Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/

Fake news

>>109162
People exaggerate: but 3 years of warmest years on record seems undeniable proof their dire warnings are still valid.

>>109162
Exposed: How bad sources with fake information make /pol/tards go nuts

>>109177
Yeah I'm sure the minority of politically motivated social justice warrior scientists are correct about their unprovable doomsday theory.

Let's go ahead and fundamentally change every aspect of modern life and halt progress in the developing world. Carbon emissions! I like that 3 million savages die from burning wood every year, lol.

Nevermind that the temperature is normal before they skew the data. Nevermind all the failed predictions and climate models.
Nevermind that the "97% concensus" is a baseless lie.
Nevermind that plants eat CO2, and we have a tiny amount in the air.

Even if we're wrong FUCK AMERICA amirite?

>>109162
>The Mail on Sunday today reveals

stopped reading there

>>109186
Scientific consensus is a meme. Science is not about consensus, otherwise it's indistinguishable from religion.

>>109162

>Sourcing The Mail on Sunday.

Why don't you just source Pravda circa 1963 to confirm your suspicions about the JFK assassination?

>>109186
>>109176

water vapor has to be taken into account as a greenhouse gas because it shares a linked effect with co2

when the combination of lensing effects between them on the surface reaches a ratio of 1.87 they remain locked and the temperature increases will then stall

> this is old news, and the role of water vapor in cooling is no mystery at all

clouds may trap heat but rain causes cooling, condensation at high altitudes re-radiates heat back out into space

clouds also increase albedo, reflecting light back into space rather than absorbing it

added heat makes more clouds, clouds make it cooler - hence they are inversely linked

> nevermind that the temperature is normal before the skew the data

this is correct actually, a recent scientific article said the newest iteration of NOAA temperature tools (ERSSTv4) is showing steady temperatures

but all of the previous ones were displaying that the temperature was actually cooling in the ocean

so the numbers dont lie, it means scientists are cooking the books (tm) when it comes to the compiled temperature readings

>>109177
> but 3 years of warmest years on record

Its pointless to talk about records when compiling the statistics in the first place is rather dodgy and often open to interpretation.

We dont know for a fact that it is hotter. And thats no joke.

>>109162
>daily mail

lol

>>109176
>>109180
>>109204
>>109207
>>109231
/leftypol/ pls

>>109232
no

>>109186
You've fit so much demonstrably false and misleading extractive resource industry talking points on our plate that it's difficult to know where to begin. An honest debate involves a point-by-point discussion; your's is a common tactic used by lobbysists to pile on the bullshit as long as it sounds vaguely internally consistent, because most laypeople then will be less likely to do an investigation of each detail when inundates with information.
If you're serious about debunking the monumental data collected by dedicated researchers around the world for decades, the data from multiple domains of research that corroborates theory and observation of the grave risks of anthropocentric climate change, then let's tackle the actual science, one detail at a time, your sources against mine, no claims of conspiracy without substantiating evidence from either of us.

>>109162
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Fuck off, Piers.

>>109245
>le science is settled maymay
You have revealed your ignorance of the issue. I'm not debating with someone who hasn't debated himself.

Gg no re.

>>109245
See >>109206.

>>109248
Are you just pretending to be ignorant?

Religion gives you wrong answers because it is faith based, not because it relies on consensus. Consensus by itself doesn't make it meaningful. But it's still essential. Science DEPENDS upon consensus.

It depends on data being gathered by multiple independent researches and different domains of research corroborating the same results.

The scientific method is all about REPLICABILITY. Expert A discovers the following. The results are only meaningful if expert B, C, and D, independently arrive at the same conclusion, because that shows the results have PREDICTIVE VALUE.

Science only makes sense when there exists consensus. And consensus is meaningful because it is driven by evidence rather than faith.

>>109255
>The scientific method is all about REPLICABILITY

How does this support Catastrophic Anthroprogenic Climate Change?

>>109255
Falsifiability has naught to do with consensus but whether the evidence corroborates the theory or not. Consensus is completely irrelevant because facts don't rely upon it.

>>109162
>>corporatist rag with heavy Saudi money

sure thing bro. enjoy florida being under water yah fag.

>>109162
>dailymail
>daily
>fucking
>mail
PFFFFTTTTHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>109162
>dailymail

Can we get a real source instead of fake news

>>109162
>daily mail
>David Rose

I'm not even sure who has less credibility

>daily mail
>edge frog meme
It's like I'm on /pol/

>>109162
>""""""daily mail""""""""

>>109176
>>109180
>>109204
>>109207
>>109231
>>109574
>>109577
>>109581
>>109582
>>109624
All these triggered cucks, hahahaha.

