant_do_the_job_gov_should_switch_green_subsidies_into_rd/
archive.is/i29K7
rt.com/news/256861-climate-change-un-hoax/
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/
archive.is/C7ydZ
archive.is/UCNZf
archive.is/1dxem
hotair.com/archives/2017/07/25/author-fools-peer-reviewed-journals-paper-midi-chlorians/
washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/rampant-government-corruption.html
narrative.ly/stories/nick-brown-smelled-bull/
rense.com/general67/oils.htm
web.archive.org/web/20150910050658/http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Estimating.pdf
arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6148.pdf
jcronline.org.pinnacle.allenpress.com/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/abs/nature04448.html
aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.8ZXuSkxc.dpbs
realclimatescience.com/2016/07/climate-talking-points-for-trump/
archive.is/ij67d
windy.com/
realclimatescience.com/2017/09/the-global-temperature-record-is-a-complete-fake/
archive.is/RlcQS
archive.is/OmmTx
scottishsceptic.co.uk/2017/04/02/the-biggest-global-experiment-disproving-co2-as-the-main-cause-of-late-20th-century-warming/
wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-how-government-twists-climate-statistics/80027CBC-2C36-4930-AB0B-9C3344B6E199.html?mod=trending_now_video_3
scienceofdoom.com/
notrickszone.com/2017/06/17/what-a-mess-spiegel-reveals-scientists-dont-know-real-temperature-of-the-planet/#sthash.DKBTp893.dpbs
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4648214/NASA-says-solar-minimum-way.html
thezog.wordpress.com/who-is-behind-the-climate-change-hoax/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Guggenheim
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Skoll
americanprogress.org/experts/RommJoseph.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm
stephenschneider.stanford.edu
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt
eoearth.org/article/Santer,_Benjamin_D.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading
state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/122554.htm
whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Todd_D._Stern
chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=122
time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663322_1669930,00.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Stern,_Baron_Stern_of_Brentford
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
unhistory.org/CD/Sachs.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacy_Sachs
archive.fo/XtLNS
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/7676300/Worlds-biggest-beaver-dam-can-be-seen-from-space.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

i believe you

Because Earth climate is influenced by bodies as far as Jupiter. We do not have enough data available nor the whole comprehension of the interactions for a good answer.

Si el gringoyim should focus on green instead of wall

jews love this, jews hate that, jews support this, jews don't support that, jews jews jews confuse everything, once they are all gone we can have an honest discussion on the issues which remain, doubtful there will be nearly as many, Let's talk about getting rid of the jews and keep the conversation simple, everyone can understand that.

where's that clip of a european female politician/scientist explaining co2 to some kiddie protestors

Attached: climate.jpg (1891x4901 241.04 KB, 943.42K)

My problem with climate change is that most of it is peddled by so-called "Climate Scientists" who drive gas-gussling cars to work every morning, fly in wasteful jet airplanes, and then have the fucking gaul to stand in a News Studio on TV, point and the audience and say; "This is your fault for not doing enough please give me money!"

Even if climate change wasn't a fucking scam, how is anyone supposed to take that shit seriously?

Attached: 1430272339947.gif (280x158, 1.43M)

Climate science is very young and the models they create do not agree with reality. They cannot even predict the past, let alone the present or the future.. However, as a scientific point, it is possible the global warming is real and human are exacerbating it, but there is simply not enough good evidence at the moment. That being said, it's true that most global warming enthusiasts cannot talk about “muh climate change” without shilling for (((neo-liberal))) schemes that involve stripping nations of their sovereignty, dictating the minutiae of everyone's lives down to light bulbs and straws, and advocating the mass genocide of Western peoples. Have some caps, maybe it'll help.

Also, for your point on CO2, the Earth is not a closed system so CO2 does escape, but more importantly CO2 is plant food which is constantly being converted into oxygen. Even without plant life, if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, all planets would be like Venus, and Earth would have never been able to support life.

Attached: b3fff48235cd1a6db8cb33a249a5b6835f6444.png (1780x864 340.42 KB, 219.8K)

There are too many unknowns to model what is going to happen and it's hard to pin point what is causing it. The earth is very big and this process happens relatively slow. Using the results to push an agenda just exerts control over normals. This isn't to say not to worry about pollution as it's important to keep your motherland in a good and healthy state.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (579x378, 122.11K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (738x596, 442.88K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (829x493, 143.81K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (720x242, 45.05K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (748x432, 43.6K)

I have no problem with the theory of climate change - it's climate alarmism and the entire industry built around that that I have a problem with. I think the conclusions drawn from this are ridiculous - the Earth has gone through several different periods of cooling and heating. Sure certain things about the world will irrevocably change but that's nature for you.

