97% Myth DEBUNKED

File: climate hoax.png (268KB, 1350x768px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1350x768px

>>128896494
bump

File: sgw.jpg (318KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1920x1080px

>>128896494

"Earth scientists are some of the more skeptical in light of the vast temperature changes they have studied over the past 4 billion years."

"In the geologic record, carbon dioxide is seen as a consequence of the earth’s climate, nominally a cause, and there is no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels in geologic time."

"Carbon dioxide has been at very high levels while temperatures were extremely cold and vice versa."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-mMpGBxPwI&feature=youtu.be

>>128896762
fuckin this. I'm a geologist and don't know a single one that worries about global warming.

File: leglobalwarming.jpg (397KB, 380x316px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 380x316px

>>128896762
>>128896494

>Doran & Zimmerman (2009) is based on Zimmerman (2008). Numerous earth scientist respondents to Zimmerman (2008) explained their view by email that the sun was the main direct and indirect driver of climate change, not humans or carbon dioxide.

>Indeed, as a result of that study author Zimmerman wrote: “I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project.”(pp. 126)

>This important expression of uncertainty by a co-author of a consensus paper and these relevant views by earth scientists (a climate science discipline) are not mentioned, falsely inflating the cause and claim of consensus in Cook et al (2016).

>Cook et al (2016) cite consensus statements by national academies of science, though most of these were made before 2009, over a decade prior to the news of the IPCC reported their 2013 AR5 (Flato et al 2013) that there had been a 15-year hiatus in warming with temperature trends of “values very close to zero” (despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide concentration in that time).

>Cook et al (2016) inaccurately describes Oreskes (2004) (an article not a peer-reviewed study) as having “100% consensus” when Oreskes actually wrote: “Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.”

>>128896494
Have a bump. Global warming is perhaps the most widely-followed religion of the 21st century.

File: pe.jpg (464KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1000x563px

>>128896911
>Peiser (2005) (also not peer-reviewed) re-ran Oreskes (2004) and found only 13 scientists explicitly supported a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scenario with some 470 expressing no
position whatsoever.

>Anderegg et al (2010) was a “contributed” paper which did not undergo conventional Direct Submission peer-review. Numerous scientists publicly objected to the classification of their work by Anderegg et al (2010) and the outcome that it established of a kind of white and black list of scientists of climate science dogma. These anomalies to “consensus” are not reported.

File: judithc.jpg (7KB, 240x159px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 240x159px

>>128896494

I also suggest taking a look at Dr. Judith Curry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L5AVBOh4SM& as she clearly explains this issue very well.

>Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. As of 2017, she has retired from academia.

>Curry was a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013. Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group

Here she is on Tucker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1-mC0KZFw after she decided to quit her job in academia

File: jcoleman.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>128896494
>>128898244

You can also take a look at this video from John Coleman where he explains how the global warming scare began and snowballed into the religion that it is today. Roger Revelle is often mentioned by the more sharp catastrophists as one of the heroes of the climate change movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k

Here he is btfoing CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQshyqCLYHo

These are some of the brave people who are willing to be on the frontlines instead of conforming to groupthink

File: Sunbehindclouds.jpg (38KB, 530x521px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 530x521px

>>128896494

(((science)))

>>128898902
>>128896494

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y90WzN5wGq8

>There is very little evidence to suggest that the conflict and protest patterns that we see across developing countries is in any way correlated to climate change. In fact, the opposite occurs – cooperation is far more likely in difficult conditions. But cooperation doesn’t make headline news, so we don’t hear about it in the media.

>>128899662
Spherecucks BTFO

>>128896494
Bump!

Well I don't know if anyone is interested but Judith Curry has been going to Senate hearings a bunch of times, here she is with Ted Cruz and others:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0&t=5s

>hurrhurr you're just a denier
>muh 97%

There's a super famous picture of a dead polar bear that "starved from climate change" that used to make the rounds. That bear was almost 30 years old, and starved because his teeth rotted. The researchers knew when he died from a radio collar signal and staged the photo. The whole movement is full of fake bullshit like that.

Tl;dr?

