Am I a lunatic for not believing in anthropogenic global warming?

>>134429166
No, Mars and Venus are heating up at the same rate.

http://imgur.com/a/HbKvL

climate has determined the fate of the biosphere since its formation, it might very well do the same for us.
That's why everyone should treat this subject with the utmost seriousness and not be frivolous or flippant about it.

>>134429166

Nah, but there is evidence to support it, the Seuss effect for one.

Brazil might suffer more than other countries though due to being poorer. Fisheries might take a hit too depending on how species distributions change.

For most countries it probably just means prices of food and taxes increasing due to frequent droughts.

>>134429166
No, you're just brainwashed by some very reasonable sounding people. Just ask yourself: who's more likely to trick me, nearly every climate scientist alive today, or a very small number of very, very rich people that would not profit off of cutting their plants' emissions?

File: 1464478371794.jpg (183KB, 1440x1044px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1440x1044px

>>134429166
>>134429554

>http://imgur.com/a/HbKvL

Well, it's pretty obvious that the canary in the coal mine (shallow water corals) point to a rapidly warming climate (coral bleaching). We are essentially removing carbon that's been removed from the natural carbon cycle (berried deep underground for eons) and burning it into the atmosphere. I'm no liberal faggot and don't think a carbon tax is the answer (natural process will cause market shift due to food scarcity and loss of land), but all signs point to OP being a massive faggot.

>>134431247
this image macro is just a dumb manual on how to rape and bastardize paleoclimatology.
In the real world, the paleoclimate record gives us some of the most compelling and obvious evidence for the importance of CO2 in driving the climate.

>>134431594
I like how it puts ocean temperatures on a scale of 10k years.
>lmao all of warning signs started taking effect in the 1950's

File: upton sinclair.jpg (56KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x720px

You are too resistent to propaganda and dare question things. That makes you a lunatic.

Just embrace it.
>>134430570
>who's more likely to trick me, nearly every climate scientist alive today [...]
You probably mean "every climate scientist working for governmental organizations such as the UN making models over and over again of some bogus hypothesis that always fails and pretends they're making science when in reality they're just bullshitting themselves and everyone else because were it not for governmental funding their climate specialization wouldn't afford them a high paying job as they have now".

It's like studying for almost a decade to be a catholic priest or sociology PhD that is about to get a comfy government job. You have invested so much years of your life on bullshit that you certainly going to change your mind in the last moment. Refer to quote attached.

If you really believe the "97% of scientists say so" meme you are atrociously misinformed.

>>134432251
>If you really believe the "97% of scientists say so" meme you are atrociously misinformed.
Wrong. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=676

>>134432251
What a visceral reaction. Indoctrination really gets deep into your mind, huh?

If you really think that scientists are paid enough to cover up the truth you are atrociously misinformed.

File: science news cycle.jpg (232KB, 600x667px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 600x667px

>>134432729
How does that even disprove anything I said?

That is exactly my point, that when media talks about "all the scientists" they are cherrypicking and only considering the opinions of those working for the IPCC, which are precisely the ones making a living out of modelling that unproven and defective hypothesis.

Even more, when you look up what the question for that 97% is you find out that they claim way less than the media and the average internet tough guy [ aka: >>134433306] does. The question for that 97% was a very vague one used for the purpose of propaganda: "Do you believe CO2 has some effect on the global climate?". Of course they would say yes, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has many functions on our climate. The real, relevant, question, which hasn't been asked is whether they believe that CO2, in the amounts humans produce, could ever affect the climate on a planetary scale. The only thing we have are models made to support the assumption that CO2 is the major driving force of the changes that are happening to the climate in the recent centuries, and these models constantly fail.

The whole 97% thing is just a half-truth used to fool the average low information people that couldn't care less.

>>134433306
Oh yes, of course, nobody would ever hold these opinions of mine if they weren't terribly indoctrinated. I bow down to your superior critical thinking skills, master.

File: IPCC models fail.png (111KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1440x1080px

>>134434066
>>134433306
>>134432729
And pic related is a comparison of what the different models of the IPCC predicted would happen versus the temperatures that were actually measured.

>>134434066
>whether they believe that CO2, in the amounts humans produce, could ever affect the climate on a planetary scale
Obviously. The question answers itself.
Climatologists have been saying this for decades now.

File: co2-levels-over-time1.jpg (96KB, 660x417px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 660x417px

>>134434678
Then why none of their models has been providing accurate results for decades? Why should we take their opinions on faith if they are unable to provide evidence?

File: 1500137533789.jpg (54KB, 304x278px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 304x278px

>>134433306
>Dated a girl who's dad was head of biology department at a prestigious Uni
>He tells me to tie your research into CO2 emissions to get funding, no mattter how tenuous the link

Stop projecting your inability to think onto others.

>>134432729
>international panel on climate change

you might as well be pointing me to the flat earth society to give me objective information about how the earth is flat.

The 97% meme, comes from a meta study on other government funded studies where they looked at the conclusions drawn from papers.

IIRC there were actually less than 100 total papers that they looked at IN TOTAL, they were all government funded (meaning, they were funding support for a carbon tax), and they threw out the ones that took no opinion (ie a majority of them).
Of the remaining papers, 3% of them said that climate change was not caused by humans, and 97% said it is caused by humans.