>>109162
Check out severe-weather.org for some insight into global weather. Lots and lots of eratic (cold) weather now. When you start getting g taxed over ambiguous weather patterns you will NEVER stop paying them

>>109162
"manipulated global warming data"

You realize that they had to manipulate it because of the technology used to take the temperatures years and years ago right? Like it was inaccurate and with the new information they have now they went back and redid it.

Like it's not a big thing. But you retards don't understand that.

>>109226
>We dont know for a fact that it is hotter. And thats no joke.


Uhhh record breaking highs every year kinda indicates it's getting hotter dumb ass.

>>109626
Hello Piers. How's your trip back to America coming along?

>>109805
>fabricated data
>credible
The Earth is cooling, not warming. And the amount of ice is increasing.

>>109226
>ERSSTv4 shows cooling
No it doesnt. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4

>we dont know for a fact that it is hotter.
So you've either not looked at the data or looked and found it unreliable. Assuming the later, what exactly is your problem with their spatial statistics?

>>109804
Everyone who understands this topic knows that temperature readings from several decades ago will not coincide perfectly with measurments taken with todays technology.

Some of these readings are from the USSR where they were paid based on how cold it was!

This is one example of many.

This theory is a joke. And thats a good thing. Let's help the developing world stop starving!

>>109805
>>109810
It is getting warmer. Why is that bad? Or man made? Lol

It's called an ice age, and we're coming out of one.

Daily mail is not a reputable source

>>109162
This the best evidence climate deniers have of fraud?

He never once said that the data was faked, maybe you should go read through the original post on Curry's blog?
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
He basically said he was asshurt that they didn't follow the overly complex series of procedures he set up for data processing at NOAA. Because they were citing new research instead of just using old data that was already processed and analyzed fully, read the damn interview. Basically, it boils down to an engineers vs. scientists debate, the engineer team wants their autistic protocols to be followed every single time, even if there is new research that would take a long time to process. Meanwhile, the scientists want to publish the new research.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

In conclusion a guy complained about rushed data which he still considers valid and a bunch of deniers jumped on it and exaggerated his story to claim that the data was faked. I hope he sues dailymail for their lies.

>>110413
No one denies that climate change is a thing because the climate has always been changing. But global warming dogma is unscientific.

>>110413
Still, there's no reason to propose the death of the fossil fuel industry; which is the endgoal of global warming alarmist. Why the fuck should re regulate the industry here when china and india is doing financially well with none of that shit?

How many third world immigrants should die to prevent co2 emmissions?

I say 6 million. It's a bice round numba.

>>110421
Whoops i meant future immigrants

>>110418
>https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/07/india-builds-worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-covering-2500-acres/
>http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china-worlds-largest-investor-renewable-energy
Except India and China are putting far more effort in combating climate change than the U.S. India finished construction of the largest solar power plant two months ago and though China has a reputation of being massive polluters, they are also making the largest investments in dealing with that problem.

>>110429
That has nothing to do with climate change but with adopting better and viable sources for producing and consuming electrical energy.

>>110413
Don't you have to go pick up your wife's son from school.

>>110418
>China
>India

Ever been there? They're shithole dirty countries. Quarter-mile visibility is pretty standard in Beijing due to the smog and walking outside is like smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day.

China and India are examples of what not do when it comes to pollution.

>>110430
And your point is that because China and India aren't doing anything then the U.S shouldn't either, even though they are doing a lot.
>>110431
Great argument /pol/luter, really makes one think. Why don't you press a nailgun to your head and pull the trigger, it won't hit your brain.

>>110429
>India and China are putting far more effort in combating climate change than the U.S

I HAVE OPINIONS AND NOBODY CAN STOP ME MUWAHAHAHA

>>110435
>I am too dim to follow links.

>>110434
3 million third world people die a year from burning wood. because they don't have anything else to burn.

You are proposing that we stop these people from developing. We are already stopping, and people are dying.

How many people are you willing to kill in order to "prevent climate change"?

How many people need to die to lower the temperature 1 degree?

Do we actually need to kill people? Is this so important?

These are important questions that environmentalists need to answer. Tell me why you have the moral authority to enact such a deadly policy?

