Where were you when XKCD BTFO global warming apologists?

why are liberals so desperate to push this heating meme?
When the place ain't heating at all?

Is that the whole thing? It feels like it's missing an axis

>>8342093
>muh snowball
Ok

Also, when already warm places become uninhabitable, where do you think those people (now essentially refugees) will go?

>>8342096
Why should I care about other countries?

Surely he has a good source for all that data, right?

I would like to see who recorded the temperature in all those periods

nice "science" you got there

>>8342098
>he literally doesn't understand imports, exports and refugees
Wew

File: 1850-2016.gif (3MB, 720x775px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x775px

>>8342093

Guys, how do I prep for when all fresh water sources gets corrupted?
Buy a box full of those clean water straws?

>>8342121
Just get a filter with. 2 micrometer holes and a long tube, so you can swing it around and force the water through it

>>8342120
global temperatures according to what? the falsified land surface record?
totally normal for the historical record to change every year!

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Reminder that climate change deniers cannot be reasoned with. Posting information contrary to their opinions does nothing but waste your time, they are not here to learn they are here to preach. Shift+click the thread and if you must respond remember to put sage in the options field.

>>8342088
>BTFO global warming apologists
>apologists
>BTFO
Am I missing something?

File: Global Warmlulz.jpg (43KB, 810x583px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 810x583px

>>8342126
>all data that disagrees with me is fake!
>because I said so!
and I suppose Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground too...

https://4hiroshimas.com/

>>8342143
What data? Who recorded temperatures in 1850?

The actual xkcd image cites where the data was chosen from.
And has another axis at the top.

>>8342283
no it doesn't

http://xkcd.com/1732/

>>8342095
It's global temperature and time, what more do you need?

>>8342293
>we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records

They aren't real measurements. It's highly speculative and probably wrong.

>CE

>>8342290
The temperature axis is right there

So are the sources (down the side of the graph). He only gives the authors and the dates but if you search those alongside words like global temperature you'll probably find them. You could also email him.

File: kkk.png (7KB, 430x63px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 430x63px

>>8342296

This is so disingenuous.

Read the methods:
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

If at some point in time there was a 25-year spike in warming, we wouldn't know it. To claim all change was gradual until now is pseudo-science. We just have no way to know anything but some highly speculative proxy-taken averages for 300-year periods. You can't then go and compare that to our highly accurate daily measurements. Apples and oranges.

Why do so many /Pol/ fags browse this board? How does any of math and sciences relate to alt right white nationalists? Please just leave

>>8342305
>if denounce bad pseudo-science on the part of xkcd, you are racist
it doesn't even mean you deny global warming, it just means xkcd is a braindead college-dropout moron

>>8342307
I thought he had a physics bs
>>8342305
Altright /pol/fags didn't make this shit thread, only attracted them

Regardless of whether or not climate change is a thing that's caused by humans, why are petrolfags so insistent on milking the oily Jew until it runs dry? Why do they insist on being dependent on sand niggers for energy? Why don't they start investing in alternative energy sources now so that we won't be in a clusterfuck later when oil runs out?

>>8342302
that is an interesting point, thanks for bringing it up.

>>8342336

there's not going to be a problem, solar has never been bigger. the concern people have is getting caught up in these internationalist schemes to "combat global warming" which is essentially waste massive amounts of money abroad that might make a dent in the problem eventually maybe.

>>8342273
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

>>8342126
[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.

>>8342088
Shit I thought this was /pol/ for a second.

I'm disappointed in you /sci/

File: mick.jpg (6KB, 255x220px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 255x220px

>>8342088
>CE

>buh, muh conspiracy theory
Just a reminder, in 2006, the tobacco industry was found guilty of “a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public.”
http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/doj-final-opinion.pdf

>tobacco indusry worth 35 billion
>petroleum industry worth 1.2 trillion
You really think the world can go up against a conspiracy backed by that kind of capitol? You could get every world leader on this today and you couldn't fight it. Maybe if we fought it for 35-50 years we'd make some headway, but the it won't be in time to save the planet. We're fucked.

Lets say you had a single machine that produces unlimited electricity but had to be kept secret, how would you use it to stop global warming?

>>8342305
>How does any of math and sciences relate to alt right white nationalists?

