>Martin Durkin's "Climate: The Movie – The Cold Truth" features interviews with leading scientists like Steve Koonin, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, John Clauser, and Nir Shaviv who explain that fears of a climate emergency are unwarranted, and that carbon dioxide is not the main driver of climate change (thus carbon taxes are a useless policy). Far from facing a global warming problem, the documentary shows we are in a cold period of time.
>Other commentators in the documentary like economist Ross McKitrick and policy analyst Benny Peiser explain how climate change is being used to impose restrictions on freedom and destroy contemporary life.
>The global warming scam is being used to force the public into accepting the shutdown and replacement of high-end power plants with inefficient and very expensive supposedly "green" energy sources on the basis of science which is proven wrong multiple times and has no basis in reality. The entire process only enriches a minority of bankers who own both carbon-based and green energy producing corporations.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt31851190/
https://vimeo.com/924719370
>https://vimeo.com/924719370
15GB 4K if you download it
take your misinformation elsewhere
we don't tolerate this on 4 channel
>4 channel
Disinformation alert. 4 channel doesnt exist sweaty, check the URL
>he doesn't know
welcome, newbie
Cinemaphile is an msnbc board, chud, here we listen to the experts and jannies
THE Nir Shaviv?
lmao next you're gonna tell me hunter biden actually had a laptop
>~~*koonin*~~
>~~*lindzen*~~
>~~*shaviv*~~
>>for free
watch pol npcs eat this shit up
you act like they don't occupy both sides of every controversy
this so much sisters, we need 15 minute cities and every global citizen tagged for their carbon input in the name of science and mother gaia
Unironically Hitler would agree.
Get in the fricking gas chamber Moshe.
Hitler wouldn’t have shut down all nuclear power in Germany though
The 15 minute cities thing is genuinely hilarious to me. Like, five years ago conservatives were all about main street/the high street, buying local, tight-knit communities with a strong sense of place etc etc, but all it takes is some spooky mood music and some buzzwords - muh communism, muh freedum infringed - and you're actively trying to stop yourselves from winning.
You get that right? That 15 minute cities is your side winning? That people living in cities want the same kind of localism and sense of place that right wingers always talked about as being idyllic and life-affirming and why villages/the country are better than cities? Only the right could be thick enough to build a full-blown NWO black helicopters-tier conspiracy theory around
>Hey, it'd be cool if you could walk to a local shop for your groceries if you wanted to, and it'd be nice if your area had some amenities like a doctor closeby
>the pod and the bugs are actually hecking trad bro
you forgot all the negative aspects like the mass surveillance and authoritarian controls of movement which is what they are really trying to sell with 15 minute cities. how is it a win for conservatives to get electric cars that wont take you to a free speech event because low social score because you dissented against covid shot?
>15 minute cities
I seriously dont understand the concept, or the opposition to it, I cant imagine how you amerifats must live that the notion of walking to the local corner store seems like a totalitarian nightmare
that aspect doesnt bother us our old dead small towns are like that its the other things i mentioned people dislike.
https://www.weforum.org/events/sustainable-development-impact-summit-2021/sessions/the-15-minute-city/
>European cities
Organically sprung up and developed over thousands of years
>proposed American "15 minute" cities
Top down ideologically motivated government think tank projects that come with bureaucratic and ideological baggage
Apples and oranges
No one is against walkable cities because they are against walking in a city in the same way that no one who is against the patriot act is against it because they aren't patriots
>two more millenia
The short answer is Black folk.
why can't we post his name in the chat bros?
What chat?
Why would he pour his money into a fire? What a moronic comic
try to post his name as a text reply
>how can you be against something called the patriot act?
>do you hate America?
chudbros i heard the science is settled on this
we lost again...
Science is never settled.
let me guess you can jump up and fly at will
No, but I can cut my dick off and become a woman
based I also can't stop thinking about trannies
Since the concept of "woman" is determined by society, actually yes, you can become a women that way if society sees you as such. And we are moving more and more towards the direction that it will
Sweet. Since race is also a social construct imma be a trans homie.
It all depends wether society sees you as one as well
Based cave dweller
The symbols are all that is real (but also they aren't real lol)
> the science is settled...because I say it is
Interesting. Another good one that shows how Green energy is a scam as well is that one by Micheal Moore.
>one lonely chud screams into the void, occasionally joined by other lonely chuds also screaming into the void, the thread
There's nothing that infuriates me more than climate change deniers. It's fricking ESTABLISHED what's going on and yet so many people in the U.S. refuse to believe what's an obvious fricking point.
This so much this. There's even two Nobel Prize winners who are climate change deniers and both their conferences in the US and EU were cancelled at the last minute. If this isn't proof that the science is settled I don't know what is
science is never settled like an other human institution. but it's our best guess at the time, would you deny humanity's best chance of survival?
this. science is never settled so the best way to go about it is to silence anyone who disagree, especially renowned scientists.
>the best way to go about it is to silence anyone who disagree, especially renowned scientists.
it's because humans like yourself can't be trusted to have the critical thinking skills to ignore bad ideas. If anything, bad ideas are very attractive to the common human being and at times they become zealots around these ideas. So yes we need to censor them and you have no one to blame but you and your dumb kind.
>yes we need to censor
I agree 100%. Where does this idea that science could be discussed even come from?
you didnt get my point. you can discuss whatever you want but when the discussion is over and the bad idea still remains, what do you do then? You let it linger and fester, attract morons to go around repeating it?
This 100%. You can discuss whatever you want. That's why we need to censor.
i'm not afraid of discussion. I'm afraid of the human response. Again you and your ilk are just proof that you give humans to freedom to think whatever they want they think dumb shit.
I agree. Everyone who believes we need to stop having children, eat bugs and de-industrialize because of the weather should be thrown off the nearest cliff.
I'm totally with you on this. Once we have decided what is the truth, why would we even allow discussing it? We don't want dumb people putting dent in our settled science that isn't settled or is it I don't remember. Anyway, censorship, yes. 100%.
So true, king.
BRB getting my spring booster; I hope you got yours so you don't kill me and my wife's son!
thanks for proving
's
point
What are you, a science denier or something? The science is settled, chuddie. They're smarter and know better so do what they say and don't question it.