97% is a meme
and the bluepilled normies will spout 98% 99% just for shits bc thats what happens when you take the blue pill

File: 1499623250070.gif (249KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 500x375px

>>134434366
>Real temperatures significantly lower than even their most conservative estimates

YEP, no bias there at all. We should definitely trust these fuckers with $billions.

These losers wouldn't last a second in the free market.

>>134434982
the ability of CO2 to influence temperature not only pre-dates the existence of models, it pre-dates the existence of computers all together.

there are several independent lines of evidence that show that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations would result in a warming of ~3°C.

File: 1500205416181.jpg (12KB, 237x213px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 237x213px

>>134435214
The bullshit aspect of all research is that government funding is never considered a conflict of interest, but corporate investment is.

This is why you should be skeptical of all research.

>T. fag with authorship in Medical research

File: polarbear.jpg (29KB, 283x407px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 283x407px

>>134429166
Use unedited photo

>>134435214
>several hundred expert authors from all around the world
>takes 3 years of writing
>two rounds of peer-review
>a thousand review comments on every chapter (and the authors have to justify their response to every single comment)
>everything is meticulously documented
>the list of scientific citations is longer than the actual articles
>none of the people get paid a penny to do this

people who think this is in any way comparable to the flat earth society are doing nothing but advertising their own ignorance

>>134436011
same thing different religion

>>134436126
it's so easy, isn't it?

>>134436211
being right was never hard

File: WeAreBog.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>134429166
mother fucker
it is real, 6 gorillion scientists say so

can someone remind me of the downsides. Garbage human Niggers btfo

>>134436578
This map makes a strong case for a wall and continued global warming. Its like giving the earth a fever to purge an infection. Then we cool back down and repopulate.

File: 1500183449145.jpg (27KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 604x604px

>>134436011
>>none of the people get paid a penny to do this
>Germanon unironically thinks scientists are unbiased heroes that are purely altruistic.
The cognitive dissonance of the believers would be surprising, were it not obvious the CC narrative is just repackaged original sin.

>>134436945
so what are you implying now? That it's all made up?

File: I don't know that feel.png (190KB, 300x411px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 300x411px

>>134436845
>No clue who authored that map
>No insight whatsoever into methodology
>CC acolyte thinks this is a "strong case"

Off yourself first. Be a hero for mother Gaia.

>>134429166
Nobody really believes in it. Some just find it politically expedient or make money off of it.

>>134435381
>the ability of CO2 to influence temperature not only pre-dates the existence of models, it pre-dates the existence of computers all together.

If you are referring to Svante Arrhenius, even he was skeptical about his findings. He admitted that there were too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns to draw any solid conclusions.

>there are several independent lines of evidence that show that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations would result in a warming of ~3°C.

computer modeling systems minus the computer. What is the difference?

File: Japan.jpg (187KB, 1080x1039px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1080x1039px

>>134437048
See>>134435090
>>134435497

I worked in research. In so far as they're not financially interested, they have delusions of grandeur (look at the number of studies for the circumstances for winning a nobel prize).

Your claims about scientists are beyond laughable. You have the mind of a religious zealot.

I trust in Shekel-lord Ben Shapiro on this one. 97 is a meme, drill nigga drill!

>>134435381
Care to source them, please?
>>134437048
>so what are you implying now? That it's all made up?
The whole narrative is comprised of half truths propagandized under a cheap a scientific facade.

>>134437386
ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is correct and Svante Arrhenius had doubts about his own findings.
So what? What difference does this make to the fact that his conclusions have been strongly corroborated from then on.

You know, Isaac Newton thought his discovery of "action at a distance" was absolutely ridiculous and he tried to disprove it for the rest of his life.
Do you also advocate we go back to pre-Newtonian physics because Newton rejected his own findings?

>>134436945
Germans have no reason to doubt scientists, they discovered eugenics as well as countless experiments to unlock the secrets of the jews. Even had an old kid's show call "Phil Nye Hitler's Guy"

>>134437048
he's implying that you don't understand that science isn't a belief system, religion is

File: Climate_Sensitivity_Summary.gif (21KB, 275x744px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 275x744px

>>134437488
is that a "yes"?

You are a lunatic for not being invested in lowering the amount of pollution we produce.

The oceans are steadily filling up with garbage that will never go away. The atmosphere's makeup is changing and nobody has a long term strategy to deal with it. Furthermore a lot of American states are cutting funding or outright banning research into the long term effects of this pollution. This is everyone's problem.

>>134437822
Just calling a hypothesis "science" doesn't make it a fact. It means you don't understand science but can regurgitate "pop science". Science is a process, not an outcome.

>>134438035
AGW and pollution are two separate things. In fact, the AGW hypothesis has more than likely increased actual pollution as it robs time and money from actual pollution related causes and makes people think that throwing their cash at AGW is a global fix all. Real work on localized actual pollution then gets less attention and funding.

>>134437711
>ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is correct and Svante Arrhenius had doubts about his own findings.

he did, you should read his work. It's in black and white

>You know, Isaac Newton thought his discovery of "action at a distance" was absolutely ridiculous and he tried to disprove it for the rest of his life.
Do you also advocate we go back to pre-Newtonian physics because Newton rejected his own findings?

>laws of physics
>co2 causes warming

this is a logically fallacious comparison. warming can be cause by any number of things

>>134438504
what do you think the understanding about the radiative effects of CO2 molecules is based on?

