Welcome to like year 15 of “it’s just one year of weird weather bro, it doesn’t mean anything”

Sea lions are faggots and convince no one of their position. What are you even trying to accomplish? Make people with your position as hated as possible? How is that suppose to help anything?

Umm, mods? OP just admitted he's 15.

>I have no answer therefore I'll accuse my opponent of sealioning
Mighty convenient cope you got going on there nigger. Maybe next time don't write checks your ass can't cash, I.e. don't make shit up or you WILL get called out on it.

As I said, you're not fooling anyone with your plebbit aggression. This is a science board, not an up/down vote board. Try making rational arguments instead of resorting sending others on errands for you. You haven't convinced anyone of your position, but you have convinced us of your arrogance and assholishness. Surely that will change the world to be however you want it to be.
But hey, if you want to play that game, none of your posts have been published in peer reviewed journals, which means you are wrong. (Stupid, isn't it?)

Attached: Climate Narratives.png (2176x1126, 201.22K)

Human caused climate change is real and that's a good thing. Convince as many people as you can that it's fake. We need a low trust society.

hmm

oh, look, another fucking climate change thread
everyone be wary of the bots

scientifically speaking, what are the odds climate activists are this wrong for this long?

Attached: climate_history.png (600x398, 353.35K)

welcome to year 50 of "it's so hot oooooh look at the scary graphs ooooooh the world will end in 10-20 years"

holy shit how the fuck can this conversation happen so many fucking tiems

All of you are going to be raped by climate refugees in the 2030's after wet bulb temperatures make their countries uninhabitable. This is already beginning to happen in India and it will continue to get worse every year.

Rich countries will just actually enforce borders. The only reason they aren't now is because the globohomo elite want cheap labor.

>wet bulb temperatures
w0t

The board isn't static. New people join, old people leave, conversations are repeated.

2016 elections ruined 4channel

nou

Why'd he do it?

Incorrect

Google it

I can't wait for the american state to centralize itself because you republicans have been destroying our country for far too long and are the cause of its erosion

i dont think i will lmao

Stay ignorant then. You really shouldn't be posting on /sci/.

neither should you if you just want to roll around in your own putrid puddle of self satisfaction cunt

Your ignorance is not my problem. Fix it or fuck off.

>...Sometimes I can't even comprehend how stupid, how retarded, how head in your butt fucking retarded people are.
It's propaganda, they can fill any bullshit in most of the people. Literally from new ice age to warming catastrophe and vice versa. NPCs will eat everything because they grasp nothing.
Now they changed the unspecific wording as "climate". So they can take any whether phenomena and blame it to that and they are right. Nothing else but the correct assessment of their consumers. If you looking for content, meaningful indications or such a thing as "science" you are lost. No such thing, Sorry. Media do not make the slightest effort to cover this up, simply because they know their clientele.

>Imagine being this retarded

>>Imagine being this retarded
as said, any bullshit. In (You) 2.

ESL retard detected

>heat waves getting worse every year
>perennial drought
Everything below the north of this continent is collapsing. Especially the West. I'm moving to Washington state. Fuck this shit.

Attached: wha.png (750x1000, 172.67K)

>rich countries will just actually enforce borders.
Lol, lmao even. Sorry sweety, but this is a democracy and we heckin vote here. Whats that? Sorry 20 new people just came over the border to vote for every 1of your family members.

We don't need more of these threads. It's pretty well established that the climate cycle is responsible for >98% of any temperature shifts.

Sounds like you 'Believe in Science'® and that 'The Science is Settled'®.

That's correct. I'm a believer in the scientific process. It's virtually unanimously understood to be almost entirely cyclical and non human related among scientists who show their working and work independently of grants from big green tech.

>Believes rich countries are democracies

Cute.

Welcome to like year 2000 of "the end times are here, humanity will be punished for its sins"

>For each individual wrong claim, what was the probability it was wrong?
how would anyone analyze this? Go pick any prediction made by climatologists, whether right or wrong, and tell us the probability that it's wrong. Demonstrate that your game is playable.