Please get your boosterjabs my intellectual friend! Dont want to be like those anti science schizos!
>it's because humans like yourself can't be trusted to have the critical thinking skills to ignore bad ideas
The irony is lost on you here. Limiting carbon is a bad idea. It's a reactionary conservative viewpoint, wanting to maintain the arbitrary co2 levels of pre-industrial society. There's no reason or evidence to suppose it is optimal or desirable to have 300ppm instead of say 800-1200ppm.
I for one welcome back the carbon that has been trapped underground for untold millenia.
How about the fact that the weather gets worse and more Africanised every year we increase it
Can you prove that the weather wouldn't be changing regardless of our carbon emissions? Or that changes to the weather are a net negative? And even if they are, that this outweighs the benefits of higher co2 levels?
NTA, but could chuddie prove that the west wouldn't be falling if there weren't a gorrillion refugees? Or that the immigrants are a net negative? And even if they are, that this outweighs the benefits of a more even population pyramid?
>Or that the immigrants are a net negative
Yeah just look at brown and black countries lol
>and even if they are that's a good thing
holy shit you got him!
>him
I've heard this unironically from an IRL friend. Political brainworms are unreal.
yass, yass, quite.
This. Also, nobody is silencing anybody. Those anti-science "climatologist" are still free to spread their ideas, as evident by the OP movie. But when your ideas are constantly being debunked time and time again by the entire scientific community, maybe the problem is with you and your ideas. So you can only blame yourself why no one is taking you seriously
Oh my science, not the anti-sciencers!
>it's all a conspiracy by the entire scientific community. scientific concensuses don't actually exist.
Gender is a social construct, biology is not a determinant for behavior or intelligence, race is not real but if you don't check your race privilege you're racist, everyone needs the vaccine or they'll die and the weather is going to kill us all unless you eat the bugs.
#RESIST by following the science.
I'm with you, my logical brother in science.
Show the Scientific Consensus ™©® on any of these platitudes and not a bait headline from a leftist gossip rag.
Stop questioning the science, chuddie, or you'll face the wrath of science - and our science is a vengeful science.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46856779
He simply got his facts wrong. To be fair, I don't support him losing his titles over it.
True. Purely socio-economic factors. The science is settled.
>Gender is a social construct
It is, according to science
>biology is not a determinant for behavior or intelligence
It's not, according to science
>race is not real but if you don't check your race privilege you're racist
The classification of people by race is not supported by genetic evidence. Race does exists in our society as a cultural construct though. All of this is supported by science.
>everyone needs the vaccine or they'll die
Vaccines have provenly saved more people than they hurt
> and the weather is going to kill us all unless you eat the bugs
Nothing wrong with finding out ways how to exists in a sustainable way. This is also a strawman
>social construct
>science
I'm not even going to read beyond that since you majorly fricked up from the get-go.
Why? You are saying social constructs don't exist?
Based and science pilled! You tell those anti-science chuddies!
>Gender is a social construct
It is, according to science
The person who typed this actually thinks he’s smart. It’s amazing how social media has cooked people’s brains.
>I don't know what gender is
>But when your ideas are constantly being debunked time and time again by the entire scientific community
Saying "you are wrong and dumb" isn't debunking.
>Saying "you are wrong and dumb" isn't debunking.
It isn't. Thankfully, anti-climate claims have been constantly debunked via actual evidence and research throughout the decades. If the facts were on their side there wouldn't exists a scientific concensus on the subject. And they don't even produce any new anti-climate change research anymore, they just keep rehashing claims that were already disproven in the past. Instead of accepting they were wrong, they just redress their same old "claims", hoping this time the response will be different, kind of like the definition of insanity
What is an "anti-climate" claim?
Can you give an example of one being debunked?
One claim is that the climate way always changing even before human activity, today is no different
But actually it never changed as rapidly as in the past 250 years compared to the past 66 million years as based on this Nature study
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2681
>But actually it never changed as rapidly as in the past 250 years compared to the past 66 million years as based on this Nature study
Are you illiterate? That study doesn't make that claim. It only claims that the rate of change of atmospheric carbon is unprecedented, not the rate of climate change. Co2 levels are not climate. Climate is long term weather and temperature.
The "climate is always changing" is not untrue, but it's used in a context by people to claim human activity has no effect on it, or that it hasn't accelerated in recent times, which is disproven
>but it's used in a context by people to claim human activity has no effect on it, or that it hasn't accelerated in recent times, which is disproven
Sure, but those are each separate claims from the one you tried to "debunk".
Human activity definitely affects the climate but I'm convinced land-use changes are more important than CO2 levels. Replacing forest with monocrop plantations or pasture has a huge impact on cloud formation, water runoff, wildlife, etc, then you've got the way urbanisation changes the way that sun and water interact with the land.
We've built on a massive percentage of the surface of the planet, and the built-on places are the places we live.
City centers are up to 8 degrees Celsius warmer than surrounding countryside - there's your "human activity-induced climate change".
They aren't really that separete claims, they logically feed into each other for anti-climate people
I don't think our opinion is that much different it looks like. You seem to agree with the negative effect of human activity in regards to climate change (regardless of the importance of CO2 emmissions), so what's your position, that efforts to combat it are pointless, or that "alarmism" about it is unnecesarry? You seem smarter to be the target audience of the OP movie
My position is this
Despite the likely disruption to existing weather patterns and ecology we will see over the next few centuries, we're not going to see an apocalyptic runaway greenhouse effect.
The climate will shift and, on average, warm a bit, and we will adapt. It will be painful at times but we will manage. Extinctions will occur.
The human population will stagnate and then decline as we become richer and better educated. This smaller population, coupled with the massive boost to crop yields from higher CO2 levels, will mean we require much less of the planet for agriculture, and we will be able to reserve a much higher proportion of the planet for nature.
glad you agree climate change is real maybe there's hope for chuds yet
Yes it's real, but it's far from "settled" that humans are the primary driver and, even if we are, that we can do anything about it short of destroying all of our urban structures and returning to monke.
Are you ready to concede that there are benefits to higher CO2 levels?