>>134437912
Appropriate thumbnail switch.

>>134429166
you should take a look at the "Louisville Eccentric Observer" a Marxist nightmare newspaper from my proud state of Kentucky, they love to shill for global warming, are obsessed with being BLACKED by the MUSLIM NIGGER MUHAMMED ALI, a fraudulent draft dogding ANTI-AMERICAN NIGGER, because he lived and is buried here in Louisville and HE IS DA GREATEST, every writer for the LEO has a hateboner for whites, is a fat tumblr whale, hates our local established politicians, hates war, hates police, hates military, wants complete Marxist takeover, hates trump, every thing in it is about colored people, lgbt, women ect, every man is a cuck, every woman is an empowered gurl lol, every other page is about hip and trendy overpriced "local food joints", degenerate local music that is hipster trash by cucks women and minorities, "racist old white male art being taken down" and replaced by some local fat Mexican woman's depiction of her struggle floating here on a door from cuba, a local gay muslim makes baked goods to show people the true face of islam (LMAO) drag queen shows advertised nearly front and center, the prefix "cis" is used constantly (*shudders), basically everything possible that gets under your skin/makes your skin crawl, they're all for it, full degeneracy mode, full crumbling of society, gay hookup and massage parlor ad blocks in the back to top it off, right next to the SEX COLUMN by world renowned faggot DAN SAVAGE, a intellectual queer who explains sex to our children through the lense of what he calls our "cis patriarchal white male heteronormative narrow minded perspective" which doesn't include enough "KEKOLDRY AIDS BUTTSEX TOYS KINK AND BLACK MEN" literally GOOD GOY THE NEWSPAPER. I WANT OFF THE RIDE

>>134437208
>hot parts of the earth get hotter
>almost too hot to live already

Really stimulates the synapses

>>134438468
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

File: polarbear.jpg (30KB, 277x546px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 277x546px

>>134429166
Post unedited photo

>>134430433
No. Wtf.
Climate. Change.
Read it carefully. Say it out loud. Maybe it will come to you.
Climate change.
Global warming, on a global scale. But locally, it's climate change. A change in climate.
Some will be wetter, some will be colder, warmer and so on.
Brazil will be hit hard, so will most of south America. There's a reason for the estimated couple of hundred millions climate refugees into the US from South. It's the reason Trump wants that wall.
Things are about to get real weird really fast.

>>134439449
Climate refugees

Hahahahahahaha

Kys

>>134439569
Lol, no. They may kill you. Hope you remember this then.

File: doge11.jpg (119KB, 600x478px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 600x478px

>>134429166
Why should you be? It is actually really funny to see historic records indicating that the medieval rime period was actually warmer than now.
>People traveled over the Alps in winter which is now unthinkable
https://books.google.nl/books?id=O99s_1Jfo5oC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=climbing+alps+medieval+times+global+warming&source=bl&ots=dwYI-O4Qk-&sig=oBsWhNDPysIfekj3bzX574jtfz4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibvZOE45rVAhWFbVAKHWs4DKsQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&q=climbing%20alps%20medieval%20times%20global%20warming&f=false
>Colonists in Greenland were growing barley
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
>And there were 139 vineyards in England and Wales according to the Domesday
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

>>134439569
Fellow leaf this will be our problem too. It's already becoming uninhabitable in the middle East due to the temperature rise.

>>134439449
>climate refugees

is this how you white guilt yourself into accepting all the bearded 14 year old rapists?

>>134440320
>Lol, no. They may kill you.

Ya, thats the point of the wall.

>>134436011
None of that makes science a consensus based on majority-opinion.

>>134442412
the IPCC doesn't cite opinions as a source, only peer-reviewed scientific articles.

If you can't see the difference, then you can't see the difference.

>>134442719
Great. That doesn't make a consensus worth a damn in questions of science. Truth is not determine by majority. All the 'opinions' you claim aren't cited or referenced sure do tend to manifest themselves really quick with 'muh 99%'.

>>134443376
do you think the preponderance of evidence matters?

>>134442163
Jesus you're stupid ey?
Where did I say anything of the sort?
I'm simply stating the facts. We're nearing 8 billion people and 1 of those will be displaced.
How does one deal with that?
You're American, so you'll just ignore it. But you seem incapable of grasping the seriousness of the situation.

What the fuck do you do with a billion people? Kill them? Leave them there?
Do you think they'll sit quietly and let themselves be killed?
It's not about accepting them. It's about what the fuck do you do with them.
But you're incapable of such thoughts. Go suck a gun faggot.


>>134442357
That's what I fucking said. I swear you burgers are the worst.

>>134442719
Nice try. The IPCC is a joke.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

>>134443516
Appealing to the majority belief, in any context, is fallacious. The Earth is not round because the majority of people and scientists believe in a positive opinion on behalf of the hypothesis, it is true because the evidence has merit and is valid in and of itself.

>>134443784
I'll ask again:
do you think the preponderance of evidence matters?

>>134435214
>97% is a meme

provide evidence to the contrary. It should be easy to do so. Where are the large percentage of climate scientists who disagree with the evidence?

>>134443967
I just answered you. It is irrelevant, the quantity of claims are not relevant to the quality.

