🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:38:36 UTC No. 16092182
Climate scientist Stephen Schneider of NOAA in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine admitted that climate scientists intentionally mislead the public about global warming as a means of forwarding their political goals:
>Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way:
>“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.
>And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:43:03 UTC No. 16092186
>>16092182
Everybody deep inside knows climate change is complete nonsense.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:51:35 UTC No. 16092190
>>16092182
Stephen Schneider's brother was on the board of directors for Shell Oil Company. I'm sure there was no conflict of interest.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 09:30:32 UTC No. 16092329
In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a 1-d radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/177
>However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.
So 50 years ago he concluded that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause an ice age, but then 35 years ago he was positive it was going to cause global warming.
And he was wrong both times lololololol what an idiot
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:42:28 UTC No. 16092470
>>16092182
Listen CHUD
Science isn't what's "True". That's a racist conception of science. Science is progressive, body-positive, anti-racist, and pro-democracy. The idea that science is only what's true is an invention by europeans.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:37:52 UTC No. 16092595
>>16092182
>which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.
That's just science vs science journalism. If you want all the caveats and confidence intervals then go to the IPCC. If you want the broad strokes distilled into a simplified form for retards like you then read a news story about climate change. If you want blatant anti-science garbage then go to daily mail or another political rag.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:20:53 UTC No. 16092695
>>16092186
You won't be saying that when you're sailing around drinking your own piss
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:39:02 UTC No. 16092710
>>16092190
The scientist always copes and seethes, while the believer posts pictures as undeniable proof of sea level rise.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:48:20 UTC No. 16093111
>>16092710
sea level is falling
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:50:58 UTC No. 16093115
>>16093111
Everybody knows that Scandinavia is experiencing glacial isostatic rebound. Please show the decomposition of how much it's the land moving and how much it's the sea level itself changing.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:04:50 UTC No. 16093145
>>16092595
If you want blatant anti-science garbage then you'd be better to go read a news story about climate change.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:44:27 UTC No. 16093657
>>16092595
>IPCC
Thats a UN propaganda agency, not a scientific organization. Every doomsday prediction they've every made about global warming has been completely wrong
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 04:13:02 UTC No. 16093688
>>16093111
no its not
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 04:16:47 UTC No. 16093690
>>16093657
"UN environmental official" is not a scientific publication.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:29:00 UTC No. 16094998
>>16092182
>(((Stephen Schneider)))
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:26:00 UTC No. 16096706
>>16095538
because 50 years ago ZOG was shilling the "oy vey pollution is causing le ice age, that means you have to give me all your money" meme and they decided to switch to "oy vey pollution is causing le global warming, that means you have to give me all your money" meme because everyone realized that the ice age version was fake.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:41:06 UTC No. 16096728
>>16096706
Actually, smog from excessive pollution cooling the planet was a real issue; it's just the grift wasn't profitable. We just set up pollution controls and that was that.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:04:21 UTC No. 16096750
>>16092182
but we should adopt a one world communist dictatorship just in case, guys
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHk
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:09:32 UTC No. 16096759
Back in 89 we were still mainly worried about freezing to death in the next couple months.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:31:58 UTC No. 16096782
>>16096750
Only if the ayyys tell us like in the movies
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:58:03 UTC No. 16096813
>>16096759
We did spend the 60's, the 70's and the 80's about how the next ice age is coming.
Apparently, that was not to last?
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:20:35 UTC No. 16097336
>>16096728
no it wasn't, the polluted urban zones that were affected were an insignificantly small part of the planet
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:48:43 UTC No. 16097354
>>16092329
>So 50 years ago he concluded that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause an ice age
How retarded are you? He's talking about aerosol emissions leading to an ice age, not co2.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:55:05 UTC No. 16097620
Cool, but I'm not listening to someone whose last name is Schneider
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:03:10 UTC No. 16097630
>>16097336
>polluted urban zones
but that is where 90% of humans live, faggot
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:28:38 UTC No. 16098442
>>16097336
>the polluted urban zones that were affected
what is urban heat bubbles?
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:53:07 UTC No. 16098982
>>16098442
The urban zones were better off with smog became it mitigated the urban heat bubble effect
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:29:35 UTC No. 16100203
>>16099493
peak oil is just a meme, they were turning a profit selling oil for $20 a barrel when trump was president. if anything its cheaper to extract and bring to market now than it was before because the growing pipeline infrastructure cuts down massively on transportation costs.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 09:41:35 UTC No. 16100908
>>16100203
mining and engineer technology growth in general only makes it cheaper and cheaper to produce oil, rising prices are only caused by price gouging
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:51:30 UTC No. 16102285
>>16100908
TSMT
They were making profits selling oil for $20/barrel when Trump was president, but now with prices several times higher they're making giga profits.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 06:57:51 UTC No. 16102902
>>16096813
imagine soience has been shilling end of the world climate myths since the 1960s and the climate hasn't changed even slightly the whole time and yet the soience sois keep on shilling the same worn out story
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 01:05:11 UTC No. 16104129
>>16102902
Imagine how low IQ the people who still believe the lie are
DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 07:52:54 UTC No. 16104518
>>16092190
>Stephen Schneider's brother was on the board of directors for Shell Oil Company. I'm sure there was no conflict of interest.
interesting
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:44:40 UTC No. 16105072
>>16102902
Only bad news are good news.
You're not getting any attention by saying "Everything is actually ok!".
Works for journalists. But for a lot of researchers too.
"We found no abnormalities" just doesn't have that ring that makes you stand out.
...Of course, nowadays this could be considered the new normal,
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:26:53 UTC No. 16105328
>>16093145
>a news story
its easy to try and blame journalism, but you can get the same story out of any science textbook. universities not only have entire departments devoted to """"global warming""" but they also devote large fractions of the efforts of all STEM departments to studying the fake and gay climate scare
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:42:15 UTC No. 16105352
>>16104518
Whenever you see any kind of "critique" against anthropogenic climate change, there's always a link back to Big Oil. Every single time. I'm almost tired of pointing it out. The names are so familiar to me.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:26:42 UTC No. 16105488
>>16105352
Tell me how Anthony Watts is a big oil shill
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:28:18 UTC No. 16105497
>>16104518
Source: I made it up
>>16105352
You faggots will believe anything that confirms your bias
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:36:42 UTC No. 16105515
>>16105488
Literally paid by the Koch Brothers via Heartland Institute. As I said, every time.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:38:12 UTC No. 16105516
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:49:33 UTC No. 16106023
>>16105515
So we're on a six degrees of separation kind of thing here. If the Koch Brothers paid Michael Mann, would his work be discredited by association too?
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:51:52 UTC No. 16106025
>>16105515
>In 2011, the institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.[118] The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".
Cram it, fundie. Try again.
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:08:20 UTC No. 16106032
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:50:12 UTC No. 16106063
>>16106032
>wheredoyouwantit.jpg
put it next to your straight jacket and your insane schizo persecution complex
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:30:18 UTC No. 16106080
>>16106063
You're the one who believes there is a massive conspiracy by scientific organizations all around the world to falsify evidence of anthrogenic climate change for... no real end whatsoever, other than clean sustainable energy that puts oil companies out of business.
