How do we know climate change is real?

[Tiffanytrans]

The over 600 of falsified predictions over the past 40 years... (From the top climate scientists) And the ones that are failing to this day.

The fact that all the biggest celebrity proponents fly planes and buy beach front property

The governments around the world support it. We know the governments always have peoples best interest in mind. I mean just look at germany, and you know, slavery was a thing.

Its true because the right wing thinks its false. If trump said we aught to breathe air, id stop breathing. Its obviously toxic then.

Computer models tell us so. Because computer models are always 100% reliable. Models are only as good as their creators? Nah, dont confuse me with the facts. My minds made up.

Scientists have proven it with big words and "studies" because no study about anything has ever been false or manufactured for money or power.

Updates

+1 y

What kinds of cars did Neanderthals drive prior to the ice age. Because we know severe weather is always caused by man made c02.

Updates

+1 y

I love that video that the guy provided that not only lied about a false study that claimed most scientists belive in climate change (and he had the gall to say all)
But also that the guy said we aught to believe in an idea on the ground if we dont we could die.
1. Thats begging the question.
2. Tell that to atheists who dont like pascals wager.
FAIL. HAAAAAAAAA

[RavVid]

It is problematic. There is much to criticize. I see a number of problems which include but are not limited to.

1. The people in the field have an agenda. Their income at the least depends on there being a Climate Crisis. Sorry that should have been Emergency - I have only just caught up with that amping up.

2. Spreadsheets. The proof depends on spreadsheets people have built. That is a little sarcastic of me to denigrate the model software as speadsheets but is in essence true. Their spreadsheets may be no better then ones you build at work on a bad day.

3. Shouting. You can't dignify Climate Science as a science because the normal processes aren't followed. There have been outright frauds like that Cook guy you mentioned in passing fabricating "consensus". Not that consensus means scientifically true. The scientific debate largely consists of yelling at each other in denigrating terms.

4. Professional Maturity. I somewhat resent that as an engineer, corporations demand a much higher level of proof in my proposals than Climate Scientists need to provide. It is very tempting to read into data what you are expecting/hoping to see. It takes a lot of maturity to critically question the data and if your hypothesis is supported.

5. Incompatiable Politics. China is a developing country BECAUSE it has self declared it is a developing nation. So it is OK for it to be the #1 emitter at twice the amount of the US does. The US should self declare it is a developing nation too. Then it will be OK to emit as much as you bloody well want to and the problem is fixed. Right?

6. Renewables are CRAP. Right now I am looking at the energy produced by the wind farm fleet on the eastern seaboard of Australia. Quite apart from the fact it never gets anywhere near the installed capacity, it is often only producing at 10% capacity. On a monthly basis it averages 20%. That's crap. Moving on to solar. I admit it is better averaging 50% installed capacity. During the day of course. Over 24 hrs that halves at the equinox. So down to 25%. Depends on your latitude and season of course. Where I am I need to heat in winter and the sun hours will give me about 12.5% capacity. Renewables are expensive BULL SHIT.

Overall, I think that if an original founder of Green Peace is heavily criticizing the climate change agenda, then it should give us pause for thought. What has caused him to reverse his opinion by 180 degrees huh?

Each of these points are highly defensible. But there is a lot more in addition.

[RavVid]

A few years ago I decided to take an engineer's look because scientists - particularly physicists - can just be plain silly.

So I bought the entire land based temperature measurement record for Australia. Global warming, as advertised, would cause you to think you would see a gradually increasing trend line. You can fit a trend line to anything in excel - even when you shouldn't.

What was pretty immediately obvious was there was about a 20 year cycle of being warmer then cooler to the average. Now if you put a 20 year trend line over that data and shift that trend line along the data from the start of time towards the end of the data what are you going see.

Well that is quite simple. If the beginning of the 20 year trend line starts at a cooler period then the trend line will trend up. Global warming. As you shift the trend line along to start at a warmer period then, OMG, the trendline points down. Global cooling.

The thing is if there are natural cycles - which there are - then you can get either warming or cooling by appropriately choosing your start point. With a lot of data that is presented as proof of warming the start point is in an acknowledged cool period in circa 1970's.

So the temperature could not do anything but go up from a cool point. After that it becomes ambiguous as to how to treat the data and take out the natural variation. It is now 50 years on from the 70's.

My point is deliberately choosing a cool period to start at is sheer fraud and manipulation. If you did that with stocks you could go to jail.

What I do know is if there has been fraudulent presentation of data by charlatans then you should never trust them again. Ever. Full Stop.

[goaded]

Why did you look at Australia, when it's *Global* warming? That's like saying it's not hot today because your air conditioner's on.

[RavVid]

@goaded Because I live in Australia for one and the temperature record was readily accessible to me. Also at a time every post office had a thermometer and part of their job was to read and send back to head office. Thus Australia meteorological data is more extensive and goes back further in time than what you are probably thinking.

Your comment that it is like saying it is not hot because the air con is on is, to put it nicely, misplaced.

We are talking GLOBAL aren't we? Which does include the Southern Hemisphere. We aren't talking NORTHERN hemisphere warming or NORTH America warming are we?

In point of fact because there are a LOT of temperature stations in North America the global temperature record is inherently biased to North America and it is not a good thing to have inherent bias.

The US in particular is more industrialized. Which might bias its temperature record with more heat island effect or with more particulates which would increase or decrease temperature respectively.

The primary defect in the Australian record is stevenson screens were introduced in 1910 which meant - from my puristic point of view - about 50 years of data needed to be binned. Sad but necessary. Late into the 20th century thermometers were made with ceramic backing plates - not because that was best or cheapest. It was done that way to maintain consistency of measurement technique.

Which brings up the second primary defect. Instead of amateur postmasters reading thermometers to a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, automated stations were introduced reading to one degree Celsius.