File: climate.jpg (640KB, 1200x1134px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1200x1134px

>>128896494

>>128899662
DELETE THIS

>everythingisfine.jpg

File: 1479333163592.jpg (82KB, 738x462px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 738x462px

>>128896494
>ROUND EARTH DEBUNKED
>FLAT EARTH CONFIRMED

>>128907036
FUCK OFF, GOY

GO BACK TO /X/

File: 1476389293424.jpg (51KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x750px

>>128908035
>BWAAAAAAAAAH you said my stupid opinion was stupid!
>YOU MUST BE A JEW!
does this one also trigger you?

>>128896494
It's written by Michelle Stirling, a communications director who has 3 other papers posted all on a similar vein. She's from a Canadian-based think-tank funded by coal and other energy companies to deny climate change.

>>128909172
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

>>128896494
That 97% lie is based on an old survey that was spammed to a bunch of people with a bunch of ambiguous, leading questions designed to get them to agree. It's been widely debunked, but the msm kept repeating the lie until it became "fact". It's literally fake news.

File: one is enough.jpg (43KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x500px

when people bring up the 97% I always think of this quote

File: 1477093762929.jpg (170KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 600x400px

>>128909172
>Are you....
>Are you saying that climate deniers are somehow linked to fossil-fuel companies?
>Im shocked.
>Completely and utterly shocked.
>Because im retarded

I always tell people, if you want to sway climate change deniers, have two people, with opposing viewpoints give a presentation. Present the data in a way that most people could easily understand it, give them a chance to criticize each other's work, and let the public decide.

But shitlibs don't like that, because someone will point out how their data is cherry picked and revert to screaming and namecalling.

>>128909878
They should just say: almost all of them.
Because its the truth.

>>128909909
Just giving /pol/ some context

Also the citations used in this paper are her other fucking papers, written by herself.

>>128896494
>97%
wasn't that figure for the people who decided to take one side?
I think about 63% of scientists researching the subject had no stand on global warming. Out of the rest 97% were for global warming and 3% were against.
So saying 97% were agreeing with global warming is huge manipulation.
Anyway, we should respect our planet, so we won't cook like lobsters, but currently global warming is used only for filling pockets of speculators. First thing first I would do something with commercial transport instead of fucking with my beloved 1.9TDi, the only good thing that came from Germany.

>>128899662
and how does it stay up without rocket engines?

>>128896762
>>128896886

This. My dad's an environmental engineer and he believes in abiotic petroleum and has zero concerns about man-made climate change.

I just don't understand how someone with anything resembling an objective mind and an understanding of geological time could get worried about a foot or two of sealevel rise over a couple hundred years, knowing that the sea is documented to have risen over 500 feet over the past 20,000 years (a blink of an eye, geologically).

Who cares about a couple of ice shelves melting when modern-day NYC was covered in a mile of ice barely a splitsecond ago geologically-speaking.

>>128899662
>how are the clouds behind it
what
the sun is behind the clouds
I don't understand this image

File: 1496689805782.png (345KB, 628x728px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 628x728px

>>128910596
>abiotic petroleum

>>128910065
Whether you say 97% or almost all of them doesn't matter. Number is not might in a scientific context. If the proof is correct, one is enough.

>>128910703
Explain then the seemingly limitless quantities of the stuff that we seem to be finding, when the conditions under which petroleum is known to have formed under fossil processes are incredibly specific.

>>128910727
The point is: consensus.
Theres no debate to be had.
The point is on one side is the persons uninformed opinion which doesnt matter, on the other is every single person who actually knows what theyre talking about minus a tiny percentage.
Thats why it matters.

>>128897335
OK here is what puzzles me.
I am a Christian, I won't deny that OR the fact that Christianity is a religion.
Climate changers refuse to admit they are taking part in organized religion, but they are more devout than the Abrahamic faiths

>>128911237
The petroleum didn't form in the area where it was found. It's liquid and moves.

The idea that oil just simply bubbles up from the Earth's core is ludicrous and wish fulfillment. I'm not even a Malthusian. We have billions of years of dead bacterial mats and plankton to go through. That's it.