Ding ding we have a winner. That's the fucking point. Follow the posts, I responded to this bullshit
>All science is probabilities the fact that you don't understand that to the point where you reinforce your position with this notion is very telling of your current understanding of the world. It's shit.
Which probabilities was this faggot talking about?

Be careful what you wish for, coming multipolar world might give it to you.

95% error bands

climate change is a fucking hoax and everyone knows it.

>>Climate prediction fails
Example?

>inb4 non-scientist or fringe crank

ftfy

Attached: 1514490820286.png (948x420, 446.59K)

>Literally from new ice age to warming catastrophe and vice versa.
Source?

Attached: 1970s_papers.gif (500x285, 14.08K)

>It's pretty well established that the climate cycle is responsible for >98% of any temperature shifts.
Which climate cycle is that?

Attached: 1655412720991.png (500x285, 24.66K)

The natural one that has been occurring for millions of years.

weird weather and climate change is a good thing, it balances things on earth and gives energy to your wind mill freaks

You mean the glacial-interglacial cycle? We had unreliability warming 10,000 years ago, so we should be slowly cooling. Instead we're warming on top of the interglacial warming, at a rate 25 times faster. Try again.

We have 10000 year old poster here, welcome the boomer everyone

Not an argument. Try again.

>not the 2014 Any Forums gamergate flamewar
It was over the moment sargon started talking about Any Forums on youtube

proof?

Attached: An_Inconvenient_Outburst.png (960x540, 699.12K)

The 10 year megadrought hasn't been able to convince people that the climate is fucked or at the very least that we use too much water. I say fuck em, if people don't want to admit something is wrong let them die.

What is the mpemba effect and how does it relate to water and climate change?
Why are dark skinned people black, and light people light?
Because bodies are about 70% water
There is a lot of water on Earth too

Burden of proof is on you, you made the claim.

what claim

That doesn't answer my question. What natural cycle are you referring to?

See

The one where the planet heats up and cools down regardless of humans (all climate change)

I do see it. What claim?

All the claims in my original image are trivial to verify. All of your claims are made up nonsense. For example,
>some politician [Al Gore] said this
Unequivocally wrong. See e.g.
>reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change/fact-check-al-gore-did-not-predict-ice-caps-melting-by-2013-but-misrepresented-data-idUSL1N2RV0K6
>Gore didn’t make this prediction himself but was citing findings from a climate researcher.
>Gore cited findings from climatologist Dr Wieslav Maslowski, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School
>In an interview with The Times published on Dec. 15, 2009 (here), Dr Maslowski said: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Hmm, really? Really, Maslowski? Let's see what the science says. We see here a paper by Maslowski from January 2008.
>If this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice--free by ~2013!
Huh? But he told the media he would never say that! What the hell is going on? Oh, yeah, him and his ilk lie all the fucking time, and morons like you eat it up. I'm putting more effort into this than you obviously will, so idk why i'm even bothering. Go back to shilling, dumb fuck.

Attached: Ice caps melted.png (1027x690, 322.77K)

Forgot the paper.
>researchgate.net/publication/37570375_When_will_Summer_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Disappear

>10,000 years ago – 57% of the world's habitable land was covered by forest. In the millennia since then a growing demand for agricultural land means we've lost one-third of global forests – an area twice the size of the United States

Meant to add that trees cool the planet

t. illiterate

so do freezers and fridges. humans have added millions of these devices to the ecosystem, offsetting the tree imbalancation.

summer: hot
winter: cold

not sure what's hard about that. if this ever changes be sure to let me know ok?

will do

20 years ago we were only allowed to shower twice a week because our state was expected to run out of water due to droughts and global warming by 2005. Didn't happen, mind you, though I'm expected to believe things are worse today because reasons.

