What will it take for people to admit that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist?
We have thousands of years of data/information on floods, droughts, heat waves, and Ice Ages. Yet people think that humans are responsible for "climate change", even though the climate has been changing for thousands of years, and there were many periods over the last few thousand years where conditions were WORSE than they are today.
Droughts have been happening in Europe for thousands of years
Ethan Smith
Other urls found in this thread:
old.reddit.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
economist.com
livescience.com
degruyter.com
d-nb.info
twitter.com
Colton Torres
niggers tongue my anus aka bump
Caleb Reed
>What will it take for people to admit that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist?
Would be nice to share them in this thread !
First time hearing about those stones but if people have articles or pics just post'em
Henry Edwards
Alexander Young
Why is it so hard to consider that humans producing certain chemicals on an industrial scale will have a manmade impact on the climate?
Yes, the climate changes naturally, but if our actions push the planets condition into a condition that is unsuitable for us, ie more droughts, then we should change our lifestyles.
Thomas Nelson
Heat wave of 1757: en.wikipedia.org
Samuel Young
>3 m3 hunger stone with the years 1800, 1840, 1842, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1865, 1874, 1876, 1881, 1911, 1922, 1934 and 1959
Owen King
you're arguing with retards and bots
Xavier Watson
Ironically, man-made climate change DOES exist, and it's the reason why the climate has been so hospitable for the past few hundred years.
Basically, we're technically in an ice age right now. Geologically, an ice age is defined as a period of time in Earth's history when ice is stable year-round over some portion of the planet's surface. By that definition, we've been in an ice age for at least the past 4 million years. Ice ages are divided into glaciations, when glaciers advance and the climate is generally cooler, and interglacials, when glaciers retreat and the climate is warm. The most recent glaciation (which people usually refer to as "the Ice Age") lasted from roughly 115,000 to 11,700 years ago. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, lasted from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago.
Glacial periods therefore last about 10x as long as interglacials. The world would probably be experiencing decreasing temperatures and advancing glaciation right now if it weren't for man-made global warming artificially prolonging the current interglacial period.
Jack Wright
But we're not having "more droughts", it's about the same frequency as the past thousand years. The temperature data being reported today is often higher than what is actually happening, due to thermometers being in areas that are next to heat sources, airport tarmac, out in the ocean, etc.
But when you look at things like rainfall, it's about the same frequency as it has been.
Jacob Price
That used to be debated more frequently, whether humanity was coming out of an Ice Age, or heading into another one.
I agree that we're likely helping the planet stave off another ice age, which would be catastrophic to almost everything on the planet.
But most other weather events (droughts, floods, monsoons, hurricanes, etc.) seem to be in about the same frequency as they were over the past several hundred years.
This means that we're likely in a "light interglacial" where the planet never gets hot enough to melt the poles, and also doesn't revert back to a straight Ice Age again.
If the suns energy output was that severely impaired, I don't think there'd be too much that humanity could do to stop an Ice Age from occurring. Plants still need sunlight energy, and if that energy is reduced then we would all know about it.
Isaac Morris
Here's a list of floods, many of which were considerably worse than anything we've experienced recently: en.wikipedia.org
Justin Jenkins
>over the last few thousad years
name one
The problem isn’t cimate changing, but the speed of its progression which is unprecedented. Instead of a similar change over millions of years, we have to adapt to one in centuries, if not decades. Only niggers abuse luxury to the point of hurting their own people.
Evan Reed
The easiest solution is and will remain population control in Africa and south east Asia
Blake Cox
en.wikipedia.org
And that doesn't even include all of them. There were lots of droughts in the Roman Empire, which usually resulted in political unrest and "blame" being placed on politicians, kind of like today: economist.com
This 300-year long drought would've been blamed on "climate change" if we were all alive back then too: livescience.com
Oliver Garcia
>The easiest solution is and will remain population control in Africa and south east Asia
Yeah but for entirely different reasons.
Ryder White
Japan has a long history of droughts, surpluses, and famines: degruyter.com
Kayden Sullivan
>What will it take for people to admit that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist?
You do not have the research and data to back up this claim user
>b-b-b-b-but muh wikipedia, muh blogs, muh rocks
thats really not good enough
those same sources arent good enough for you when it comes to the opposite conclusion, so why are they suddenly good enough when it comes to your own confirmation bias
the answer is that humans don't have the data and research for a proper conclusion nigger
period
Lincoln Walker
As you can clearly see from this paper, China experienced lots of droughts at relatively consistent frequencies: d-nb.info
William Lee
Every link that I've posted in this thread has been based on historical evidence from the people alive during those time periods.
Wikipedia isn't a good source for anything new because it's too politicized. But you can easily find historical records for all the floods and droughts that I've linked to.
Or you can remain ignorant on this subject.
Elijah Sanchez
Did i name enough for you, dumb fucking mutt?