This is nbc

pun of the year! :p

10,000 scientists can say the same thing and a single experiment can prove them wrong.

"Experiments" and "consensus" have nothing to do with the climate change argument. We have had evidence that fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses are causing destructive harm to our planet as early as the 1970's. 10,000 scientists say the same thing because there is a crap ton of scientific evidence that points that way.

There is ZERO EVIDENCE. All you have are a bunch of theories, computer models and predictions that have been consistently wrong, and cherrypicked evidence.

If any of this hysteria was remotely close to being true, one would think the hypothesis would occasionally be correct

Can you give me evidence that we're NOT significantly changing the world's climate. Some 'climate alarmists' may be irrational, but that's no reason to say that we aren't changing the climate of our planet.

How about before going crazy and screaming the sky is falling and demanding all sorts of radical changes to lifestyle, YOU GUYS provide some proof.

First of all, there is plenty of proof, if you look into it. There have been countless peer-reviewed studies that point to the average global climate increasing, as well as humans having a significant impact. Second, people don't need to completely alter the way they live. It may not be an immediate threat, but, over time, things will gradually get more and more severe. I'm not saying that we all need to immediately end all carbon emissions, but steps to mitigate a negative impact on our climate could certainly help in the long run, and may even improve the lives of people. Take very industrialized areas of China, for example. While it's not only CO2 that the smokestacks are spewing out, a lot of it is. People there have to wear masks to block out the polluted air. Some problems can be fixed fairly easily and painlessly. Create one-time-use plastics that biodegrade, swap coal plants for solar panels, turbines, dams, or nuclear plants, and make electric vehicles more mainstream. There are also other ways to reduce carbon emissions by creating sinks for the carbon, such as the replanting of trees in deforested areas.

What if human emissions are actually preventing disaster? Ok it is fact there has been an ice age every so often, also mass extinctions every so often in Earth's history. Right? You know how firefighter's due controlled forest fires to stop a bigger threat? What if the higher temps actually burn things at a controlled rate, instead of everything being peachy for 100 million years then BAM! mass extinction?

Except it's not controlled. The average global temperature is actually increasing at an exponential rate, and one which it hasn't done since an extinction-level event. There was that time that oxygen killed off like 90% of life because of climate change, and that was SLOWER than what we're doing now. Or you could look at the carboniferous, where insects and arachnids became as big as a car. Anyway, the reason that controlled forest fires happen is to prevent uncontrolled forest fires. It is, as the name says, a controlled process. We know why and when it would be a beneficial occurrence. Fires stop other fires from happening by burning the fuel before there's too much. How would emitting massive amounts of carbon dioxide prevent the emission of more CO2? While the ice age may have been caused by too little CO2, but what we have now is far, far more, relatively, than back then. What we're doing is upsetting the the balance that has been created by millions of years of ecological trial and error.

1) Rising sea levels
2) Increased strength of hurricanes and other tropical storms
3) Rising temperatures around the world
4) Massive icebergs calving off of ice shelves due to temperature increases
5) Giant fricken' hole in the ozone layer
6) Acidification of the rain
7) Acidification of the air
8) Acidification of our water sources
9) Increasing greenhouse effect
Bam. NINE points of evidence on climate change. But I don't expect you to comprehend them, as you seem to be too busy trying to place your head inside your own rectal cavity to listen to logical reasoning.

1) 2 cm over the past 200 years, if that
2) about as fake as the above animated gif
3) also false, which is why they relabeled it "climate change"
4) yet other new ice sheets are forming
5-8) nothing to do with global warming
9) no, not really. Theoretically by model, but it hasn't happened at all.

Even if it's true that climate is changing, you THEN have to prove that it's all humanity's fault and not say... volcanoes, the earth's orbit, or the cycles of the sun spots. There are natural cycles involved that greatly impact the overall natural world climate.

Sorry, there is no proof here, only a bunch of rehearsed talking points you regurgitated out of your ass.

1) that depends on your location
2) while there isn't much change due to increased carbon in the atmosphere, there is a small amount as a result of a warmer atmosphere.
3) everywhere is, indeed, a large overgeneralization, but the average climate of Earth has increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution.
4) Evan is referring to the Arctic ice caps, while you're referring to the Antarctic ice caps. The reason that Antarctic ice caps aren't melting is because the Southern Circumpolar Current is keeping warm air and water from reaching much of Antarctica.
5) that's true. The hole in the ozone layer was created by CFCs, or chloroflourocarbons. CFCs were banned a decade or two ago, so the hole is almost gone. However, they, too, were a result of pollution from humans, and that much is clear, because the hole repaired itself once we stopped pumping CFCs into the atmosphere.
6 and 8) the CO2 dissolves into the water, making it more acidic.
7) Carbon doesn't have THAT MUCH of an impact on it, but it is a small contributor.
9) that's because it's a gradual thing. Climate change doesn't happen all at the same time. It's a slow process.

I'll admit, Evan was a bit rude, and while he has a point, you do as well. While climate change isn't an immediate threat, it IS affecting our lives, slowly but surely. I must say, challenging commonly accepted ideas is great for scientific growth.

Climate Alarmist = Rational Informed Individual.

Climate change is a real thing don't let corporate money convince you other wise

Follow the money

Follow the money and you'll find it's the alarmists making money by inventing a "problem" and selling the solution.

Uh... If you follow the money it leads to fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits. What's the financial incentive to point out climate change?

Control of the population under the guise of saving the world and just more excuses to tax them. Like I said they would also be selling the solutions, so we have makers of led lightbulbs, solar panels, wind turbines all being subsidized as well as those crappy low flow toilets and electric cars.

Sure, you could make the case that oil companies would rather disprove climate change, but if you do that you have to admit there are other corporations that will cash in on it who are pushing the global warming narrative.

It's not even a case of who has the motive. But just look at what was predicted decades ago or even five years ago and it's been wrong wrong wrong. With that kind of track record it's clear that all the pseudoscientists are not actually following a scientific method, but merely pushing an agenda.

Ah yes. The completely false, faked, dishonest hockey stick graph created by a bunch of liars not worthy of being called "scientists".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BuqjX4UeBYs

If you don't trust Nasa.

Why should we trust them? I get the feeling that you have never done any critical thinking or thought for yourself at all in your lifetime.

I do alot of critical thinking and I think it takes a lack of critical thinking to think climate change is a hoax.

So a bunch of weather scientists decided they wanted to control the world, so they got together to form an evil conspiracy, and then the best idea they could come up with was... to lie about the temperature?

Like, this theory is so incredibly retarded that I don't believe that you actually believe it. No one could possibly be that stupid. I think you're just trolling.

Or maybe you are just so stupid, stubborn, and willingly blind to the truth, that you can't comprehend it.

You know what? Screw you. If you're going to be a retarded asshat, I'm done with you.

No valid counterargument? Resort to playground insults.

Seriously, which is more likely?

1: "Lots of scientists are in cahoots to lie to the public about the weather as part of an elaborate Marxist pinko conspiracy scheme to take away our rights because ... they just love controlling people a lot and thought that was the best way to do it."

2: "Burning the stuff we found in the ground produces carbon dioxide and methane, which heats up the Earth, just like Venus's carbon dioxide atmosphere has turned it into a hellscape. The scientists are trying to warn us because it's a topic they care about deeply, and the fossil fuel companies are trying to convince us otherwise with media propaganda because doing something about it would cut into their profits, and they could only afford half as many hookers to do half as much cocaine off of."

That's an incredibly retarded theory.

Think of motive. What corporation has motive to support climate change?(idk-the booming canoe industry). What corporations have motive to deny climate change?(ooh I know the multi trillion dollar fossil fuel industry).

How about all the ones pushing "eco-friendly" products? Every big giant has the incentive to make more carbon footprint red tape to keep new competition out of the market. Speaking of carbon footprints, how about the hordes of socialist politicians that want to cash in on all that carbon that can be taxed. And the amount of control you can now exert on your subjects. Win win for politicians, win win for the corporations, win win for the lawyers and the feral leftwing activists. Not so much a win for anyone else.

Those companies are peanuts compared to fossil fuel companies and politicians who are funded by them. And then nobody wins in the long run as our planet is f**ked up, but big oil will only look at short term profit. Just to clarify do you think climate change is a hoax?

Why do fossil fuel companies care one way or the other? All the trendy electric-powered stuff? Still primarily generated by burning fossil fuels? Raise taxes? Pass the cost on to the consumers. It's the public at large that are negatively impacted the most, not so much these companies.

And by hoax, you mean about as authentic as the animated gif we're commenting under?

Climate change cannot be trolled away like politics. It's here to stay. Trying to change public opinion is therefore useless.

Quit cutting down the rainforest then liberals

Haha respect at least your smart enough to see that climate change is real. Way to blame it on your opponents, everybody contributes

Of course it's real. Man made climate change...probably not. But if everyone's so worried they should be looking at deforestation. But they're not. Why? They want our money.

LOL

Canoes are an important part of life.