Just finished my third shower of the day and I'm feeling fresh af. 20 mins a shower.
>First shower at 5 am before gym
>Finish working out, take a shower
>Gf coming over in 30 mins, take a shower
Got you covered broski, I'll cover all that water you saved.

the world you're looking for is non-falsifiable

Scientists are compulsive liars. Climate change is fake.

>>If this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice--free by ~2013!
It didn't persist though? Arctic ice loss stalled for a while, and now it's still decreasing though at a relatively slower rate than the first decade of the 21st century.

>It didn't persist though?
That's the point, Sherlock. Did you ride the short bus?

Just because the trend stated IN THE PAPER didn't persist, doesn't mean warming and sea ice recession isn't still happening.

We got an idiot in the thread gents.

Ah yes, I will accept your concession, as backhanded and passive aggressive as it may be.

Found the existence of a room temperature iq user. Go back to second grade and get the fuck off the internet until you can write your name by yourself.

Did you really just assert the existence of cooling devices are supposed to cool the planet? E.g., refrigerators are extremely inefficient machines, in which efficiency is measured by how much heat it loses to the surrounding system. They work by pumping heat out of the container (the bottom vents), which means your room will actually start to warm up if you leave the refrigerator door open for long enough.

Why can't you tell me what cycle you're referring to? The climate is not magic, everything that occurs has specific causes. For example, the glacial- interglacial cycle over the past 2.5 million years is caused by changes in insolation due to variations in Earth's orbital parameters. Unfortunately, current warming is completely contrary to that cycle, in its timing, magnitude, and cause. So what cycle are you referring? You can't tell me, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Every claim in the image you posted, which I corrected. You demand proof yet have none of your own. When you give proof for your claims, I will give proof of my correction.

All the claims in my corrected image are trivial to verify. All of your claims are made up nonsense. For example, see

reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change/fact-check-al-gore-did-not-predict-ice-caps-melting-by-2013-but-misrepresented-data-idUSL1N2RV0K6

This says that Gore is the only one that said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 (actually 2014 is the earliest possible date he claimed). No scientist said this, he misrepresented what they said.

>>If this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice--free by ~2013!
This is an objectively true statement, not a prediction. If you draw a trend line from Arctic area ice loss over 1997-2004 then it reaches 0 by 2013.

That doesn't answer my question. What natural cycle are you referring to? If you want to change your answer and tell me it's not a cycle but has something to do with water or land use, let me know and I'll refute that too.

Go right ahead bro, with all the floods we've been having recently they should be paying me to run my taps all day

It's a hoax. The weather is basically the same, just in cycles.

>The weather is basically the same
Wrong.

>just in cycles.
What cycle?

Attached: Screenshot_20220617-085624_Chrome.jpg (1080x803, 144.04K)

Natural cycles. Zoom out.

>Natural cycles
Which cycles? Name them.

>Zoom out.
Good idea. This shows it's not part of the natural cycle. We should be cooling, not warming 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. Thanks for confirming its not cyclical.

Attached: d41586-021-03011-6_19856670.png (751x484, 38.85K)

Zoom out. It's a natural cycle.

>Zoom out.
Thanks for again confirming it's not cyclical.

>It's a natural cycle.
What natural cycle? Name it.

Attached: file-20170606-3681-1kf3xwv.jpg (1000x1143, 123.79K)

Zoom out. It's a natural cycle.

Wrong again retard. Why did you lie about it being a natural cycle? You can't even tell me which cycle, so how do you know? Pure wishful thinking

Attached: Five-million-years-of-climate-change-reconstructed-with-sediment-cores.png (850x316, 176.28K)

Zoom out. It's a natural cycle of the earths climate, hot --> cold --> repeat.

That's what a cycle is, yes. You haven't named the cycle. There is nothing in millions of years that explains current warming. It's against the glacial-interglacial cycle. You got caught talking out of your ass.

You're wrong. There is no intergalactic cycle. The earth warms up and cools down. It's time to stop trolling and accept reality.