The climate of the earth is changing, albeit very slowly, just like it has for thousands of years. The earth heats up, and cools down, that's just how it works but the kikes are trying to use this as a way to take away even more freedom. The ice caps have always melted because that's what happens to ice under direct sunlight when the weather becomes warm, but the earth is not going to flood because of this, the jews use peoples fear of death to take advantage of them and have them vote their own freedoms away so they can point the finger at the people and say "you did this we never did anything", while going on to destroy the earth even more. Climates can change very slowly over time with the changes being small, which naturally happens, but the kikes point to this and say it's unnatural, and that we must destroy ourselves for the kikes to continue to destroy the environment and fool all those who don't question their evil and subversive ways.

lampshade yourself

The first graphic shows why your hypothesis failed to predict: the 13 micrometer band is already blocked. Adding more CO2 has no effect.
The second graphic shows the basis for the lies of the warming; by "adjusting past data in the US, they've adjusted the satellite data so the whole world appears to be warmer.
Third graphic shows your idiot hypothesis didn't even predict.
Forth graphic explains to retards why the 3rd graphic is important.
The fifth graphic reveals that your "scientists" are a goddamned bunch of fucking frauds and not scientists.

Attached: Climategate.jpg (846x640 64.77 KB, 115.92K)

Op is a faggot, slide poster and left wing shill.

Attached: reuters op is a fag.jpg (665x640, 68.16K)

The world is not warming. It is cooling.
The oceans are not rising. In the last 13,000 years they have never risen more slowly.
The deserts are not growing. They are shrinking.
Monsoons are not getting worse. They are becoming milder.
Droughts are not getting worse. They are becoming milder.
Summers are not getting hotter. They are becoming milder.
Winters are getting slightly colder (and snow cover in fall, winter, and spring is growing), and solar scientists are saying we’re going to hit a new maunder minimum soon. This will create a crisis for agriculture because it won’t be warm enough to get as many harvests.
EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. CLAIM. THAT AGW PAID JEWISH SHILLS HAVE MADE ARE ALREADY PROVEN FALSE.
Jews IN THE UNITED FUCKING NATIONS ITSELF have OPENLY ADMITTED that AGW doesn’t exist, and that ITS SOLE PURPOSE IS TO STEAL WEALTH AND INDUSTRY FROM WHITE NATIONS AND ALLOW THE THIRD WORLD TO DESTROY US.

populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
archive.is/xJqb4
oil-price.net/
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
edsanders.com/global/c02up2.htm
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
nytimes.com/2000/04/25/science/persistent-and-severe-drought-strikes-again.html
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html
theregister.co.uk/2015/06/26/gates_renewable_energy_cant_do_the_job_gov_should_switch_green_subsidies_into_rd/
archive.is/i29K7
rt.com/news/256861-climate-change-un-hoax/
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/
archive.is/C7ydZ
archive.is/UCNZf
archive.is/1dxem
hotair.com/archives/2017/07/25/author-fools-peer-reviewed-journals-paper-midi-chlorians/
washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/rampant-government-corruption.html
narrative.ly/stories/nick-brown-smelled-bull/
rense.com/general67/oils.htm
web.archive.org/web/20150910050658/http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Estimating.pdf
arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6148.pdf
jcronline.org.pinnacle.allenpress.com/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/abs/nature04448.html
aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.8ZXuSkxc.dpbs
realclimatescience.com/2016/07/climate-talking-points-for-trump/
archive.is/ij67d
windy.com/
realclimatescience.com/2017/09/the-global-temperature-record-is-a-complete-fake/
archive.is/RlcQS
archive.is/OmmTx
scottishsceptic.co.uk/2017/04/02/the-biggest-global-experiment-disproving-co2-as-the-main-cause-of-late-20th-century-warming/
wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-how-government-twists-climate-statistics/80027CBC-2C36-4930-AB0B-9C3344B6E199.html?mod=trending_now_video_3
scienceofdoom.com/
notrickszone.com/2017/06/17/what-a-mess-spiegel-reveals-scientists-dont-know-real-temperature-of-the-planet/#sthash.DKBTp893.dpbs
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4648214/NASA-says-solar-minimum-way.html

Attached: Ice Age.png (550x304 124.14 KB, 23.66K)

I even forgot hurricanes and tornadoes (also floods and forest fires), which are at absolute record lows. As the solar output decreases and we hit this new maunder minimum, expect volcanic activity to increase, which will spew shit into the atmosphere, blocking even more sunlight and cooling things further.

Attached: Sun v. Volcano.gif (800x575, 108.7K)

Ithey hunt me? That’s disgusting

Plants loooooooooooooooooove C02. It makes them grow bigly.

You think you green. You ain't green.

Attached: CO2Burner-Greenhouse[1].jpg (300x250, 148.96K)

That's ground data that they adjusted, right? I think the satellite data is ok. I could be wrong, I just remember some AGW skeptics differentiating them.

Why does it matter. I assert that the CO2 levels during the Eociene are Earth optimal and we should be doing all we can to increase it. It's great for plants after all. Are you ready for pole to pole forests?