>>110436
These thrid world people don't have access to any reliable forms of energy. They don't even have clean drinking water.

You know how people used to die at 30? Well that's still the norm for many.

Why do you think they shouldn't develop their countries just like we did?

You are giving people a death sentence and acting like you have the moral high ground.

Explain yourself.

>>110438
>>110439
They did develop the way we did and realized the effects with all the smog and pollution so they decided to change paths. As I have already pointed out, they are trying to steer their development in other directions, not halt it entirely. Maybe try attacking actual positions instead of imagined ones.

>>110438
>>110439
He won't explain anything because he only has his fake science to support his lust for human blood.

>>110441
Third world countries already developed?

Great news! Go tell South American and Africa they can stop dying from everything now.

>>109162
Hail Fred Palmer, and his Christian Coal Utopia!

>>110443
We were talking about South America and Africa? Oh wait, no we weren't, the first point brought up was India and China. If only news allowed images so I could post a picture of some people moving around a soccer net.

>>110445
It is not my intention to misrepresent your views. Correct me if I am wrong.

You're advocating policies to prevent "climate change." That means reducing carbon emissions world wide.

That means people in third world countries will continue to die as they die today due to lack of energy.

Either we let them develop with dirty coal, or we force them to remain impoverished.

We all want a clean environment, but at what cost?

>>110443
I think he meant "they are developing."

Either way, quit being a cunt.

>>110447
Yes, some are developing. They've got a long ways to go. India doesn't even have running water for fucks sake.

Environmentalists demand countries like India slow down their development because of some fucking co2? Seriously?

This is not a moral policy.

>>110448
So you're complaining about a lifeguard insisting that someone who can't swim, stop drowning them while they try to save them?

Jokes aside. Nobody is asking them to stop developing, but to do it in such a way that is better for the environment. The tech is out there and developed. It just needs to be used. You seem to be conflating "use scrubbers on your smokestacks," "quit dumping trash in the ocean," "stop harvesting endangered wildlife," and "quit shitting in the river" with "I want you to freeze to death when winter comes." What people are telling them is that they shouldn't make the same mistakes we did when we started developing industry.

>>110446
>>110448
Many countries developed through fossil fuel use because that was what they had available. The standards of living of developing countries are quite bad but they can develop through other paths simply due to having technology that is centuries more advanced. No seriously considered policy involves stopping countries from developing, that is a strawman position.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/31785/20161114/see-how-bad-india-smog-from-space.htm

Also, it's not just a little CO2. China and India are taking a lot more steps because the problem is immediately visible to anyone with working lungs.

>>110450
But, if you want to keep pretending that you're on some moral crusade against the evil environmentalists who have a thirst for human blood and can only get erect when they see worldwide suffering, go ahead.

>>110450
>>110451
>>110452

Are you really trying to pretend that the point of climate change policies is not reduce carbon emissions (aka burn less fuel)? How many times do the have to state that as the goal for you to understand?

Even the policies that aren't focused on emission harm people. These policies are about control, just like all government action.

I don't know how to debate someone who is playing dumb. If this isn't an act you are shockingly ignorant.

http://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/how-western-environmental-policies-are-stunting-economic-growth-developing
>environmental policies are contributing to a resurgence of malaria
>and endangering millions of jobs in developing countries


Everyone knows smog is shitty. What does that have to do with the theory of catastrophic anthropocentric climate change?

>>110458
inb4 hurr it's just a little malaria and jobs

Not dying from malaria and job growth is exactly how countries develop. Virtue signaling greenpeace fags are getting in their way.

The logical thing would be for countries that industrialized early to subsidize green energy installations in the developing world insofar as feasible in order that we're not in a circumstance where we finished industrializing and subsequently "pulled the ladder up" with us, reprimanding them for undergoing a dirty industry phase of development just as we had. Not fully subsidize, but to some equitable degree with respect to ensuring no region contributes more than another toward influencing climate change in the long-term.

Of course, the mere suggestion that a western country would pay a foreign one like China and India without expecting an immediate return on the investment will basically be treated as high treason no matter if it is an important long-term investment for everyone.

>>110458
>heritage.org
>anti-welfare/govt. PRD

Great source.

>>110476
Dang for a second I thought we had an honest environmentalist.

It's so lonely being informed.

>>110490
>Informed
>Doesn't know what smog is

???

>>110458
>Everyone knows smog is shitty. What does that have to do with the theory of catastrophic anthropocentric climate change?