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:54:56 UTC No. 16106414
>>16106080
No. No conspiracy. Just groupthink and confirmation bias. Mass delusion.
Was it a global conspiracy of falsified evidence when the majority of educated people believed in geocentrism? Or did they just ignore contrary evidence and try to censor and silence their opponents?
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 21:21:03 UTC No. 16106804
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 06:09:03 UTC No. 16107431
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:55:56 UTC No. 16107548
>>16106804
Are you capable of understanding? I tell you that I don't believe it's a conspiracy or a hoax and you drop a webcomic about James Bond villainy?
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 10:29:54 UTC No. 16107570
>>16106414
>Was it a global conspiracy of falsified evidence when the majority of educated people believed in geocentrism?
No. Geocentricism, while untrue in retrospect, fit all observations at the time. To believe in a geocentric universe is entirely logical, it is the perspective we have as an observer.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:20:02 UTC No. 16107781
>>16107570
>To believe in a geocentric universe is entirely logical,
It was also entirely incorrect, as is the AGW hypothesis, the "CO2 drives climate and not vice versa" hypothesis etc.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:26:22 UTC No. 16107789
>>16092190
/thread
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:38:09 UTC No. 16107799
>>16107781
>"CO2 drives climate and not vice versa" hypothesis
You have no idea what you're talking about. Way to put ourself.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:21:09 UTC No. 16107918
I like how when scientists say climate change is real, people will say it’s a big hoax even though said scientists have very little vested interest in lying.
But when talking heads paid for by big oil say it’s a hoax, suddenly it’s the truth, even though it’s in big oil’s interest to lie to keep the population buying their oil for the rest of time.
The same thing happened with big tobacco when they lied about smoking related illnesses. Pic related is all the evidence I need. Very funny how the global temp starts to increase right around the time humans start producing CO2 emissions. Funny how that works.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:05:21 UTC No. 16108182
>>16107799
Not an argument.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:06:59 UTC No. 16108185
>>16107918
Imagine believing we can make any worthwhile estimation about global temperature averages 1000y ago to within fractions of a degree Celsius.
Nice religious faith you have.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:22:56 UTC No. 16108214
>>16107918
The idea that "scientists have very little vested interest in lying" ignores the fact that since 1799, political ideology has been a key driver in modern behavior. Sometimes an even greater driver than personal wealth. The vested interest is the belief by the scientific community that total economic reform will result in utopia. That's a perfectly valid reason to do something, even if every single attempted utopia has resulted in the exact opposite.
Rich Investor at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:44:51 UTC No. 16108250
>>16107918
>this is a hoax
>NO, this is a hoax
Ffs its obvious the same holdings fund both sides.
>tobacco
Adictive substances have inelastic demand they can literally tax the fuck out of smokers and they'll keep going.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:48:31 UTC No. 16108258
>>16108214
>the belief by the scientific community that total economic reform will result in utopia.
Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:15:55 UTC No. 16108646
>>16108185
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glo
Wow it turns out you can learn how things are done by using the internet instead of exclaiming about how “we couldn’t possibly be able to know about the past because we weren’t personally there”.
> Proxy measurements can be used to reconstruct the temperature record before the historical period. Quantities such as tree ring widths, coral growth, isotope variations in ice cores, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, fossils, ice cores, borehole temperatures, and glacier length records are correlated with climatic fluctuations.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:50:16 UTC No. 16108671
>>16108646
Translation:
"Using a tea leaf reading method only known to the priesthood, we can scry into the past or even predict the future! Remember to never question the Priesthood, or a curse upon your bloodline!"
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 02:11:48 UTC No. 16108687
>>16108646
>posts his religious scripture claiming it's scientific evidence
kill yourself faggot
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 02:24:02 UTC No. 16108697
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:01:58 UTC No. 16108724
>>16108697
I accept your concession now that you've run out of arguments.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 04:12:39 UTC No. 16108770
>>16108724
This is bait because I refuse to believe that anyone is this dense, and if you are then I’m wasting my time communicating simple concepts like how your inability to understand science is not an argument against it. Any further bait will be ignored.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:28:13 UTC No. 16108905
>>16092182
>forwarding their political goals
well, if under 'political goals' you list the nerd's desperate desire to be perceived as important, a hero, savior of mankind etc ...
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:58:51 UTC No. 16108925
>>16108770
You don't want to deal with the actual issue, which is the methodologies being used. Earlier evidence which disagrees is thrown out and replace with "corrected" and "improved" data that magically fits the theory, but not the facts.
Oh, does the historical record talk about french wine grapes being grown in and around London during the Roman Warm Period? Actually, you silly billy, the new better data shows that it is ten times hotter now than back during the 1st Century, so I guess the Roman chronicles were paid off by big oil or something.
Massive change in global temperatures during the 18th and 19th century, such that the Europeans freaked out about it and there were global revolutions over crop failure? There you go again, thinking that primary sources can compare with what climatologists know. The temperature change during the "Little Ice Age" wasn't THAT dramatic, not as dramatic as the current period of obviously human caused global warming - because there is no other possibility for observed climate phenomena in the modern day other than Human pollution. No sir, the conspiracy against Science is just that deep.
And all the historical ice core data that shows warmer temperatures than now prior to Human civilization? See, that's just local data. A tiny blip compared to the vast wealth of data climate scientists can glean from anywhere. How? Well, point to a rock and we'll show you how it is proof of man made climate change.
What about all those failed climate predictions, that forecast no ice cap by 2020 or massive rises in sea level? See, those were just predictions made by THE MEDIA, who of course lie whenever they get the chance unless guided by Science. Only when the Media is right is it proof of Science. When wrong, that's when they didn't listen to Science or put words in Science's mouth. You can't trust newspapers who just report on what scientists said back in the 40's or 70's. Only what Scientists say now matters. Science is always right.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 07:06:35 UTC No. 16108929
>>16108646
>tree rings can tell us what mean global temperatures were like, to within a tenth of a degree Celsius, with certainty.
Get real anon. Any individual proxy record source is going to be dominated by local weather effects, not long term global climate.
How are proxies verified? You can't go back in a time machine to verify them.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 07:30:47 UTC No. 16108950
>>16108646
>No, I can't personally explain how the priests, er, scientists, can know the temperature to within a tenth of a degree Celsius from 1000 years ago, but I have faith
>tree rings and corals or something, stop disagreeing with me
A proxy is not a measurement. Don't confuse the map with the territory. How are they calibrated/tested?