Well, math and science were made by white males, and they still do mostly (with some asians and indians now, males too).

>>8342449

Progressives gotta prog.

Can't mention anything related to Christianity, even though their oikophobic ideology is a mutation of it.

>>8342095
It's much larger and it does have another axis. OP just screenshotted the bottom.
It's the current comic on xkcd.com

>>8342568
WE

>>8342559
remove carbon from the air, sell half as coal and bury the other half somewhere in nevada

>>8342336
This.

Renewable, distributed energy systems have their own merits a thousand fold over our current power generation and distribution systems. We should be dropping coal and oil companies for ideological purposes more than any other reason.

Do you faggots not realize that if we fully invested in renewables now, you could be not paying for electricity at all in 10 years?

>>8342336
Because economics. They use oil when it is the cheapest option so anything that adversely affects oil means they have to switch to something more expensive.

You might argue "you're short sighted so I'll make a good long term investment for you", but you forget market forces apply to capital markets as well. If they wanted a long term investment there are plenty of better opportunities. Also they could make short term investments now and funnel the higher returns from STIs into LTIs when the STIs are overcapitalized and when solar tech is more profitable.

You might argue "son, not everyone is an American. You know the nazis and commies in your video games? well some folks are still like that today, they believe in a crazy war god called Allah Snackbar and we have to stop them" and this is a completely fair argument. Though again, market forces, we have to measure up the pros and cons and people with far more experience than you or I were doing so already.

>>8342108
It is always possible to gun down immigrants. It was done with great success during the last Balkans war. Also mothers with their children were given the brakka-brakka. A quick perusal at /k/ suggests suited people for such guard duty are easily found.

>>8342336
>why are petrolfags so insistent
Inertia. Same reason why people used horses rather than cars, sails rather than steam, slaves rather than machines etc.

>>8342599
Good start. You could go a lot further with unlimited energy:
- sell Carbon sub nitride, cubanes and other high energy carbon compounds rather than coal
- power electricity demanding industries like Al refining which is now moved to China and Middle East where they use vast amounts of gas and coal for power
- and do this so cheaply you put the competition completely out of business forever.

>>8342627
>shooting children is the solution
the american isis, folks

>>8342599
how do you remove carbon from the air? wouldn't it be better to remove it from the ocean?

>>8342640
Actually it was done in southern Europe and was briefly shown on TV.

>>8342701
>how do you remove carbon from the air?
Coll down air, remove first water vapour (which you can sell as distilled water) and then down to -88 C where dry ice forms. extract the dry ice, heat with H obtained by electrolysis of water) and form hydrocarbons.

>wouldn't it be better to remove it from the ocean?
It is harder but if you can do it there will be a lot more of it trapped in seawater.

>>8342463

I think I should invest into real estate in Finland while they're cheap...

>>8342559

>Make unlimited amount of money
>Fund Terraforming projects that plant billions of trees all over the world to reduce CO2 before this planet becomes a methane filled hellhole

Alternatively
>fuck off to Mars with a harem and just leave everything behind

>>8342302
Except the current spike isn't 25 years long

I know I know
>Strawman

But still
http://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU

Yeah, the world is warming. That's a fact. But:

1.- It would be nice to see a graph of the last warming period (actually, we are living in a cold age).
2.- climate models sucks. Only because they say it is CO2, it doesn't mean is CO2. I mean, I asked a guy working on that about methane emissions (you know, more cows, less tress=a lot of methane.) He didn't even know what would the "models" say. The same models that cannot predict yesterday weather with today data.

>>8342773
>weather
wew
lad

So where exactly do find the prove that climate change is man-made? Last time I checked, humans were responsible for 5% of co2 emissions, and the earth has both been hotter and colder and still supported life.

>>8342801
The same way you do everything else in science: you make different theories, draw their QUANTITATIVE consequences and see which one fits the best.
The thing with "skeptics" is that they want a certain explanation to be true (solar activity, volcanoes, etc.) but fail to realize that models based on those hypothesis do a much worse job at retrofitting past data than the AGW model.

>>8342336

Because it's going to be a clusterfuck no matter what. Renewables lead to higher power costs and pushback from the public. Likewise renewables all use rare earth minerals which come from China. Pick your poison.

For starters consider the cost of making all cars and all trains electric. That's billions if not trillions of dollars.