File: pmel-oa-imageee_med.jpg (65KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 696x392px

>>128896494
Good Goy. Yaweh will take care of everything.

>>128896494
Dude this shit was debunked like the second it came out, theyve just been repeating it nonstop anyways because theyre retarded propagandists

Man, why is the right wing full of climate change deniers. I thought we were supposed to be smart?

>>128911364
Consensus is not a valid reason to not have a debate about something, not in the scientific community. This is the very reason why we can enjoy today the immense power and comfort that modern science provides.

>>128896494
Scientists are people who have determined to make profits from science.
I can't be arsed blog posting on their utterly vile record since 1939.
Trusting them is exactly like trusting CNN. You'll get exactly the same levels of truth / manipulation from both examples.

>>128911474
What about the fact that all trans-helium elements were formed by the same process (supernovae in the early universe as the first, supermassive hydrogen stars burned through their fuel and exploded), a process in which the abundance of elements is inversely proportional to their atomic numbers.

meaning that hypothetically, there is a hell of a lot more carbon and hydrogen out there than there is iron, silicon, and the other heavier elements that form the majority of our planet. This is confirmed by the composition of the gas giants such as Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus, all of which contain incredible masses of liquid/gaseous methane within them.

That being the case, what's to say that as the pre-planetary material that eventually became our planet coalesced, that there weren't methane comets, etc added to that mix and trapped in what became the core/mantle as our planet continued to form.

From there, it isn't too far of a stretch to imagine the incredible heat and pressure polymerizing some of those pockets into longer-chain hydrocarbons that all slowly worked their way up through the less-dense ferro-silicate material around them until they found themselves trapped by impermeable layers in the crust where some of them ended up getting stratified into coal.

I'm no geologist, but from my knowledge of astronomy, that doesn't seem like too far-fetched of a hypothesis.

>>128912144
>Conscensus is not a valid reason to not have a debate about wether or not the earth is flat.
>We should debate it every fucking day.
>And gather more data!
>This is the very reason why we can enjoy today the immense power and comfort that modern science provides.
Scientists should "debate" such things, if by you debate you mean gather data about something is or isnt true, and they do do that all the time, its not like they stopped gathering data on the climate, and everytime they get more data it confirmed something that was previously known.

My point is normal stupid people who dont know what their talking about arent entitled to not being told their opinion goes against every single scientist. Policy should be based on scientific data, not misinformed peoples opinions.

>>128912351
I disagree about shitting on scientists. Scientists are people interested in science. They're pretty cool guys. However, when science becomes POLITICAL then it becomes a complete shitshow.

>>128913113
>They're pretty cool guys. However, when science becomes POLITICAL then it becomes a complete shitshow.>>128912924

>Policy should be based on scientific data, not misinformed peoples opinions.

>>128902452
polar bears are thriving to the extent that a cul is being planned, meanwhile on U.K. TV we have adverts from an ngo begging for charitable contributions to help save the polar bears who, the ngo claim, are in danger from disappearing ice caused by climate change.

This is the ice and glaciers we were told would be gone by 06 because of climate change.

TV news used to serialise coverage of these glaciers disappearing but of course they didn't disappear so the coverage was quietly dropped and never mentioned again.

>>128899662
You do know the sun is just shining through the clouds, right?

>>128913113
I agree. Science can be used to determine policy, but science itself cannot allow its to be tied to politics or the truth won't matter anymore

>>128913113
Wrong
I've worked in the science field (pharama stuff) for almost 7 years since Grad School

The majority of scientists exploit the fuck out of young associates and launder/steal government money

I've seen honest lawyers but I have yet to see an honest person in science

>>128896494
>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2887245

Huh? This is like a high school essay.

>The 97% figure suggests "all" scientists have been surveyed, and indeed so the President’s tweet literally reads, when this is not the case.

No shit. There is something called statistics. For example, a recent Kaiser Family poll on Obamacare found 49% supported Obamacare, 42% opposed it, and 9% had no opinion or did not answer. As 1205 people were polled, it was determined the numbers have a margin of error of 3%.