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 14:01:31 UTC No. 16109286
>>16108950
>>16108929
Peak retard
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 14:24:49 UTC No. 16109307
>>16109286
>I believe we can know the average global temperature in 898BC based on the thickness of tree rings
Just admit you have FAITH in unprovable nonsense.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 02:37:50 UTC No. 16110039
>>16108646
>wikipedia
referencing that garbage is like admitting you know absolutely nothing about the topic you're trying to pose as an expert in
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 03:26:10 UTC No. 16110073
>>16093657
I know this is high level IQ stuff but
>entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels
is an independent clause to
>if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000
Also this prediction is already coming true. We did not reverse global warming by the year 2000 and now nations are being wiped out.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/
What you fail to understand is that we 'buy in' to climate change for decades with actions we perform now. If we suddenly reversed climate change tomorrow we would still see global warming get worse for decades. We have already 'bought in' drastic changes to our planets until at least 2100 due to our failures to address climate change. We must now try and mitigate what happens after.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 03:31:53 UTC No. 16110080
>>16110073
All of those low level islands were already threatened by the end of the Ice Age and are currently being eroded away into oblivion by wind and wave. Their doom came 100,000 years ago, not within the past century.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 03:38:18 UTC No. 16110087
>>16109307
Just admit you don't know what you're talking about
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 03:43:42 UTC No. 16110097
>>16110080
This is untrue. Your argument is that the end of the ice age is causing sea level rise, not man made climate change. Which is ignorant and stupid. I'm tired of you fuckoffs.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 04:41:48 UTC No. 16110144
>>16110097
>Your argument is that the end of the ice age is causing sea level rise, not man made climate change.
Please prove that we are not exiting an Ice Age and entering an interglacial period, and have been doing so for the past several thousand years. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>but it is happening too fast!
Not evidence!
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 04:58:00 UTC No. 16110150
>>16110144
The evidence is and has been freely available for years. The fact that you don't believe it is all the evidence I need to completely discount what you say. Stop sucking the dick of oil companies and their shills.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 07:49:16 UTC No. 16110318
>>16110087
You don't know either, you just have FAITH in what tree-ring enthusiasts tell you.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 07:58:03 UTC No. 16110322
>>16110150
>the evidence is there, just trust me on this
I accept your concession.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:27:55 UTC No. 16110404
>>16092186
Not entirely, the real climate change will come with the sun baking the Earth in 600 million years.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:28:06 UTC No. 16110616
>>16110318
Tree rings are not the only proxy measurements we have. Your ignorance is the reason you're so upset.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:25:23 UTC No. 16110797
>>16108925
All that drivel and you can’t understand the simple concept of regional and global temperatures
>>16108929
Read the methodology of the studies that produce global proxy reconstructions
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 19:05:35 UTC No. 16110966
>>16110797
>t-the Earth w-wasn't warmer in the p-past, t-that was j-just regional variation, the Roman and Medieval warm periods didn't exist!
Cope.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:24:41 UTC No. 16111047
>>16110966
Those are local events, moron. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know that?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 05:09:01 UTC No. 16111625
>>16111047
They weren't, they were global events
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 05:56:14 UTC No. 16111657
>>16111047
Local events. Local events which occurred in every single part of the Northern hemisphere, conveniently only in areas where they could be recorded by literal civilizations, and all cooling events localized entirely in areas where only future scientists could identify said cooling?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:06:07 UTC No. 16111663
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:28:14 UTC No. 16112069
>>16111625
>>16111657
Wrong. Would you like to try substantiating that claim?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:49:15 UTC No. 16112773
>>16112069
prove they weren't global, all the evidence shows that they were global events
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:52:21 UTC No. 16112778
>>16112069
Sorry. The Roman, Greek, Persian, and Chinese primary sources all agree. You are the one with the extraordinary claim based on interpretations of pollen samples.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 02:39:41 UTC No. 16113002
>>16112773
What evidence? You never posted any.
>>16112778
All in the northern hemisphere, not spanning the world, and you never posted a link to any of these "primary sources"
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 06:37:43 UTC No. 16113217
>>16113002
Chinese and Roman agricultural records are freely available.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:13:04 UTC No. 16113702
>>16113217
So you posted 0/4 sources you claimed I could examine, and now you still haven't posted any of them but suddenly only 2/4 are "freely available"? Further, you're still just using 4 data points, all from one half of the northern hemisphere.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 19:51:44 UTC No. 16114158
>>16113864
That was a local event. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know that?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:26:48 UTC No. 16114299
>>16114158
>WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
>here
>THAT WAS A LOCAL EVENT, NOT EVIDENCE
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:29:34 UTC No. 16114305
>>16092595
>IPCC
To be fair, the AR6 has underestimated a few things to say the least, but that's a topic for another day.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:40:25 UTC No. 16114320
>>16114299
>THAT WAS A LOCAL EVENT, NOT EVIDENCE
Correct. Is this you? >>16113217
So you've managed to find one of the four sources you claimed you had. Would you like to address the fact that your sparse sample set represents less than a quarter of the Earth? Would you like to provide evidence that actually demonstrates your point?
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:42:50 UTC No. 16114323
>>16114320
See >>16113864
>BUT IT WAS LOCAL
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:45:05 UTC No. 16114405
>>16114323
So you've managed to find one of the four sources you claimed you had. Would you like to address the fact that your sparse sample set represents less than a quarter of the Earth? Would you like to provide evidence that actually demonstrates your point?
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:15:58 UTC No. 16115116
>>16114405
But even today, climate change isn't a universal warming - some places are getting colder, some places are getting warmer.
The climate has always changed. The change is rarely uniform.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:33:09 UTC No. 16115126
hey we bought our milk
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:33:11 UTC No. 16115251
>>16115116
You've just made it clear that you don't know what the polar vortex is, the fact that it's destabilizing, or even understand the consequences. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 05:59:46 UTC No. 16116472
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:33:50 UTC No. 16116576
>>16115251
Why are you bringing up the polar vortices you schizophrenic?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:56:36 UTC No. 16116961
>>16116576
If you don't even understand that then how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:58:42 UTC No. 16116964
>>16116472
That's from a Greenland ice core. It's not global. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't understand the difference?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:59:11 UTC No. 16117337
>>16116961
Snooty, esoteric condescension is not an argument.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:00:15 UTC No. 16117340
>>16116964
>>16116961
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you maintain this pilpul?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:32:52 UTC No. 16117579
>>16117337
>>16117340
Neither of you are prepared for an argument. You have no proof for your claims and are completely ignorant of the subject matter which you have proven it over and over again. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:42:09 UTC No. 16117594
>>16115251
Polar Vortex is a local phenomenon by definition, we can better observe it through satellite today and thus through our advanced understanding it only appears to be significant, when in reality such oscillations are normal. The only thing "destabilizing" is the last remnants of the Ice Age which has been in the process of ending for over 100k years.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:44:13 UTC No. 16117597
>>16117594
>climate change isn't a universal warming - some places are getting colder, some places are getting warmer.
>Polar Vortex is a local phenomenon by definition
You are straight up a retard.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:51:00 UTC No. 16117603
>>16117597
>climate change isn't a universal warming - some places are getting colder, some places are getting warmer.
Where in my post did I say this? In fact, I said the opposite. Note:
>The only thing "destabilizing" is the last remnants of the Ice Age which has been in the process of ending for over 100k years.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:11:44 UTC No. 16117714
>>16117603
See
>>16115116
And learn what you're responding to.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:57:46 UTC No. 16118058
>>16117714
All you do is call people retards and ask how they expect to be taken seriously.
How do you expect to be taken seriously if you never make any arguments and instead just snootily condescend?
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:15:02 UTC No. 16118234
>>16117714
So basically the Ice Age is ending, and we're seeing the consequences of that. Cool.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:53:02 UTC No. 16119891
>>16116964
its global
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:10:44 UTC No. 16120083
>>16118058
>>16118234
>>16119891
All you do is make retarded assertions with no evidence whatsoever. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 06:38:31 UTC No. 16120461
>>16120083
CO2 is plant food.
