Climate hysteria

This is always my favorite meme to use...😉

Spatoine- When NASA and NOAA change previous temp readings to show a cooler past, this alone makes any rise in temp look larger. If you plot out the average temps before the changes vs. after the changes the altered average always follows the climate models forecasts. They have totally denied the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming periods existed.

The only people on the planet who think this is a hoax, is about half of the 30% of Republicans in America. The rest of the worlds 7 billion know it to be true.

No one "knows" it to be true. Like a flat earth and gender reassignment, the science is completely against it.

No...?

Then give me a source which disproves it.

Google it yourself.

So basically, you don't have any evidence whatsoever, so you tell me to disprove myself, even though it's your job to disprove me.

Interesting and imaginative spin. First, you cited no incontrovertible source that it's true (where the burden actually lies). But then asked me to do your homework for you. The evidence that global warming/climate change is natural and not cause at all by mankind is plentiful. You just have to open your eyes and ignore the liberal brainwashing. Do your own homework. And your own thinking.

First, here's some articles, if you want sources.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming
https://climate.nasa.gov/
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/climate-and-climate-change/climate-change/index
Now, I challenge you to provide your own evidence against mine.

Again... not doing your homework for you. End of discussion.

So, I'm meant to provide your stuff as well as mine.
Okay, let's say this was a war, would my side be obliged to provide your army with guns, artillery, vehicles and the like? No. So why do I have to provide you with your argument?

And convincing you one way or the other won't change the reality of what actually is, so it's not worth my time to try. It's funny to watch liberals create all these faux crises to take more and more control of our lives, when reasonable people look at their claims and just laugh.

But they wear that like a badge of honor and call us science-deniers, etc... when the truth is actual science isn't on the side of nearly all liberal policies... They couldn't bear the weight of actual facts, so they deny science and call their opposition names.

Alright, give me proof that these organisations are controlled by the liberal elite or something. I'm trying to convince you to give evidence, I couldn't really give a shit about your climate change denying, it's fruitless to dissuade you, really. But what I can do is tell you to actually support your claims.

Not a war though and you'd not be providing ME with MY argument. You'd be doing research yourself and arming yourself with true science and facts instead of propaganda. I don't need any argument, I know what's truth already.

We all think what we think, we don't know what we don't know. And don't think you know because your facebook group circlejerk tells you that it is. I think global warming is a serious issue, despite me not agreeing with doomsayers overhyped because of what is going on. I don't truly know if the world is gonna end in 12 years, 120 years or 120000 years. I don't know if there's a permanent solution to it all, but I am willing to support the idea that we need renewable energy, that we shouldn't dump our rubbish into the sea and that we need our worldwide ecosystem, and, most of all, humanity needs to wise up to these issues.
Hiding behind this idea that "all mainstream articles are propaganda" and "my opinions are truth and fact" without the ability to support it, and just expecting your opponent to believe your case.
I got a better analogy. It's like a court case.
If you, a lawyer, turn up at the case with no proof to provide and just say, when the judge asks you why you haven't brought any to "do it yourself", you are going to lose the case.
You have an argument, don't expect me to defend it for you when you can't even defend it yourself. But, you know what, you win. Yep, I'm throwing in the towel. Feel good about yourself? I hope that rush of dopamine makes you all giddy with ecstasy, and your life feels complete.

Reasonable possible outcomes to climate change.

1. Refuse to do anything.
a. Nothing happens and no money spent
b. People are displaced, wars are fought over the loss of land, crops and costs rise to the point of financial collapse. The cost of doing nothing estimated to be 10 times that of doing something.

2. Embracing a green future.
a. A new technological future, an economic indicator switch from GDP to a more growth based model based on health, happiness, quality of life
b. An energy future based on clean, renewable energy that would likely be owned by millions of users, not multi-nationals, mega corporations with a smart grid capable of pulling and holding power at small and large scales
c. America becoming the leader in development of this future with millions of jobs created. Solar already employs more people in U.S. electricity generation than oil, coal and gas combined. These numbers would just continue to grow larger. They will continue to grow whether you choose to stick your head in the sand and do nothing or choose to contribute.
d. Yes, there will be cost. If nothing happens, this cost will create millions of jobs and make people much healthier with cleaner air and water.
If the climate does change, it will change less and cost less than if nothing is done at all.

Comparing the two choices, a reasonable person would pick a green future. Our own military is working and planning for seas to rise, for displacement to happen and consider climate change one of the greatest threats to our nation. It doesn't matter what you think. You can be left behind and will.

If you believe what you're saying, you've never looked closely at the NASA historical temp charts, because the older ones don't match up with the new ones. NASA and NOAA revise past temperatures downward to make any temp rise look worse than it is.

Got any links to any of NASA's older temp charts?
Just asking.

Historical temps are changed higher and lower all the time as those older weather stations are continually evaluated against new instruments and how they measure what they measure, along with the differences in their locations. If changes did not happen, that would be less accurate science, not more.

Your argument is akin to saying that people today are lying because they say they can drive from Boston to NYC in half the time they could in 1932 even though the distance hasn't changed. Of course, the roads and vehicles have.

NO, they are NEVER changed to show cooling. If you graph them over time, the changes always match the current trend, and never show cooling. They will say that people back in the day didn't know how to read their thermometers correctly, so we'll interpret what they should have been. The scientists (activists, sellouts, whatever) are being disingenuous at best, fraudulent at worst.

You don't know what you're talking about. Yes, they have changed into cooler temps. I've studied this. The overall trend is rising temps and that can't be denied. The argument that people back in the day didn't know how to read thermometers, is bs. It's obvious world temps are rising. Believing people are lying about thermometer readings is ridiculous.

Hydrofluorocarbons were banned because they were breaking down the ozone layer.

Yes... and DDT was banned on hoax evidence too, allowing malaria to spread too easily, killing many.