The dutch have been holding back the sea sense at least roman times. This aint rocket surgery. Everywhere that's worth holding the sea back for can have the sea held back. Everywhere else gets to just suck it.

For every 1° increase at the equator there is a 10° increase at the poles, convection simply works better at higher temperatures. And we got fucking air conditioning. Hell people live in Arizona. Maybe outdoor work will need to be done at night, woopty fucking doo.

You know what really rapes the animals, roads and fences, loss of habitat because we live and farm where they used to live. Global warming aint shit compared with direct habitat loss. You wanna kvetch about the animals go turn some private land into reserve.

I hope they all die.

the Earth warms and cools according to solar cycles, carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it
I could go on but global warming is such complete bullshit in every way

Attached: temperature record.jpg (2725x1964, 1.95M)

Who cares?
At this rate, humanity will be extinct before it matters.

Attached: muh climate change.jpg (1178x1142, 267.06K)

theres no such thing as "The Ozone Layer" but there is an area where cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere and a reaction between the energy of the rays and the atoms and molecules interact producing free radicals that constitute ozone(o3)

Ok. here it comes. Hold onto your seats and engage your minds.

They got it ALL wrong.

CO2 is a coupling agent. It both vibrates in sync with IR radiation, and also absorbs and imparts kinetic energy into that same vibration.

the coupling is asymmetric, and depends on the relative timing of the emission of IR vs physical collisions.

Dumb scientists thought they'd measure the relaxation of vibration to release IR by whacking a bunch of gas at rest to saturation (with lasers), to get a relaxation time.

They then said the microseconds that takes to the nanoseconds between kinetic collisions and decided that warming the atmosphere dominates.

However. That's not really correct. CO2 in the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium, releasing IR at a rate determined soley by the temperature of the gas. It isn't radiating all around, either, but is coherent with the upwelling IR from earth.

If you point a IR thermometer at the sky, look what it says. Then point it at a cloud. Now tell me, is the invisible CO2 doing much, compared to that cloud?

So, in reality, IR isn't released in bursts, exciting CO2 which then warms the sky. Instead, it is a constant resonance, beaming out into space. CO2 that gets in the way goes into resonance with that upwelling IR, limiting its own IR release to be part of that larger resonance, in a steady state equilibrium with the gas around it.

Relaxations at that point take pico seconds, so dominate the asymmetry.

And that's not all. When the sun goes down, and the upwelling IR from earth drops, that extra CO2 is cooling the atmosphere.

So, the net forcing of CO2 is

climate changes
./ thread

Man is just along for the ride and insignificant as after th sun red giants there will still be changes long after your underground or have killed all the sub humans pulling on your coat tails for gibsmedat then be able to seed space without dead weight and kike fuckery using that inertia to suppress you from exterminating them.

They're setting the stage to make money. Carbon tax, carbon credits, pay to drive, etc, etc. It's to push more taxation and make more jews even richer. People in the U.N. have planned this for decades. Just because they are U.N. leaders, doesn't mean they aren't part of an elite syndicate of criminals.

I'd like you all to consider the entire planet as a chemical reaction

The "reactants" are Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Water, and Nitrogen.
The "products" are all the life you see around you on Earth.

Just like a real chemical reaction, the Reactants will combine to form the Products. However, there is also a reverse reaction that takes place, whereby the Products convert back into Reactants. Depending on the relative speed of the "forward reaction" and the "reverse reaction", you will have more or less product at equilibrium.

Did you follow me? Re-read it again if you're confused.

Moving on. This means that the net biomass of life on Earth is set largely by the amount of reactants present in the environment, as well as the relative speed of the forward and reverse reactions.

In most complicated chemical reactions, you have 1 ingredient which is in lower supply than the others that "chokes" the reaction. So for example, let's say you're creating Calcium Phosphate, but you're short on the Phosphate. At equilibrium, you're going to have a bunch of extra Calcium hanging around in solution, but not so much Phosphate (because this is the limiting reactant). There will be a tiny trace amount of Phosphate, because of the reverse reaction, but it will be barely measurable, and certainly in far more limited supply than all that unused Calcium.

Therefore, if we want to see which of the ingredients is choking off the reaction, just look for the one that is in scarce supply.

So which is it? Well 70% of the Earth is water, I doubt that's it. And 70% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, very doubtful this is correct. Now let's decide between the remaining two, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide. 20% of th atmosphere is Oxygen, and 0.04% is Carbon Dioxide. Which do you think is the better candidate here?

Once you understand that Carbon is the limiting reactant, ask yourself what would happen if someone came along and dumped a bunch of extra Carbon into the system? Well going back to the example of the calcium phosphate reaction, what would happen if you dumped a bunch more Phosphate in? To answer: more Calcium Phosphate would form, but the amount of Phosphate hanging around in solution would only increase slightly. Because the speed of the reverse reaction has not increased all that much.