A sample is asked, and a number is determined, with a statistical margin of error. The larger the sample is, the lower the margin of error is. This is something everyone understands.

How moronic.

Also, this was written by some random person. It could be a high school student - it probably is.

>>128910596
Because money talks. "Scientists" dont have some moral compass. Theyre physically and mentally weak growths on university and college campuses who will say anything for more funding

File: IMG_0773.jpg (27KB, 249x203px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 249x203px

>>128907036
>>128908240
The leaf is an absolutely unbearable prick.
What a surprise.
Whoever would have thunk it?

>>128896494
this is exactly why I don't believe the earth is round.

>>128912924
>>Conscensus is not a valid reason to not have a debate about wether or not the earth is flat.
True.
>>We should debate it every fucking day.
Sure, if that's what you want. I ain't stopping you. You don't stop me from debating climate change and I don't stop you from debating flat earth. We both show the same respect to each other and we advance science whenever possible.
>My point is normal stupid people who dont know what their talking about arent entitled to not being told their opinion goes against every single scientist.
That's fair. If I say something and 99% people disagree, you can look at the situation and say in a neutral tone that I am saying something that 99% disagree with. That's very pointless but you can do that. I'm not sure why that's important. You have a very strange point. Thanks for sharing your point with us. Your opinion is important.
>Policy should be based on scientific data, not misinformed peoples opinions.
Thank you again for your important point. Yes, we should only look at valid data, therefore that is why consensus is not important as much as correct data regardless of whether it comes from the many or the few. You're a fine fellow and many of your individual sentences are correct, although I find it difficult to find a linear logic behind your posts.

>>128914519
the earth is a flat. I've heard a scientist say so.

>>128896494
Great find, Portubro.

File: 14968615273502.png (827KB, 807x643px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 807x643px

>>128914168
>A FOOCKEN LEEF BIATCH, LELELEL I FUCKING MEMED YOU SO HARD YOUR FACE JUST KEKD!!1!11!!!11 memes are funny, i repeat funny hivemind saying because i myself am a retard and have nothing to say
you made a valid point, britman... i have some thinking to do.

>>128914519
>we should only look at valid data, therefore that is why consensus is not important as much as correct data regardless of whether it comes from the many or the few
Oh. So thats your point.
I agree. Were all agreed.
Goodbye

>>128914691
Interesting. I may or may not agree but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

>>128911364
Just like journalists.
I now believe the consensus I see in MSM...
Oh goody.

File: IMG_0777.jpg (73KB, 500x336px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x336px

It is a scientific fact that scientists lie all the time.
It's annoying to me to read the leafy faith you have in them like medieval peasants in the medieval church because I once did a whole website on this topic. I'm not blogposting so here are some scientific facts on the SHOCKING EXTENT OF SCIENTISTS DISHONESTY from their pals in MSM.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-lie

scientists are all liars and cheats

honestly sometimes I think we should kill some of them to set an example that faking data isn't acceptable

>>128916455
science should be illegal. Only niggers, feminists and democrats like science.

>>128896886
Set to graduate as a geologist from the U of A in a few years, have a professor named Mihai who always talks about how bad a problem global warming is. But one day when just he and I were going over some work, we started chatting about politics and he's just like "yeah it's fucking ridiculous, but my colleagues [a large number of which are female] would shun me if I said anything out of line."

You talk about science being bad if it gets political - well there has only been politically sanctioned science since 1939.
It's just like listening to cucks saying journalism is mostly truth except for the odd occasion where politics manipulates it - all MSM is politically manipulated and you know that so why maintain religious faith in the proven liars of science.
Wake up and research, or remain cucked. It's not as in your face as journalism or there is no way you would have been able to maintain your delusions this long, I sincerely promise you.

File: 456.jpg (79KB, 590x360px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 590x360px

>>128916638
come home, white man

>>128896886
>I'm a geologist and don't know a single one that worries about global warming.

This. But I bet you don't know many that will say so publicly, for fear of losing their jobs when leftist nuts start picketing their employers and shit. A "consensus" backed by intimidation is not really worth much.