[goaded]

You know temperatures are measured by satellite today?

"Australia's changing climate represents a significant challenge to individuals, communities, governments, businesses, industry and the environment. Australia has already experienced increases in average temperatures over the past 60 years, with more frequent hot weather, fewer cold days, shifting rainfall patterns and rising sea levels. More of the same is expected in the future."
www.csiro.au/.../Climate-change-information

[RavVid]

@goaded Of course and as time goes by the dataset gets longer but it can never be as long as the land thermometer record.

by the way I remember CSIRO around 2000 (from immediate memory) claiming the late 1990's was unnaturally hot and proof of rapid global warming and then withdrawing that at a parliamentary hearing and explained it was due to natural climatic cycles after all. :)

I'm not interested in doing climate science but I am highly interested in probity. Part of that is whether enthusiasm to see your hypothesis supported in data overwhelms professional maturity as in my point 4 at start. In that CSIRO case it did and there was an awkward following global warming pause that had to be explained away.

[RavVid]

I spend a lot of time counting my fingers in a number of areas.

One of the least dispassionate sciences is physics. The renowned Millikan actually stuffed up his oil drop experiment in which he measured the charge of an electron in 1909. It was repeated many times over decades with the value just being refined. Until another person developed a new method and got a vastly different result (for physics) and went over the original and found a calculation error. A lot of researchers had just debugged their equipment till they got about the same result as Millikan for a long time.

The last guy to have claimed to have achieved cold fusion got published in a peer reviewed paper but somebody check his adiabatic equipment and found the accuracy he claimed could not have been achieved. In between other researchers had validated the results.

I have also seen it claimed that 50% of medical research is just wrong and medical research is where the most stringently controlled research field.

Just for a little further amusement I did work on a commercial instrument to measure carbon monoxide and fount it was actually measuring water vapor.

So yeah I count my fingers. And I am a lowly engineer who knows little science.

[goaded]

It's not like everybody has been doing the same research in the same way like the electron experiment. Simple physics states that more carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapour in the air results in a greenhouse effect. It's an undeniable fact that humans have been pumping gasses into the atmosphere for centuries in ever increasing amounts. (There was a 1920 newspaper article warning about it, and apparently fossil fuel companies have had accurate estimates of the effects of their products for decades.)

You might like this article, about correcting sea temperature measurements since the early 19th century. phys.org/.../...toric-sea-surface-temperature.html

[RavVid]

@goaded The point of the accounts i gave was that we see group think or more accurately confirmation bias operating in non-political and non-emotional scientific determinations.

In a political and emotional area of scientific determination we can expect confirmation bias to operate more strongly. The human mind is subject to quite a number of cognitive biases and downside of these biases is that people make unknowingly irrational decisions due to them. I have received some training on avoiding these cognitive biases in my decision making but it is not easy to avoid them since humans are largely emotional decision makers. If you are interested on this topic here is a link to start with. https://www.mindtools.com/a0ozgex/cognitive-bias

Climate science - in MY assessment - is highly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It is a highly emotional/political area and clearly people are evangelical on both sides. That should be a red flag of potential bad decision making.

It is very nearly, if not totally, embedded into climate science. To test climate models you can do two things. Go back to a point in the past and run the model forward to today or compare predictions of several models and chose amognst them. The stark reality is that in Excel I can fit a line to any data with work. That applies to the first way - I fiddle the fudge factors till I get the right results but that doesn't mean it has predictive capability. All it means is I fitted a line reasonably well.

The second way is institutionalized. IPCC takes say half a dozen independent models that correspond reasonably well and , I think, averages them with the expectation that this will be accurate. This is bad science because it is injecting group think.

Moving on, I was aware of the problems of marine temperature measurements and the intake often being taken close to the engine room. The question is 'can you reasonably correct and should you'. If it is bum data it is still bum data after panel beating.

[BeMuse]

Climate obviously changes. This is due to the nature of how we define climate. Climate is the long term weather pattern in a region, typically averaged over 30 years. Being that we look at averages over 30 years, patterns that last longer than 30 years will cause changes in climate. One such example would be the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation which typically lasts 60-80 years It can and does influence local climate and has been influential for at least the past thousand years.

Another example would be the solar cycle which can lead to solar minimums and solar maximums. Being that the sun is responsible for the majority of the energy on Earth, this can dramatically impact climate.

Milankovitch cycles would be another example of longer term patterns. Eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intraannual and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth's surface and orbital force may also trigger peaks of volcanic eruptions. The gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions can shade the planet from incoming solar radiation causing a cooling effect that can last for years.

Earth is a complex system with many variables. Human life cycles and our behavior are one of them which influences the carbon cycle, but so to are the life cycles of primary producers that absorb that CO2 we generate from fossil fuels and nutrient loads that runoff into our oceans which results in the production of the majority of oxygen we breath and over very long time cycles the fossil fuels we burn to make the CO2 everyone acts so concerned about. It would seem, people would focus on fine tuning that cycle insuring that pH doesn't get out of wack, that enough of the right nutrients are in the solution (ocean) so that the system runs like a well oiled machine. Instead all we seem to get only propaganda. They will tell you that the CO2 is a problem. Then they will turn right around and tell you that the primary producers that remove the CO2 is the problem when they both counter each other.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/AWfebk0_auYhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/W6kYXAyQbWs

[chrissykerdock]

you can go back to the time of jesus and there were worries the world was going to end in 20 ad... and again and again... climate changes world disasters... it's always been called up... truth of the matter whether changes sometimes extreme sometimes boring sometimes very good... no one really knows.

[goaded]

Sometimes things go up, mostly things fall down, is there really gravity? No one really knows.

[Anonymous]

Even the useful idiots are changing their tune. Greta has removed her bullshit predictions from her social media.