>and, even if we are, that's a good thing
Haven't read the thread so don't know what you guys are talking about but I look like this
that's the whole point of the maymay methinks
Yes.
The cult will never weigh benefits and detriments equally, they can only see negatives.
Why did you reply to yourself
I think you need to actually watch the documentary, anon...
what if I already saw the infographs in my tg group?
>Despite the likely disruption to existing weather patterns and ecology we will see over the next few centuries, we're not going to see an apocalyptic runaway greenhouse effect.
>The climate will shift and, on average, warm a bit, and we will adapt.
That is more or less the mainstraim view about climate though. Nobody is saying there will be one massive apocalyptic event, but a series of incremental worsening, that will effect different populations differently. Parts of the panet will become more and more unliveable. Mass migrations will occur, which in turn will create more and more social unrest (especially if you consider people's already existing views of the current wave of migration)
Humanity won't go extinct but suffering will be experienced by many, and there is nothing wrong trying to avoid that.
You say humanity will adapt, and in time it probably will, but it matters at what cost and when. Maybe alarmism and fear inducing is what's needed, to drive the work of toward adaptation and solutions forward and in time.
If we claim everything is going to be fine eventually, maybe too many people will just back and say "well, it will be solved by someone whenever" instead of starting working solutions in time enough so it won't be too late, to minimize the negative effects as much as possible
Why do you have such unfounded beliefs, as temperature increases life has only gotten easier and better across the world.
Are you trolling or just stupid? Correlation is not causation. And the graph is completely irrelevant to what I said
The fearmongering is not unjustified, and yes, it can have a positive effects.
Post a study from a credible academic source that says humanity will be wiped out in one cataclysmic event
If you think that things are getting worse then show me something that proves it, otherwise your belief is religious not based in science.
What do crop yields have to do with global warming
A common claim of alarmists is that there will be more droughts and mass starvation etc.
So a graph ending at 2013 disproves that? Can you predict what 2050 will bring? Turn of the century? I’m not saying that there will be a collapse, but saying because 2013 was fine 2113 will be fine is a tad disingenuous
That's a religious belief anon, you have to have evidence that this apocalypse will happen otherwise you're just yelling into the ether.
>avoids my point
Ok
Which is? X will happen because I believe it will. That doesn't make any sense.
Again, I never said that in my post. I said using 2013 data to say there will be no collapse between now and 2113 is disingenuous. What’s your new graph trying to prove?
But I have data showing that things haven't gotten worse at all. You have the sun god telling you that the world is going to end in 2 weeks.
You are aware that those graphs don't disprove what climate scientists are saying, right?
He’s hoping because he can’t read them that others can’t and take his word. Real 85 IQ not moronic but not smart shit
this, it's why we need to pay more taxes to change the weather before the ice caps melt by the year 2008
Why yes, surely nothing bad will come of an infinite growth, because we all know the planet have limitless resources....
So why are you arguing we should eat bugs instead of enact total Black person death?
If we're two weeks away from cow farts causing the earth to flood, you would be genociding Black folk enmass if you actually believed any of the idiotic shit you're saying.
the earth will flood right when patriots are in control?
The earth won't flood and you're a moron for thinking it will, there isn't any "no u" to be had here.
Q isn't real you're a moron for thinking he is, there isn't any "no u" to be had here.
You're the only one talking about "Q" because your doomsday climate hysteria is indefensible.
You're the only one talking about "the earth flooding" because your climate hysteria talking points only work if you're strawmanning.
The projection is unreal
How many more paintings do you need to destroy until the world is saved from coe farts?
I don't even understand your strawman here, got any thoughts of your own?
Yes you do.
take the L broski you've been exposed hard and doubling down on your damage control folder aint gonna change anything
2012 was 12 years ago, your doomsday cult failed, nobody is going to eat the bugs
>t.
this pussy who is afraid of positing his genuine opinion on anything
My genuine opinion is you’re both homosexuals and I don’t know why you quoted me
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH I NEED MY SAFESAPCE NOWWWWWW
>So why are you arguing we should eat bugs instead of enact total Black person death?
Because I'm not a sociopath like you, I have my morals in check. And since most of the comsumption happens in developed white countries, if you go by genocide, you might start with the whites, they are the ones who disproportionally use up all the resources.
Developing countries are the biggest waste producers on earth.
so you're saying the planet is angry with us
Crop yields are increasing in part due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels. That's a huge, tangible benefit for both humanity and the wider biosphere - increased yields means that less land is required to grow the food that feeds humanity.
Increasing in part? Can that be measured? How much of that is due to more co2 in the air and how much is due to advancing agriculture techniques and tech?
>Increasing in part? Can that be measured?
Yes, it can be measured, by experiments like the one I posted just now and earlier in the thread which grows plants under identical conditions except for higher CO2 levels.
Wait I thought everyone knew what megafauna was? Is this a revelation to some people?
Megafauna are large animals. Large plants would me megaflora, but the distinction is made by species, not by specimen.
English isn’t my first language sorry
NP esl-kun.
For whatever reason, climate scientists never want to talk about the benefits to nature of higher co2.
>trees will be bigger!
>wildfire seasons will now have bigger trees to burn
Great
It will likely be wetter in most places. Warmer temps = more evaporation = more rain
The wildfires in WA state seem to disagree with that. Didn’t have them this bad growing up or the heat bubbles we’ve been blessed with
Then tell your homosexual antifa buttbuddies to stop lighting forests on fire.
I don’t think they are doing that anon. I think it might be climate change
That's because you're stupid.
>screencap of a twitter post replying to an article
So because that dude did something moronic all forest fires are due to arson?
>some gender reveal party lit a fire so all wildfires are because of gender reveal parties
Your level of arguing
I accept your concession, hopefully you ligit yourself on fire next time like that other leftist homosexual.
>can’t argue, as hominem and posts a wojak
shocked
he's such an npc it's unreal all he has are pol quips and talking points
>/misc/ spends years whining about """ZOG"""
>As soon as Israel starts carpet bombing Gaza they suddenly support Israel
You people really do just take whatever the oppose position of whatever you think they left has
You seem confused, the only thing I support is leftists being killed.
You seem like a troubled individual anon. Please don't shoot up a Walmart.
and he's antifa because??