>>8342600

That's bullshit. The "too cheap to meter!" meme goes back over a century to the original hydro dam projects in the late nineteenth century. Nuclear power made the same promise.

Ultimately oil is king because oil just works. Economics is a science. It's cheap, relatively abundant, and people like driving. It's easier to transition out of it (through escalating energy costs) than it is to drop it cold turkey and get people pushing back. Already the EU has to scale back it's renewable energy commitments because money is tight.

>>8342597
WUZ

>>8342824
>Economics is a science.
no

>>8342627
>it is always possible to gun down immigrants
Congrats friendo, you win the edgiest and most unfeasible post of the day award

>>8342801
Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

>>8342812
Maybe retrofitting past data doesn't make any sense? What if climate is dominated by some kind of random walk, or the system is too chaotic to draw any predictions?
My main issue is that the field is too influenced by political and corporate interests, much like GMO research.

>>8342842
http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/
Predictions have been made for many things.

>>8342824
nuclear was halted by government regulation
Theres no reason why Nuclear couldn't actually become "too cheap to meter"

But the elites have no reason in wanting to see cheap electricity.

>>8342824
Nuclear is cheap as fuark.
The only reason we get fucked over in France is the European energy market regulations, but the actual production is so fucking cheap.

>>8342859

France has some of the lowest energy rates in europe, so you don't get fucked over at all. Not as cheap as the US though.

>believing in global warming

Sheep

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

>>8342891
http://principia-scientific.org/billions-barrels-oil-discovered-texas/
For a website that claims not to have political motive and focus solely on unbiased science they sure do have a hard on for oil.

>>8342088
>hottest summer in recorded history
>world isnt heating up
Kek

>>8342891
Every fucking year some faggots confused by data treatment make that claim.
See for example back in 2007
http://web.archive.org/web/20070704012242/tamino.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/best-estimates/

>>8342305
because math is the essence of logic and reason, which alt right white nationalists are the voice of.

>>8342773
>methane emissions
That is political dynamite.

Rice farming emits vast amounts of methane and there is no chance ever that China, a huge rice producer, will make any concessions here.

>>8342859
>Nuclear is cheap
As long as cost of decommissioning a large hot nuclear core is extermalized. Last time I herd figures it was way too big to take and Sweden now extends the life time of their reactors to dodge this bullet.

>>8342972
t'other way 'round lad

>>8342832
>Congrats friendo, you win the edgiest
I forget ironical distance does not work in here. It is unfortunate I have to explain I am not one for cold blooded mass murder.

>and most unfeasible post of the day award
The second point of my post is that edgelords do exist in the real world and they, the border guards, had no problems in gunning down a mother and her two children in front of a TV crew.

>>8342877
With a 10x growth in nuclear power we have Uranium only for 20 years. After that we need new sources which no longer can be considered to be low hanging fruits and price will increase, moreso when the mining companies see the desperation that comes from hundreds of potentially idle nuclear power stations. If you think Arabs are pushing the oil price I'll leave you to imagine what the mining giant like Rio Tinto will do.

>>8342093
America isn't gonna feel shit from it
It truly is gods land that we stole from the noble savages

>>8343037
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-obama-report/
wrong

File: 1411871326731s.jpg (8KB, 250x236px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x236px

>tfw you realize global warming will turn the British Isles into a lush, fertile land with great weather
>British were getting sick of millenia of shitty weather
>burning oil was a premeditated plan by the eternal anglo all along

File: xkcd-extrapolating.png (21KB, 461x295px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 461x295px

>>8342088
Where were you when xkcd self-annihilated?

>>8342093
>liberals


Triggered much, kid?

>>8342088
>Where were you when XKCD BTFO global warming apologists?

One of the axis isn't even labeled.

The data points are bullshit, the conclusions are wrong, it's not original research....

XKCD isn't a scientist, he is a Science-hipster.

>>8343005
>and price will increase
increased uranium demand would lead to LOWER prices, if anything.
And the cost of uranium is almost irrelevant towards the cost of nuclear plant operations.

>>8342088
Little Ice Age in quotes, forgets the roman and medieval warm periods doesn't mention satellite records. i'm no denier but cmon man its not as bleak as this that "current path" looks a lot like RCP 8.5 too which really wasn't supposed to be a "business as usual" scenario either. theres a lot of unfounded doom and gloom in these threads.