Climate change is the biggest hoax in history. Now Joey the clown is going after washers and dryers. lol

And liberal weak-minded idiots will go along with it. China is laughing at us.

[Tiffanytrans]

According to PolitiFact:

In 2009, Al Gore loosely cited researchers and said there was a “75% chance” the ice could be gone during at least some summer months within five to seven years.
He made similar statements multiple other times in the late 2000s.

Even if you say, "He misrepresented the data from "Dr. (Wieslav) Maslowski"
This just proves the democrats CLIMATE NUTJOBS spokespersons "the sky is falling" are wrong and constantly lie to the people for their agenda to spark fear.

[Tiffanytrans]

Gotta love crazy leftist whackjobs like "Still alive"

He actually argued because 2 people make a claim that means they're right. And he rage quit after asking him to show if the claim "all severe weather patterns is proof of climate change and things like cars are the cause" Then explain what sort of cars did neanderthals drive prior to the ice age?

>>“ More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change..<<
YAWN.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

He hilariously linked to a study that has been refuted because most of those studies point to studies that have been debunked.
The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

[Tiffanytrans]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol
populartechnology. net

[Tiffanytrans]

He then blocked me after deleting my refutations.
HAAAAAA
What a comedic loser.

[Opinion Owner]

I've blocked that fucking asshole. I would gladly pay for an American ONLY version of this site.
Global cooling/warming/climate change is targeted at the weak-minded morons who will believe anything.

[Tiffanytrans]

" More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change.."
YAWN
Still alive deleted my refutation, like a coward. The problem is the study includes data that is linked to a repeatedly refuted study.

"The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope. . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument. . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

[Tiffanytrans]

And if he "really got my last point" He would have refuted the claim instead of ignoring it and rage quitting.
If its true that "All extreme weather conditions are caused by man made emissions from things like cars..." Then he MUST believe that neanderthals drove cars.

What a nutcase.
LOL

[Tiffanytrans]

He had the gall to claim because people "know their stuff" that means one aught to believe what they say.
According to pew research "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power"
That means, "according to his logic" he must believe in god because he thinks scientists "know their stuff"
What a loser.

[Opinion Owner]

That guy is a fucking moron. Joey the clown is now going to demand you buy a new washer and dryer, that is climate friendly. You have to realize, that most humans are fucking retarded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA

[Tiffanytrans]

One claim for man made climate change is "Fossil fuels"
The problem?
Fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C.

Thats according to NASA.

[Tiffanytrans]

"" More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change.."
YAWN
The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope. . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument. . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

[Tiffanytrans]

His linked a study data from a repeatedly refuted papers. What a loser.

[Tiffanytrans]

He claimed that we aught to believe something from people who "know their stuff"
He believes scientists so, he aught to believe in god. Why? According to peer research, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power. Oops. Fail.

[Tiffanytrans]

One claim is that man made climate change is cause by fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C. According to NASA.

[Opinion Owner]

The left doesn't care.

[Anonymous]

Because there is more concrete evidence from a plethora of countries, organizations, fields of study, sectors and industries, scientific bodies, and physical, first-hand current experience, in addition to historical examples and data that verifies the realities of an ever-changing global climate, accelerated by human activity, than there is any real evidence to support otherwise.

----

These are hilarious:

The over 600 of falsified predictions over the past 40 years... (From the top climate scientists) And the ones that are failing to this day. If you've ever done anything in medicine, science, economics, actually anything professional, you'll know that with the truth, there are countless examples of persons trying to make a name for themselves, no matter if they're right, wrong, behind the times, or bought to provide a specific narrative. 600+ falsified docs, if true, is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

The fact that all the biggest celebrity proponents fly planes and buy beach front property Not every 'celebrity proponent' flies planes nor purchases beach front property. You think Greta is out there in a mansion in Malibu? You really expect Leo to fly coach, knowing how insane the public are? And if they have a home on/near the beach, is that your problem? Unless you're living in that community as well, and their presence has blocked off access to the beach, what do you care? With the flooding often experienced in coastal areas, those homes may not last as long anyhow. And not all of those homes are owned by environmental celebrities...

The governments around the world support it. We know the governments always have peoples best interest in mind. I mean just look at germany (sic), and you know, slavery was a thing. What are you trying to say here by mentioning Germany and slavery? Germany is working, actually working, to educate and not ignore the destruction and horrors of it's imperialism & colonialism from the 1800s, the two world wars it spearheaded, and the genocide and systemic murder and slavery of millions. The U. S. has yet to follow suite in regards to the 400 years of chattel slavery systemically brought against millions of Africans and their descendants. Yet, the U. S. and Germany's histories against entire cultures, communities, and races is not the argument of climate change. That's like saying 'I like the color blue', and then countering with 'yea well, burritos are tasty'. Like, what? Pick an argument.

Its true because the right wing thinks its false. If trump said we aught to breathe air, id stop breathing. Its obviously toxic then. Well, those persons who vote Republican and believe in trump (sic) are, in my opinion, the dumbest creatures to have ever existed on this planet. But to immediately go against (or for) an individual or a political party just because it is that person or political party is completely idiotic. I don't see very many, if any, ever Republican laws, bills, or ideas that seem beneficial, especially lately, to the vast majority of people, so hence my hesitation at dealing with them. But if Trump said air is toxic, and because I, as are millions, billions of people on this planet, am naturally curious and have the ability free thinking, I would, and continue to, question his laughable statements. If anything, his followers are the ones you should be asking- they are the ones who swamped vet's office for made up COVID treatments, shoved UV lights in their skin, and drank bleach because Trump told them to do so. They also stormed the Capitol, thinking they'd be the cowards that (this time) would finally succeed at toppling the U. S. government- Civil War Part II failed, luckily much quicker and with way less death, than actual Civil War.