In higher CO2 concentrations, plants need less water.
Much marginal land will become arable under higher CO2 conditions.
Chew on those assertions.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 13:42:21 UTC No. 16120848
>>16120461
All you do is make retarded assertions with no evidence whatsoever. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:10:51 UTC No. 16120970
>>16113864
>still unable to understand local and global temperatures
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:29:33 UTC No. 16120988
>>16120970
There is no such thing as a global temperature. What an utterly meaningless concept.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 03:52:08 UTC No. 16121862
>>16116964
>global temperatures.jpg
lrn2read
pic is (((you)))
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 04:04:01 UTC No. 16121881
>>16120988
>>16121862
>Imagine being this retarded
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:01:37 UTC No. 16122100
>>16107918
that would only prove that earth axis of rotation shift but global climate stay same
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:11:21 UTC No. 16122301
>>16122100
No it wouldn't, you moron.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:12:26 UTC No. 16122464
>>16122301
rude and wrong
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:25:12 UTC No. 16122667
>>16122464
Prove it then, genius.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:37:10 UTC No. 16122688
>>16092186
Everyone deep inside knows climate change is real but that philanthropists, bankers, and politicians are exploiting it and twisting it for their own purposes. People just say otherwise because it's a narrative that is parroted by the regime and their golems. It's not that simple.
>>16110404
Also this.
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:00:52 UTC No. 16123324
>>16099493
peak oil is just a meme, they were turning a profit selling oil for $20 a barrel when trump was president. if anything its cheaper to extract and bring to market now than it was before because the growing pipeline infrastructure cuts down massively on transportation costs.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:04:19 UTC No. 16123336
>>16120970
Interesting. I didn't know we had time machines that could give us data on ocean temperatures in the Pacific 1000 and 2000 years ago. Learn something new every day.
>BUT WE ABSTRACTED IT FROM
You abstracted what exactly that gave to temperatures above the Pacific Ocean? Pray tell, what gave you those local temperatures. That image is basically pic related.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:01:57 UTC No. 16123421
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:58:29 UTC No. 16123485
>>16123421
That does not prove your claim, moron.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:09:53 UTC No. 16123491
>>16123485
I don't need to prove it
its true
you claim that climate before modern times was stable - and so that is the only options for it
for warm period in Europe there need to be cold period somewhere else to balance its out
moving poles around achieve exactly that
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:12:00 UTC No. 16123492
>>16122688
this is probably the correct answer.
these are the choices:
1. Climate change
2. Climate change anyway, with the political and economic oligarchy controlling the planet in a dystopia
The beauty of #2 is that when they get the climate change anyway, they just tighten the screws on us, because we need to fight it harder.
I'm going with #1 - don't care, it's not likely to be all that bad.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:28:25 UTC No. 16123510
>>16123492
You only say this now after decades of denying climate change exists or that we can do anything about it
You deserve the worst cancer there is, shill
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:46:58 UTC No. 16123519
>>16092190
Shell Oil are hugely invested in Climate Change. You're spouting the same libtard talking points from more than a quarter of a century ago. Why have you neglected to update or learn anything new?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:56:41 UTC No. 16123526
>>16123519
What year is the publication in OP from, stupid?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:56:46 UTC No. 16123527
>>16123491
You do actually have to prove your assertions. Until you do I can dismiss them without argument.
You're wrong.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:22:07 UTC No. 16123587
>>16123527
you didn't prove yours tho
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:41:46 UTC No. 16123606
this website has so much shit about climate scientists misleading the public, but no one gives a shit when oil companies pay scientists to do it
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:44:43 UTC No. 16123609
>>16123606
Shills are paid to post here like on other social media platforms. You read any thread here and its the same as those places, the same kind of comments. I'm pretty sure it's just shills talking to each other desu.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:50:20 UTC No. 16123616
>>16123519
that OP's study is more than a quarter of a century ago old
Shell was not hugely invested quarter of a century ago old
Are you able to conceptualize past, present and future? It's not that hard, you know.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 05:01:18 UTC No. 16123626
>>16123606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGn
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:34:29 UTC No. 16124693
>>16123510
You can eat the bugs. Eat all the bugs.
I won't.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:06:55 UTC No. 16125259
>>16092182
wow, scientists have been intentionally lying about global warming since the 1980s as a means and justification for manipulating public policy, what a shock.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:51:02 UTC No. 16126330
>>16123616
>Shell was not hugely invested quarter of a century ago old
The global warming meme originated with Standard Oil over half a century ago
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:10:39 UTC No. 16126825
>>16092182
>Climate scientist Stephen Schneider of NOAA in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine admitted that climate scientists intentionally mislead the public about global warming
And yet 35 years later there are people who still believe that the political activists posing as scientists aren't lying about global warming
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:16:15 UTC No. 16126834
>>16123587
No proof? Unsurprising.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:24:14 UTC No. 16126850
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 13:49:38 UTC No. 16127207
>>16126850
That does not prove that climate change is the result of axial tilt. Did you want to try again or would you like to acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about?
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:10:22 UTC No. 16127943
>>16126825
Half of the population is below average IQ. If 43% of everyone is gullible enough to believe in global warming then that pegs the IQ of those people as 90 or below.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:06:06 UTC No. 16128204
>>16127207
No. I just assume that you don't know what I am talking about.
Which is probably most correct stance.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:10:10 UTC No. 16128209
>>16128204
You have failed to prove your assertion which demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You can try again if you'd like, but we both know you aren't capable of substantiating your argument.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:13:15 UTC No. 16128215
>>16128209
nah, you are midwit so it would be waste of time
and its not like you are open to even consider it so my point stand
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:43:04 UTC No. 16129508
>>16123336
Why did they change the colors on the temperature map even though the temperature didn't change?
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 03:18:18 UTC No. 16129542
>>16128215
I accept your concession.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 03:19:18 UTC No. 16129544
>>16129508
Could be related to humidity and the heat index
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 03:23:09 UTC No. 16129549
>>16129508
Because red is scary.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:30:51 UTC No. 16129598
>>16129542
No concessions for the midwits like you.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:25:19 UTC No. 16130019
>>16113864
>the Roman warm period is that it was almost as warm as today
It was a lot warmer that today
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:10:12 UTC No. 16130295
>>16130019
It was a local event. Your graph most closely approximates a map of Europes average temperature, not the global average temperature.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 01:29:32 UTC No. 16130926
>>16130295
The file is named "global cooling.jpg" not "European cooling.jpg"
Are you illiterate?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 02:30:23 UTC No. 16130969
>>16130926
I know what it's named. It's, at best, mislabeled.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:14:18 UTC No. 16131154
>>16130969
Its accurately labeled and you have no evidence that it isn't. The only reason the image upsets you is that reveals the fact that thousands of years ago the world was warmer than it is today regardless having less atmospheric CO2.
why aren't you happy to learn that atmospheric CO2 isn't as dangerous as you've been told it is. learning that atmospheric CO2 is beneficial and doesn't cause global warming make you happy, why doesn't it? why does it make you angry instead?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:44:15 UTC No. 16131172
>>16131154
what about all the other graphs that contradict it?
the only reason they upset you is that they reveal the fact that thousands of years ago the world was cooler than it is today while having less atmospheric CO2.
your premise of choosing data to support your view is literally what you're doing and this is simply undeniable regardless of whether global warming is happening or not.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:31:08 UTC No. 16131250
>>16131154
Wrong. It's trivial to check this for yourself. You should be ashamed that you ate up the bullshit without a single thought instead.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:32:56 UTC No. 16131253
>>16131154
>>16131250
See the difference now, retard? Getting your "science" from funnyjunk and /pol/ is a losing strategy.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:39:18 UTC No. 16132332
>>16131253
>the hockeystick meme
has been long since debunked
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Apr 2024 01:00:08 UTC No. 16132449
>>16132332
Why are you comparing the global temperature anomaly to the climate of Europe? Do you not know the difference or are you too stupid to read the labels?