>>134444349
no ones is talking about claims. I'm asking you about the preponderance of evidence that has been extensively documented in the peer-reviewed referee journal literature.
Do you think that matters or not?

>>134444111
>find climate change scientists that dont believe in climate change
wtf kind of circular reasoning is that?

I'll do it if you can find me the large percentage of jesuits that dont believe in jesus.

>>134444526
>I'm asking you about the preponderance of evidence that has been extensively documented in the peer-reviewed referee journal literature.
Are the claims valid and do they have merit? If not, appealing to 'how many' there are or how 'peer-reviewed' they are when, in reality, they cannot be replicated/subject to falsifiability is fallacious. Again, for the third time, the quantity is irrelevant. A majority behind a claim is redundant: if a belief were valid and truthful, it would take only one person to prove.

>>134444870
so how is anyone supposed to show that the claims are valid if you don't think the scientific literature is noteworthy? Where do you think the science takes place?

>>134444855
>jesuits that dont believe in jesus.

not understanding science. Cant provide evidence for your claims. Your opinion is null.

>>134439449
I. Hate. It. When faggots. Use. Too. Many. Periods. Because faggots. Believe. It. Emphasizes. Their faggot. Fucking. Message.

Pls. Delet. This. Post. Thnx.

>>134445109
>so how is anyone supposed to show that the claims are valid if you don't think the scientific literature is noteworthy? Where do you think the science takes place?
Excellent strawman, I've come across it many times. All it takes is a truthful validation of a hypothesis within a scientific journal, not the weight of the journal's authority or the majority who subscribe to its beliefs to validate the truth.

>>134443726
>It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.
the second chapter of the first working group (Physical science basis; Observations from atmosphere and surface) ALONE has a list of citations that spans 18 pages.

>>134445228
if you have a designed outcome, you arnt doing science you are doing a ritual.

>>134445630
That is no excuse. Professional scientists should know better. Even undergraduate students rarely commit such blunders. Yet here we are dealing with the IPCC, the best of climate science.

>>134429166
Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

>>134445251
Go fuck a dog

>>134429554

Woah, some good stuff here.

>>134445439
I find myself rather annoyed with that sort weaseling
I ask you if you think the evidence layed out in the scientific literature matters and you go on about how it doesn't matter how many people believe in a claim and how much of an authority these people are, as if that was what scientific papers are.
You'd be hard pressed to find a paper that says "it's true because everyone says so and we're authorities :^)"

Anyone who has bothered to look at what's written, knows that every paper has a methods section where they outline their approach and methodology in detail and then go on to present their results.
Same as before, if you don't see the difference between THAT and a simple appeal to authority, then you don't see the difference.

File: Cmip5Fail.png (37KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1440x1080px

>>134429166
>Am I a lunatic for not believing in anthropogenic global warming?
Maybe you suffer from the same thing I do: OBJECTIVITY.

>>134445997
some of the points from these WWF articles are so incredibly inconsequential
>One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.
let me ask you directly: do you think this is reason enough to dismiss a 1200 page report out of hand?

>>134446491
>I find myself rather annoyed with that sort weaseling
So stop appealing to majority as if it has any impact on truth.
>I ask you if you think the evidence layed out in the scientific literature matters and you go on about how it doesn't matter how many people believe in a claim and how much of an authority these people are, as if that was what scientific papers are.
I asked a question, followed by a point: Are the claims valid and do they have merit? If not, appealing to 'how many' there are or how 'peer-reviewed' they are when, in reality, they cannot be replicated/subject to falsifiability is fallacious. Again, for the third time, the quantity is irrelevant. A majority behind a claim is redundant: if a belief were valid and truthful, it would take only one person to prove.
>You'd be hard pressed to find a paper that says "it's true because everyone says so and we're authorities :^)"
Then the claims are validated because they are truthful. Yet, the appeal to majority still persists...
>Anyone who has bothered to look at what's written, knows that every paper has a methods section where they outline their approach and methodology in detail and then go on to present their results.
Are the claims validated/replicated? Are they truthful? If not, then they are dismissed.

File: Arctic_AMSR2_visual.png (1MB, 1516x2320px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1516x2320px

the Northwest Passage is still closed:

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/

>>134447011
then let me re-phrase my question:
do you think pointing to the preponderance of evidence is an appeal to majority and therefore fallacious?

>>134447233
>do you think pointing to the preponderance of evidence is an appeal to majority and therefore fallacious?
Precisely correct because 'preponderance' is related to the quantity. If there are fewer pieces of evidence of high quality, it is far greater than pieces of evidence/studies that are numerous, but vapid/empty. Appealing to "there are many scientists who agree with this claim, lots of authorities agree, around 97% of them" is fallacious. Stating that "the hypotheses within the studies, listed here, have been verified/replicated and are proven truthful" is what you should be saying. Is that the case? If not, then appealing to how many unscientific claims there are is not relevant.

>>134446491

Could you provide us a peer reviewed paper which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that current abnormal global warming is attributable to human activity?

>>134447757
why do you keep asking if there is any merit to these claims, as if that was some kind of unresolved mystery. That's everything most scientific papers do (assess the validity of certain hypothesis), which is precisely why I keep mentioning them.

>>134447946
Wigley et al. (2012)

Huber et al. (2011)

Ribes et al. (2016)

(I would post direct links but my post gets rejected as spam)

>>134429166
It's not a matter of belief, you can have various evidence based theories and assign them different probabilities.