Isn't there families in the middle east that live in record breaking deserts for hundreds of years? We'll be fine, less third world slaves mean better wages.

>There is no intergalactic cycle.
???

The glacial- interglacial cycle is right here in front of your face . You deny proven cycles and refer to one's you can't even name. Pathetic.

>The earth warms up and cools down.
The Earth isn't magic, it warms up and cools down for a reason. Currently it's warming due to CO2 emissions, not any cyclical cause. You already know this since you can't even name what cycle you're trying to pin out on. You're a liar.

>live in record breaking deserts for hundreds of years
Go do it, you'll be fine.

The earth heats up and cools down. Correlation of the current heating part of the natural cycle with a tiny amount of allegedly human associated carbon emissions is not indicative of causation.

>The earth heats up and cools down
That was never contested. You can do repeating it like a drone.

>Correlation of the current heating part of the natural cycle
There is no cycle with a heating part now. Try again.

>tiny amount of allegedly human associated carbon emissions
They're directly observed to be causing current warming. No correlation needed.

eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

The planet is heating up now. You are an idiot.

>The planet is heating up now.
Where did I say anything to the contrary? What a moron. Every time you fail to name your made up cycle, you admit you lied.

So now that you've been caught in a lie, you admit it is heating up, as expected of the natural cycle.

>So now that you've been caught in a lie
What lie?

>you admit it is heating up
I never said anything to the contrary, so how am I "admitting" anything?

>as expected of the natural cycle.
Wrong, the natural cycle says we should be slowly cooling. See You again failed to name your made up cycle. Thanks for admitting you lied.

The only person lying here is you. I don't mind, it's fun catching you trying to deceive people. Fortunately your scientific illiteracy betrays you. This is easy for me.

Planet heats up ---> planet cools down ---> planet heats up ---> planet cools down --WE ARE HERE->

>The only person lying here is you
Where did I lie?

>Planet heats up ---> planet cools down ---> planet heats up ---> planet cools down --WE ARE HERE->
Objectively wrong. Interglacial warming occurred 10000 years ago so we should be cooling. See and You have nothing but boldface lies. Zero data, zero explanation, zero idea what you're talking about.

I'm not going to go through the thread and pull out your dozens of lies. We aren't cooling, we're warming. How are you not getting this?

>I'm not going to go through the thread and pull out your dozens of lies.
Right, because you can't even point to one. They don't exist.

>We aren't cooling, we're warming
Right, and according to the natural cycle we should be cooling. So current warming is not natural. Thanks for confirming this again.

We aren't cooling. We're warming. It's part of the natural cycle.

What cycle says we should be warming?

The cycle we're in now. Go outside, it's getting warmer every decade.

>The cycle we're in now.
A cycle we're in now is the interglacial- glacial cycle. It says we should be cooling. So you're going to have to be more specific and say what cycle you're referring to, or admit you have no clue what you're talking about. If you don't name the cycle, then we know it's the latter.

The current cycle of climate change that has been going on for billions of years. We've been over this.

>The current cycle of climate change that has been going on for billions of years.
Again you refuse to name what cycle you're talking about. A cycle that has been occurring for billions of years is the cycle of ice ages and greenhouse Earths, caused by continental drift opening and closing the flow of warm water to the poles. The continents haven't shifted significantly, so again that doesn't explain current warming. We've been over this.

Yes, the world is warming up naturally as you admitted to earlier. Soon it will cool down. That is how the cycle works.

retard

youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=10m

The Earth should be cooling down, as predicted by your [Model Name Here], but data shows that it is not. Instead it is increasingly warming up at an unnatural rate not consistant with the interglacial model.
How do you explain this?

Two more weeks!!! Two more years! Two more decai! Two more centuries!

You autistic global fear mongers are like magatards. Same energy

Well he convinced me. Eat shit, fearmonger

I for one welcome the climate change ice cap melt temperature increase turbo drought flood season nuclear apocalypse, it will kill all the goyim and leave me in peace to swim around my house like a fish.

even if you melt all the ice , the water level will rise only around 1.5 m

This

>Yes, the world is warming up naturally as you admitted to earlier
Where? You can't stop lying.