>inb4 my polcord told me
Conservatives literally are incapable of thinking beyond the level of individuals. Yeah, sure thing, this one thing that happened once is literally equivalent to a global trend. Sure.
He’s stupid enough for it to work on him so he is stupid enough to believe it will work on others
>shown leftist homosexuals starting wildfires through arson
>"NO IT MUST BE COW FARTS"
the absolute state of (You)
You are missing the point on purpose at this point, right?
It's arson. A lot are (ironically) motivated by climate change.
It's the same insane line of thinking as this
>Maybe alarmism and fear inducing is what's needed, to drive the work of toward adaptation and solutions forward and in time.
they think they're fighting the problem but they are the problem.
Can you prove the fires here in 2020 was due to arson?
Only circumstantially, but despite what you've heard in movies circumstantial evidence isn't something that just gets thrown out of court as nothing. The PNW is a hotbed of activists who use arson as a weapon.
Can you prove it was climate change?
>can you prove it was x?
>no can you prove it was y?
Ok good talk
>it wasn't the ideologically motivated arsons in that area
>it was the doomsday sun god
Okay.
>can’t argue his point
>strawmans after two captchas
You see how this is going?
I did. You haven't argued yours.
the PNW having arsonists isn’t an argument for stating all wildfires are caused by them. They don’t leave Seattle or Portland anyways. The impacted cities east of the cascades are fully red
>all
I didn't say all.
Did wildfires not happen before climate change? When did climate change start? When did the uptick in wildfires start? Around the time arsonist activists started becoming more active?
When did arsonists become more active? We had them in the 80s too without the crazy wildfires happening
They weren't as prevalent then as they are now and climate change activists weren't as die-hard or as prevalent. Look at the map I posted. Arsonists are more active in the PNW.
lol because there was forest management when you were growing up
See
actual data please, not summaries of summaries paid for by the UN.
I see you don't like texts and prefer drawings, here is one from the same report
>The fearmongering is not unjustified, and yes, it can have a positive effects
The fearmongering by media and "science communicators" is a form of lying, and lies are poor foundations for a social contract.
It's not lying though
>The fearmongering is not unjustified, and yes, it can have a positive effects.
So true. This strategy has never backfired. Ever.
>infrastructure and aid is better now than 1920
Huh!
Either way, technology is obviously far outpacing any damage we could do to the climate.
Wow great, hopefully technology for inhalers outpaces the damage constant wildfires every summer near me has
>okay so we were being fear mongering alarmists but actually here's why that's a good thing
>Nobody is saying there will be one massive apocalyptic event
Why are you homosexuals always so disingenuous
>You say humanity will adapt, and in time it probably will, but it matters at what cost and when.
Cost does matter - what's the cost of replacing the world's gasoline engines with EVs? Of replacing fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind?
Can humans stop climate change? If we can't, we need to adapt.
If we can, what are the costs of stopping it? And how will we know when ithas stopped? How do we agree on a stopping point that suits everyone?
It's possible and even probable that a warmer, wetter world with more co2 will be more liveable, with less desert and less tundra than exists today, ie more liveable, arable, productive land.
>Cost does matter - what's the cost of replacing the world's gasoline engines with EVs? Of replacing fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind?
You seem to measure "cost" in terms of money, I meant it in terms of human lives, which I think is more important.
>And how will we know when ithas stopped? How do we agree on a stopping point that suits everyone?
Maybe when we are starting to see a reversal of the previous negative trends? You know that this is not about going green, and when climate change effects get mitigated, we go back to producing and consuming the way before. The Earth is changing, in part because of human action, and we can either slow this change through action so we can buy more time to adapt and minimize the negative effects, or do nothing and let whatever that comes come.
>It's possible and even probable that a warmer, wetter world with more co2 will be more liveable, with less desert and less tundra than exists today, ie more liveable, arable, productive land.
What do you base that on? If that's a future reality, a lot of people will needlessly suffer before that happens. Are you arguing for some kind of survival of the fittest bullshit?
>Maybe when we are starting to see a reversal of the previous negative trends?
What negative trends? Higher co2 in and of itself is not a negative trend, and most of the undesirable developments in the last 100 years are due to land use changes, toxic pollutants and habitat destruction, not co2 emissions.
I asked you to post what you think is a negative trend before and you just sang the star spangled banner and didn't answer.
>You seem smarter to be the target audience of the OP movie
>his position is almost identical to the one presented in the movie
what did he mean by this?
Even if the study you linked claimed the thing you claimed it claimed, that still doesn't debunk the claim that " the climate has always changed", it would only provide context on previous eras of change.
If it's established then you cultists could have made an accurate prediction instead of shoehorning whatever happens into the same moronic theory and just changing the name.
I like when they drag out Paul "I have the same track record as Harold Camping" Erlich to cheerlead the grift.
Established by whom?
To what standard?
Science is never established.
More carbon is better for the planet.
The modern climate is one of the coldest in Earth's history. There is absolutely no reason to suppose the modern, pre-industrial climate is optimal in any sense for humanity or for the rest of the biosphere.
In the Devonian Period (400 million years back) beginning plants evolved to produce lignin, which in combination with cellulose, created wood which in turn for the first time allowed plants to grow tall for sunlight. Forests pulled down carbon as CO2 from the atmosphere to make wood. Lignin is very difficult to break down and no decomposer species possessed the enzymes to digest it. Trees died atop one another until they were 100 metres or more in depth. This was the making of the great coal beds around the world as this huge store of sequestered carbon continued to build for 90 million years. Then, fortunately for the future of life, white rot fungi evolved to produce the enzymes that can digest lignin and so the coal-making era came to an end
Life won't carry on if CO2 drops below 150ppm. Carbon sequestration has been lowering atmospheric CO2 gradually for tens of millions of years - it has fluctuated up and down for various reasons, but until humans came along and began extracting and burning hydrocarbons, the global carbon cycle was gradually depleting itself.