I could ask the same about how any of the points brought up by the link posted have anything to do with anthropocentric climate change. Oh, and quit accusing random people whose names you don't know of arguing in bad faith.

>>110494
>you don't know what smog is

>>110496
>quotes me referring to smog

What happened here?

Fuck off with your feelings you stupid faggot I don't need to know your name to spot bad arguments.

Next time try knowing what you're advocating before posting.

>>110496
>I could ask the same about how any of the points brought up by the link posted have anything to do with anthropocentric climate change
They are related to catastrophic anthropocentric climate change (that is the the theory properly described) BECAUSE these policies are based on belief catastrophic anthropocentric climate change.

>>110498
You're talking to two different anons? That seems like the logical answer, but as you've shown to lack any such ability in this thread, it isn't surprising that you would confuse the multiple posters replying to you.

>>110502
I guess it's possible that there are 2 idiots responding to me but they seem so similarly defective.

>>110506
You seem like the defective one.

>Pollution is a moral good!

>>110513
You care more about cool weather than human beings dying of starvation and malaria.

I'm not interested in your views on morality.

>>110498
Smog is the result of either: burning coal or vehicular and industrial emissions. Modern day smog is a result of pollutants reacting with sunlight in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog which is then trapped around cities by the inversion effect. Coal burning plants can either contribute to this effect through the smoke released or cause it all in its own (The Great Fog of London for example).

Included in those pollutants are major sources of climate changing gasses such as CO2, ground level ozone (O3), nitrous oxide, sulphur oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and methane.

So the reason smog was mentioned, was because it is a visual representation of pollution that is contributing to global climate change.

>>110517
You seem to think that kicking the can down the road and having people in the future deal with it is better than dealing with it now before it's too late. So the extinction of the entire human race is preferable to a smaller portion of the human race dieing right now? You do have the moral high ground don't you?

Also, you can care about starving people, malaria, and the environment. Looking for other methods of approaching problems doesn't mean indifference, it's called using your fucking brain.

>>110520

That's an emotional argument though. It's better than a polar bear though, I'll give you that.

>look at the smog, that's gross right?

It's still not evidence of catastrophic anthropocentric climate change.

>>110524
>Gasses released that are shown to contribute to climate change is not evidence for climate change

You really are stupid.

>>110521
So how many humans need to die to prevent "the extinction of the entire human race"?

That's how you feel so give me a number.

I'd rather they burn as much shitty fuel as they need to. People are dying.

We can worry about the weather when people stop dying because of mosquitoes.

You do realize that this is just a theory? You are so sure we're all going to die, as if that makes you a good person. I care about the climate. I live on Earth. I just don't feel the need to demonize energy to prove my feelings.

>>110526
>the science is settled

good meme. you really showed you how informed you are.

>>110529
Show me some credible studies that refute it. Go on, seeing as you're so sure. I'm talking peer reviewed research journals, not a blog.

>>110527
People die, that's a fact of life. We got lucky and live in places where we are shielded from those harsh realities and that fact has apparently made you very soft. You realize burning shitty fuel kills about 600k in Africa every year. Are you okay with those numbers? You know what Africa has a lot of? Sunshine. Thats a lot of untapped solar energy that doesn't require breathing in carbon monoxide to heat your home.

http://m.mgafrica.com/article/2015-05-28-renewable-energy-employment-africa

Climate change is actually making the mosquito and malaria problem worse. Here is a WHO report on it:
http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/summary/en/index5.html

>Just a theory
A theory is an explanation of natural events that is repeatedly tested and confirmed via the scientific method. It is not the same as a hunch, guess, or hypothesis. Saying "just a theory" really confirms your ignorance.

If you actually cared about the climate, and all denizens of the earth, you would care about pollution. You just want to throw a contrarian bitch fit because you are ignorant and arrogant. You said so yourself when you mentioned that "it was lonely being informed."

>>110444
Thanks for pointing to the source of Climate Change Denial: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39411-this-man-kick-started-the-first-fossil-fuel-funded-campaigns-to-attack-climate-science-25-years-ago

>>110545
>Show me some credible studies that refute it

Refute what? Catastrophic anthroprogenic climate change?

I don't need to refute a doomsday scenario. History did it for me. The climate predictions and models have failed. We are seeing positive changes to the climate that the stupid ass political models did not predict, shockingly.

Can you refute that a meteor won't hit the Earth and kill my dog?

You're the one acting like this theory is a fact, it just shows how ignorant you are.