>Soon it will cool down
Why?

>That is how the cycle works.
Your imaginary cycle doesn't exist.

>>If this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice--free by ~2013!
>This is an objectively true statement, not a prediction. If you draw a trend line from Arctic area ice loss over 1997-2004 then it reaches 0 by 2013.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on /sci/ in all my years, and I'm comparing this to retarded things like "deez nuts". You would 100% be the type of person filtered by a captcha that requires you to solve a trivial math question.

Source? Is more like 70 m

You didn't even contradict anything I said. Try again.

Attached: 2008-Maslowski.png (1128x840, 491.31K)

>if x, y will happen by time
>this is not a prediction
you're a clinical retard.

>if x, y will happen by time
>this is not a prediction
Correct, that's called a projection. A prediction would be "the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013." This is what was claimed in but no scientist said that.

Just wait for the 15 years of "two more weeks"
It's all so tiresome.

>projections aren't predictions
Based. now I can reject global warming as only a projection and any policies effected off such projection are political fear mongering. What kind of retards make policies off projections and not predictions?

>live in Florida
>due to climate change everything is underwater and 100 degrees so I constantly live in a jacuzzi
>thanks climate change!

Attached: 1613834380089.png (1024x922, 108.72K)

>now I can reject global warming as only a projection
You're confused global warming is directly measured.

Also, where did I reject a projection just for being a projection? The projection itself was objectively correct. Only the condition was questionable. A projection is only as strong as its condition.

The world is warming up naturally.

stupid retards like you who subject themselves to keep rebuilding every year keep my HD stock flush with value

Climate alarmists are so tiring

Attached: unprecedented stability.jpg (602x192, 26.67K)

>The world is warming up naturally.
Wrong, see

Your point?

Flawed premise, corrupted data, clear bias, not reproducible, not valid, improper interpretation, correlation is not causation, does not account for extraneous factors and is accordingly worthless. Try again please.

>Flawed premise
How so?

>corrupted data
Proof?

>clear bias
What bias?

>not reproducible
LOL, it's clearly reproducible, they explain how.

>not valid
How so?

>improper interpretation
Where?

>correlation is not causation
What correlation did they claim is causation?

>correlation is not causation, does not account for extraneous factors
Which ones?

You didn't even read the paper.

Humans have a negligible effect on climate change and scientists are not to be trusted.

Are you from Cali? I am so fucking tired of God damn fucking commie locus coming up here. They're fucking everywhere, and everyone hates them.

I've explained all of your concerns, see

>Humans have a negligible effect on climate change and scientists are not to be trusted.
Proof?

That's just you claiming you've explained your claims, not you explaining them. We both know you can't explain them because you've repeatedly failed to do so and can't even point to a prior post in which you did so. You didn't even read the paper and your claims are just baseless nonsense.

god damn this is embarrassing on your end dude

So much astroturf ITT

I suggest you read the thread.

Nowhere in this thread have you justified or evidenced any of your claims. You just keep asserting that you already have and saying "read the thread".

Wow, lots of interesting comments on here. I'll add my 2 cents as a climate expert. Cook's paper is a case study in scientific conformation bias. The studies he and others cite as confirmation of their claims are purposefully misread. Doran and Zimmerman's 2009 paper, for example, states 97% of the 77 climate scientists they asked said human activity is a contributing factor to changing global temperatures. Contributing and causing are two vastly different statements but are used interchangeably within the climate circle. When you search only for articles about "global warming" (the keyword he used in his search) why would you be surprised to find 97% of articles are about global warming, a political term, not a scientific one. This is analogous to being surprised that 97% of gender studies articles on the gender wage gap confirmed it existed despite an abundance of information that shows that it only exists as a national average and disappears completely when you dial into specific fields or compare like work history. It's bred into the field.