What would be insane is the idea that a global climate alliance run by the governments of countries that are hilariously corrupt like Russia, China and India would somehow effectively solve the problem. What a clusterfuck that will be.

Why not put some giant mirrors around the equator to reflect more light back into space?

There are infinitely many solutions to warming if it becomes problematic but we all know chinks are soulless subhumans who cannot be trusted to be a part of it.

>>134448003
>why do you keep asking if there is any merit to these claims, as if that was some kind of unresolved mystery. That's everything most scientific papers do (assess the validity of certain hypothesis), which is precisely why I keep mentioning them.
Because that's how you determine truth. Unless this has been proven, then the claims are dismissed.
>>134448307
Have these claims been replicated? How can one prove this claim false? What is the conclusion?

>>134447150
China is currently sailing there, you should tell them.

File: 976859469549.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>134429166
No

>>134429166

No you are not. Welcome to sanity and thinking for yourself.

>>134448420
>Unless this has been proven, then the claims are dismissed.
so when a big hypothesis ("anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having a direct impact on the climate in the present") still stands after several decades of scientific papers looking into the subject, what does this tell you about its validity?

>>134448420
they most certainly have been replicated. The main conclusion is that warming attributable to (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases is pretty close to 100% of the observed warming
here are a couple more papers who come to very similar conclusions:
Jones & Stott (2013)
Gilett et al. (2012)

>>134449138

"“Our approach is based on the “models are statistically indistinguishable from the truth” paradigm,”

Eh... Ok.

File: 98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.png (11KB, 495x460px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 495x460px

>9 out of 10 dentists recommend Oral B

It's basically what they hope you will believe without actually looking at the data, I mean look at how many dentist (who never mind are getting paid for their "opinion") agree so buy our product.

>>134449138
>so when a big hypothesis ("anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having a direct impact on the climate in the present") still stands after several decades of scientific papers looking into the subject, what does this tell you about its validity?
Why not start off with a position that shows that the claims have been falsified unsuccessfully instead of appealing to the quantity?
>The main conclusion is that warming attributable to (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases is pretty close to 100% of the observed warming
here are a couple more papers who come to very similar conclusions
Excellent. So now what is the solution? I believe similar authorities also conclude that the point of no return (400 ppm) has already been passed. By definition, we may only ameliorate the conditions, not reverse them.

>>134449402
>Why not start off with a position that shows that the claims have been falsified unsuccessfully instead of appealing to the quantity?
there is literally no opposition there. In fact, one would expect that these points go together (the number of supporting papers will grow as the hypothesis continues to resist falsification)

>I believe similar authorities also conclude that the point of no return (400 ppm) has already been passed.
I really would like to see the research that says 400ppm is the point of no return

>>134433306
Science has increasingly become an industry run by politicians. Congress decides grant funding. President appoints head of HHS who then runs NIH, CDC, FDA etc and then University research labs pander to the political will of whoever the favored appointees are in order to secure grant funding and keep their cushy jobs in Academia.

Most scientists do good work but they have to follow the money. The money goes where the politicians want it to go.

Now does any of this debunk claims about Climate Change? No. But it is a fact that science is tainted by politics and Climate Change has become a political football.

Also, why the entire debate framed on reducing Carbon emissions? There are other ways to cool the globe. What about reflecting light back into space? What about new technologies to trap CO2? Why does the govt seem to be pushing us down one path that also involves creating an international body with enforcing powers over the entire globe?

>>134446742
>let me ask you directly: do you think this is reason enough to dismiss a 1200 page report out of hand?
Yes. Grave errors in citations are clear evidence of poor quality. If you are going to take claims from mountaineer magazines for granted, I cannot be bothered to painfully study 1000+ pages. There is no way to justify such an effort when basic errors were committed. Since you yourself find peer-review so important >>134442719 I am sure you understand my position.

>>134449282
see, that's why I refuse to call you people "climate skeptics".
You see these papers for the first time ever, haven't read any of them and just dismiss everything because you see a word in there that triggers you.
To call that "skepticism" would mean to give skepticism a bad name

U M A D E L I C I A

>>134449659
your own article even says
>In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.
>In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.
>When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

I absolutely do NOT understand your position.
If you would just critize the IPCC for citing WWF instead of the primary research these articles were based on, then I would agree.
But to dismiss all the research compiled in the IPCC assessment reports over the years over a vanishingly minor gaff like that, seems to me to be "unreasonable", to put it at its mildest.

>>134449615
>there is literally no opposition there. In fact, one would expect that these points go together (the number of supporting papers will grow as the hypothesis continues to resist falsification)
But the claims are validated not by the numerous papers, but by their integrity and resilience.
>I really would like to see the research that says 400ppm is the point of no return
http://www.noaa.gov/news/carbon-dioxide-levels-rose-at-record-pace-for-2nd-straight-year
http://www.asja.energy/en/news-en/co2-in-atmosfera-raggiunto-il-punto-di-non-ritorno/
"it already seems safe to conclude that we won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year – or ever again for the indefinite future”.
Seems to be trending in a direction that is not likely to be shifted.

>>134450412
the NOAA article doesn't say that 400ppm is a point of no return, so let's ignore it for now.