>>110552
So you've got jack shit. Gotcha.

>>110545
>Climate change
OH NO THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING

What exactly do you mean by this? You say it like its such a common sense term.

You are referring to a doomsday scenario. The end of life as we know it, and possibly all life on Earth.

Fuck off.

>>110554
>so you can't disprove the bible? checkmate

>>110545
>Saying "just a theory" really confirms your ignorance.
It's less than a theory. More like a hypothesis.

Are you insinuating that catastrophic anthroprogenic climate change is a theory comparable to gravity?

This is a joke. Climate change is like the damn wage gap.

>>110558

This is simply untrue; when you have large majorities of researchers providing data for decades around the globe that corroborates the same conclusions across multiple domains of scientific research, the theory gains as much strength as the theory of evolution.

There is no alternative explanation available for the rapid rise in thermal energy trapped by the oceans. The potential hazards for humanity in the long term may be so catastrophic that even a small chance of the worst hazards coming to fruition is enough justification for tactics that heavily curb economic growth in the present. But people lack the education and stomach to accept that. And when it comes to propaganda,. scientists don't have hundreds of billions to throw around to convince people of their platform.

>>109162
It's not like the dataset is particularly vast. If he's so concerned that their analysis (which has been corroborated by other groups anyway) wasn't rigorous enough, he could just redo it himself in half an hour.

But nah, let's milk this procedural technicality for all it's worth.

>>110562
It's called weather.

It was warming before humans started burning shit, and SURPRISE it's still warming.

The amount of warmth added by human activity is so minuscule it is laughable to suggest we ought to stop it.

Why would you even want to stop it?

What's wrong with a slightly warmer planet? Would you rather we revert to another ice age?

This theory is political nonsense. Actual climate scientists are not concerned with our planet.

>>110565
>Actual climate scientists are not concerned with our planet.
You can keep talking out your ass all you want, all you are doing is showing how incredibly ignorant and misinformed you are on the subject matter.

As for the Bates story, especially TDM link, it's all a bunch of garbage. See the interview Bates gave with E&E and the story from the AP:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
>However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
>"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
>Still, after Bates' blog post, the House Science Committee , a British tabloid newspaper and others who reject mainstream climate science accused NOAA of playing "fast and loose" with land and water temperature data.

As for David Rose's misinformation in TDM article:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

Also, a really good overall read on the subject from Sciencemag:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

>>110568
It is a sad state of affairs when climate alarmists have to resort to logical fallacies to gain support for their doomsday scenario.

I don't give a fuck what Bill Nye or whoever says.

>>110565
>It's called weather.
Weather is more unpredictable than climate because it happens on a smaller scale so more otherwise insignificant variables become relevant. Climate predictions on the other hand involve general trends.

>>110571
Climate alarmists love spouting irrelevant facts, as if they support catastrophic anthroprogenic climate change.

Let me try. The Earth is round and you are a homosexual.

>>110526
Correlation does not imply causation.

Jesus Christ, climate "scientists" really like to desecrate science.

>>110570
You're literally committing a logical fallacy as you speak, it's incredible how ignorant you are. Nice use of mental gymnastics and projection in order to avoid actually responding to someone debunking OP's bullshit though. Ever heard of a strawman? Maybe actually read the links I posted, or the quotes from your so called "whistleblower" Bates?

>>110576
That only applies when a simple correlation is performed between two variables. It is faulty to assume that correlation NEVER implies causation, just that other pieces of evidence must be examined. In scientific studies, experiments are designed to remove or account for confounding variables that may be present and statistical tests are run to ensure that there is a very small probability that the confounding variables are responsible for the changes in the dependent variable.

I know it's an easy way to wave away climate change, but try to not be so lazy next time.

>>110576
Oh look, it's the "le I read on rebbit that correlation =/= causation! Iamverysmart!"

You do understand that it's not a fallacy when the correlation is backed by scientific evidence, right? Maybe, I don't know, actually bother to research and educate yourself on a topic in which you are woefully ignorant?

>>110580
>You're literally committing a logical fallacy as you speak
Really bitch, which one?

>>110583
Strawman, learn to read. You didn't even bother responding to the Bates quotes. Do I need to define it for you?
>A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

Bringing up Bill Nye out of the blue when it hasn't been mentioned once in this thread. I don't get my information about climate science from Bill Nye, I get it by actually reading the scientific literature, you know, the kind in which researchers publish their findings to peer review?