File: pepe6.png (191KB, 426x628px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 426x628px

>graph clearly shows that even if we try to do as much as possible right now, we're already too late
>people still want to waste billions of dollars just to slow down the inevitable
what's the point?

Can you please show it with the actual numbers?

Retards ignoring science/playing the evolution/must out-consume-you game. Maybe evolve your offpsring to be good a living in/consuming all the toxic waste would be a good play bro. I suppose the Indians bathing in their own filth shit are off to a good start eh.

Other retardeds thinking muh carbon taxes muh nuclear/muh hydro electric will save us. What a hillarious fucking joke. The disease is consumption of energy, treating the symptom (global warming) and introducing new forms of energy will not cure the disease. Humanity is about 6 orders of magnitude too stupid to save itself from this, as is clearly apparent through reading the utter crap that is posted on boards like this. LOL.

>>8343337
>Le Edgy nihilist/fatalist opinion.

I remember that phase of my life too. It gets better after high school man

>>8342801
>Last time I checked, humans were responsible for 5% of co2 emissions
The percentage of emissions would seem relevant if you are ignorant of the fact that carbon dioxide is also absorbed through natural processes. What matters is the net contribution to the atmosphere, not simply how much is emitted. That's like comparing your calorie intake to Michael Phelps' and then complaining that you're fat while he's skinny. Man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is greater than 100%, because nature actually absorbs more than it emits while man does not. So please stop spouting this idiotic meme.

Also, the issue is not that life will cease at some temperature, but that life *as it currently exists* will cease. Humans and the ecology we rely on are used to Earth being a certain way. Rapid warming does not allow life to easily adapt and thus we will suffer from a variety of negative consequences.

>>8343314
http://grist.org/climate-energy/kyoto-is-a-big-effort-for-almost-nothing/

>>8343337
>>8343363
Awesome response brah. Classic. Truly classic.

>>8343374
How about that every environmental catastrophe prediction has failed miserably.

File: b.gif (726KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 300x168px

>>8342088
>unlabeled axis
>time as a vertical

>>8343314
Nuclear winter can halt the process entirely but once the ash settles if we're still business as usually then it'll be all for nothing. If we can change out habits now, then after the nuclear winter the planet could stabilize.

Also, as global warming continues there will be less and less farmable land and less food to go around. We haven't lived in a food scarce world for a few hundred years. When the time comes war will break out, if not to steal recources then to prevent refuges as there will be no room for them. This is why Trump is adamant about a physical wall blocking Mexico. They know this, they're planning this. It looks inevitable at this point that war will break out.

>>8343381
Look you fucking idiot. I've got 3 degrees in Engineering/physics. When's the last time you even read a fucking book?

Now shut the fuck up. You are stupid beyond belief.

>>8343387
And none in climatology or GES so your opinion means about as much as posturing meaninglessly about credentials on an anonymous image board. Refute my arguments instead of making yourself an authority to appeal to.

>>8343383
>the whole image has temperature on the x axis, this is just a part of it
>well you wont like relativity then

>>8343381
Zika, famine, record hurricanes, floods, refugees coming to a place near you within years if not already, having fun in your temporary non-catastrophe safe space?

File: pepe18.jpg (59KB, 500x499px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x499px

>>8343373
>First, it’s a red herring. The purpose of Kyoto is to establish international political and economic mechanisms for dealing with global warming, by taking the first tentative steps toward a difficult goal. You may as well time me walking to the sidewalk where I parked my car bicycle and then tell me at this rate I will never get home.
this gives me no reason to invest in fighting global warming

>Second, Kyoto is a step-by-step process. The second phase (much less third, fourth, etc.) has not even been negotiated yet. How can anyone claim anything about how effective it is going to be? Junk Science and other sources of this propaganda are starting their dubious calculations from the assumption that Kyoto ends in 2012 when round one is over. That is just wrong.
all this says is 'there's more to be done that hasn't been talked about yet', also not a good reason to try fighting global warming

>Third, the temperature several decades from now is to a large extent already determined by the current energy imbalance, thanks to extra CO2 already in the atmosphere. Short of a complete cessation of emissions today, there is no foreseeable way to avoid the bulk of the warming “in the pipeline.” This is mostly due to the extreme thermal inertia of the oceans and therefore the climate system as a whole. It means that our actions today, or our inaction, will have consequences several decades hence.
this is basically repeating what i said, that it's too late

>Finally, I have a rather personal peeve with people who vociferously criticize any attempt at a solution and yet propose nothing in its place. You’d think if they were so sincerely concerned about how ineffective Kyoto will be (as, frankly, they should be), they would be agitating for more action rather than shrugging their shoulders...
again this basically just shifts the work to someone else

what was the point of that article?