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Apr 2024 04:50:19 UTC No. 16132594
>>16131253
SCARY RED DOTS
Also, I'm still amazed at how we got a time machine to travel back and record the temperature of the Pacific Ocean during the Roman Warm Period!
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:47:47 UTC No. 16132938
>>16132594
You are a moron.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:41:51 UTC No. 16133089
>>16126850
> finally, that photoshop course paid off
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:05:01 UTC No. 16133730
>>16092190
Genetic fallacy
But, if you want to play that game, Al Gore's father was the vice president of the Occidental Petroleum Company and Al Gore himself was patroned by the company to the tune of billions.
The same is also obviously true of many of the other politicians and senators promoting Climate Change. Something stinks alright... And it isn't the CO2.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:06:22 UTC No. 16133732
>>16123526
>>16123519
What difference does it make? A fact is still a fact.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:09:13 UTC No. 16133738
>>16131253
Hockey stick is fake. Read the leaked emails from Climate Gate. It is over.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:49:35 UTC No. 16133810
>>16133738
Incorrect. You have been the victim of propaganda.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:51:31 UTC No. 16133812
>>16133730
What does a retired politician have to do with climate science?
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:06:28 UTC No. 16134466
>>16133730
Al Gore is an oil billionaire, thats why he wants to drive up the price of oil, because he makes more money that way.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:25:29 UTC No. 16135508
>>16093657
yet they keep on making more doomsday predictions
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:52:25 UTC No. 16136502
>>16131250
>its real because its in muh replication crisis journal
everything else in those journals is fake so your garbage is fake too
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:56:39 UTC No. 16136589
>>16136502
Take your meds.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:47:47 UTC No. 16137147
>>16108920
lol, what a clown show
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 11:13:35 UTC No. 16137169
>>16092190
So you're responsible for all your family members decisions?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 11:18:45 UTC No. 16137172
>>16107918
>said scientists have very little vested interest in lying.
People like Michael Mann became millionaires
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 11:22:09 UTC No. 16137173
>>16108646
Where in that link is it justified that the errors in the global temperature are to within a fraction of a degree Celsius?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:32:50 UTC No. 16137219
I hope humanity fucks up and most people will die.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 03:51:31 UTC No. 16138352
>>16137169
>oy vey, stop noticing goy!
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:17:38 UTC No. 16138837
>>16137172
Source?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:27:24 UTC No. 16138974
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:42:34 UTC No. 16138998
>>16138974
So you just made it up?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 04:17:41 UTC No. 16139860
>>16131250
>central England temperatures compared to hemispheric means
You’ve just given up
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 04:17:50 UTC No. 16139861
>>16092182
>the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Being effective at what?
Manipulating people with lies?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 05:08:29 UTC No. 16139928
>>16139860
No, I think you're just scientifically illiterate. See how the temperatures in central England match the climate of Europe graphs posted in
>>16132332
>>16130019
But it doesn't match the global data posted in
>>16131253
All of that means that the medieval warm period was a local event. You cannot point to a local event and insist that it represents the average of global conditions. You should know this from math and science classes you should have been required to take in high school. The only excuse you have for not knowing that is if you dropped out.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:53:16 UTC No. 16140069
>>16092186
climate changes 4 times a year in my country but I guess I just hallucinated that.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:04:41 UTC No. 16140315
>>16093657
>if it isn't reversed BY the year 2000
Chuds too retarded to comprehend their own language again LOL
>doctor: you WILL get lung cancer if you don't quit smoking by the age of 40
>keep inhaling 4 packs a day
>turn 41
>no carcinoma visible yet
>hahaha ... *cough* ... guess it was all a hoax ... *wheeze* ... checkmate smokelets ... *cough*
Also
>a senior U. N. environmental official
Not a scientist. Might as well interview Bill from accounting.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:32:36 UTC No. 16140482
>>16140315
Based
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:13:52 UTC No. 16140748
>>16092182
>mislead
I wouldn't call it that
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:14:52 UTC No. 16140750
>>16093657
obvious errors are obvious, anon.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:16:26 UTC No. 16140752
>>16096750
>we should adopt a one world communist dictatorship just in case, guys
Should? We MUST.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:18:58 UTC No. 16140758
>>16107918
you should watch this, really
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kf
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:21:14 UTC No. 16140760
>>16123336
>I didn't know we had time machines that could give us data on ocean temperatures in the Pacific 1000 and 2000 years ago
well, now you do!
signed: a geologist
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:54:17 UTC No. 16140795
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:55:22 UTC No. 16140799
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:56:25 UTC No. 16140801
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:05:10 UTC No. 16140826
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:19:31 UTC No. 16141144
>>16140791
>>16140795
>>16140799
>>16140801
>>16140826
https://science.nasa.gov/science-re
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:00:05 UTC No. 16141377
>>16141144
>5 min read
lol
lmao, even
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 01:12:28 UTC No. 16141448
>>16140791
>>16140801
Milankovich forcing is cooling, not warming at the moment
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:28:53 UTC No. 16141598
>>16141377
>nasa
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:32:33 UTC No. 16141601
>>16141377
>>16141598
NASA isn't lying just because it takes you longer than 5 minutes to sound out that article.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:55:28 UTC No. 16142916
>>16141601
>NASA isn't lying
yes it is, NASA is a propaganda agency, its their job to circulate lies
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:43:16 UTC No. 16143816
>>16142916
Proof?
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:29:48 UTC No. 16144426
>>16140791
Those concepts are too difficult for most people on /sci/ to understand. They all presume orbits are mechanical like clockwork and never change and there is no way to convince them out of their primitive ignorant beliefs because they're too low IQ to understand Milankovitch cycles.
This video shows you the average ivy league grad's understanding of how seasons work, this is the level of ignorance you're dealing with on /sci/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXb
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 01:48:32 UTC No. 16144625
>>16144426
See
>>16141144
>>16141448
Try to keep up, bud.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:59:45 UTC No. 16144977
>>16108920
What's the problem?
We're doing an experiment, of course people who made a prediction want their hypothesis verified.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:18:46 UTC No. 16145005
>>16141144
From your source
>Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.
This, then, is logically held up as the desirable end-goal of climate death cultists. Because net zero isn't enough for them. Nothing has ever been enough. No, they're all talking about terraforming via carbon sequestration to return CO2 to it's "natural" level which has been hovering just above the death zone of 150ppm for the last few millions of years.