The second article isn't a peer-reviewed scientific article but seems to me to be some kind of blog.
Additionally, they don't provide any justification as to why 400ppm is the point of no return. So you're really not offering me anything interesting here.

I'm pretty sure there is no scientific article that says that 400ppm is the point of no return.
The only considerable concentration close to the present level that is discussed in the literature is 450ppm. And there, they don't call it a "point of no return", just an important threshold (that's the concentration of CO2 the atmosphere had been the glaciated and the ice-free state, at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary)

>>134451049
>the NOAA article doesn't say that 400ppm is a point of no return, so let's ignore it for now.
It's a figure of speech. The whole point is that the inevitability is directly tilted towards an upward trend, with no possibility of decline.
>The second article isn't a peer-reviewed scientific article but seems to me to be some kind of blog.
This does not affect the validity of a claim. A blind squirrel will still find a nut, and appealing to the authority of the many is not really a warranted claim that determines truth. See the whole debacle about Einstein and the 'authority' that 'debunked' him.
Again, there are no solutions to be offered because none exist. No alternatives that have been feasibly produced/extended to society have been provided, and decreasing supply of energy only exponentially increases demand.

>>134449138
>warming attributable to (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases is pretty close to 100% of the observed warming

bullshit

http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/17/swiss-physicist-concludes-ipcc-assumptions-violate-reality-co2-a-very-weak-greenhouse-gas/
>CO2 Contributed Only 0.12°C To Global Temps Since 1850

>>134451522
what would I have to show you that would convince you that 400ppm isn't a point of no return?

File: nazi wind turbine.jpg (659KB, 1050x697px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 1050x697px

>>134429471

>>134451932
That isn't how the burden of proof works. I said it's a figure of speech pointing to the inherent failures and lack of solutions posited regarding the issue.

>>134451932
Greenhouse effect is a logarithmic relation. Each extra 100ppm has a SMALLER effect.

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

>>134432251
>If you really believe the "97% of scientists say so" meme you are atrociously misinformed.
your link to source doesn't work.
please provide

>>134450127
You try to hide it, but you're really arguing from quantity over quality. You say "these examples may be fraudulent, but let's agree that there are many other examples that are not". Sceptics can't be tricked into accepting that, even if you were.

File: white and asian genocide.jpg (167KB, 740x740px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 740x740px

>>134452265
>ASIA FOR THE ASIANS

not so fast goy!

>>134450127
You are pathetic. Earlier in this thread you were being haughty for high standards on peer-reviewed research. Now, after being shown that the IPCC is sloppy in this regard, you are hiding behind pitiable excuses. A scientist citing popular magazines instead of primary research should never set foot in any university let alone conduct studies. Why you would describe my reaction as "unreasonable" is beyond me.

I will proceed to use one of your old posts to support my position:
>>134436011
Several hundred experts over the duration of 3 years cannot spot fundamental errors in reference lists? Even with two peer review rounds? If you think it is reasonable to have such flaws in a situation with so many checks in place, what else is acceptable? Where does it end?

When you have such a situation where quality control is breaking down, you start to wonder what more is dysfunctional from this team. If this group of scientists fails to check sources, you can expect more flaws from them. In short, the IPCC has lost its credibility. To simply accept and believe IPCC reports at face value would be naieve to say the least. After all we have seen what their standards for research and citation were.

>>134429166
No, you have just woken up to the lies

>>134451932
I've just provided 5 scientific articles and you come up with a non-peer reviewed article written by someone with no expertise in Earth science or climate science or atmospheric physics.

I can find you all sorts of fantastical articles posted somewhere on the internet, written by people from wherever,
Anyone can write anything they want in a personal article, but in the peer-reviewed literature, he would actually have to demonstrate this stuff.

>>134452117
so?
do you think climatologists not know that?

>>134452573
meant for >>134451559

>>134449138
There are now experiments in climatology. So there's nothing TO replicate. They just copy each other. So when 30+ models all broadly agree, that's not replication, and sure enough the actual climate departed the cluster during the pause. The models predicted EACH OTHER better than the eventual outcome.

>>134448420
Anyone can write a paper. Anyone can get it published in a climate journal if it is sufficiently pro-alarmist. Just like anyone can don a labcoat and geeky specs. Don't make it science. If YOU YOURSELF don't know what makes good science, you're not qualified to judge the merits of the papers you keep going on about.

>>134453229
This is a very elaborate appeal to authority. The truth is determined by the validity of a claim, not who makes the claim.

>>134448420
Sorry, was replying to the person you're replying to.

>>134452542
so when the IPCC, for instance, gives you 50 scientific showing accelerated mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet over the last few decades, will you be standing there and say "that's not true because that one time, some WWF articles were being cited concerning fish diversity in mangroves, instead of the primary nature article, which said the same thing" ?

I already conceded that they should have quoted the nature articles instead of WWF reports.
You can have a different opinion but I maintain that it's the height of unreason to dismiss a major scientific body like the IPCC because of some minor mistake in citation like this.

P.S: this "incident" isn't related to the AR, so the "hundreds of expert authors, two rounds of peer-review,..." don't apply (at least I don't think)

>>134453458
oh

>>134453229
there's a very simple way to test your claim:
write a climatology paper with some ridiculous alarmist claims and general paranoia and submit it to nature geoscience or nature climate change.

Get back to us when it gets published.

File: climate2.jpg (101KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x720px

>>134453649
>so when the IPCC, for instance, gives you 50 scientific showing accelerated mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet over the last few decades, will you be standing there and say "that's not true
Correct.
>because that one time, some WWF articles were being cited concerning fish diversity in mangroves, instead of the primary nature article, which said the same thing" ?
Not for this reason however. First, I would be very sceptical of claims of the IPCC given their history. I would search for data that may be relevant. Then after finding their conclusions unlikely, dismiss their findings as being doctored for a spceific narrative.

>>134429166
So far it seems AGW has been decided it's the truth due to a "scientific" consensus. I'm of the belief that science isn't a democracy. Just because 98% earth scientists agrees that the earth is flat due to their 30 flat earth models agree with each other doesn't mean the earth flat. I just wish there were some competent scientists that could actually shit out a model that at least follow reality somewhat.

>>134454446
that's very good to hear because that's exactly how anyone should proceed (check the facts and see if the hypothesis holds up to it).

But I would suggest to you that going for unpublished, non-scientific sources like internet blogs, youtube videos because you're skeptical about the IPCC wouldn't be putting the cart anywhere near the horse.

>>134447150
It should open briefly during minimum extent. Still waiting for those ice-free summers though.

>>134452725

try again:

http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

>>134430433
Why won't global warming allow for more fertile land closer to the poles.

Why does climate change only destroy lives and vilify economic progress, but never allows for the possibility that things could also improve?

Cold blooded animals might like a warmer planet.

Anthroprogenic Climate change is obviously a jew meme

>>134429166
How about this: don't look to the arguments of supposed intellectuals opposing it or the scientific consensus agreeing with AGW. Instead, just look to the chemistry and research it yourself. What I can tell you is that after doing this myself, the AGW deniers had no knowledge of the chemistry and just cited what other people said.


First, realize the effects of greenhouse gases. Look at our solar system, you'd think that Mercury was the hottest planet because of how close it is to the Sun, but that's not the case. Venus is the hottest planet - why? Because it has tons of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So we can conclude that greenhouse gases must play a role in trapping heat.

Now, look at the state of Earth and it's greenhouse gases - the naturally emitted greenhouse gases are in a natural cycle of being used by plants for photosynthesis, converted into oxygen, then back into CO2. However, plants and algae do a terrible job of absorbing greenhouse gases found in the smog we emit because they didn't adapt for that. Smog kills photosynthetic organisms, so what happens is the shit we emit stays in the atmosphere at higher rates than naturally emitted greenhouse gases.

Since the shit we emit stays in the atmosphere, it builds up over time to create an effect similar to that of Venus: the gases are basically transparent to solar radiation but opaque to heat coming from the planet. So that's how you get a net temp gain. I'll reply to any questions you have.

>>134457581
But it does. Russia have huge plans for Siberia. Problem is once the permafrost melts the ground will become unstable so it's hard to make any lasting infrastructure to the areas.

>>134458294
Wrong. Louisiana is doing fine, and it's a big swamp.

You're making a lot of assumptions but forgetting that people will adapt to the changes.

>>134457640

Venus has an atmospheric pressure of ˜90 bar, so I don't think that's a good comparison at all.

>>134457640
>plants and algae do a terrible job of absorbing greenhouse gases found in the smog we emit because they didn't adapt for that
not true at all.. the vast majority of emitted gas is CO2, which increases the rate of photosynthesis regardless of the trace amounts of other more reactive gases.
>the gases are basically transparent to solar radiation but opaque to heat coming from the planet
Not really.. you're thinking of a literal greenhouse with glass panes (transparent to visible light, opaque to infrared). You must step away from that analogy to understand the nature of the so called greenhouse effect.

>>134459496
The high atmospheric pressure is not an independent variable here. It is absolutely related to the gas composition of the atmosphere in question, and the temperature.

File: tktl,l8l6.png (126KB, 829x493px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 829x493px

>>134429166

>>134429166
Don't feel bad. I believe in Climate change but I'm right wing.

>>134434366
is this real? u got the source? any links?

Anthropogenic global warming is scientific fraud motivated by money and politics.

File: 1488418802732.png (2MB, 2898x2226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2898x2226px

Regardless I really hope the Arabs roast to death in the streets once their oil money can't pay for AC anymore

>>134461114
Hmm, so nothing to do with the fact that the atmosphere of Venus is also 100x more massive than Earths? The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, so it should have run away warming too...

>>134430570

Who's more likely to trick me, a group of people who want to use AGW as the most important moral argument for why white nations should be filled with refugees ... or rich white dudes?

>>134429166
Right now, probably not. It's literally a way to shift away from the energy industry being dominated by fossil fuels wrapped up in a money scam.

Overpopulation is a thing and with how things are done now you simply can't move the large population of developing countries towards the western lifestyle. Which ofcourse capitalists and shareholders don't like. Not so much because they care for those people, but rather because if they can't afford gasoline you can't sell them a car.

Regardless of that. It's bound to bite us in the ass somewhere in the future. They amount of air traffic has doubled since 2007 and now climbing more than ever. In terms of us fucking over our ecological habit you can best think about it in a water in a glass doubling analogy. The last tic before the water reaches the edge is when the glass is half full. Meaning that intervention is obviously better sooner than later.