Follow all this? I hope so, if not crack open a chemistry textbook.

So if you add more Carbon Dioxide to the system, you will just create a lot more biomass, without increasing the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere all that much. We can see this happening, the earth is greening significantly. Plants grow faster, this leads to more rich and diverse ecosystems.

You might object and say, why is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing? It's probably because this imbalance takes a long time to balance itself out. Sucking the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere and assimilating it into plant and animal life is a slow moving process. But the higher the CO2 levels get, the more quickly and efficiently it is done. This means the CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase eternally, but finds a new equilibrium to match our output.

Attached: calcium phosphate reaction.jpg (1094x862 6.22 KB, 422.97K)

I think man made climate change is a hoax. The climate changes all of the time and extreme weather happens regardless of humanity or not. However, we are damaging the environment with our excess waste and consumption of goods. Plenty of plastics in the water, over fishing of waters, urban expansion will become a bigger issue as well as time goes on, animals will have less room to survive.

Think back then, dinosaurs used to drive SUV.
Then someday, some dude told them to stop doing it because of all the warm and guess what? Global cooling and all dinosaurs died.

More recently, humans sent an SUV on Mars and do you know what happened?
Mars climate got hotter.

The people pushing it don't believe it. They are equivalent to an 80s AIDS doomsday prophet telling people not to bother with condoms when they advocate at the same time argue in favour of population transfer from low- to high-carbon footprint lands. There is little that so obviously follows from CO2 emission potentially causing catastrophe and human extinction than not moving millions of people to places where they will emit manifold times more of it.

We need to eradicate the non-white menace and raze the kike's corporate monopolies to save the planet tbh.

This
Although I would specify that its the bastards in the board rooms who perpetuate the "global trade" which is doing the damage, not us per se.

Who is Behind the Climate Change Hoax?

thezog.wordpress.com/who-is-behind-the-climate-change-hoax/

Davis Guggenheim (Ashkenazi jew) – Director, An Inconvenient Truth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Guggenheim

Jeffrey Skoll (Ashkenazi jew) – Executive Producer, An Inconvenient Truth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Skoll

Joseph J. Romm (Ashkenazi jew) – Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
americanprogress.org/experts/RommJoseph.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm

Stephen H. Schneider (Ashkenazi jew) – Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change, Stanford University
stephenschneider.stanford.edu
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

Michael E. Mann (Ashkenazi jew) – Professor of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

Gavin A. Schmidt (Ashkenazi jew) – Climatologist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt

Benjamin D. Santer (Ashkenazi jew) – Climate Researcher, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
eoearth.org/article/Santer,_Benjamin_D.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer

Carbon Taxes/Carbon Trading:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading

Todd D. Stern (Ashkenazi jew) – Special Envoy for Climate Change, U.S. State Department
state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/122554.htm
whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Todd_D._Stern

Richard L. Sandor (Ashkenazi jew) – Chairman and Founder, Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=122
time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663322_1669930,00.html

Nicholas H. Stern (Ashkenazi jew) – Professor of Economics and Government, London School of Economics (LSE)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Stern,_Baron_Stern_of_Brentford
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

Ignacy Sachs (Ashkenazi jew) – Socioeconomist, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
unhistory.org/CD/Sachs.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacy_Sachs

Attached: Climate Change - Its called Weather.gif (784x512, 180.37K)

What a disingenuous nigger you are. No one denies that the Earth's climate changes. Furthermore, no one denies that the Earth has hot cycles that can be referred to as "global warming".

What you talk about later in your post is man-made global warming, which has been debunked countless fucking times at this point. Greenhouse gases have no long term effect on the Earth. Seriously, go watch the original "Inconvenient Truth" and come back to tell me how much of the predictions in that propaganda–oops I mean movie, were right.

It's simpler than that. Just look at the timeline:

I948…..The Cold War begins.

1949 - 1985……"The evil communists are the the major threat to the earth!
If we don't do something, the earth will be destroyed by nuclear war!
We must increase international co-operation to stop this threat,
and also spend lots of money and curtail some of your freedoms, for your own good, we have to do this to save the earth!

(Cue endless films and TV documentaries showing how the earth will be destroyed by nuclear war. Everyone gets very scared.)

1985-1991…. Gorbachev gets elected in Russia. International tension starts to fizzle out. The Berlin wall falls in 1989, Russia's allies in Europe all throw out communism, and then the communist Soviet Union comes to an end in 1991.

(Films and TV documentaries about the horrors of nuclear war stop being show. Everyone breaths a sigh of relief.)

1992….Big international Earth Summit held in Rio. Everyone is told that they have just discovered that the earth is heating up, and we will all be destroyed in a few years.

1992 -2007…Global Warming is the major threat to the earth! If we don't do something, the earth will be destroyed by rising temperatures! We must increase international co-operation to stop this threat,
and also spend lots of money and curtail some of your freedoms, for your own good, we have to do this to save the earth!