But there's nothing good about the glaciers advancing again and all of North America, much of Europe and Northern Asia being covered in glaciers again. You want to talk about disruptions to our way of life?
Carbon emission by humans is a good thing. We've ensured that the planet won't die by naturally sequestering too much carbon out of the air and we've ensured that things will stay, globally, on average, at a temperature much better suited to human life.
Remember, humans are a tropical species. There's only a very small part of the Earth, in and around the equator, where we can survive "naturally" without clothing. It was clothing but more importantly, fire, that let us leave the tropics. It is not without reason or irony that the output of fire, CO2, is the idol of the death cult.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:20:45 UTC No. 16145008
>>16144977
>We're doing an experiment, of course people who made a prediction want their hypothesis verified.
Where's the control? Without a control, your experiment is worthless. Lots of things could cause the Earth to warm. But we don't have a "planet Earth with zero humans but higher CO2 levels" to see how much the climate changes.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:35:05 UTC No. 16145029
>>16145008
It's an experiment to verify a model, not test a hypothesis.
The hypothesis testing is done with a computer.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:39:17 UTC No. 16145040
>>16145029
>It's an experiment to verify a model, not test a hypothesis.
>The hypothesis testing is done with a computer.
The delusion and hubris of man never ceases to amaze.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:17:21 UTC No. 16145082
>>16145029
>It's an experiment to verify a model
How does it verify the model when is also possible to construct a model that would "predict" the changing climate as a function of land-use changes?
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:09:16 UTC No. 16145390
>>16145008
Retard take. You don't need to have a second Earth as a control. Your understanding of science comes from binge watching mythbusters reruns.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:11:38 UTC No. 16145393
>>16145005
Take your meds, moron. You can't pretend global warming is caused by milankovitch cycles and then when it's demonstrated that you're wrong whine about how we need global warming to keep us from freezing to death and doing so is not evidence of some grand conspiracy.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:36:37 UTC No. 16145870
>>16145008
We have a Mars with zero humans but far higher CO2 levels and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. This proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:42:48 UTC No. 16145879
>>16145870
Mars has barely any atmosphere at all.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:05:08 UTC No. 16146532
>>16145879
Mars has a substantial atmosphere with clouds, wind, precipitation, weather systems, etc. Its the most similar thing to Earth in the known universe
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:45:55 UTC No. 16147144
>>16146532
Lol no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmos
>The atmosphere of Mars is much thinner and colder than Earth's having a max density 20g/m3 (about 2% of Earth’s value) with a temperature generally below zero down to -60 Celsius. The average surface pressure is about 610 pascals (0.088 psi) which is less than 1% of the Earth's value.[2]
And furthermore
>The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth’s owing to the larger distance from the Sun, receiving less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F).[2] The average surface emission temperature of Mars is just 215 K (−58 °C; −73 °F), which is comparable to inland Antarctica.[2][4] Although Mars' atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere is much weaker than Earth's: 5 °C (9.0 °F) on Mars, versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth due to the much lower density of carbon dioxide, leading to less greenhouse warming.[2][4]
Mars has a measurable greenhouse effect of 5C. PDF related.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:32:21 UTC No. 16147348
It's mostly urban heat island effect
https://youtu.be/p4vSMj4R5Rg
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 05:51:20 UTC No. 16148033
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:16:46 UTC No. 16148493
>>16147348
>>16148033
Retard takes.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:31:47 UTC No. 16148634
>>16148033
>>16148493
>smart guy here
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 00:23:33 UTC No. 16149256
>>16092182
Stephen Schneider must've been an absolute genius to go on record in a major publication admitting that global warming was just a big lie.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 23:27:15 UTC No. 16150751
>>16147144
>wikipedia
its like admitting you have no idea what you're talking about
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:43:51 UTC No. 16151293
>>16150751
>Didn't read the paper
>Twitter screenshots
You will never be a scientist.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:52:26 UTC No. 16152257
>>16151293
>t. i skimmed a wikipedia article
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:53:03 UTC No. 16152353
>>16152257
>Didn't read the paper
>Twitter screenshots
You will never be a scientist and that's why you keep getting linked to wikipedia. Learn basic science and you'll be linked to journals instead.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:32:30 UTC No. 16153402
>>16147144
Mars' low atmospheric pressure has more to do with the planet's low gravity as it does to do with it having a less dense atmosphere.
The mass of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere is far, far greater than Earths, even claiming a 5º greenhouse effect by overestimating albedo means that Earth's greenhouse effect due to CO2 could not possibly be more than a minuscule fraction of 1ºC, which in turn means that CO2 cannot possibly produce any meaningful warming on Earth and thats without even considering the absorption limits of CO2
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:41:53 UTC No. 16153706
>>16153402
Prove it.
Anonymous at Wed, 1 May 2024 06:28:55 UTC No. 16154291
>>16153706
>i don't understand how gravity affects gas pressure
>t. low IQ
Anonymous at Wed, 1 May 2024 13:28:20 UTC No. 16154831
>>16092186
There's things like Last Glacial Maximum, Chinese smog skylines and the Cuyahoga fire. And then there's "climate change science." The difference is that those are all much more immediate in effect than ever expanding "WE MUST DO IT NOW OR IN 15 YEARS ITS ALL OVER" top-down policy calls.
Anonymous at Wed, 1 May 2024 13:43:15 UTC No. 16154845
>>16154291
That doesn't prove any of your claims.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 May 2024 05:17:31 UTC No. 16155923
Anonymous at Thu, 2 May 2024 21:02:48 UTC No. 16156915
Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 08:14:33 UTC No. 16157456
Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 08:32:35 UTC No. 16157467
Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 23:17:28 UTC No. 16158341
Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 23:31:21 UTC No. 16159843
>>16092182
lmao that this idiot was dumb enough to publicly announce that he was planning on telling lies about global warming
lmao even more that there are people willing to believe his lies even after he announced he was planning to tell lies
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:13:22 UTC No. 16161067
>>16159843
Mentally ill people love the savior complex narcissism that the global warming meme permits them too much to ever doubt that global warming is real. Thats how confirmation bias works, the more fucked in the head you are, the stronger the confirmation bias becomes. Its like a drug addiction
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:29:39 UTC No. 16162374
>>16149256
>Stephen Schneider
He is jewish, so he is bound to be the type of low IQ braggart who stupidly crows about his dishonest schemes in public
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:34:57 UTC No. 16162383
>>16092182
>whole academia does valid research and unanimously comes to very similar conclusions
brainlet NPCs are 'sceptic', believing they are oh so rebellious if they then never stop forcing moot arguments as long as it serves the 'hah brainlets can into reasoning tooo!'
>one person say thing that justifies NPCs comfortable choices
WOOOWW SO TRUE HOW COULD IT BE ANYTHING BUT TRUTH
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:18:12 UTC No. 16163525
>>16162383
>whole academia does valid research
no they don't, they only publish worthless replication crisis trash. if they were doing decent research then life would be improving, life expectancies would be increasing, etc.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 17:55:45 UTC No. 16164262
>>16092186
you're wrong.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 23:52:50 UTC No. 16164945
>>16092182
Everyone already knows they're lying about global warming, but its nice of them to admit it.
Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 19:45:56 UTC No. 16166237
>>16092182
>(((Schneider)))
Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 19:47:40 UTC No. 16166239
>>16163525
That image is supposed to be parody, but it's literally what Science is now.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 04:21:35 UTC No. 16166824
>>16166239
It started as a satire operation, but eventually clown world made it reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journ
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 19:44:37 UTC No. 16167840
>>16166824
Why is this pattern of events so incredibly common lately? Satire from 30 years ago becomes reality today
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:47:43 UTC No. 16168473
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 20:13:54 UTC No. 16169543
>>16092182
So they knew global warming was a lie all the way back in 1989 and they've still been shilling it for the past 35 years
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 23:50:42 UTC No. 16169867
>>16092186
OKAY, BUT HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE INCREASINGLY FREQUENT HEAT WAVES?! Fool-like!
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 00:41:06 UTC No. 16169939
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 01:06:04 UTC No. 16169969
>>16123492
>it's not likely to be all that bad.
Human beans survived the last few, mostly. No reason why another one would exterminate us. I'm more concerned about toba-level eruptions or microplastics/estrogen in the water turning us into gay frogs or something desu.
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:39 UTC No. 16170510
>>16169939
how do gretafags explain this data?
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 11:18:31 UTC No. 16170610
>>16096728
>We just set up pollution controls and that was that.
Did somebody forget to tell China?
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 12:30:22 UTC No. 16170666
corona and climate voodoo has shown that all scientist are quacks, liars and cant be trusted. ever.
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 15:13:52 UTC No. 16170836
>>16170510
How do you explain the selection of that metric?
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 03:39:52 UTC No. 16171712
>>16170510
As evasively as they can manage
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 20:39:39 UTC No. 16172815
>>16171712
lol
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 22:18:25 UTC No. 16172936
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 07:10:05 UTC No. 16173482
>>16170836
it doesn't make any difference what temperature you set as your limit, the charts all tell that same story. the charts for 100ºF, 90ºF and 85ºF look exactly like that one. Temperatures hit a peak in the 1930s and they've been on the decine ever since
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 07:52:41 UTC No. 16173516
>>16169939
not him, but using only a subset of the data to create some model is the definition of pseudo science
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 13:23:27 UTC No. 16173868
>>16173482
If that were true then all of that data should match the average, right? Why doesn't it?
>>16131253
>>16110797
>>16107918
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 05:52:09 UTC No. 16175064
>>16131250
>source michael mann
a mentally ill schizo jew
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 11:16:50 UTC No. 16175333
>>16133812
As much as Bill Gates has to do with immunology and epidemiology. It's like in your world, pecuniary and power/control motives don't exist.
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 12:31:23 UTC No. 16175388
>>16175333
>Imagine being this retarded
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 20:06:51 UTC No. 16175974
>>16092182
>intentionally mislead
>as a means of forwarding their political goals
Way to misread the article, bozo
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 02:51:27 UTC No. 16176545
>>16175974
Schneider says in the article he plans to intentionally mislead the general public as a means of forwarding his political goal. I sure hope you weren't low IQ enough to fall for his shenanigans, that would be embarrassing for you
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 16:31:10 UTC No. 16177156
>>16175064
>>source michael mann
pretty based
>mentally ill schizo jew
but enough about Tony Heller
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 23:08:58 UTC No. 16177623
>>16175064
omg lmao he is unhinged
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 23:12:55 UTC No. 16177630
>>16176545
>forwarding their political goals
and profiting how, exactly? if he had ties to alt. fuels i'd believe it but if >>16092190 is right then it would be more profitable to sow distrust.
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 23:16:44 UTC No. 16177637
>>16109307
>lol climate hoax is like religion, which means its fake and gay
>unlike my religion, which is true and based
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 07:23:32 UTC No. 16178032
>>16177630
(((Schneider))) is clearly motivated to lie about global warming in order to forward his political goals, he says so in his own words in OP picrel
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 14:13:03 UTC No. 16178408
>>16177637
I'm not religious. I don't have faith in unproven skydaddys or in unproven tree ring proxies.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 14:32:14 UTC No. 16178428
>>16178408
You don't need to have faith in temperature proxies. The degree of accuracy is well known. That's what makes it science.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 19:43:56 UTC No. 16178784
>>16178428
>The degree of accuracy is well known
Did they go back in time to measure the weather from when the rings were laid down?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 20:01:08 UTC No. 16178801
>>16178032
and what does one gain by forwarding political goals without monetary compensation? especially with an ideology that promotes regulating businesses, thus making shit more expensive.
all im saying is that theres way more money to be made by /denying/ climate change, it is in a CEOs best interest to lobby against something that will increase overhead and decrease profits.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 20:11:24 UTC No. 16178821
>>16178784
Why don't you look up a lecture on the topic?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 03:29:58 UTC No. 16179304
>>16178801
(((Schneider))) is clearly motivated to lie about global warming in order to forward his political goals, he says so in his own words in OP picrel
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 04:23:49 UTC No. 16179349
>>16178821
I have, the question of "how can a tree ring tell you what the weather was like 2000 years ago" wasn't satisfactorily answered.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 09:23:54 UTC No. 16179583
>>16178821
https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-r
>I am confused. THere seems to be a logic problem here. If the proxies are incorrect post 1960 or there is a divergence at one time and you don't really KNOW the cause for that divergence then how can anybody conclude that there weren't other divergences you didn't understand in the past? Just because we don't see divergence between north and south there could be something which affected tree ring data over any period of time in the past either depressing or increasing temperatures that actually ocurred. You really can't have any confidence in this proxy until you understand the cause. What if the cause is caused by droughts? What if there was a large drought over the areas north and south covered by these trees? What if there was a huge flood or volcanoes or some other co-incidence like a increase in acidification due to some bacterial or animal or plant extinction or proliferation? The point is not the specifc thing but the logic being used here which is flawed by you guys. The fact is that the "science" is still very nascent and major things like what is affecting tree ring densities and widths is not really understoof even TODAY let alone 1,000 years ago
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:47:20 UTC No. 16179859
>>16179583
That's due to pollution. Try reading the whole article next time.
>Temperature-induced drought stress and changes in seasonality are likely to be relevant here. Also likely to have had a role is the phenomenon of ‘Arctic dimming'. The term 'dimming' refers to reduced sunshine reaching the surface in some circumpolar regions, due to industrial aerosol pollution. Northern Hemisphere pollution tends to accumulate over the Arctic. Reduced sunshine affects photosynthesis and in return that impacts upon plant health and growth. Indeed, a 2021 paper ominously commented that the effects of Arctic aerosols on net primary production - growth - were particularly important in light of the current race to exploit natural resources north of the Arctic circle.
>Indeed, as the divergence problem is widespread across high northern latitudes, there may be a large-scale explanation, possibly related to airborne pollution effects. A later study (Briffa et al. 2004) proposed that falling stratospheric ozone concentration was a possible cause of the divergence, since this observed ozone decline has been linked to an increased incidence of ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation at the ground.