Since climate science is not an independent field but more of a mixing pot of other fields, the real consensus should be whether climate science studies are consistent with scientific findings of other overlapping fields. For example here, an astrophysicist doing research on sun spots and solar irradiance should conform with climate science. I use this specific example because there was an astrophysicist in Canada that found that his measurements of solar irradiance much more closely modeled and predicted global temperatures than the CO2 model. After publishing his research (which had nothing to do with climate change, he actually made the comment about his data being a better fit at a conference) he was protested and a petition was signed for his removal from the university he teaches at. Another example would be historical analysis. There have been several periods in our earth's history with significantly higher CO2 levels than now. Some were much warm and some were much cooler. Indeed, without the historical adjustment method (which is hilariously bad science btw... data set doesn't line up? Just alter historical data by a variable factor until it does) CO2 is an extremely poor measure of global temperature. Get the politics out of science. It should be telling that the leading global climate activist right now is a 16 yr old girl. Politicians and climate activists are trying to play with your emotions and labeling anyone who questions them as science deniers. It truly is an astonishing thing watching high school children scream "science denier" to PhDs with decades in their fields...

Attached: climate change is a meme.png (635x289, 162.49K)

See
Your concerns have been addressed.

Ok, I accept your concession then

It doesn't mean anything.

Attached: natural 7.png (650x333, 32.67K)

I did, you lied. I suggest you fuck off.

See

I didn't lie. It's not my fault you lack the scientific skills to read complex topics.

Not him , but don’t be a faggot and insult instead give a proper response you dense fuck

Yes I know, I've already said I've accepted your concession.

>im stoopid
yeah we know

>When you search only for articles about "global warming"
He didn't, did you read the paper? He did a topic search for birth "global warming" and "global climate change."

>why would you be surprised to find 97% of articles are about global warming, a political term, not a scientific one.
How is global warming political and not scientific? You're not an expert at all.

Nothing you said refuted the paper. There is a clear consensus on climatology that AGW is real. Get over it.

>there was an astrophysicist in Canada that found that his measurements of solar irradiance much more closely modeled and predicted global temperatures than the CO2 model.
Who?

>Indeed, without the historical adjustment method
No such thing.

>CO2 is an extremely poor measure of global temperature
You're an idiot. Pic related.

Attached: Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif (500x221, 15.15K)

>I didn't lie.
Then why can't you show where your explained got claims? You can't, because you lied. Every post you make confirms this.

>Global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map if not reversed by 2000!
so it was reversed?

Re-read his post. It's pretty clear.

Where does it say "Global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map by 2022 of not reversed by 2000?"

I did, it's not clear. It sounds like a made up story.

You're being ridiculous.

You're avoiding the question. It's a made up story.

Everyone can see it is YOU who is avoiding the topic at hand.

A metric of measuring both relative humidity and temperature. The dry bulb temperature is the normal temperature a thermometer reads and the wet bulb is the temperature the thermometer would read if the bulb (of the thermometer) were saturated with water. The lower the difference between the two, the higher the humidity. The difference can be converted to humidity with some math and information about water.

Where? I've responded to everything said to me. You're avoiding the question asked here because it's a made up story and you know it.

It's been answered.

Where? Your next post will fall to show it. Why did you lie?

Aren't there various creatures that thrive ONLY because of specific climates and weather conditions? Like even minute changes to just temperature can fuck up the entire mating season for some animals and completely throw the ecosystem out of whack and in some cases, cause irreversable damage to it. I don't know about you guys but Climate change is a little more than just "things are warmer/colder than usual" because it's those things that can kickstart some pretty disasterous consequences for our ecosystems. Stuff like ocean acidification are a pretty good example of how bad things can get if left unchecked.

Attached: 1503282673231.png (657x527, 28.5K)

Based.

Fuck off MIGAtard.

sadly not, western nations are run by sincere third-worldists

Scroll up

And as I predicted you failed to show it. Thanks for confirming you lied.