>>128916912
name one good thing science has ever done. You seriously think the world is a better place with science? Look at all the niggers and liberals running around

File: 1459215543183.jpg (189KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 720x960px

>>128916157
>le mainstream media is bad
>thats why i listen to retarded fringe stuff. alex jones would never lie to me.
>why do you believe shit you read? just because it has verifiable, reliable data supporting it? fucking medieval peasant. I for one just believe whatever the fuck i want, thats what smart people do.
>Here is that one article about that one, singular scientist who lied, or what i call "the SHOCKING EXTENT OF SCIENTISTS DISHONESTY"
>Taking isolate cases, or case, singular, and blowing it out of proportion. A little trick i got from alex jones or whatever.
>Posts a theguardian article, mainstream media which i use because they're a reliable source of information so i wont be told to fuckoff for posting an alex jones shitpiece.
You make a great point.

File: 1489270215453.gif (691KB, 500x340px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 500x340px

>>128896911
>that there had been a 15-year hiatus in warming with temperature trends of “values very close to zero” (despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide concentration in that time).

File: FigFAQ5_1-1_smaller.png (367KB, 500x1154px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 500x1154px

>>128896911
>the sun was the main direct and indirect driver of climate change
Yes the main driver but if sun activity isn't observably changing then warming isn't caused by the sun.

>>128917260
>But in the winter
>Its cold outside.
BTFO!
Oh yeah fucking leaf too.
Memes > Data

>>128917228
You didn't even read the article, prick.
It isn't restricted to one case.
If you need me to hold your hand and walk you through it all you are out of luck and can stay a clown for all I care.
Unbearably leafy.

>>128917228
And go on then, you verify the data leaf.
I'm sure you are capable, you're so much cleverer than we are.
Fact is I couldn't nor could anyone except the scientists and this one obnoxious leaf.

>>128896886
Confirmed bullshit although keeping amog out of environment is good.

>>128913998
Who is more likely to be corrupt tenured scientists at universities getting public funding or scientists in the private sector working for oil companies?
Oil companies even say climate change is something to be concerned about now. Are they just doing it for PR?

>>128909563
Similar to claims about the number of homeless in America. Supposedly there were 2.5 million in the 80s, expected to climb to 3 million -- so news reports just said there are 3 million homeless in America.

The number it turns out, was just made up to sound impressive -- it is very, very difficult to get a count on homeless people, and nobody had done so.

The left is bad about just throwing some made up number out there, and the media is bad about fact checking them.

My only question is"to what degree".
What percentage agree not JUST that climate change is real but that it has an anthropogenic source.
And of those, to what degree so they claim humans are involved?
100 50 30 percent?

Climate change isn't a binary.

>>128918264
I am moral and care about the well being of other people.

>>128918063
Who is most likely to tell the truth CNN or the Telegraph?

>>128910633
Look closely -- each has a thin band of cloud somewhere in it, that the sun shines through as photographed. Useful for trolls.

>>128917712
I did read the article.
It is restricted to one very specific case involving a grand total of one scientist named Haruko Obokata and no one else.

It doesn't say a single thing about your imagined culture of making shit up in the scientific community.

Which lead me to believe its you that has not read the article. You probably got it of some retarded news aggregate and only read their misleading headline

>>128917981
Yes you can verify the data, i mean not you but anybody who knows what theyre talking about. You can ask for universities and goverment agencies for data, you will be given that data, and will be able to compare it with your own data. That is what scientists do, and that is how you are able to confirm the accuracy and authenticity of data. But if retards like you decide to make up nonsensical conspiracies and dismiss every single one of those scientists only because they have a degree and unlike you do understand the data, youre simply retarded and need some tinfoil on your head.

>>128918264
>The left is bad about just throwing some made up number out there
Prove that the left is worse about making shit up then the right.