Humanity is the saviour of life on Earth - if we hadn't evolved the intelligence and technology to extract and burn hydrocarbons and thus free the trapped carbon back into the biosphere, sequestration would have eventually caused atmospheric levels to fall beneath 150ppm and kill all plant life. Once all plant life dies, all animal life follows. The only lifeforms left would be chemosynthetic organisms around hydrothermal vents.
tldr cope
Not an argument
exposed doe
The SCIENCE
is
SETTLED
You
CHUD BASTARDS
YOU BLOODY BASTERD b***h
DO NOT REDEEM THE PETROLEUM
So “established”
>Daily Mail
>Just the headline
You might as well be sourcing Weekly World News.
Then why is every year more fricked than the last?
I'll give you a clue, it starts with a j and rhymes with shoes.
if you're talking only about the weather or seasons being different, you simply haven't lived long enough and haven't spoken to anyone who has.
ask someone about the winters in the 70s even, or read into the victorian winters in the late 1800s when every river was frozen solid, or the medieval warm period where they were harvesting crops year round for decades if not longer.
check long term ice core samples giving information over 60-100,000 years and then understand that nothing is currently out of the usual beyond generated hysteria
I legit at this point don’t know what the israelites aren’t behind to you people
I legit think at this point that you didn't read beyond the first line.
that you don't read in general is evident.
It's politically motivated, troony.
WTF? I was told literally every single scientist agreed it was super real and super cereal so we all have to eat bugs and be gay (except them)???
It's like 99% climatologists. Other scientists don't really matter.
This. Do we even hear about scientists who disagree? No, which is proof they don't exist.
Eh, they make some blog posts here and there. Their work isn't good enough to be published in peer-reviewed high impact factor journals.
Several "deniers" have Nobel Prizes like one of the guys in this movie.
>Nobel Prizes
So? In which field and for what?
i know everyone in this thread is trolling but this figure is total bullshit. it is supposedly "97% of scientists" but they got this value by determining that 97% of publications either supported the notion OR were not explicitly against the notion that global warming is real. This boils down to roughly 0.4% of scientists have published a paper in support of the narrative but.
Annnnnnd here come the shills.
Don't think about it as the most uncomfortably hot summer in your life; think about it as the coolest of the rest of your life
>killing the planet to pwn the libtards
I will not rest until every acre of God's earth becomes a parking lot
>workers of america, unite against these republicans!!1
>except these workers that we dont like, you dont get to have a say
these workers that we dont like, you dont get to have a say
Yes
Who are you quoting?
>Climate change is a hoax. This time absoutely for real. Two more weeks
how do you keep falling for that?
Uhmmmm... this was debunked a long time ago actually. Take your misinformation elsewhere.
>THE CONTINENTS ARE MOVING FROM DINOSAURS WALKING TOO MUCH
>I'M LITERALLY GOING INSANE
THE CONTINENTS ARE NOT MOVING troony AND IF THEY DID IT'S YHWH'S WILL
>Made by an oil company
Now why would an oil company tell us that climate change is a hoax? Why would they tell us that CO2 isn't causing global warming
It's honestly astounding how they just expect us to ignore that the "rain" coming off the umbrella is yellow. For fricks sake, I wasn't born yesterday; I've personally experienced how the climate in my part of the world has changed from when I was a child.
So have I, I remember when winters used to be cold and full of snow. This winter was very close to a proper winter in Europe (well at least the northern part) and how did everyone react? By saying it's unusually cold
Of course it was, we forgotten what winter used to be like.
winter is barely over here and we're already getting hit with an african heat wave + sand storm, this shit is messed up
Its weird how Aileen Getty of the Getty Oil family funds CEF to "make up for past wrongs"...they may have sold their oil shares in 1980s but they are still Illuminati family with ties to Clintons and Rockefellers.
how come /misc/acks claim to be le independent thinkers and supersceptics but accept shit like this blindly without any hint of criticism. Basic research reveals those are all oil shills. Literally getting paid by Koch brothers or someone similar and working for shady organizations whose sole purpose is to spread disinfo
/pol/acks in general are not particularly smart people
>basic research
>that I wont present
literally just type their names in google
ok so you are not watching it because alternate ideas hurt your brain so instead went straight to character assassination. And I should trust your movement why?
>guy hired by Copious Amounts of Sugar are Healthy Organization funded by Coca Cola says we should replace water with Coca Cola
this is the level of moronataion you're subscribing too
But have you listened to him? He's really persausive and makes me feel good about myself!
(me)
ps. to*
Smears dont work with me. And your tactics dont bolster your arguments. Watch the doc and debunk the data instead you cowardly fool!
The global warming thing has been a scam for decades, and they keep moving the doomsday dates forward in order to keep the scam going. TL;DR it gets people rich so they keep pushing the narrative. As a result, the world is rotting. But with the internet, now people are waking up.
It's cool there can be a documentary for normalcool nutflickers who wouldn't otherwise know.
Who's getting rich on global citizen? Seriously I can't think of anyone who's gotten rich from it
Meanwhile oil companies and nations they are the ones who are getting richer by pushing for the "it's a hoax narrative"
>climatologists before climate change
glorified weathermen that no one gave a shit about and no one funded
>climatologists after climate change
superhero rockstars who are saving the planet from the dastardly weather who are given billions
Who? Seriously give me names, you call them Rockstars but I seen more "it's a hoax" people speak to the US Congress then the "we must do something about it" people.
How dare you.
Greta is an activist not a scientist and we're talking about scientists here
I should be in school.
They are currently building a gas powered turbine to supplement the grid next to one of the largest wind farms in my country because wind turbines are just so shit. I can't imagine the amount of material they shifted in order to build the farm, not to mention the carbon trapping peat bog they destroyed. Science is a cult of destruction, the oceans are full of plastic because of scientific practices.
>the oceans are full of plastic because of scientific practices.
No it isn't, the ocean is full of plastic because of bad logistics and horrible waste management
If scientists were too dumb to see that their horrible poisonous creations would end up being litter then how do you expect them to solve an apparent problem they caused in the first place creating all these fossil fuel plants and CO2 producing tech. Scientists believe that the key to fighting fossil fuels is to mine and refine a ludicrous amount of rare earth minerals (one wind turbine requires 10 tons of copper) via fossil fuels in order to build fancy new toys like EV's so people can pat themselves on the back. They are either dumb or evil, probably both.
>Scientists believe that the key to fighting fossil fuels is to mine and refine a ludicrous amount of rare earth minerals (one wind turbine requires 10 tons of copper) via fossil fuels in order to build fancy new toys like EV's so people can pat themselves on the back. They are either dumb or evil, probably both.
Do you advocate for nuclear power? Because are you aware of how material is required for just one reactor, yes it's a shame that a wind turbine needs that material but what do you suggest we do instead then. Nothing? Burn more oil?
You're always going to burn more oil because all the technology you rely on requires crude oil somewhere along the way, in terms of generating energy I would say at least use the resources on something that is effective. I'm pretty sure modern nuclear plants use a lot less material and can even use recycled material thank to the diligent efforts of le scientists.
Again what are you suggest then, burning more oil? We know that CO2 is one of the key elements behind global warming so shouldn't we seek to reduce it where we can, if we can reduce CO2 by 20% by not using it for power production then shouldn't we do so?
>I'm pretty sure modern nuclear plants use a lot less material and
Well you don't know shit then, digging up uranium is very very polluting
But once the uranium is mined and processed and the plant is built you get potential centuries of clean power, real industrial strenght electric power, which you can then use to, i dont know, manufacture more windmills, run factoey machines, or charge electric whatevers
If you shut down a nuclear plant tho, you get a masive radioactive hazard and a complete loss on a generational investment in the billions
Plus you lose power
Sure but the overall CO2 release is still smaller in a wind mill production then what it is in uranium production
>you get a masive radioactive hazard
You get that when it's on as well, we still can't do anything with used fuel.
just put it back underground where it came from
And radiate the soil and ground water? You want cancer that badly then there are easier way to get it
But like it was already pretty radioactive when we dug it up, right
Just go back and put it in the same hole
It's slightly radioactive when we dig it up, on a normal level. It's a lot more radioactive after we're done using it
Like a lot more, think logarithmic scale
Jut burry it somewhere no one lives, like anywhere on two thirds of the globe, you could probably just dump it all in the middle of the ocean in sealed containers and no one would know the difference
Guess we should use nuclear power the-oh wait the left banned nuclear energy because it hurt their feelings.
you forgot to point out that 90% of the plastic in the ocean comes from 3 rivers, in india, africa and china.
Because of bad logistics and horrible waste management
>the oceans are full of plastic because of scientific practices
...uh?
>Scientists not agreeing on how climate change will affect us means climate change isn't real
I know most people reading this post is american (so basically functionally moronic) but c'mon, at least try.
>Far from facing a global warming problem, the documentary shows we are in a cold period of time
that makes it worse
More carbon is better for the planet.
The modern climate is one of the coldest in Earth's history. There is absolutely no reason to suppose the modern, pre-industrial climate is optimal in any sense for humanity or for the rest of the biosphere.
In the Devonian Period (400 million years back) beginning plants evolved to produce lignin, which in combination with cellulose, created wood which in turn for the first time allowed plants to grow tall for sunlight. Forests pulled down carbon as CO2 from the atmosphere to make wood. Lignin is very difficult to break down and no decomposer species possessed the enzymes to digest it. Trees died atop one another until they were 100 metres or more in depth. This was the making of the great coal beds around the world as this huge store of sequestered carbon continued to build for 90 million years. Then, fortunately for the future of life, white rot fungi evolved to produce the enzymes that can digest lignin and so the coal-making era came to an end.
Life won't carry on if CO2 drops below 150ppm. Carbon sequestration has been lowering atmospheric CO2 gradually for tens of millions of years - it has fluctuated up and down for various reasons, but until humans came along and began extracting and burning hydrocarbons, the global carbon cycle was gradually depleting itself.
Humanity is the saviour of life on Earth - if we hadn't evolved the intelligence and technology to extract and burn hydrocarbons and thus free the trapped carbon back into the biosphere, sequestration would have eventually caused atmospheric levels to fall beneath 150ppm and kill all plant life. Once all plant life dies, all animal life follows. The only lifeforms left would be chemosynthetic organisms around hydrothermal vents.
>More water is good for us, drown yourself in water
>More salt is good for us, so put on as much salt as you can in your food. In fact eat salt
>More Oxygen is good for us, in fact you should breath as much of it as possible from tanks.
i cant breathe carbon dioxide
make less of that
make more oxygen
simple as
I can breathe carbon dioxide
give me more of that
and I'll make you more oxygen
simple as
In hotter and higher CO2 environments, more oxygen is produced. Plants produce oxygen by splitting CO2, and higher CO2 levels result in larger and faster-growing plants which, necessarily, are producing more oxygen.
>we're going to save the planet by doing exactly as the elite say even though the rich are evil and ruined the planet
>exactly as the elite say
but that's not what they are saying. They are literally funding denialism as you can see with this doc for example. It's funded by elites. At the same time they are building bunkers en masse. Funny coincidence
>At the same time they are building bunkers en masse.
They build those bunkers out of fear of le alt-right chud insurrectionists TM, not climate change
Legit nobody outside of my cnn watching perpetually drunk mom is scared of alt right homosexual dyels
>Legit nobody
If nobody is scared why censor and imprison them and write a gorillion opinion pieces demonizing them? Seems like a waste of time.
Who is in prison
The elderly aunties who waddled around Capitol staying within the red tape
Good that’s funny as frick
>it didn't happen
>it happened but it's a good thing™
I see the NPC script works as usual
I didn’t say it didn’t happen you illiterate moron
see
>Who is in prison
I asked who is in prison, I didn’t say nobody was in prison. frick you’re dumb lamo
>what is subtext
You're one of those people who answer "yes" when asked if they have a watch on the street, got it.
I accept your concession
And I yours
Accepted
Unlike your new pronouns by your father.
Least I have a father darkie
You're already outed as a climate hoax troon. You won't fit in here more by being racist
>waiting 45 minutes to reply
Leftist cowardice
for me this is not a job
>snide cowardly insult
who are you quoting?
cope
>uhm actually I was just asking a question
>I'm scared so I need to build a jail and imprison my sweaty chub troon incel self because of the all the sweetie normal sane people.
>CO2 is pollution
DAS RITE HEALTHY AT EVERY SIZE TELL EM SIS
Bad policy implimentation doesnt mean climate change isnt real. Just that politicians take advantage of it like every other issue.
The seuss effect provides pretty good evidence for human influenced climate change.
>The seuss effect provides pretty good evidence for human influenced climate change.
The suess effect is simply an observation or carbon isotope ratios, it doesn't speak to the impact of co2 levels on climate / weather. It DOES debunk the incorrect claim that "volcanoes emit more co2 than humans", but that's about it.
>Steve Koonin
>A former chief scientist for the oil and gas producer BP
>William Happer
>Happer, who is not a climate scientist, rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Donald Trump appointed him to the National Security Council to counter evidence linking carbon dioxide emissions to global warming. He resigned from the council in 2019.
>Richard Lindzen
>Climate Contrarian Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues in Open Letter to Trump
>Nir Shaviv
>Got disproven by CERN
What do the particle accelerator people know about climate change?
>yeah but no see they're scientists that means they're smart and probably right about most things
You are a disgrace
>Cherry pick one of them to seem clever
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/
Read this if you can. I know there are many difficult words that don't appear in your comic books, but you can always google the ones you don't understand.
Koonin
>>A former chief scientist for the oil and gas producer BP
He was also Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy, in the Obama administration, funny how you leave that bit out.
Is ad hominem all you have? Play the ball not the man.
He was one of many scientists hired by the Obama administration. He was hired PRECISELY because he held contrarian views, not because he was a leading expert in the field that the other scientists would follow and trust.
Happer
, who is not a climate scientist
And
>Nir Shaviv
>Got disproven by CERN
Which is it? How can CERN be credible against Nir Shaviv? They, like Dr Happer, are not "climate scientists"
It's not a case of
>more carbon in the atmosphere will kill the planet
Because obviously before it was oil the oil was biomass carbon participating in cycles thst resulted in a hotter wetter world that had dinosaurs
It's a case of
>the carbon that we're pumping into the atmosphere now had been sequestered underground for the entirety of the time in which humans have lived, and adding it back now may be so disruptive that it completely shatters our civilisation
Ecologies will adapt to change but everything we've built is likely incapable of doing so, is that OK with you? The world can shrug us off like a case of headlice and be perfectly fine.
>Ecologies will adapt to change but everything we've built is likely incapable of doing so
Good. Maybe some post-humans will evolve that won't have trannies.
>and adding it back now may be so disruptive that it completely shatters our civilisation
But it might also be a huge improvement for us.
Oh man the comments are fun.
>Increase in CO2 is good for the planet actually
>So what is increasing the CO2 in atmo right now?
>Warming oceans release more CO2, nothing to do with humans
>What is warming the oceans?
>....
I thought flat earthers were in denial.
>>What is warming the oceans?
Natural cycles. The Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now. Was it humans that caused the Mesozoic era to be fantastically hot compared to today? Or is it possible for the Earth to be warmer than it is now without human influence?
>Was it humans that caused the Mesozoic era to be fantastically hot compared to today?
No it was all the carbon dioxide
Then it went away and the world cooled down
And now we're putting it all back
Except in the geological record, temperatures have always risen first, carbon dioxide has followed.
That's for climate scientists to determine, if they do their jobs properly. We understand almost nothing about ocean and wind currents, and those have a much stronger effect on climate than co2 levels.
>Oceans are warming not because of human activity, but because of.... They just are, OK!?!
Every time.
Why not? The Earth has warmed and cooled countless times throughout history for various reasons that had nothing to do with humans or CO2 levels.
>The rain is not falling because of a rain dance, but because of.... it just is, OK?!?!
Oceans are heating because a lot of ice is melting which means more water in our oceans, and because the climate is getting hotter it means the ocean can hold more heat.
but anon my brother why is the ice melting
because the oceans are heating
Because the climate is heating up
Because the cows keep farting
>Natural cycles.
But what cycle is warming the oceans now?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-grappled-with-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/
no you don't understand it was real when they were covering it up but now it's in the open it became fake
>In 1998, Shell researchers wrote an internal memo about future scenarios that could harm their business. They determined that “only a crisis can lead to a large-scale change in this world,” according to the memo, recently uncovered by De Correspondent with a trove of company documents.
>The scenario planning process was based on climate science, political realities and economic projections. It suggested that a major storm on the East Coast in 2010 could turn public opinion against Shell and other oil and gas conglomerates, while pushing governments toward strict environmental regulations and investments in renewable energy.
>“Following the storms, a coalition of environmental [nongovernmental organizations] brings a class-action suit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done,” the Shell researchers wrote. “A social reaction to the use of fossil fuels grow, and individuals become ’vigilante environmentalists’ in the same way, a generation earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco. Direct-action campaigns against companies escalate. Young consumers, especially, demand action.”
>They came close to predicting Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the East Coast in 2012, killing at least 147 people and causing more than $70 billion in economic damages. The storm hit particularly hard in New York City, inspiring Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to undertake aggressive climate policies. Other states followed. Earlier this year, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio sued Shell and four other major oil companies as a way to make them “take full responsibility for the devastation they have wrought” for contributing to climate change. Separately, other parties are suing the federal government for promoting oil and gas consumption in a period of rising temperatures.
None of this suggests global warming is real only that people will get mad at them if there is some sort of disaster
A specific kind of disaster.
With the efficiency and speed that the CFC crisis was handled on a near-global scale, I have a very hard time believing that global warming as it's described today is a serious concern at all. If it was, I think we'd see a lot more actual action to fix it in industry and business rather than what we see today, which is basically just a lot of jerking off trying to get the plebs to give up their cars and meat.
have a book from 50 years ago with scientists saying it was all nonsense that no one could agree upon and likely wasn't a real concern.
that even back then in the 60s they couldn't agree on it, with some wildly theorising on it cooling things, others saying it would bake everyone, and others giving predictions about it going to 5 times the amount of co2 within 30 years.
further people were saying humans were not really the cause of any significant amount of it.
facts and truth don't matter - it's all about control.
have a look. how many nuclear power stations were shut down in Europe in the last 2 years, most of them at the same time, several in Germany and France.
this coincided with their claim of the ukrane nonsense supposedly being the cause of energy prices doubling, despite most countries not using any gas from there.
it is forced scarcity to elicit control, fear and further control.
this
I can feel it getting hotter frick you
and do you trust your lying senses or the latest pol infographs on fb
The earth is 5C colder than average.