Lived in FL my whole life, never once had to rebuild my piece of shit home. I fact I don't know anybody who's had their home destroyed. I think you're thinking of CA with they're continuous conflagrations.

That's incorrect.

Then it should be easy for you to show where you answered the question. But you won't, because you never did.

Read the thread.

I did, that's how I know you lied.

Not even the supposedly collected data is trustworthy. They just slap a "correction" if it's not close enough to their model. At some point you just realize science is mostly just a sales pitch requiring slightly more intelligence than real estate or car dealership.

>They just slap a "correction" if it's not close enough to their model.
Proof?

Everyone in this thread is a virgin. Y'all gotta have some sex and stop bitching about my heckin climatinerinooo
>inb4 not argument
I rest my case.

podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/RECON_SEA_LEVEL_OST_L4_V1

Here you go

I wonder who benefits from claiming nothing is wrong?
I wonder who benefits from sounding the alarm?

Attached: 1655025575845m.jpg (952x1024, 67.28K)

>I wonder who benefits from claiming nothing is wrong?
Lots of people.
>I wonder who benefits from sounding the alarm?
Lots of people.

Truth or dare makes more money than checkers or chess apparently

sodomite

Shitposting aside, when I was young in 2000-2005, we used to have a snow cover for pretty much 3 months in the winter with a solid level of snow, every winter. SInce then, it's gradually gotten less and less and now it averages at around a month and the cover is shit. My birthday's in early February and I don't remember it being snowless even a single time before like 2010. Now, there have been 5 consecutive years of no snow on it and the temperature even reached 20C last year.

Where do you see corrections towards a model?

that's how you interpret the grammar? what's special about 2000?

>that's how you interpret the grammar?
No that's how YOU interpreted it since you think we should see nations wiped out already. It's referring to a point of no return after which warming already in the pipeline will cause sea level rise.

No, I interpreted it as
>Global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000 if not reversed

That's not what was said.

OMG WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS YOU EAT BUGS AND BECOME A PEASANT GIVE KLAUS SWAB ABSOLUTE CONTROL AND BOW DOWN TO BLACK DICK IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE YOURSELVES

Incorrect

Correct, what was literally said was
>Global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map [if not reversed] by 2000
where the [if not reversed] was edited into the image

Then it should be easy for you to show where you answered the question. But you won't, because you never did.

Yes, because that's what the scientist actually said.

Yeah, it seems like the weather has been as unpredictable as the weather

also, hang yourself

You're being immature.

>the guy who does nothing but troll this thread is accusing others of being immature

Attached: 001.jpg (600x467, 50.66K)

>n = 15 years
Kek retard.

human-driven climate change conspiracy theorists are the educated equivalent of Q-tards and im not even sorry for saying it

>2019: two weeks til trump gets re-elected
>2020: two weeks to stop the steal
>2021: two weeks til trump is back in office
>2022: two weeks til durham arrests the deep state

>1970: ten years til global cooling is irreversible
>1980: ten years til global warming is irreversible
>2000: ten years til global warming is irreversible
>2010: ten years til climate change is irreversible

Grow up.

See

Okay. Now prove the origin of this is anthropological.

>>global cooling
That was always a fringe opinion. See : ten years til global warming is irreversible
: ten years til global warming is irreversible
: ten years til climate change is irreversible
Sources?

He's not trolling. He's literally brain damaged and thinks he's convincing all le evil 4channers of how they're wrong. He's a delusional fucking grifter who doesn't realize all he's doing is making more and more people here deny his cult. It's funny when you think about it.

That our he is deliberately acting retarded to make deniers look bad.

See

See

lurk more

He's doing the opposite. He makes deniers look like geniuses. Based on his posting habits he's not smart enough to do this intentionally.

The guy you replied to who was calling someone immature IS the delusional climate change believing redditoid schizo. Yes, he is retarded.

So no source. Why did you lie?

>He makes deniers look like geniuses.
How does making up a story about an anonymous Canadian scientist and then lying about having named him make deniers look like geniuses? Making up stories because you have no actual arguments against AGW makes deniers look retarded.

See

Not an argument. You again failed to answer the question. Thanks for admitting you lied.

To you, maybe. But what do you care? You're so stuck in your head, you fail to see how you radicalize others.

Scroll up.

LOL, pure projection.

To which post? You again failed to answer the question. Thanks for admitting you lied.

You're a moron. I know exactly how I radicalize others, like when I spread disinformation (not about climate change, nonce). You, on the other hand, are completely oblivious to how you radicalize people against climate change, which is fucking hilarious. By all means, don't stop on my account. See, when I post disinformation, I know what I'm doing. You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're doing and sway people into climate denialism with your toxic rhetoric. It's hard to believe you're not a troll trying to do it, honestly.

What toxic rhetoric?

Read the thread. I've answered your question.

Where? Which post? You can't tell me because you lied.

If you had read the thread you would know.

I read the thread, so I know you're lying. You can't tell me which post because it doesn't exist. Every time you fail to do so, you prove I'm right.

You clearly didn't read it very well.

Then prove it and link the post. Oh right, you can't. Liar.

Read the thread.

I did, that's how I know you lied.

No you didn't, no you don't.

I did, and every time you fail to link the post you prove that I'm right.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you. Your theory has been thoroughly debunked in this thread.

weather is the kind of choas that i feel is more managable than a bunch of niggers and kikes lying cheating stealing and killing on a whim.

>I'm not going to spoonfeed you
Because you literally can't.

>Your theory has been thoroughly debunked in this thread.
Where?

I can but I won't. Scroll up.

You're both faggots.

>be a unique bird species
>molded through millions of years of evolution for ultimate survival
>twitching your head constantly like a neurotic shizoid to avoid all potential threats
>navigate the globe with an internal magnetic field detector
>have exotic dances that expose your resilient and bold nature to females
>and then the ultimate predator comes forth to challenge your very existence
>...
>the air gets slightly warmer
>bird dies like a bitch

Why is /an/ like this?

It’s so true. Any plan to save Earth or the human race will have to deal with Californians

Terraforming is most definitely real, e*rther

Attached: there is no way to sugarcoat this.jpg (1200x720, 64.43K)

No it isn't.

Ayo stop lying cuh aint no climate ain't changin.

Al Gore being a faggot doesn't mean CO2 stops absorbing infrared radiation user

>I can
No you can't.

>Scroll up.
I already read the entire thread. You lied.

star trek isn't real
star wars isn't real
the moon landings never happened
the mars landings will never happen
you will never go to space
deal with it incel

My high school science teacher bet me $1k that florida would be gone by 2025. Only 3 more years, Mr. Young!

I have fond memories of reading his "97% of scientists can't be wrong" shirt while he stood next to the "truth isn't a democracy" poster.

>things that never happened

Mr. Young here. You must have been that weird smelly faggot, and you are remembering the bet wrong -- I bet you that Florida would experience record-breaking highs before 2025

the sun controls the weather not man

you have been brainwashed, simple as. why was there a mini ice age and an actual ice age and why did the world pull out of it? it's incredibly arrogant of you to claim others are wrong with no concrete data. just like saying banning guns will get rid of all violent crime. it's moronic to believe such wishy washy thing just because they fit your agenda, dr reddit thunberg

>the sun controls the weather not man
Proof?

ostrich mode

The real Mr. Young would consider browsing Any Forums a sign of nazi beliefs lmao.

*G-d

LOL, you didn't even deny that you made it up.

What am I supposed to do, bring up the recording? There's no way to prove or disprove that for either of us.

Yeah, get in touch with your teacher and get him to confirm it. Why are you protesting? Because you know you're full of shit.

>sun CONTROLS weather
Sun is conscious?

Read the thread.

Hello faggots.
Gtfo.