>>110585
I made no strawman.

Classic "no u" lol

>>110585
Bringing up Bill Nye was an example that YOUR FALLACY of argument from authority is bullshit.

we always start the discussion from square one

multiple times in the same thread

what's the point, people don't bother reading

we're never going to reach meaningful consensus on any discussion

>>110589
But I'm winning

>>110589
>consensus
scientific consensus is a meme

>>110587
Let's break it down for you because you're so retarded:
>It is a sad state of affairs when climate alarmists have to resort to logical fallacies to gain support for their doomsday scenario.
Literally responds to nothing I said in my original post.
>I don't give a fuck what Bill Nye or whoever says.
More STRAWMAN, instead of refuting anything I said, you bring up a topic that has no relation to any of the original posts:
>>110568
Maybe actually read what I posted, read the links, particularly the sciencemag link and understand the whole Bates situation a little better?

How stupid are you that you can't even admit when you yourself have committed a logical fallacy?

As for the "argument from authority," do you dispute what theoretical physicists have to say about quantum mechanics, or what evolutionary biologists have to say about evolution? Science is defined by expertise in a given field, which is why the whole "argument from authority" narrative you so desperately want to paint simply doesn't apply to areas of scientific expertise.

>>110591
Consensus means nothing in terms of climate science, the only reason consensus studies have ever been done is because denialists love to spout off claims that "NOT ALL SCIENTISTS 'BELIEVE' IN CLIMATE CHANGE! SEE OREGON PETITION!" As for the consensus studies themselves, they're not surveys, they often look at the scientific literature and find percentages of papers that espouse an opinion on climate change, and quantify whether the paper supports or rejects the idea. the "97%" number comes from the Cook study that looked at tens of thousands of climate science papers and found that of those that made a statement on anthropogenic climate change, 97% of those papers attributed it to human activity.

Climate change doesn't need a consensus to be accepted, the evidence is overwhelming and speaks for itself.

>>110591
Consensus is a valuable thing if it's built on especially experimentation, especially when applied by people of different scientific backgrounds. It's a strong indication that a given hypothesis has some predictive value in explaining observed phenomena.

>>110596
Being a valuable thing does not equate with it being scientific.

>>110595
I don't have to refute what you say. That's not a fallacy.

And you're the one who made a STRAWMAN (not appeal to authority) by bringing up some faggot for no reason.

Of course you don't know what a strawman is.
>>110596
Consensus

It was a joke, jesus christ.

>>110599
Just to be explicitly clear: I brought up bill nye to highlight to stupidity of you bringing up Bates.

so you accused me of strawmanning because I didn't refute your strawman, what the fuck.

Climate change meme theory and scientology are exactly the same thing.

>>110599
>by bringing up some faggot for no reason.
Why are you in this thread? Did you not read the OP? Do you not understand that TDM article, you know, the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD is centered around JOHN BATES, the man whom I was quoting?

Do you seriously not even know what the topic of the thread your posting in is about?

Reminder that Those who denies Climate Change are Fossil Fuels Shills.

>>110606
Even Exxon admits it's existence. The fact that they hid it for 40 years isn't surprising, but they have at least switched positions. Even if it was because they were forced to do so.

corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

>>110603
>thinking climate news threads are about anything other than climate change debate

>>110565
>It was warming before humans started burning shit, and SURPRISE it's still warming.
Actually, you're wrong, models show that without anthropogenic forcings on climate, it would be very stable, to slightly cooling.

>Why would you even want to stop it?
We can't stop what we've already put into the atmosphere / oceans, the climate will continue to warm because of it, but we can slow down emissions over decades to the point that the Earth doesn't warm to the point at which leads to mass extinctions and massive impacts on human civilization.

>What's wrong with a slightly warmer planet? Would you rather we revert to another ice age?
You see, we have these things called coastal cities, and almost 8 billion people, all of which depends on fisheries and agriculture that is likely to see severe impacts from climate change. SLR flooding coastal cities with tides (see Miami right now for an example of this), critical fisheries (coral reef systems) mass dying and migrating towards the poles due to warming oceans (where most of the heat is going), mass migration from the tropics towards the poles of various animal species, including humans escaping the increased equatorial temperatures / agriculture failures.

As for your claim about actual scientists not being concerned about our planet, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about because the vast majority of climate scientists most certainly are, some of the most prominent like James Hansen routinely speaking out about it.