File: 1404240534488.jpg (115KB, 600x611px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x611px

>>128896494
>6.2 million scientists and engineers employed in the US

are you >implying that 97% of 6.2 million people in all, even unrelated sciences, plus the entirely unrelated field of engineering need to agree that anthropogenic climate change is real for it to be real?

that 97% is of CLIMATE scientist, the actual relevant discipline here

File: 4117409318_bc4a3a5389.jpg (98KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x281px

>>128913419
This commercial was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ

>>128913995
>A sample is asked, and a number is determined, with a statistical margin of error. The larger the sample is, the lower the margin of error is. This is something everyone understands.


Cool. Can you point me to the survey of scientists that was taken? I'd be interested in their methodology, how the representative sample was selected, etc.

>>128915124
I bet you won't, though.

File: IMG_2622.jpg (202KB, 1024x724px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1024x724px

>>128896494

Did you make a long post about something that is described in one sentence on the front page of /pol/?

As someone who has water front property I am very concerned about global warming and sea levels rising. While i am skeptical about the amount of impact anthropogenic forcing, I do drive a 7.4 liter vehicle with zero emissions equipment just in case it might make a difference. You see, there is a sandbar near me that prevents me from getting a fixed keel sailboat, which is what all the cool people have.. swing keel is kind of poverty tier, and while multihulls are cool, everybody knows you only get it because you are an autist or have a shit water depth at your dock.

>>128919556
Take your pick:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

File: graph Correlation-versus-causation-3.gif (23KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x325px

>>128917456
>Yes the main driver but if sun activity isn't observably changing then warming isn't caused by the sun.

An yet, Mars seems to be warming to at the moment -- which suggests the possibility that something solar, or at least non-anthropogenic, has been happening.

http://www.space.com/33001-mars-ice-age-ending-now.html

I liked your graph with no data source though. Here's a fun meaningless graph you might enjoy.

>>128919124
>climate scientists
>rely on tools developed by geologists to study AGW
>chimp out when geologists disagree with AGW

This is my favorite irony

>>128920001
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

Thank you, I will look it over.

>>128913419
Polar bears exist in gangs and they're extremely violent and there's so many of them that they're killing each other

>>128920001
A quick skim does not show any surveys of scientists, it shows "surveys" of publications by climate scientists. Not the same thing at all. Will look at it in more detail later, maybe I am missing the information I cam looking for.

But (and again after a quick skim) I am not seeing in your link a statistical survey of scientists of the sort described in >>128913995, where a representative sample is asked and a statistical analysis is performed to work out, to within a margin of error, what the population under consideration thinks.

Since life is calcing, I'll leave it there, but I will look more deeply into the link you provided later.

>>128920301
From your source:
>The orbit of Mars regularly undergoes changes that greatly affect how much sunlight reaches the planet's surface, which in turn can strongly alter the Red Planet's climate. Similar orbital variations called Milankovitch cycles are known to happen on Earth.
How are martian orbital cycles related to earth?

So they aren't saying that the sun is radiating more which would effect earth the same as mars. Did you even read the thing or just came to a conclusion from the headline?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

>>128921612
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>>128921612
>by climate scientists.

>be a climate scientist
>will not have thesis approved or get funding or tenure track if you do not support AGW
>people act surprised when climate scientists support AGW

Its the equivalent of asking a group of Socialists whether they support Marx and acting surprised when 97% do.

Because of the terrible leafposting in this thread I'm going to go start my Mustang GT and let it idle for a few hours to speed up the climate change they're so asshurt about. Then I'm going to go and dump a few gallons of gas into the local river.

>>128896494
The Holocene maximum CO2 levels were half of what they are today and I will leave this one quote with that. "Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#Global_effects

File: 1477377287660.jpg (133KB, 630x815px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 630x815px

>>128922416
>GURR GURR im so mad about everybody telling me how retarded i am. I dont want to hear about it dammit! I hate leafs, and i hate being wrong!
:^)

File: SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif (24KB, 880x511px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 880x511px

>>128917260

Just because it's warming it doesn't mean it's anthropogenic, neither does it mean it's "rapid" or even a bad thing.

>>128917456

The sun activity has been changing I'm not sure what your image is supposed to demonstrate, but in this one you can see how solar irradiance has been increasing.

>>128918063

Noone is saying there is a conspiracy by 97% of the scientists, because the 97% number is false in the first place. Unfortunately this field has been politicized too much and there totally is a political agenda to promote the myth of catastrophic climate change, so you might want to equate "oil companies" with the "government" and other lobbies.

>>128920001

Pretty sure some of those papers are part of the ones mentioned in the OP, which have very poor methodology. I obviously haven't double checked them, maybe I will later since it's not the first time I see people linking that site.

>>128920329
>geologists disagree with climate scientists

lets see some proofs

For comedic purposes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVttichSzFk

Al Gore has made probably around 100$Million with his little religion. What have you done?

>>128896494
take the ultimate red pill
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-physical-scientific-proof-that-Jews-were-gassed-to-death-in-Nazi-concentration-camps/answer/Damian-Graves

>>128924447
>Only 36% of Geoscientists "express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

>>128923678

>Peiser (2005) re-ran Oreskes survey finding only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming (AGW) declaration, 34 scientists rejected or doubted the alleged ‘consensus’ position outright and 44 claimed natural factors as more influential. At least 470 papers expressed no position on AGW whatsoever.

>>128924447
Lets see what Meteorologists have to say

>89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening
>Among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/#7ae1ea7e73be

>>128918279
thhis
they dont know because its impossible to calculate
so they just make up random model to predict future based on aproximations made from approximations

thats how the current science works
"we have surface temperature data with 5degree celsius margin of error but we know that every year temeperature is rising by 0.010 degree and we know for sure it is all because of CO2, no other factors involved"
http://www.surfacestations.org/

Usually I cringe when people compare statism or atheism to a religion but in the case of climate change I really think it works like a religion. Catastrophists will try to make you look goofy by accusing you of believing that there is a major conspiracy of every scientist but this is not the case at all. It's about public opinion and politics. CO2 and energy consumption are like the original sin, you have to atone for these sins and this is why you need to trust your government blindly on this issue, granting them more and more power just like you would trust your priest or whatever. You are part of a noble movement to save the Earth that will bring everyone together and you feel good being part of that movement. Something greater than yourself.

>>128918279
>>128927012
see
>>128925999
>>128926577

File: camel_doctors.jpg (1MB, 1895x2726px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1895x2726px

>>128896494
(((consensus))) is good for convincing the goyem.

File: climate models vs real world, warming predictions.jpg (68KB, 555x456px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 555x456px

>>128929237
This. I'm still in disbelief how lucky the US is to be pulling out of the Paris Scam. Looting US tax payers to fund pollution shitholes like China is an "agreement" only an NWO stooge would sign.

File: 1385012035463.jpg (14KB, 180x246px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 180x246px

>>128925999
anon, that paper only samples geologists and petroleum scientists IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY in Alberta, Canada. That is not a good sample. It also doesn't actually touch on the evidence for or against a side, it mostly talks about the politics of opinion around the debate.

>>128926577
anon, that's an opinion piece from a man who runs a think tank for the coal industry. The initial link he provides doesn't exist.

>According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

this is the worst the piece has to offer, but it is NOT the same thing as not believing that humans are the primary cause.

>Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect throughout their various science organizations

The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank which is heavily supported by the oil and coal industries, so hardly objective

trash post

>>128896494
which journal was this published in?

The whole consensus thing is bullshit. You don't need a consensus to tell that water boils at 100C. I'd like to see a proof, but there is none, there can't be, it is a unprovable hypothesis, all they have is shitty models that don't work.

>>128916781
>Things that never happened. The post

File: 98 of 100 scientists.png (54KB, 737x575px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 737x575px

>>128896494
>One of the only arguments used by climate catastrophists is the 97%. Not anymore.
They don't need to. Everyone can see the weather patterns are becoming unstable. The seas are rising. The polar ice is melting at an accelerating rate. The coral reefs are dying. The polar bears and penguins colonies are getting wiped out.

We can see the actual physical evidence that the Earth is getting warmer. How bone-jarring retarded would have to be to not accept that it's happening?

Or how dishonest?

File: KochParty.jpg (14KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x236px

Climate change doesn't exist

>>128933784
Your pic is correct, except the opposite is actually happening.

>>128899662
YES! And if the Earth rotates how come there aren't incredibly strong winds? Earth's circumference is 40.000km. It spins around itself in 24h. This means we should have winds going from West to East at more than 1500km/h! How do you cucks explain that? hahaha, you're all fucking dumb

File: 1481441727104.png (407KB, 784x978px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 784x978px

>>128896911
>hiatus
Tbqh, there was a huge temperature increase in 2015 that has sparked the interest of environmentalists again. But the data does point out that they overestimated climate sensitivities. IPCC places them at 3ºC. You have loads and loads of studies showing them to be at around 1.5-2ºC

>>128931124
Ah yes, these aren't valid because they're problematic. Classic response.

>anon, that paper only samples geologists and petroleum scientists IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY in Alberta, Canada.

This is wrong. It surveyed 51,000 Geoscientists & Engineers from APEGA, many of whom are employees of "petroleum and related industries".

>this is the worst the piece has to offer, but it is NOT the same thing as not believing that humans are the primary cause.

I'm not sure how you missed this from my post

"Among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening (89%), only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause"

That comes out to, what, 53%?

>The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank which is heavily supported by the oil and coal industries, so hardly objective

Oh, I get it. We can only trust information that's been deliberately misconstrued to support the Paris Accord. That is the only way we can trust it is objective science.

Hmm what else can we find

>Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
>47% of Economic Geologists agree with AGW
>64% of Meteorologists agree

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf

>Prokopy 2015
>53% of Climatologists agree with AGW
>20% of Agronomists agree

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1

>Stenhouse et al 2017
>53% of Metereologists agree with AGW

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00265.1

>>128901664
whoa wait mark steyn?
nice cameo.

>>128933784
golly gee, I wonder who funds the grants of climate scientists...let's see, is it the oil companies? No, it's the fucking people pushing anthropogenic climate change paranoia!

also please tell me more about how Freeman Dyson is a shill for ExxonMobil

>>128917135
The real redpill desu
I unironically want to live a minimalistic lifestyle without science. Amish have it all figured out. Science and modern technology have made us all miserable. Thousands of years ago you could buy a plot of land for a few baskets of bread and then spend the rest of your life farming the land, working much shorter days than we work today, out in the sun and in nature, enjoying life. Thanks to technology we waste our childhood and early adulthood confined to liberalism indoctrination centers (schools), and then spend our entire adulthood trapped in unstable underpaying careers that offer no freedom and barely any vacation, and the only jobs that pay well will leave you miserable.

>>128916781

https://profiles.arizona.edu/person/ducea

>>128896494
The 97% number comes from a study by Australian blogger John Cook. A guy with no expertise who fudged the numbers for his agenda.

>>128940254
>Thousands of years ago you could buy a plot of land for a few baskets of bread and then spend the rest of your life farming the land, working much shorter days than we work today,
Ahhhahahahahhahahahahha.
I don't think you can even be more deluded, cunt.

File: 1454881663126.jpg (19KB, 573x474px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 573x474px

>>128896668

>>128935781
>It surveyed 51,000 Geoscientists & Engineers from APEGA

"A total of 1077 completed surveys were received and 12 respondents emailed or mailed in additional comments." Still Alberta, and still within the oil industry.

>I'm not sure how you missed this from my post

The fact that his links to whatever studies he's citing don't actually go anywhere kind of does that

>we can only trust info that's been deliberately misconstrued

because several related private industries with notoriously deep pockets and some highly unsavory practices are certainly objective

>47% and 64%

Economic Geologists are people in the oil, gas, and mining industries, yes. AGW would be VERY bad for business. Meteorologists are mostly weather predictors, not climatologists. your source even says there is broad scientific consensus, its just the public that's skeptical

>53 and 20

"Of these climatologists, 19 completed a survey that included the climate change question"

19 is not a usable sample size, and agronomists is just a fancy name for farmers. Paying attention to the weather is not the same as climate science.

>>128896494
>b-b-but muh settled science
These mother fuckers have set back scientific progress by half a century by infesting the field with retarded zealots all in the name of establishing global communism.