>>134461088
>not true at all.. the vast majority of emitted gas is CO2, which increases the rate of photosynthesis regardless of the trace amounts of other more reactive gases.

Wrong. Throwing CO2 at an ecosystem does not infinitely increase photosynthetic rate, you should know that you need photons of light for photosynthesis, not just CO2. And guess what, there's the light saturation curve for photosynthetic plants, that basically tells us that plants' photosynthetic rate eventually plateaus. Just google the photosynthetic light saturation curve, it's super easy.

>Not really.. you're thinking of a literal greenhouse with glass panes (transparent to visible light, opaque to infrared). You must step away from that analogy to understand the nature of the so called greenhouse effect.

Also wrong. You're assuming people use analogies to literally compare things, but they're actually used to just compare certain aspects of things. Obviously greenhouse gases are not fucking glass panes that let sunlight in, there's variability for each molecular structure of each greenhouse gas. But the effect is what we're comparing here, and without the greenhouse effect Earth's heat would literally dissipate into space. Atmosphere composition does play a role in trapping heat.

>>134437424

>Your claims about scientists are beyond laughable.

He made a comment about how to get funding, not about how to appeal to other scientists.

I'm guessing you are jewish?

>>134432251
>believing either side has your best interests in mind
Kek, focus on the issues, not on the people.

>>134462870
Just as a last addition. I just wish it wasn't again another one of those rich man's tricks instead of an actual collective global attempt to make the earth a better place.

>>134462870

>Right now, probably not. It's literally a way to shift away from the energy industry being dominated by fossil fuels wrapped up in a money scam.

We're just fucking around in the margins. The only major changes are reductions in competitiveness of European countries, with China burning more coal to make up the difference.

AGW is important only for weakening white nations economically and providing a moral argument for why white nations should allow unlimited refugees.

File: photo.png (51KB, 350x326px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 350x326px

>>134462920
>Just google the photosynthetic light saturation curve, it's super easy.
You mean the ones that show more CO2 improves the light saturation curve? Can't tell if you're playing dumb or not?
>greenhouse gases are not fucking glass panes that let sunlight in
good. we agree then.

We're just fucking around in the margins
>>134463760
Essentially yeah.

Not much for weakening Western nations but rather to let them front the cost of renewable scale able energy. Which then can be sold to the entire world.

I've never heard climate change being touted as an excuse to let refugees in.

File: natural climate change.jpg (2MB, 2725x1964px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2725x1964px

>>134461392
just google "IPCC predictions failed" or something similar. The evidence of it being a hoax is all over the place for anyone who cares to watch it for himself. (which is always >0.1% in every existing issue)

Want to be the 0.1%? Think for yourself!

>>134464317
>I've never heard climate change being touted as an excuse to let refugees in.

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+refugees&tbm=nws

Note this is commonly used to refer to refugees from nations which doubled their population in little more than two decades (ie. it is commonly an outright lie).

>>134429166
More polar bears alive than 40 years ago, your picture already starts on a bullshit premise. According to gore we'd already be dead by now.

>>134462870
>Overpopulation is a thing and with how things are done now you simply can't move the large population of developing countries towards the western lifestyle. Which ofcourse capitalists and shareholders don't like. Not so much because they care for those people, but rather because if they can't afford gasoline you can't sell them a car.

Overpopulation is not a thing. We produce food enough to feed everybody and then some. The entire world population would fit in a 100km x 100km square. Urban areas cover 3% of the world's land surface. The planet is empty.

>>134466924
>We produce food enough to feed everybody

Whites produce food enough to feed everybody.

>>134429166
No, you are what's called a skeptic. It's a natural and indeed correct reaction to disbelieve what another man tells you, because men are lying creatures. If you don't spend months reading into all this global warming charade there's no reason for you to drop your default stance of disbelief. And it's entirely natural that you don't actually spend months reading about it because it doesn't actually affect your life in any significant way.

tl;dr your stance is logically sound.

File: image.jpg (66KB, 751x420px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 751x420px

It hasn't happened... yet

Revelation 16
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

>>134467258

Whites have to subsidize their farmers otherwise they would all go bankrupt due to competition from developing countries

>>134464274
If you understood the definition of saturation this would be easier. Get this in your head: photosynthetic rate plateaus regardless of the CO2. It plateaus eventually. More CO2 doesn't change the fact that photosynthetic rate PLATEAUS eventually, meaning it won't go up infinitely. What does that mean? It means pumping tons of fucking shit in the air won't cause a linear increase in photosynthesis forever. It means everything you said about more CO2 in the air always being great for plants is completely wrong.

>good. we agree then.

You aren't understanding that the chemistry of greenhouse gases still creates an environment that traps thermal radiation emitted from the Earth but doesn't have the same effect for solar radiation.

>>134434366
That image is wrong though
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm

>>134429166
Just uninformed. If you just don't believe in it because it's science then that IS lunacy.

>>134468908
Ok, you are playing dumb.

>climate models are all wro-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=132&v=Y_jKXcgR_QA

File: 1500667354631.png (135KB, 829x493px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 829x493px

>>134461163
Oh cool, I can make graphs too. Science rules!

>>134470392
If you had even an elementary grasp of science perhaps you wouldn't dismiss chemistry as "stupid".

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor and that more water vapor will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."