CO2 is the healthiest thing for the environment and would greatly help against deforestation.
Taxes and other bullshit israelitery has no effect on China and India dumping all their shit into the ocean.
The best thing for the environment is killing all of these people and yourself.
you can't point out that the earth is greener than 30 years ago., nor that
>smog in the air
>less snow on mountains
>half the state catches on fire every summer
I love climate change
Oil co.s putting on the kino.
but we also need millions of more people pumping out more co2 or you're a chud
>carbon is bad
>you are a carbon based life form
you sure pwned capitalism xister
you're actually 70% water sweaty go hydrate now and wait for teflon do to make waterworld real
nope I definitely need to pay even higher taxes and eat bugs to save the planet
This is fairly recent. Is it false?
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/climate-change-indicators-reached-record-levels-2023-wmo
Yeah we debunked climate change in this thread
all in a day's work
>our indicators are at maximum levels!
>none of our predictions have come true
>BUT IMAGINE THE INDICATIONS!!1
They make no falsifiable, testable hypotheses. And when they do, they are unsupported by reality. Hence why there are still polar bear and no sea-lanes through the arctic.
Guys I think I trust the science instead of infographics
>documentary
>produced almost exclusively by "jews"
>has a musical score
>it's free goyim!
Sometimes I just like to smell the slop everyone is consuming, and that's what I got before turning it off after the first 60 seconds.
I can't wait until the next ice age hits because brownoids and low IQ homosexuals are ngmi.
conservatives are against walkable cities because 80% of them are fat as frick
((they)) don't want you to be able to pick bananas in your backyard. Big Fruit wants to sell you the bananas by keeping co2 levels low.
He did in 2007 "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary about same issue, I recommend you to watch it first before this one to see how things have changed (or not) in almost 2 decades
Isn't trying to stop climate change a reactionary, conservative position? Why would you want to oppose progress? I for one think we could learn a thing or two from the African weather services.
just take your fricking meds you insufferable schizo
Why do people argue on this cesspit of a website? I guarantee you the amount of arguments on this site that have changed someone’s view is in the single digits. Just drive by shitpost and false flag
>just introduce more noise so the signal is drowned out
This is a psyop tactic. If you aren't a glowBlack person yourself, you're working for them for free. Good job, dumbass.
stop being russophobic
Nice maybe they’ll give me a job because I’m only here to funpost
>Richard Lindzen
>Nir Shaviv
Shalom!
>Far from facing a global warming problem, the documentary shows we are in a cold period of time.
That’s still climate change. And it’s not good either.
For the climate emergency to actually happen, every trend needs to do a full 180 degree reversal
Why don't climate hysterics ever care that none of their predictions have ever come true?
"NONONO TWO MORE WEEKS I SWEAR THIS TIME" is not science.
Did you get this from facebook
No, I found it on a MySpace post that linked to newgrounds.com
>pol infograph
>'''climate hysteria'''
the memes write themselves
>The world was slightly warmer 60 million years ago so that means there's nothing wrong with the temperature raising drastically in 140 years.
Well meme'd I guess.
But how does it impact you personally?
>what's the optimal global average temperature?
>lol before people
>what's the best level of co2 in the atmosphere?
>lol before people
hey i wonder if this is a mental illness thing and not an end of the world thing
Where you live, how much does the temperature change by between midnight and midday? Are the plants and animals able to tolerate and adapt to that range of temperature change? Even though it all occurs within just 24 hours?
green gays don't know anything about molecular biology or the range of adaptability of metazoans, that's why they always come up with dumb things like the polar bears will all die without sea ice.
Are you moronic? The issue isn't that life can't live in a warmer climate. It's that having relatively sudden changes can destroy the environment.
Have you never raised a pet fish before?
>It's that having relatively sudden changes can destroy the environment.
More sudden than the temperature going from 5c at midnight to 20c at midday? More sudden than that?
Maybe not a single person, but yes a sudden increase in temperature can kill your houseplants if they aren't properly adjusted.
It can’t that’s been debunked they will grow larger from the CO2.
Depends on the plant, moron.
Cactus grow larger
Which houseplants? What level of temp rise? In what time frame?
Move your houseplant to a warmer/cooler location in your house and see what happens.
I don’t have a house plant
>destroy the environment
What, specifically, is at risk of being destroyed?
Coral reefs and beaches are the obvious ones. Especially the heckin sea turtles
coral reefs are fine. bleached corals aren't dead anyway, they're just turned white so homosexual tourists will leave them alone.
>Coral reefs and beaches are the obvious ones.
Bleaching is a natural part of the life cycle of corals. The Great Barrier Reef is doing great.
Did you know that the biggest diversity of coral reefs is found in the world's warmest seas?
>here’s a screencap I took of a image for a video so actually you’re wrong!
Where do you people come from
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/
It's a webpage, not a video
>guy with a journalism degree
I don’t care dude
OK how about the Australian Institute of Marine Science?
https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22
>Continued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef
OY BLYAAAAT
>be logical scietnific being
>believe the earth will blowed up if we don't put fart bags on cows
>THE FRICKING COWS KEEP FARTING
>not huffing the jenk off your cows fart bag
Pussy
dey eat da poo poo
excuse me but whom are you quoting?
Wow I bet its totally not a load of shills and cherrypicked data funded by oil corporations
Why was there a big bump on the Low Countries in post ww2 Europe?
>Yeah, I'm going to just ignore the increase in the 90's
Forest management budget cuts and poor policy decisions. Ask your dad or probably your grandpa what the boys scouts used to do to keep the forests healthy, they'd make fire breaks and clear out the standing fuel all the time.
I asked my dad and he said it was climate change
damn, you were molested
Not by him but by my other dad though
uh my brother in yeshua delete this, the water is actually higher in the bottom pic
Nice try
>CAPITALISM GOOD
Finally a refreshing take. Even if it's from a bunch of pathetic boomers
>he's ignoring the posts where he got btfo and just dumps his pol folder
russian moment