As for claims earlier in the thread that "models are wrong," please see:
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
Models are actually accurate and useful for understanding climate change.

>>110613
>Actually, you're wrong, models show that without anthropogenic forcings on climate, it would be very stable, to slightly cooling
This is outrageous. How in the fuck can you lie this blatantly?

Is this a joke?

>>110615
Educate yourself:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292188056_An_imperative_to_monitor_Earth's_energy_imbalance
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/fig_tab/nclimate2876_F1.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html
>Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming. We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85°C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1°C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56°C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it. Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming.

See the chart on forcings in this paper, the blue line shows what the Earth would be like with only natural forcings on climate, no human activity.

Also see IPCC AR5 explanation of what climate sensitivity and climate forcings are and how they allow us to understand human impacts on climate:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

>>110619
My mistake, thanks for the sources.

I didn't realize you said MODELS. Yes they say all kinds of shiz.

>>109177
rained a lot where i live, and it was colder than last year.
>so. cal

>>110609
Yet Coal still continue it's denial.

>>110413
>In conclusion a guy complained about rushed data which he still considers valid and a bunch of deniers jumped on it and exaggerated his story to claim that the data was faked. I hope he sues dailymail for their lies.

Sorry buddy, but the whole point is that the data had to go through the verification process. And it would of failed. They took good buoy data and essentially "corrected" it to bad ship intake data; which is artificially warmed by the ship. This kind of gross negligence would have never passed the verification process. That's why they ignored it.

>>110636
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs&t=10s

>For ocean temperatures, the ERSST version 4 is used in the K15 paper and represents a major update from the previous version. The bias correction procedure was changed and this resulted in different SST anomalies and different trends during the last 15+ years relative to ERSST version 3. ERSSTV4 beta, a pre-operational release, was briefed to the NCDC Science Council and approved on 30 September 2014.

You didn't read the link I gave did you? This is all he had to say about the temperature bias and it doesn't suggest anything about throwing out good data.

I would explain but Potholer54 did it better than I ever could. Which is in the youtube link I gave.

>>110634
Speaking of coal, look at what's happening in Australia right now. They had some liberal (Australian liberal) bloke show up to parliment with a lump of coal, passing it around to show how "it's totally not dangerous guys, let's open up 10 more power plants asap!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KoMeJB_ywY
Australian politics are apparently almost as retarded as American politics. It's like the Australian version of James Inhofe showing up to the senate floor with a snowball.

>>110606
No one denies it because the climate has always been through changes, you fucking retard.

No one believes alarmists because all they want is to profit from the fear they create.

>>110701
>>No one believes alarmists because all they want is to profit from the fear they create.
Actually their endgoal is to kill off Fossil Fuels in the same way they killed off Whaling,

>>110751
But how will we heat our homes without whale oil?

>>110701
Yes. It is the climate change 'alarmists' who are concerned about profit. Definitely not the unimaginable financial wealth generated every year by the oil industry. They definitely wouldn't be worried about their bottom line. Nope. It's all those greedy university professors after all that hot grant money. Yep.

>>110758
The claim that scientists are faking climate change for grant money also falls apart due to the fact that grant money can't legally be used for anything other than research.

The other claim is that it's been promoted by green technology sellers is fradulent because the research was started in the 1950s before any green technology companies had even started, yet alone taken off.

>>109186
Does the temperature data being exaggerated even really matter? Either way it's not just temperature Its also just plain environmental pollution, have you had the fortune of living near a coal mine, oil fracking and so on - ever had your local rivers permanently butt fucked by heavy metals, or your well water - drinking water turned into a deadly flammable neurotoxin? How about you take a look at Beijing or LA's fucked skyline and permanent smog or just look at how many of them carry and use gas masks on a daily basis. How about the Deepwater Horizon Spill a fews years ago and how it shrecked the entire Gulf of Mexico for a year.

When you take a look at the physical evidence I think it's very easy to come to the conclusion that these practices need to be changed, overhauled, you name it, regardless of their "possible" doomsday scenario called global warming.

>>110774
it matters, because lying is wrong. if you actually care about pollution, it might be wiser to just do things about that instead.

nobody wants to drink black sludge out of their tap, it's hard for me to see how actual anti-pollution legislation would somehow be impossible and thus this deception (possibly) called global warming would be necessary. everyone discarded it years ago when the dire warnings from al "i fly in a jetliner around the country to warn people about the environment" gore turned out to be completely fucking wrong.

>>110779
Ah I see, that's a good point.

So instead of helping their cause they're just shooting themselves in the foot really. Because instead of making any tangible progress they have to wrestle with setting the facts right again, which are already in hot water to begin with. Instead of going forward they actually could set their progress backwards doing this.

>>110780
they'd be better served i think by just measuring pollution instead. it can't really be manipulated like temperature, which is so incredibly variable. measure heavy metals in water, poisons in air, identify local root causes (factories, coal plants etc) make recommendations

the problem is that environmentalism has been co-opted by the left, and they carry it into their insanity and it becomes tainted by their general shrill-ness and bizarre social policies. in reality, environmentalism is a healthy focus of a nationalist government, who SHOULD want to preserve their people's natural wonders and clean air, etc. it should be a focus of the "true right", a right free from the shackles of insane corporate donations.

it's hard to say exactly how much more should be done, but i think in general that if you want to save the planet, you need to keep it more local:

focus on local action, not world action (which robs sovreignty, shackles countries to each other, causes diplomatic friction, and is essentially impossible because no one will give up their industry entirely)

invent new ways of lowering pollution while still maintaining reasonable industry & production

build some nuclear plants for fuck sake 3/4 of the reason emissions are such a problem is because the only real semi-emissionless power source we have is NOT BEING USED reee

buy local, especially food. reduce your dependence on incredibly large and wasteful supply chains to survive. encourage others to do the same. half the fucking reason there is so much shit in the air is because everyone buys fucking garbage they don't need. think of it:

shit is designed in the states, mined in the third world, shipped across the third world, produced and assembled in china, loaded on a fucking ship, trucked all the way across the ocean, loaded onto cars using heavy equipment run on gas, trucked across the entire country, then delivered. imagine the waste of that.

>>110780
furthermore, i can't countenance the "environmentalist" position because so many of those fuckers maintain Louis the thirteenth style supermansions with fountains, vast electricity draws, and other things. who the fuck are these people kidding! while they sit on their throne of solid gold, drinking a 500$ latte they think to tell the poor to sacrifice? the whole thing is fucking ridiculous, and the environmentalist movement would be well served in jettisoning all the scum.

anyway the whole thing is a fucking mess and it's incredibly difficult to fix after decades of damage to the idea of environmentalism. granted, oil companies have influence but the image of the environmentalist as a psycho lunatic driven by a deathwish, tying himself to trees in front of logging equipment is not entirely their fault.

I can't wait for the legitimate scientists to debunk this shit in public.

We're getting there. This batshit nonsense is starting to bleed into other sciences. Personally I am starting to distrust NASA because of their involvement in this.

If these fags want funding they better stop fucking with the numbers.

>>110791
And I guess in your opinion all or most climate scientists are illegitimate.

>>110791
All those hippiefags want is the death of civilization; that's why they created that environmental bullshit to feed to the children at your public schools.

>>110795
No, most climate scientists are legitimate.

But the illegitimate ones take their findings and pretend they support catastrophic anthroprogenic climate change. Then Bill Nye goes on television and pretends that the entire scientific community agrees with him 100%

It's a disgrace to science.

>>110798
Essentially it does stem from anti-American sentiment.

That's why so many think it's obvious that America is destroying the planet. They don't need science. America is bad and on top, so climate change is probably real and our fault.

>>109162
>dailymail
>implying the Paris Agreement on climate change was binding in the first place

>>109206
it's not concensus based on force and fear, it's concensus based on (mostly) inability to pose another positive conclusion or (rarely) agreement with a theory.
Being critical of science is good, doubt is good, defiance is good, but you have to udnerstand where it comes from and to what it is aimed.
When we are critical of science, it's because it's distributed as religion by the ruling classes of today who find it hard to argue against it. The truth is that even math, physics and chemistry cannot escape subjectivity, their methods having to comply with accepted practice and their conclusions cannot and have not always been published if they conflicted with the rule, being it the church or the king. Science itself is based on a PHILOSOPHICAL doctrine, the word of reason, which was inspired by existentialism and materialism and other philosophical currents critical of religious interpretations, that all culminated towards the 18th century.
That is not to say that science cannot explain things we need to have explained, but it cannot explain or heal the sum of the human experience.
These truth bombs were served to you by >>>/his/, I 'll be off now.

>>111303
>distributed as religion by the ruling classes of today who find it hard to argue against it.

distributed as religion to the masses*, who find it hard to argue against it.

dumb frogposter