(Cue endless films and TV documentaries showing how the earth will be destroyed by Global Warming. Everyone gets very scared.)

2007….Because the earth refuses to heat up, they change the name of the looming Apocalypse to Climate Change.

2007 - 2018….Climate Change is the major threat to the earth! If we don't do something, the earth will be destroyed by constantly changing weather! We must increase international co-operation to stop this threat,
and also spend lots of money and curtail some of your freedoms, for your own good, we have to do this to save the earth!

(Cue endless films and TV documentaries showing how the earth will be destroyed by Climate Change. Everyone gets very scared.)

The elite need something to scare the children so that they can mold the earth the way they want to. They used to have the cold war to do this.
When the cold war ended they needed something else, and that something else is the completely fake Global Warming/Climate Change hoax.
Documentaries on the Earth being destroyed by nuclear weapons were immediately replaced by documentaries on the earth being destroyed by Global Warming.
The transition between the two was almost seamless.
That's all you need to know.
You don't have to waste your time delving into "The Science".
You just have to ask yourself, "Who benefits?"

...

Look at the FTIR spectrum of water vapor vs CO2. You will notice the former is a broad, low mound, while the latter is a few sharp spikes.

Sharp spikes mean that it only absorbs photons of a very specific frequency, while letting others pass through. Broad, low mounds mean that if you increase the concentration, you will get a tremendous amount of heat retention.

Now note that there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2.

Humans effect the water cycle in numerous ways, including via paving and irrigation, something that has been going on LONG before the industrial revolution. If there is any real warming, THAT is your culprit. CO2 can't really warm our atmosphere no matter how much you pump in. It is already absorbing something like 90% of what it can absorb (there are a few low peaks that aren't saturated, but you need HUGE increases in concentration for that to amount to anything). In fact, the heat capacity of CO2 is slightly LESS than the average of the other components of the atmosphere, meaning increasing the fraction of CO2 actually provides a minuscule DECREASE in warming.

You won't find this analysis anywhere else on the internet. I had training in physical chemistry and one day took it on myself to do an independent analysis, and found, as usual, both "sides" of the debate were dead fucking wrong.

CO2 does still prove a threat, however, as increasing concentrations do lead to ocean acidification. Fisheries are on the verge of collapse, and that effect could push them over the brink. Need to ban fishing in the ocean for a year or two every decade to let them repopulate.

Punch an ashkenazi

You are a retard or a kike then.
You mean jungle. No I am not, as I am white. Winter is part of us, we evolved in it, it is why we are intelligent and forward thinking. We do not want pole to pole jungle any more than polar bears do. Trying to recreate a climate that existed when humans did not is stupid.


You are brain dead.

You first mistake which shows that you are deceived.
You don't "believe" in things like that. You KNOW them. You don't believe in scientific reasoning. That's a cult/religion thing.
I will give you an anecdote. I attended a college course on environmental science. The burnout hippie professor listed us the greenhouse gasses and their contribution to "global warming" out of my head I might be wrong for a percent or two:
H2O(water vapour): 90%
CO2: 3%
Methane: 1%
Other: 6%
And guess what the professor while visibly confused in his cognitive dissonance blamed for "global warming"?
CO2.
What is your answer?
Mind you that you can't tax the Sun, you know the thing which makes water evaporate.

I believe you aren't a shill. You just have no basic understanding of climatology, meteorology or environmental sciences. In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.
So you repeat what the media taught you to repeat. Don't, unless you consider yourself an idiot.
Vid related is a channel that I recommend since they explain it in an understandable manner.

SAGE for believing the earth is a globe.

'Climate change ' as a POLITICAL issue is horseshit.
People can argue back and forth infinitely about the various studies but the actual ENVIRONMENTAL data is just a side show distraction from what the true purpose of this movement is really about.
It's about certain greedy figures in government concocting a boogieman that instills fear into the gullible for votes.
This is a boogieman you poor citizens NEED your government to solve for you. No amount of regulations, money or new wings of government will ever be enough to solve this gargantuan, invisible problem since you can just move the goalpost infinitely.
The term 'denier' is used the same way 'infidel' or 'anti-semite' is used. Climate politics is a cult that the gullible sign on for because they can be easily manipulated by framing false dichotomies. Given the choice between 'caring ' about the environment and being a denier', they have no choice since they need more than anything to not be cast out of their social groups for being branded a 'denier'.
The day to day actions of 'deniers' and believers are identical. Both know an equal amount about the data (nothing) and both are too small of a fish to have any real impact on the environment anyway. The only difference is that the believer votes different, and in order to support climate issue candidates they will reliably vote for a larger, more restrictive government that wants to destroy jobs and suck all the wealth out of successful countries. In other words, communists.
It's an empathy trap.

