Anyone who gives a fuck about global warming, both the zealots and the naysayers, are massive faggots, please rape their faces.

About time, man "caused" global warming is a fucking scam.

And over 700 scientists named Steve support evolution.

Also: Make point about stupid lists of scientists.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_international_scientists_e.php

It took me 30 seconds to find a refutation of the OP! Can you prove him wrong faster?

>>2429969
One of my favourite lists ever.

Especially since the creationist list has fewer than ten biologists on it.

>>2429970
Take a look at the report. Only one of them is an economist. The rest are all serious scientists, many of which have worked with the UN IPCC itself.

Why can't a geologist have a valid opinion on climate change?

Sup faggots.

Are you talkin' bout global warming?

Say it's a hoax?

Best be joking, niggers. Glad I died so I don't have to watch all you faggots slowly kill your planet because you don't want to give up your ballin' SUVs.

>>2429906
All members of the Scientific Scientist's Science Report (of Scientific Sciences) categorically call the OP a dumbass who is full of shit.

That's 100% of us. And we said "science" more times than you, so eat a dick.

But...but, scientists aren't always right. Remember, they thought the earth was flat until Columbus proved them...

Sorry, I just can't go through with this. It's simply too stupid to type, even though this argument has come up several times during "debates" on global warming.

>>2430034
The point is not to start a dick-measuring contest to see which side has more scientists supporting it, but rather to challenge the lie perpetuated by the UN that there's a "scientific consensus" on climate change.

If at least 650 eminent scientists disagree with the UN report made by only 75 people, then clearly there's no actual consensus on the issue.

Scenario One: Global warming caused by man turns out to be false and we do nothing to stop it.

Scenario Two: Global warming caused by man turns out to be flase and and we reformed many environmental policy, drastically reduced pollution and alleviated some of our reliance on limited fossil fuels.

Who the fuck cares if there's a 100% concensus? This isn't something we can test. We can't sit here for a century and see how our pollution affects the planet, go back in time and change our way. We either do something now and (at the very least) gain the benefits from scenario two or we do nothing and hope Global Warming goes away. And what if it doesn't? Should we just sit there and go "lol no consensus. Not our fault"?

>>2430116
SPOILER:

The UN pushing for draconian regulations even in the middle of a worldwide economic recession and fucking shit up for everybody involved = BAD

Governments funding renewable energy development without imposing regulations or fucking up their economies = GOOD

>>2430048

This whole conversation misses the point. Pollution = bad. Climate change is only one of dozens of bad things that greenhouse gases (may) contribute to. If you assholes need the world to be in absolute dire circumstances to be motivated to try and stop completely fucking it up, then woe is you.

I go as green as I can and educate as many people as I can not because of global warming, but because it makes logical sense, and any rational person would agree.

I understand that green products can be scams and I do my research about them just like I do regular stuff.

>>2430048
... unless those 650 people are idiots who are full of shit, and the 75 people are actually smarter, of course.

Science isn't a popularity contest. It's a methodology whereby people can use experimentation to test hypotheses and form theories which make testable predictions.

If these 650 people can't be bothered to produce better math, better statistics, and better theories, then fuck them.

>>2430150

The UN can't force anything onto anybody. E.g. Kyoto

But by all means, you and your militia pals can sit around with your guns and wait for when they come for you.

>>2430150
Regulations have to be imposed and economic times will never, ever be convenient. Even if we make it through this economic crisis unscathed governments would refuse to do anything for fear of fucking it up. Preservation of the human race is more important than economic set backs.

>>2430048
Most of the people on that list are not climatologists. They are TV weathermen, economists, and experts on magnetism. Several of those listed have in fact said they support the idea of global warming. The creator just put a list of random names together.

>>2430116

Scenario Three: You can't admit you've been sold on what amounts to a huge political boondoggle, which conveniently happens to be making a few people (read: Al Gore and the like) filthy, filthy rich. You decide that even though "global warming" may or may not be real, feeling good about helping the environment is worth the lives of millions of people worldwide.

Read this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010597

Yes, it's from the Wall Street Journal, but the point the author raises is a very valid one. Global Warming is bad science, but even if it weren't, it's bad policy. The money spent in a most likely futile attempt to halt climate change could be used to cure basically every curable disease in the third world and essentially end world hunger.

>>2430008

This post has a great comedic effect if you imagine it in Sagan's voice.

>>2430172
There are plenty of theories that haven't been disproven, actually. The science is there and it's up to the media to present a more balanced view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

For example, according to this theory, we're still warming from the last ice age the change in the earth's tilt causes. When the angle starts to increase again the temperate will decrease. See pic.

>>2430192
Bullshit. You are the one relying on a shitty blog you pulled out of your ass. Open the Senate report, all the names, past activities and degrees of each of the scientists are mentioned in detail, and you can list to me any individual objections you might have.

Most of the scientists are indeed geologists, biologists, glaciologists, biogeographers, meteorologists, oceanographers, experts in environmental sciences, paleontologists or astrophysicsphysicists, and many have worked with highly regarded institutions, including the UN IPCC itself. This means most of them are more than qualified to talk about the subject.

>>2430179
Economic setbacks can turn very ugly and make the preservation of the human race more difficult.

>>2430369
Sorry, forgot the pic posted in this great follow-up, albeit concise, that attempts to quell the anger of our robot by typing excess words.

650 out of how many? If that's 0.001% of the worlds scientists, I don't give a shit. Anyone using science and a reason for an argument should realize the importance of placing their numbers in context.

11 people agreed with this.

>>2430369
How about you actual read the link given in the blog? There's specific examples given, and sources cited. Though I guess expecting to completely read someone else's argument is too much for a global warming denier.

This a direct copypasta from /n/.

>>2430449
Yeah, three examples out of 650.
Try again.

lol


old news is old, i remember this from over a year ago.