Computer models tell us so. Because computer models are always 100% reliable. Models are only as good as their creators? Nah, dont confuse me with the facts. My minds made up. So... what you're saying is, you don't trust computers? Yet, you're using a computer to communicate your opinion / conspiracy.. You now what? You're right- you should stop utilizing technology. Don't update anything again, because stuff never needs an upgrade, like ever right? Clearly you've never gotten a new phone, car, computer, microwave, tv, job, clock, watch, because new technology is stupid- things made originally are always better, right? Ignorance isn't always bliss.

Scientists have proven it with big words and "studies" because no study about anything has ever been false or manufactured for money or power. This sounds like the 'big words' of scientists intimidates you and makes you angry because you, what, think they're making fun of you? No one cares about you- you spoke up because you wanted to show how much of a big, important person you are with your big, unfounded opinions against climate change because you saw a Fox News segment and you know your stuff better than the scientists whose names you'll never know or the countless studies you'll never read nor hear about because you don't understand how to (actually) conduct your own fact-finding and stop listening to conspiracy theorists and news political news outlets designed to keep you afraid and hooked into their channel, subscribing continuously to their bigotry and misinformation. Read scientific journals and expand your own knowledge.

[Tiffanytrans]

"Because there is more concrete evidence from a plethora of countries, organizations, fields of study, sectors and industries, scientific bodies, and physical, first-hand current experience, in addition to historical examples and data that verifies the realities of an ever-changing global climate, accelerated by human activity, than there is any real evidence to support otherwise. "

Which have all been falsified and over 600 times.
Your pathetic defense?
Derp "600+ falsified docs, if true, is nothing in the grand scheme of things."
Nice failure.

"You really expect Leo to fly coach, knowing how insane the public are? "
Yes. Just like id expect a vegan NOT to eat meat. Actually, if eating meat was contributing to the end of the earth, id expect him to it more.
Nice fail.

" And if they have a home on/near the beach, is that your problem? "
Facepalm. You dont buy beach front property if you think the sea level is going to rise. Keep being insane.

"what you're saying is, you don't trust computers? "
Eye roll. and face palm.
1. Because computer viruses dont exist. Apparently. Even apple has whats called a kernel panic.
If you know anything about programming and computers (AND YOU DONT) youd know its limited by the humans that make them. A huge number of error messages are generic and often are misleading, so if computers were human they would be LYING.

[Tiffanytrans]

2. " Models are only as good as their creators. A model based on false theories or bad assertions may present data which at first glance appears correct. However, models must be examined with the same scrutiny given to any other scientific or engineering tool.
Simulations, like any other programs, are subject to bugs. The danger of bugs leading to serious problems with computer simulations is made worse by the fact that in some cases scientists and engineers do not know what to expect when it comes to the results of the simulation. They generated the simulation for the purpose of finding those results (this is not to say that invalid output is unrecognizable... one should always ask whether the results do or do not "make sense")."
Source: ethics. csc. ncsu. edu
3. "This sounds like the 'big words' of scientists intimidates you"
This sounds like you have reading comprehension problems because you can't see obvious sarcasm.

[Tiffanytrans]

4. You responded to me because you wanted to show how much of a big, important person you are with your big, unfounded opinions FOR climate change because you saw a CNN News segment and you know your stuff better than the scientists who disagree with you.
whose names you'll never know or the over 600 reported falsified predictions over 40 years that even the scientists who made the predictions admitted they were wrong.
because you don't understand how to (actually) conduct your own fact-finding and stop listening to the CNN conspiracy theorists and news political news outlets designed to keep you afraid the world is going to end because of the weather and hooked into their channel, subscribing continuously to CNN's bigotry and misinformation.
Learn to actually read.

>>What are you trying to say here by mentioning Germany and slavery? <<
LOL. Wow. What a retard. I can explain things to you, but i can't understand it for you too. Thats your problem.
Which is funny since you've already tried to argue a similar point (and failed) earlier "here are countless examples of persons trying to make a name for themselves, no matter if they're right, wrong, behind the times, or bought to provide a specific narrative."

Nice failure though.

[misogynistic_pig]

Climate change is a scientific reality backed by a wealth of evidence and data collected over decades of research.

The global scientific community agrees that the Earth is warming due to human activity and that this is having a significant impact on our planet.

Some of the main lines of evidence supporting the existence of climate change include:

Global temperature rise: Average temperatures around the world have risen by about 1.1°C since the late 19th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated in recent decades.

Sea level rise: Sea level has risen by approximately 20 centimeters in the last century, and is expected to rise significantly in the future.

Changes in precipitation patterns: The rains have become more intense and frequent in some areas, while others have experienced prolonged droughts.

Melting Glaciers and Sea Ice: Arctic sea ice has been shrinking by an average of 12.8% per decade since 1979, and glaciers around the world are losing mass at an accelerating rate.

Changes in weather patterns: Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, cyclones, and droughts, are occurring with more frequency and severity.

In addition, scientists have shown that the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide , is directly related to the increase in global temperature.

Humans have been emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal.

In short, there is ample and solid scientific evidence that climate change is real, is being caused by human activity, and is having a significant impact on our planet.

[Tiffanytrans]

"Global temperature rise: Average temperatures around the world have risen by about 1.1°C since the late 19th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated in recent decades."

Incorrect. Those are based upon flawed computer models, AND they cherry pick data on flawed computer models which is comedy. Also, other models show a variance, meaning they rise and fall. And you know what you call a change in climate? The weather.
And the same thing goes for the sea level rise. It is going LOWER in other areas too. You know what you call that? The weather.

"increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide ,"
Incorrect. Thats correlation not causation. Also, other data shows it will level out and other data shows c02 is actually GOOD for the environment, because i don't know, plants need it.

"Industrial Revolution, "
Again, how many cars did neanderthals drive to cause the ice age?

Also, the top climate scientists in the world have made over 600 predictions over the past 40 years and they have all been falsified, and they are STILL being falsified today.

In short, there is ZERO evidence that climate change is real and if you believe it you have not done your research.

"Changes in precipitation patterns" LOL.

"more frequency" Again. flawed models and cherry picking data.
"More severity." Oh so how many cars did neanderthals drive prior to the ice age? Whats that? None?

[exitseven]

The real question is is any of it caused by burning fossil fuel. During the industrial revolution there were coal fired plants all over the place. Treed used to die because heir leaves would get all clogged up with coal residue. There was n global warming back then. In the 1960 the smog was so bad it would hang in the air like a yellow / brown fog. There was no global warming then either. It is funny that all of a sudden it is an "existential crisis" just when politicians and the rich figure out how to get rich from it. It is more likely that the so called global warming we are experiencing is a natural weather pattern that has been going on for thousands of years, What should be really apparent is that electric cars will not do anything the reverse it. It will only cause economic upheaval.

[AngryCarl2]

Wrong. Man made climate change started with the industrial revolution. Thing is, nobody noticed it. Apparently warmer weather wasn't a problem back then.

[exitseven]

@AngryCarl2 what has changed since then? We have the same things now as we did then,.

[AngryCarl2]

You don't think there's be any change in technology or increase in population or emissions since the Industrial Revolution?

[Tiffanytrans]

@AngryCarl2 Wrong. Man made climate change started with the neanderthals when leprechauns made them hummers. How else do you explain the Ice age?
As we know all extreme climate is caused by cars and technology.

Keep getting wrecked.

[Heterosketero]

In a geological timescale, we are wxitting an ice age. Fuck climate change, when did youball accept pollution. They found rocks made of plastic in South America this week, polution is becoming geological. Ftw.

If climate change is real, whontye fuck is doing anything useful? You know tuose soup cogered oaintings? Yeah, theyre copies. Bill Gates had most of them reproduced at the turn of the millennium and most are vaulted. The WEF isn't environtal, its eugenics, birn directly from the third reich. You want to save the environment? Sequester their fucking in the cold hard ground. Nuff said.

[Dargil]

The climate always changes. Much of the Northern Hemisphere was under a mile of ice even 30,000 years ago. In another 25,000, glacier will be advancing again. Maybe less.

"Climate Change" rhetorically replaced "Global Warming after all the doomsday predictions were shown to be false. I personally don't care if CO2 doubles in my lifetime to 850PPM. That would be GOOD! It's PLANT FOOD and would end worldwide hunger except that caused by socialist and communist despots like Stalin, Mao and the entire EU. Obama and the folks on The Vineyard can move to California if they begin to get wet.

[Still-alive]

lol these poll options are shit...

its real. you've been brainwashed by fossil fuel propaganda into thinking it either isn't or not caused by man. or you're some troll using a duplicate account to pass an agenda.

[Tiffanytrans]

Lol. Your opinion is shit. God exists. You've been brainwashed by Satan and leprechauns.
Your avatar of a cat proves how real of an account you have.
What a retard.
Keep believing in a scientific claim that has been falsified over 600 times in 40 years.

Did leprechauns make cars for neaderthals prior to the ice age? Because after all we know that all extreme weather is caused by man.

Being a neanderthal yourself, can you answer the question?

[Still-alive]

“ God exists. You've been brainwashed by Satan and leprechauns.”

@goaded and @abc3643 are correct you are nuts.

“Keep believing in a scientific claim that has been falsified over 600 times in 40 years.”

Nope its real. Evidence is overwhelming at this point. But we will all find out very soon. Hopefully you dont live in florida. If you do that would sure explain things lol.

“ Did leprechauns make cars for neaderthals prior to the ice age?”

They sure did… about as much as you believe the devil is causing people to do evil it seems…

So you gonna stop trolling or you gonna keep this facade up longer? It is quite fascinating

[Tiffanytrans]

"@goaded and @abc3643 are correct you are nuts."
Because 2 people make a claim, that means they're right. I guess that means since the vast majority of the planet believes in a god, that means he exists.
Your logic fails.

"Nope its real. Evidence is overwhelming at this point."
Nope god is real. Evidence is overwhelming at this point. And when you die, you'll find out real soon.

"They sure did…"
Woosh, right over your ignorant head.
The point is, the claim is "Extreme weather is always caused by man made climate change due to things like cars."
Neanderthals must have had cars. According to your crazy ass.

Keep being nuts.

See how easy that was?

[Still-alive]

“ Because 2 people make a claim, that means they're right.”

Those two people specifically yes because they know their shit. I respect them a lot too. You however i got no respect for. You just come on here and rudely talk down to people as if you are better than them.

You’re just a troll trying to start shit. Nothing more.

“ Nope god is real. Evidence is overwhelming at this point. And when you die, you'll find out real soon.”

Yawn 🥱

news.cornell.edu/.../more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

“ More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change..

In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only found four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.“

And no i got your last point. Thought i should double down on it to show how nuts you sound.

[Tiffanytrans]

>You just come on here and rudely talk down to people as if you are better than them.<
Because I AM better than proven stupid people. You know, like you.

>>“ More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change..<<
YAWN.

They made those same sort of claims for the past 40 years and now there's over 600+ times their predictions were proven wrong.

YAWN
ANd
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

And they made those same sort of claims for years!
And have been proven wrong.
Your data is trash.

You didn't get my last point. If you did, you wouldn't have doubled down on it and would have answered the question.

Again, explain how the ice age happened if all extreme weather is caused by human technology?
Oh whats that?
You can't?
Thats what i thought.

[Tiffanytrans]

About that hilarious data. MOST of that data is actually linked to studies and papers from scientists who DON'T agree with your dumb ass.

"The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope. . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument. . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
YAWN.
ZZZZZZZZZZ

YOU LOSE.
"populartechnology. net"

[Still-alive]

“Because I AM better than proven stupid people. You know, like you.”

Excellent. You are definitely trolling. I shall no longer entertain you.

See ya!

[abc3643]

We know global warming is real because it is easily understood from basic physics. Any person with a BS in physics should intuitively understand what is happening and why.

So much so, it was first predicted by Nobel Prize-winning Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896 - that's 1896, not 1996.

[Tiffanytrans]

Wrong. Global warmings "predictions" were falsified so often they changed it to "climate change".
Any person with an average iq and no schooling at all can google "why they changed the terminology.
Any person with a working brain that understands you aught not to believe an idea that has been falsified over 600 times in 40 years should intuitively understand its b. s.

"Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term."

[Tiffanytrans]

And are you seriously suggesting the older the scientific idea the better? A ton of scientists thought alchemy was real too. And that must be even MORE correct because it was during the middle ages.

[goaded]

Wrong! The term "climate change" was used when there was doubt whether greenhouse gasses or (also man-made) particles in the atmosphere would have more effect on the temperature. Once it was established that it was the greenhouse gasses, a Republican (Luntz) decided the phrase "climate change" was less scary than "global warming" (the truth), and here we are,

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded WRONG WRONG WRONG!
It literally takes you 3 seconds to google my quote.
Fail.

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded And by the way thats from the united states geological survey. You know "the authority" because if most scientists say something is true, therefore it is.

[goaded]

OK. You do understand that the "Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level" are because of the higher temperatures, right? A couple of degrees warmer here wouldn't make much of a difference to my life, frequent massive flash floods would.

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded OK you DO understand that those are based upon flawed computer models and cherry picked data ranges based upon flawed computer models? HA.
You DO understand even during those date ranges they cite other areas on earth have decreases in temperatures, right?

You DO understand that maybe, just maybe neanderthals weren't driving cars before the ice age?

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded Nah, go ahead and believe in a scientific idea that has been proven false repeatedly over 600 times in the past 40 years and is being falsified today. But go ahead and believe in a scientific idea where its taken COMICALLY LESS falsification for other sciences to be declared psudoscience.
You do you bro.

[goaded]

And I did find it, and the page (from 15 years ago) also says: "they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?"

"Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth."
gpm.nasa.gov/.../

They're related, and Luntz found that "climate change" was easier to ignore.
www.thetimes.co.uk/.../frank-luntz-the-man-who-came-up-with-climate-change-and-regrets-it-6v6pp00pc

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded FANTASTIC> you can type. Good for you.
Shame you can't logic.
None of that shows anything i said wrong. Nice fail though.

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded What type of cars did the neanderthals drive?
Id really like to know.

[goaded]

OK, you're a nutcase, I'm done.

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded FALSE. you're the nutcase. You actually believe that severe weather is caused by man made climate change, and in particular things like CARS are to blame. YOU believe that. Not me.
Again, i ask you.
What kinds of cars did Neanderthals drive prior to the ice age. Because we know severe weather is always caused by man made c02.

[Tiffanytrans]

@goaded Looks like a rage quit to me.
#triggered.

[abc3643]

@Tiffanytrans
Young "lady"/"dude", I have a degree in physics... for 38 years.
You do not.
For me to be able to explain to you why global warming is real would require me to teach you at least two years' worth of physics and the requisite calculus.
That same physics also has predicted why each of the planets in our solar system has the atmospheres that they have as well.

That said, feel free to learn these concepts all on your own.
1) The four laws of thermodynamics.
2) The kinetic theory of gases and the ideal gas law.
3) Gravity
4) Mechanics
5) Statistical mechanics
6) Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution
7) The equipartition theorem

Want me to keep going?

If you have any questions learning these concepts, I am happy to help.

[Tiffanytrans]

Did you just assume my gender? Thats not my pronouns thank you.
Acutally i believe you have multiple degrees. Because some rando on the interent is all it takes to convince me. by the way thats sarcasm.

I don't have a degree in physics? Shame your physic powers weren't powerful enough to get my pronouns correct.
For all you know i have multiple degrees and for longer.
And by the way, those have little to no causal connection to climate change. They are correlative. And i probably know more about this subject and all of those topics than you.
Considering you obvious lack of logic, the probability you have a single degree is next to nothing.
Wheres my proof?
Your appeal to authority. The fact that someone with a degree makes a claim does not mean its true. If it did, Trump would always be right about economics. He graduated in May 1968 with a B. S. in economics. Um I guess trump university WASN'T a failure. Neat.
Your logic fails.

[Tiffanytrans]

If you have any questions on learning logic, i am happy to help.
This idea that something is true simply because a scientist said it, is UNSCIENTIFIC.
As someone who identifies as a scientist i should know.
I guess during the peer review process, you dont actually check their work. NOPE the scientist goes, well bob the scientist did the work, and since he's a scientist ill just take his word for it.
You fail.

[abc3643]

No need to.

You see, I studied it 41 years ago and still use it to this day.
Here's a free refresher to download if you want.

Introduction to Logic, 14th Edition, Irving M. Copi et alia.
dorshon.com/.../Introduction-to-Logic.pdf

=========

Now, I am not interested in fucking around but am going to explain something that will be very important to understand if you want to navigate through life successfully:

Nature has no mercy.
It does not give a shit who you are...
or what god you worship...
or what your politics are...
or how much money you have...
or if you are beautiful or ugly...
or your sex or you hair or your orientation or...
whatever.

Nature is the ultimate equal opportunity destroyer.

It speaks in bottom lines.
To survive, it is up to you to understand.
If you do not, it may just kill you, your children, or anyone else you love or hate.
That's evolution in action.
But, make no mistake, Nature does not care.
It is merciless.

Therefore, it is in your best interests and the interests of your potential descendants and the rest of our species that you understand Nature and reality as best as you can.

May God have mercy on your soul because Nature will not.

[Tiffanytrans]

Actually yes you need to.

Linking a source proves you understand the source? HAAAAAAAAAAAA
Well ill just link multiple sources about physics. And whoever has the most wins.

Now, you must understand this:
The UNIVERSE (not just nature) is actually more accurately defined as "indifferent" as merciless implies intent on cruelty. Unless you're comically implying a mind associating with the universe. LOL.

"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent"
Carl Sagan
And that must be true since he's a scientist.

The UNIVERSE does not care if you don't believe in god.
Nature does not kill people and neither does evolution, anymore than the universe does.
The UNIVERSE does not care if you understand nature.
Eventually everyone is going to end up dead anyway and there's no amount of knowledge of climate change that's going to help you.
Therefore, its ultimately irrelevant how much you know, ultimately
. And even in the short term a huge number of climate scientists ADMIT climate change is basically inevitable. "Even if humans could cut emissions down to zero immediately, the world is more or less locked in to nearly a foot of sea-level rise, thanks to a loss of about 3.3 percent of Greenland’s ice. And that doesn’t even count sea-level rise from the melting of the much larger Antarctic ice sheet."

Humans have lived for millions of years without extensive knowledge of nature.
That's like saying we need to understand The Poincaré Conjecture or we can't count change.

Lastly, you now what else both nature and the universe don't care about?
Whether or not you have a degree.

[Still-alive]

"Linking a source proves you understand the source?"

it offers credible evidence sure. so wheres your links? don't got any? hmmmm

[abc3643]

I see a degree from The School of Hard Knocks awaits you.
Good luck.

[Tiffanytrans]

@Still-alive
"it offers credible evidence sure"
Wrong. It offers Evidence. The person reviewing the evidence decides if its credible or not.
I already quoted where i got the information in this thread. This website only allows people to posts links when your score reaches a particular level. This idea that i dont have sources because i dont have any is proven FALSE.

How? because, again i mentioned where i got the information.
Keep being a failure though.

[Tiffanytrans]

@Still-alive
"it offers credible evidence sure"
Furthermore, thats not the argument. But keep straw-manning. Keep being a failure.

The context was, she didn't understand what logic was. Merely posting a link does not mean she understands the topic. Even if i agree with the link AND I OBVIOUSLY DO, that does not mean SHE understands it. That does NOT satisfy her burden of proof to show she understands logic.

Keep being an loser though.

[Tiffanytrans]

Just like you were able to predict my pronouns correctly?
Just like how i proved you wrong about your claims about the future of earth wrong?
Many scientists believe in the inevitable heat death of the universe.
Let me SCHOOL you. Because you know nothing.
"Discussions of the concept of 'heat death' can be found in some thermodynamics textbooks. The ideas of 'cold death' and the 'big crunch' can be found in textbooks on cosmology, such as The Early Universe by Kolb and Turner. Or, if you prefer and less technical discussion, you might want to try Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne.
by: Andreas Birkedal-Hansen, M. A., Physics Grad Student, UC Berkeley"
Source: physlink. com
Id provide a link, but evidently i have no sources.
It couldn't be that this website doesn't allow link pasting unless you've reached a score. Nah that can't be it. Its just that i don't have sources.

Retards.
Anyways, Keep believing that your degree matters.

[Still-alive]

Lol you’re so silly. You dont cite anything. You just post random quotes and tell people to ‘google it’ after. Not how that works.

I like how you’re attempting to argue with someone with a degree in physics. Also laughable. Im surprised you’re still active here troll. I think your time here is limited.

[Tiffanytrans]

Before you say something stupid like "some scientists disagree" Like an idiot... yes im more than aware and that would just prove my point. A single scientists claim does not prove anything. Its the data that does.
Keep failing though.

[Still-alive]

“ Anyways, Keep believing that your degree matters.”

It does matter, usually.

“some scientists disagree"

“ As someone who identifies as a scientist i should know.”

Lmao i highly doubt you got anything. You’re just some armchair troll with an agenda. Probably aren't even a girl.

[CateM]

Do people seriously still deny climate change?

[Tiffanytrans]

Do people seriously still deny god?

[CateM]

Climate change is real, god isn't

[Tiffanytrans]

God is real, Climate change isn't
See how easy that was?

[CateM]

There's plenty of evidence that climate change is real, but no evidence that some higher power exists

[Tiffanytrans]

There's plenty of evidence that God is real, but no evidence that climate change exists.
See how easy that was? Boy, you're bad at this.

[CateM]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
www.epa.gov/.../causes-climate-change
news.cornell.edu/.../more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

[CateM]

If climate change isn't real, then why did they find fossils of tropical plants in Alaska?

[Tiffanytrans]

You linked to sources. Therefore those sources are true.
Neat.
Ill just link to religious sources.

Why did they find that? Its called a change in weather.
Nobody on earth denies the weather. Except crazy people.
If climate change is real and extreme weather conditions prove climate change because humans create too much C02 from cars...

What type of cars were the neanderthals driving that caused the ice age?

[CateM]

Natural climate change

[Tiffanytrans]

go ahead and believe in a scientific idea that has been proven false repeatedly over 600 times in the past 40 years and is being falsified today. But go ahead and believe in a scientific idea where its taken COMICALLY LESS falsification for other sciences to be declared psudoscience.
You do you bro.

[Tiffanytrans]

" Natural climate change"
I call that the weather. Because many people equate climate change with man as the cause.

[CateM]

Humans cause almost all of it, but some of it is natural. If anything, you're the one believing falsified information

[Still-alive]

getting serious troll vibes from the asker here

[monorprise]

Why is it "climate change" and not something spesfic like the earth will get x degrees warmer in y years?

Its hard to deny something that is undefined beyond the parameters of change, at the same time unless you can make consistent and accurate predictions there is no evidence you have any idea what your talking about.

The failure to make such accurate predictions kind of proves you don't know what your talking about.

[goaded]

@monorprise Why can you say it will rain in the next 12 months, and not it will rain in 20 days time? It's a complex system.

[Tiffanytrans]

"Humans cause almost all of it" False. If that was true, one of the biggest climate catastophies in the history of the planet would have been caused by humans. THE ICE AGE. The existence of the ice age proves your claim FALSE. Keep believing in leprechauns.
\

[Still-alive]

Wheres your citations?

[Anonymous]

Neanderthals lived thou many different Glacial cycles of the present Quaternary ice age, we humans have at best seen 1 or 2.

[AngryCarl2]

If climate change isn't real why is Corporate America spending so much money to discredit it? And why do they employ shills like you to post spurious nonsense on social media?

[Tiffanytrans]

LOL The carbon footprint idea was INVENTED by CORPORATE America. "The idea of a personal carbon footprint was popularized by a large advertising campaign of the fossil fuel company BP in 2005, designed by Ogilvy. It instructed people to calculate their personal footprints and provided ways for people to "go on a low-carbon diet"."

Source: "Climate trade. com"

Get wrecked.

[notwoke]

great post, I'll be surprised if it doesn't get censored out for being too conversative leaning

[OddBeMe]

None of your reasons matter for shit.

[OddBeMe]

Video for the idiots to enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoCXLuTIkI

[AngryCarl2]

Ever increasing circles.

[OddBeMe]

Funny how it corresponds to massive human increase in productivity and manufacturing.
https://ibb.co/xhV3vnN

[Tiffanytrans]

Funny how corresponding does not mean causation.
Keep being stupid though.

[Tiffanytrans]

None of your data matters for shit. They are all based upon computer models.
"Models always involve assumptions. The real world involves systems of infinite complexity. To make a problem computable within a reasonable amount of time, clearly some assumptions must be made. In some instances, the assumptions required to do this may invalidate the results of the model.
Models are only as good as their creators. A model based on false theories or bad assertions may present data which at first glance appears correct. However, models must be examined with the same scrutiny given to any other scientific or engineering tool.
Simulations, like any other programs, are subject to bugs. The danger of bugs leading to serious problems with computer simulations is made worse by the fact that in some cases scientists and engineers do not know what to expect when it comes to the results of the simulation. They generated the simulation for the purpose of finding those results (this is not to say that invalid output is unrecognizable... one should always ask whether the results do or do not "make sense").
Source: ethics. csc. ncsu. edu

Keep being a moron though.

[OddBeMe]

It’s not models. It’s math. Earths atmosphere (not weather, tho it’s getting extreme) is getting hotter and hotter. Regardless whether humans cause it, we can do something about. Now,

[Tiffanytrans]

WRONG. Its math based upon models. Keep lying bro.

[OddBeMe]

What models? This is literally reporting temperatures. You could make these graphs if you had the intelligence.

[Tiffanytrans]

They don't pull those temperatures out of their ass. All of the reports that matter ALL OF THEM from all of the climate scientists are from computer models. You would have known that already if you had an iq greater than a housefly. You dont prove climate change by average joes making graphs, dumb dumb.

[Tiffanytrans]

I'm surprised your brain has the capacity to type on a computer. Is your mom typing for you?
Im sure she turned it on for you too, since you're incapable of turning on anything. Incel.

[Tiffanytrans]

From science daily: "Scientists rely on computer models to better understand Earth's climate system because they cannot conduct large-scale experiments on the atmosphere itself. Climate models, like weather models, rely on a three-dimensional mesh that reaches high into the atmosphere and into the oceans."

Keep being stupid. And keep dreaming that maybe one day a woman will let you within 5 feet of her.

[OddBeMe]

I love when right wingers fight facts. They spam with multiple replies trying to keep us from remembering they have NO FACTS.

[Tiffanytrans]

I love it when left wingers fight their own tears when they get owned by obvious facts that everyone can see. FYI Science daily is the source of the fact. Everyone will see that, and see your delicious leftist snowflake tears. They keep responding trying to keep us from seeing they have NO BRAINS.

[LovingJo]

I seriously worry about some humans... "Climate" change is real, but it's actually humans who are changing the climate!! 💯

[najekim]

Of course there's climate change. We're into the warming period between ice ages. 10-12 thousand years from now we'll be bitching about how cold it is and how tall the local ice sheet will get.

[LovingJo]

There will be no human life in 10-12 thousand years!!

[najekim]

@LovingJo Or perhaps no human life on this planet. But another ice age is certainly in the future.

[LovingJo]

That's what I meant.

[Anonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4SL3bQXBKGA

This

[Opinion Owner]

and this which is the one i thought i was linking in the first place.

www.youtube.com/watch

[Anonymous]

Sorry but anyone with the word “trans” is their username should probably be ignored.

[Tiffanytrans]

Sorry, but you should have taken your own advice. By posting you just violated your own advice and therefore look like an idiot.

[Opinion Owner]

Idiots? You mean like the people who chop off their tits and cocks and sterilize themselves? You’re a freak. You’re all freaks. And we are all laughing at you.

[QuietRunner]

Dinosaurs are the real evidance

The climate was warmer then

[jimmy2]

It's true but nothing can be done about it

[Dinosaursandanime65]

Ask a polar bear