Did you want to try again?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:48:28 UTC No. 16179861
>>16179349
>He thinks tree rings are the only temperature proxy
>He didn't pay enough attention to the lecture to understand how absurd that is
NGMI
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 20:53:27 UTC No. 16180481
>>16179859
>likely
>possibly
>you don't really KNOW the cause for that divergence then how can anybody conclude that there weren't other divergences you didn't understand in the past? Just because we don't see divergence between north and south there could be something which affected tree ring data over any period of time in the past either depressing or increasing temperatures that actually ocurred. You really can't have any confidence in this proxy until you understand the cause. What if the cause is caused by droughts? What if there was a large drought over the areas north and south covered by these trees? What if there was a huge flood or volcanoes or some other co-incidence like a increase in acidification due to some bacterial or animal or plant extinction or proliferation?
>>16179861
All proxies are unverifiable nonsense which presume correlations are constant throughout thousands of years --see the divergence problem above for why this isn't the case.
You might as well read tea leaves or throw bones.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 20:59:15 UTC No. 16180495
>>16180481
Take your meds, psued.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 03:35:36 UTC No. 16180925
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 08:19:36 UTC No. 16181178
>>16180495
>you're skeptical that we can determine what summer was like 2500 years ago by the thickness of a handful of tree rings? You must be mentally ill
It must be nice to have faith as strong as yours.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 08:22:01 UTC No. 16181179
>>16181178
Explain why you can't lol
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 10:50:50 UTC No. 16181267
>>16181179
Tree rings only correlate very weakly with temperature. They correlate somewhat well with average temperatures from 1880 to 1960, but since 1960 the relationship diverges. Scientists have some ideas about how to explain the divergence, but they don't know for sure.
If tree rings only correlate weakly with temperature, and if we can't even explain deviations in that correlation in the modern era, how can we possibly have any confidence in what tree rings might tell us about the weather in the ancient past?
Anyway, the burden of proof is on the tree-ring enthusiasts, not me.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 12:47:29 UTC No. 16181365
>>16181267
>Tree rings
Why are you so obsessed with one kind of temperature proxy? It is because you get BTFO whenever you discuss any other proxy? Tell me, have you ever heard of the xenon temperature proxy? You have, right anon? You didn't just hijack someone else's argument, did you? You did actually study the subject, right?
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:03:49 UTC No. 16181537
>>16181365
The fluctuations in mean temperature these methods claim to assess are smaller than the error margins of the methods. They use tiny numbers of proxy samples to infer mean temperature over long periods of time across huge geographical areas.
No time machines to go back and see if the proxies are actually accurate.
The words of an author on noble gas proxies :
>While mean ocean–temperature reconstructions in ice cores have shown promising results and offered new paleoclimatic insight, there is plenty to learn about noble-gas-based tools. Questions remain about the potential complexities of the proxy and ways in which the noble gases measured in ice cores may become decoupled from ocean-heat content. In the future, as much attention should be put into understanding the potential pitfalls of the proxy as in producing new records.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:43:32 UTC No. 16181595
>>16092470
Not OP, I know you're being sarcastic but science can't actually say what's 'true'. It can only falsify hypotheses to develop theories. If you want to call that falsification 'truth' you may, but I have an alternative definition that lies in philosophy.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 16:03:35 UTC No. 16181617
>>16092470
It's always been this way. It's just not hidden anymore by getting buried in a paper.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 06:24:39 UTC No. 16182401
>>16181595
>I have an alternative definition that lies in philosophy.
OMG YOUR MASSIVE POMPOSITY MAKES YOU SEEM SO DEEP AND INTELLECTUAL, YOU MUST BE A TOTAL GENIUS AND STUFF OR SOMETHING THOUGHBEIT
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 13:18:01 UTC No. 16182737
>>16181537
Cope harder retard. Noble gasses are chemically inert, meaning that they don't chemically react to anything outside of high energy synthesis and their solubility is dependent on temperature. What's there to be uncertain about? Whether or not solubility worked the same way a billion years ago?
>In the future, as much attention should be put into understanding the potential pitfalls of the proxy as in producing new records.
When is this from? The early 60's?
>Past Global Changes Magazine 31(2) 96-97 2023
Lol, ok retard.
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 20:37:55 UTC No. 16183287
>>16182737
The person I was quoting is one of the foremost experts on noble gases proxies with the most citations. If she is less confident than you about how much we can rely on such proxies as statements of fact, that sounds like a problem with you.
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 21:29:17 UTC No. 16183341
>>16183287
Some vague statement is not evidence that these proxies are inaccurate or unreliable no matter who makes the statement. Do you understand what evidence is?
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 21:49:05 UTC No. 16183367
>>16183341
>Questions remain about the potential complexities of the proxy and ways in which the noble gases measured in ice cores may become decoupled from ocean-heat content.
Bruh what is so controversial about being humble about what it is possible to know and acknowledging that there are limits to our knowledge?
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 00:04:48 UTC No. 16183560
>>16183367
Some vague statement is not evidence that these proxies are inaccurate or unreliable no matter who makes the statement. Do you understand what evidence is?
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 04:51:08 UTC No. 16183891
>>16179304
i wonder who has more incentive to make shit up
>random faggots motivated by "political goals"
or
>random faggots paid off by oil companies
hmmmmm
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 21:39:15 UTC No. 16185117
Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 08:35:01 UTC No. 16185846
>>16133730
CO2 is odorless
Al Gore smells like a buffet table cause thats where he usually hangs out
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 00:29:17 UTC No. 16187062
>>16185846
He has an emotional eating disorder
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 20:25:27 UTC No. 16188459
>>16187062
he is definitely mentally ill
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 07:45:16 UTC No. 16189132
>>16188459
He make massive amounts of money selling petroleum, the global warming propaganda is just his scheme to artificially inflate the price of the product that occidental petroleum sells. the cost of extracting it is pretty much fixed so charging more for the product only increases his profits
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 05:50:27 UTC No. 16190698
>>16189132
Gore is a talented con artist for sure.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 03:09:13 UTC No. 16192005
>>16191857
>>16190698
>>16189872
>>16189132
>>16188459
>>16187062
>>16185846
>>16185117
Retard takes
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 08:18:37 UTC No. 16192337
>>16092182
Amazing that they announce in public that they're lying about global warming, but some people are still gullible enough to believe global warming is real
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 09:59:21 UTC No. 16192406
>>16145005
>But there's nothing good about the glaciers advancing again and all of North America, much of Europe and Northern Asia being covered in glaciers again. You want to talk about disruptions to our way of life?
there's nothing good about europe becoming a desert
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 23:24:39 UTC No. 16193317
>>16192406
europe isn't becoming a desert
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:46:28 UTC No. 16193830
>>16193317
It only seems that way because its overrun with muslims
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:48:56 UTC No. 16193835
>>16193830
Yeah, just like Russia with the greatest muslim population in Europe
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:50:34 UTC No. 16193838
>>16193317
Have you bee to spain?
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:51:35 UTC No. 16193841
>>16183560
He doesn't
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:52:57 UTC No. 16193844
>>16170666
wasted trips. Fuck off sub 90 iq mouthbreather
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:58:16 UTC No. 16193859
>>16097620
>muh joos
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 22:14:33 UTC No. 16194839
>>16193838
Spain isn't a desert, you have no idea what defines desert.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 01:00:31 UTC No. 16195063
>>16092470
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk: