Only 31% of American Republicans agree that humans are a major driver of climate change

You are both retarded, that was not even close to any type of sensible argument.

What % of burger democrats agree?

around 70% or so
pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

The Chinese aint human tbh

Daily reminder that this user knows more than scientists who study this for a living.

Climate has been changing since it began four billion years ago, so humans didn't cause climate change. Recent climate warming began before the 1800s, so human industrial activity can't be the driver for the recent warming. At most you could say our industrial activity affects a climate change/warming that was already there, making no attempt to distinguish between natural and human caused warming isn't endearing you to anyone. Shrill screeching about the apocalypse is not convincing anyone except schizophrenics of your point. Refusal to consider alternate solutions is not granting you any benefit of doubt.

Carbon dioxide has varied greatly… starting at around 20,000ppm when bacteria evolved, reducing to about 10,000ppm when chlorophyll evolved, around 7,000 when extremely complex animals evolved, and about 250ppm after the recent ice age. Climate in the past seems to have insignificant correlation with CO2 amount, and it is well known that plants grow best at around 5,000-10,000ppm which is why all agricultural greenhouses have CO2 generators to feed the plants. So if animals, and plants, can survive at 20x more CO2 than we currently have, and CO2 itself has very little correlation with temperature, why then are we obsessed with seeking solutions that have nothing to do with the problem?

Our position is based in observation and in science.

Yours is based in magical thinking.

Attached: 1518846154788.png (211x239, 35.42K)

Daily reminder that studying something for a living, as in literally deriving money from a positive result, tends to make you biased against a negative result.
Also the key tenet of science is that if an average person can't understand it, then neither does the scientist. I don't know from whence this retarded liberal elitism about science comes, when you sycophants deny gender and race exists, and homeopathy beats legit medicine for market share.

So hypothetically, what would happen to these scientists if they disproved climate change?

They’d probably keep going on saying “No, see you’re actually wrong because pseudoscience technobabble.”

Are conservatives dumber or more wary of the truth? :^)

so why are you doubting today's science?

and anyway, they are incredibly accurate at showing you what was going on. lrn2science

Lose their grant. Lose funding for their institution. Get fired from the institution. Lose their apartment and car, provided by the institution. In political organizations like IPCC its impossible to even make a conclusion contrary to global warming. Political orgs are founded with mandates, that's basically a mission statement, and nothing the organization takes part in can countermand that mandate.

The mandate of the IPCC comes with the pre-supposition that humans created global warming.
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.
It wasn't formed to discover whether man made global warming exists. It was formed to discuss impacts of man made global warming, which the organization assumes exists.

both,naturally(Old peeps is conservative ergo dumber cause brain rot over rides experience

Liberal logic.

Well there is a limit to what humans can do and we all are just withering away after 27 or so

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

The brain stops maturing at around 25. Are you implying there are only 2 years of maturity in a human beings life, before they fall into senescence lol?

Leftist cunt moron.

Shit is going away before then or are you gonna tell me you remember everything you were actually taught in school?

And yeah after maturing fully things start to break down, in case you can't tell we get weaker as we get older and it happens faster than you can tell cause truth be told we are built pretty well.

Hell adults start to fall into patterns and get pretty predictable. Plus we can't learn as fast. The barrier for language is the 1st thing to close off and that ability is just one of the 1st to go.

Breaking news: 31% of American Republicans are gullible retards.

Most people only have an IQ of 100.

Attached: serveimage (22).jpeg (807x935, 107.37K)

My problem with the whole man made climate change thing is that countries like India or China just don't give a fuck while the west is supposed to and does reduce emissions and everything.

>(((scientists)))

Attached: 91ecb9e75e0ecfadb76aaaf50c3213ff0a6247f7219a37dc19e9f5440bb4885a.jpg (366x464, 36.91K)

pour money into my pipedream free energy project you hobos

Maybe if you're an average zogdrone and never use your brain.

but user, you have to be a good boy, and obey even if the other boys are naughty

...

Fucking idiots never read between the lines. The reason why 69% deny this is because nowadays it's never enough to just end it there. If you admit to climate change you MUST also agree that US should shut down all its industry. The 31% are thinking "that's true but that doesn't mean we should shoot ourselves int he foot." Nuance is fucking dead in the modern world.

Also, forgot to mention, you can never admit to climate change by humans but also claim it's negligible. There are so many shades of gray in this argument but leftyfags made it so you either agree with every dumb thing or you are literally hitler.

That's easy when modern (((science))) is willingly oblivious to its own religious roots.

But you just called science Jewish.

Modern science, derpstain. It's ancient Jew magic powered by dishonest rhetoric and social shaming.

Take your meds.

No.

Stupid climate criers. It's been "man-made" since the discovery of fucking fire. #dealwithit

Attached: 8b1b9d9dc.jpg (710x532, 154.52K)

It goes even further, if you want to be fiscally sensible towards climate change legislation (ie. not enacting useless taxes that will ultimately line the pockets of figureheads riding around in private jets) then you're also a climate change denier. This shit is a fucking cult

I like how libtards are avoiding this comment.

Your discrediting yourself if you find homopathy to be of any use, homeopathy was created by pharma as false op in order to solidify itself

The also avoid China and they also avoid the Trump-Israel link
I still haven't gotten an answer on why we shouldn't press the Israelis in terms of manipulating Trump and the election when the links between trump and Israel are far greater than that of Trump and Russia
They do know JIDF is a thing as well as other such groups that are far bigger, but never get questioned
Maybe Russia did partially influence the election but if that's the case you definantly have to consider Israel likely had much more influence
And all of this no matter how many times I say this is ignored

They avoid fucking everything that doesn't fit what CNN told them. They avoid actually taking a step back and thinking for themselves.

the real problem is lying

something may be going on, but how can people really tell ? How many years have their people had to play around with weather modification ? And how much evidence do we have that these people lie ? And how can we trust that all this centralised control is _really_better for everyone and the planet ?

Afterall the "growth" ponzi scheme is theirs, they're the ones that believe in it, which ultimately means they believe in reducing the standard of living.

don't kid ourself either, they won't allow the introduction of any technology that doesn't add to their power. That means all this shit stays the same, but they require more people or some kind of war being made.

not a "libtard" but the reason for people assuming that climate change is man-made is quite clear… because it is. you can trot out any fossil fuel funded "scientist" who will pull out one outlying poorly constructed study and tell you different, but it won't cancel out the THOUSANDS of other data points from a myriad of sources and elements that have been measured that all point towards man-made effects. you can choose to believe in fairies and santa claus and whatever else, but then science comes along and tells you that your beliefs are wrong and backs it up with hard reasons why.
btw, even the oil-funded scientists came to the conclusion that climate change was being caused by man, but they took the tobacco stance, covered it up and instead tried to "sow doubt." just like tobacco heads, you are a gullible fool to fall that oldest trick in the corporate book. how do you explain that?

how do you explain Rockefeller family members advocating the divestment of coal ?

i don't understand the point of this question. but the answer is easy. coal has been going down for years now and nobody wants it any more. clean renewable sources are much cheaper and better than they were years ago.

heh you don't understand the point of my question after using terms like "oil funded scientists" and "oldest trick in the corporate book" ? ahaha

so you got btfo by my answer and have no reply. ok.