Attached: enviropill.png (907x587, 415.22K)

On temperature:
1. Climate is warming.
2. It's been warming since the last ice age.
3. We're actually very cold (14C) compared to primate evolutionary history, when average temps were 22C.
4. Humans contribute 1/100th to the effect of the rise of temperature, mostly through CFC and the effect of urbanization.

On CO2:
1. CO2 has not much to do with temperature, but it is rising.
2. Humans are 1/3rd to 1/2 of the cause of the rise.
3. Plants need 1000ppm of CO2 to be healthy, this is what farmers provide to plants in sealed greenhouses.
4. Plants would die at under 100ppm of CO2.
5. We reached 120ppm of CO2 in the 80s, which contributed to half the planet being turned into a desert, and partly to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere as forests died.
6. Most life evolved when the planet had over 2000ppm of CO2.
7. Sunlight (UV rays) destroy CO2 in the atmosphere by fusing it with rock. As our sun heats up over the next 500-700 million years, our planet will lose all CO2 in its atmosphere, and everything will die. Our SUVs and trucks have extended the existence of life on this planet by a few years.

On the panic:
1. Liberals and kikes should not be trusted.
2. Out of all of the scientists who agree with global warming, 98% think global warming is real. Out of all climatologists, that is less than 30%. Out of all scientists, it is less than 0.001%. Do not believe retarded consensus claims, every study on "consensus" excludes all dissenting voices before the study even starts. Even if every single scientist believed something, a dissenting voice should still be heard. That is what it means to be a scientist.
3. Liberals and kikes should not be trusted.


t. PhD evobio, get some perspective

Attached: Idiots_Guide_To_AGW.jpg (600x407 39.9 KB, 52.7K)

SAGE for posting CGI image of a globe earth.

Did you know that "globalist" is an anti-Semitic slur? | source: ADL

dumb kike/10 for laughs

forester here
I would be more concerned with china dumping raw industrial waste into the ocean than I would carbon or methane or any of that. I am still undecided on climate change, but environmental destruction and decay is very real. Additionally, forests can regrow in just a few decades; oceans and air quality takes much longer to return to normalcy.

Uncle Ted was right.

Here's what happened….
The kept using ground data from stations like in pictures related that were no longer sited per the data collection protocol.
As more of these sites fell under the Urban Heat Island effect, the US temperatures appeared to rise more than they should have.
They then note that the satellite data debunks this? Did these frauds look at the ground data and see why the ground data and satellite data disagreed? NOPE! They then adjust the satellite data upward to match the corrupt ground data.
That must mean that the past satellite data was too high (see how this is being used?) so they lower the past data.
And it's all based on intentionally using corrupt data.
The reply? "Berkeley Earth"! They recrunched all the bad data, then hand wave at the original criticism of the ground data, making a semantic fallacy out of the word "urban" in the term "urban heat island effect".

Attached: Urbana_WWTP_Detail_South_View-sml.jpg (454x340 749.62 KB, 224.84K)

Because CO2 only accounts for about 4% of the greenhouse effect. You could double it and its overall impact is miniscule to the true greenhouse gas, water vapor.

Op never came back. Guess he lied when he said he wasn't a shill.
Ya'all been Jewed.

Attached: Faggotville.jpg (1805x301 29.02 KB, 220.04K)

And yet he was blown the fuck out like the kike he is, so the thread’s fine.

CO2 causes warming by blocking the 13 micrometer IR band. That band is half blocked by water vapor, but it does cause warming. That band is already blocked - no IR escapes the lower atmosphere and into space, so adding more CO2 won't cause more warming.
The "climate Scientists" are flipping cause and effect on it's head - global temperature determines CO2 concentrations, not the other way around. That's simple equilibrium chemistry - CO2 levels follow temperature levels by 800 years, the time it take for the deep ocean cycles. We know that from the ice core data. When they noted in the ice core data that CO2 lags temperature, they simply adjusted the time scale so they happen together, because that fit their agenda.

Attached: CO2 and temp 440000 years.png (850x857 89.46 KB, 74.77K)

Pollution is a far more pressing issue anyway. Take a look at the pollution output of China and india, and then get back to us.

Then what contributes the other 99%?
Provide scientific models that accurately describe warming and cooling patterns of the Earth's atmosphere. Unless you can do that, your "facts" are basically worthless.
Pic related.
Your claims are as much of a bullshit as ones arguing that increased CO2 is dangerous. There is no simple explanation to what increased levels of CO2 will bring us. There are just too many variables to account for.

Attached: TwoLorenzOrbits.jpg (1038x766, 211.76K)

Phytoplankton eat CO2, whales eat phytoplankton, ergo CO2 saves whales.

There’s no such thing. It’s a manufactured idea to siphon funds from the public without reprucussions. Make the public fanatic, dazzle them with fear and get them to support funneling cash into your pockets.

Same racketeering method used by all kind of people.

That’s not the blonde lady I had in mind. I already met the blonde lady I had in mind.

When I talk to libs about global warming, I say I believe in it 100%, and the easy solution is to stop mass third-world immigration into western countries since people in western countries have a larger carbon footprint, stop outsourcing all our industry to third-world countries where they give zero fucks about environmental protection, and stop giving foreign aid to third-world countries which keeps their populace who give zero fucks about the environment and who dump trash and plastic endlessly into their rivers and water reproducing exponentially.

I also tell them to stop using their smartphone so damn much, it's no wonder we pollute so much with 7 billion people using these supercomputers which require constant recharging every day, made from rare earth metals manufactured in China with processes that are some of the most toxic and destructive to the environment known to man.

Of course they don't like that very much.

thats why I turn my phone off most of the time

That’s revolting. I don’t do that

Imagine being this much of a brainlet. Whales eat mesozooplankton (copepods) and macrozooplankton (krill), which feed on large phytoplankton that hunger mainly for nutrients, not CO2. Increased CO2 benefits cyanobacteria, and energy fixed by organisms that small will never see the inside of a whale.

take it to >>>/ecopol/ you nigger
nobody who starts a sentence with "honest open debate about X" is ever honest or open
fuck off
no one cares about your shitty "take more niggers into your country goy" global gayness propaganda

OP isn't even a faggot.

But, good topic.

A few degrees of warming, a rise in CO2? Why this rampant fear of change? Let Siberia's rainforests flourish; let Antarctica blossom. It'll be beautiful. We can give the equatorial dessert band over to the new silicon people. They'll make beautiful alien sculpture and/or posthuman industrial hellscape out of all of it. Sounds tasty, don't it?

Now, how about sea levels? That problem is bad, but it's hardly hopeless.

There's enough water in the earth's crust to turn the planet into a waterworld. The crust isn't even at it's maximum carrying capacity for water. If humanity wants to drop sea levels, build desalination plants until the only reasonable water price is free, and pump the excess into every aquifer that will take it. Saturate the earth and the sea levels will drop.

Three guesses, you mentally defective sack of shit.
Done. Read the thread.
There is. You just look at all of history when it was higher.

Attached: kysmm.webm (512x512, 927.81K)

The same thing that's causing the exact same temperature increase on Pluto, Mars, and the Moon.

Shoo shoo AGW promulgating jew.

Because co2 is measured in parts per million you fucking idiot
Thats like claiming i can heat up a stadium with my body heat
The cycle of the sun need to be closely watched
The weather is electric and the sun is a massive electric ball that has an impact
God i hate retards

Why is this logic wrong?
-Medieval warm period.

What I'm more disappointed is you only took a surface level glance as 'global warming' (it's climate change these days, don'tcha know?) and didn't dig deeper into looking for counter-arguments or information that contradicts the facts.

More complex rebuttal:
Even if one assumes CO2 traps heat, trapped heat would eventually produce more precipitation (read: clouds) and clouds reflect heat away from earth's surface.


Suuuure. That's why it advocates a known media position but hasn't done any basic research.

PS: What study are you referring to in order to determine the infrared properties of CO2?

- J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs

Because it's too simplistic. That's why global warming propaganda works, because it is intuitive to think in linear relations. Something that is multifactorial or chaotic system is not intuitive. Add a bunch of shit "science" funded by multinational corporations and models done by pajeet grad students, and voila: global warming becomes "settled science."

Meanwhile Svensmark came up with a predictive theory that is consistent with 4 billion years of climate proxy data that the left wing denies as they shriek that anyone who doesn't believe in Man Made Global warming is a science denier.

co2 has a forcing of

What are the financial burdens of the AGW agenda? It would be good to quantify them. What are the sources?

I can think of carbon taxes off the top of my head. Increasingly stringent emissions controls on passenger cars increase cost and siphon fuel efficiency while having no practical effect as long as container ships are still a thing. What sorts of consequences do those international agreements produce?

The thing that always bothers me about this is that "SCIENCE!" will claim that races are equal and that there no differences between men and women, which are purely nonsense already. Why the fuck would I believe anything else those faggots have to say?

Science is dead while the kikes rule.

https ://invidio.us/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

This is pretty much the answer. (((They))) own the U.N. and the things they propose will be part of the biggest power and money grab in history.

Taxation and control on all aspects of life is their goal. Of course it's being sold as humanitarian altruistic bullshit.

archive.fo/XtLNS

Attached: UNSustainableDevGoals.png (936x603, 103.87K)

Probably. This is one of the ways they survey "underground" sites to see what sort of fuel their opposition has.

...

This right here. Even if there's something to climate change, the fact that these niggers never mention the fact that the amount of heat radiated by the sun might fluctuate is really concerning. The earth's atmosphere is like a thin strip of toilet paper compared to the raging inferno of the sun. Also the fact that blue-haired bulldykes are emotionally invested in it makes it not even worth thinking about for more than a few minutes, as far as I'm concerned.

However, if it really is bothering you, then tuck your dick and do your part to save the world. Start riding a bike for your 14 mile work commute, build a windmill on the roof of your house, and make a compost heap of all of your candy bar wrappers so that you can build bricks out of candy bar wrappers and eventually build a home for a third-world faggot who needs money for his AIDS meds.

Fuck, I even responded without sage. He may have been a kike but I effectively allowed myself to be circumcised by this stupid thread.

Lesson learned… again.

If it were a problem, the kikes would be going after China, india, and the rest of the third-world shitholes that contribute the most. Not make the west deindustrialise even more while giving industry to the third world. Paris "climate" accords prove that Global "Warming" is another lipids scam.

The book "Climate Change: the Facts" has several chapters about the economics of it.

were you talking about yourself?
If that didn't seem coherent, I can hold your hand and explain it more slowly for you

Doesn't matter, the people purpoting to want to 'save the planet' block nuclear every chance they get.

The ozone layer is healing

“Because previous studies relied on measurements of the physical size of the ozone hole, the authors of the new study say their research is the first to directly show that ozone depletion is decreasing as a direct result of a decrease in the presence of chlorine from CFCs, according to the statement. The 20-percent reduction in depletion is "very close to what our model predicts we should see for this amount of chlorine decline,"

As for climate change the earth has always cycled between a hotter climate and a colder climate it’s just nature & we are not advanced enough to stop it.

Attached: 996D48AF-6C2A-47CD-8904-ABB555E37003.gif (400x332, 27.55K)

Only cavedwelling neets deny climate change is happening, however what libbies don't admit is that the wests efforts to cut down on emissions are futile if china and india are pumping tbe majority out. And if what scientists claim is true, we'll all be dead in 20 years anyways.

...

>>>Zig Forums johnny nigger

AGW believers driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in jets is like 80s AIDS doomsday prophets fucking hookers without a condom: it's nonetheless not necessarily inconsistent with them believing there's a real problem.

Spewing AGW doomsday prophecy whilst simultaneously cheerleading mass population transfer from low- to high-carbon footprint lands is like the AIDS Chickens Little telling everybody to fuck hookers without a condom.

Anyone AGWer who doesn't stridently call for the obvious logically following intervention of stopping mass migration from the Third to the First World doesn't really believe his own bullshit.

The temperature oscillations increase as overall temperature decreases. Which explains longer colder winters with drier hotter summers.
We headed int ice age.
The rest sounds legit. Water vapor.

Who the fuck cares about the temperature!?
There's poison in our water, hormones in our food, islands of trash in the ocean, heavy metals in the dirt, and toxic smog in our air. Half the shit we interact with us either a carcinogen or an endocrine disruptor. I'm more concerned about that and not a couple of degrees in the thermometer, but of course everyone wants to get caught up in this useless debate because they know real change will never come from it because it's not a real problem like the things I just listed. We won't ever force companies to stop poisoning us. People won't stop dumping their waste anywhere they please. The Earth will be fine long after we're gone, but we'll be fucked if we keep shitting where we eat.

Attached: angry al.jpg (230x219, 5.98K)

You're all niggers, the sun has solar seasons. Right now its actually flaring down and we're going ito ice-age mode

Attached: 2e2f5ac721d4803e4c7cc9f9f191bdebd91da053373b732386241d89cba4825a.png (1500x1200, 85.8K)

I thought everyone agreeded climate is always changing.
Also, changes are good. Don't you lile flooding Europe with trash people for fun? This is lile that and we can prepare for it but not change it.

Attached: New_europeans.jpeg (768x432, 94.47K)

Or maybe it's the local interstellar cloud, which we entered 44,000 years ago when the ice age ended and temperatures started increasing.

The local interstellar cloud has a temperature of 7000 kelvin, or 12140 fahrenheit, about the same temperature as the surface of our sun. It can't interact directly with us, but it can sure as fuck bathe us in infrared radiation. It is literally heating up every single planet in our solar system evenly, from Pluto to Earth.

A century from now when Voyager probe has a chance to examine it, people will laugh at the global warming promulgators of the 20th century.

Honestly, I think it's downright RETARDED to think that we humans aren't able to affect the climate - we can already make changes visible from space, make artificial islands, rivers and change he air/current flows.

We pump millions of tons of various gases into the atmosphere DAILY, and yet some poeple believe it has no effect whatsoever

This guy can do all that.
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/7676300/Worlds-biggest-beaver-dam-can-be-seen-from-space.html

Attached: American_Beaver.jpg (718x721, 182.37K)

Pretending like humans are the only or even the most influential species is fucking retarded. A few species of cyanobacteria or blue green algae controls what 3/4 of this planets atmosphere looks like. The addition of ~dozen wolves into yellowstone completely changed the geography of the place, something we tried and failed to do for almost 40 years and billions spent on park development.

(((Ayy guey!)))