>>8343408
Buddy's just rationalizing away his consumption, because deep down inside buddy knows he's a good person.

But really buddy is a glutton. Gorging himself on the world's energy to become more bloated than everyone else for his ego. Then smiling at himself in the rear view mirror of his audi as he drives by all the homeless people and wonders why they're so poor. (Hint: it might have something to do with the fact that you are eating the whole cake moron.)

My advice to buddy is that he should train his offspring to injest all his and company's waste. Thereby evolving a race of humans that is superbly adapted to living in the world he is creating. They really won't have to worry about people like me because in reality we're dropping like flies. However, they'd better be ready for other consumers, and of course how to survive in the oceans of waste.)

>>8343408
One barely category 1 hurricane in 10 years hits the gulf. As far as I know poverty and world hunger is on a downward trend. Any link between refugees and climate is tenuous at best and un-quantifiable at worst. Zika is another virus panic like SARS, H1N1, Avian Flu and West Nile or any of the other million and one defunct pandemic scares that fizzled like a firecracker in a puddle of drunken piss. Yes my "safe space" seems pretty comfy.

>>8343432
Nice strawman there. You sound like an anarcho primitivist hypocrite to me unless you are living in a yurt powered by sustainable farts you too are a glutton. Ad hominem only highlights your inability to make a rational argument. I think everyone in this thread has some sort of first world lifestyle which fits your bleak and joyless worldview.

>>8343450
>anarcho primitivist hypocrite
lol. wtf is that?

wtf is a strawman?

Its all relative you fucking idiot. Just because I dont live in a yurt doesnt mean I don't consume orders of magnitude fewer joules of energy than you.

Now go force feed your offpsring some toxic shit bile or something. You wouldnt want to lose the evolutionary game now would you.

>>8343461
No idea what a straw man is? Thats funny coming from someone with 3 engineering/physics degrees accusing people of not reading books has no idea what a logical fallacy is. To you everyone who doesnt agree with your narrow worldview is a cigar chomping businessman with a mcmansion and a perpetual hardon. Maybe go outside and see the world instead of reading enviornmental scare fiction. I'm sure its all relative considering you have no idea who I am or how I live my life you cannot judge how many joules you or I consume relative to each other

>>8343461
Also "anarcho primitivism" is the belief that energy use and modern industrial society should be reduced for the benefit of the environment back to a pre industrial pre agrarian state of nature. hows that for a dictionary definition. Now go read a book on skepticism before consuming toxic bile that is dark green ideology.

>>8343383
>having studied so little science that you think having time on the vertical is weird
>what is all of modern physics

>>8343477
You're clearly just another artsy fag asshat, who doesn't even know what Joule is.

I think you get my point though and if not now then probably it will sink in some time soon. And if not, then you're a brainwashed religious fanatic or something and I'm wasting my time anyway.

So I'm done here. Have a nice day.

>>8343489
Have a nice day!

>>8342088
I won't be alive for the worst of it, and I'm not having kids. So fuck your grandkids, global warming is not real or whatever it is exxon is going for now.

>>8343511
By not having kids you're already doing more for the planet than any breeder, god bless you anon.

>>8342093
>>8342098
what are you doing on this board? go play at /x/ or something

>>8343511
Indeed. His carbon footprint will be a tiny fraction of any recycling-frenzied man who fathers children.

>>8343544
But if I have 10 kids who all refuse to have any kids I'm making 10 times the contribution he is.

Malthusians BTFO

File: born to shitpost.png (175KB, 597x585px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 597x585px

>>8342307
>>8342314
R-Munny has a physics degree and worked as a roboticist with NASA before he became a professional cartoonist

>>8342701
this may come as news to you, but the surface ocean and the troposphere communicate a lot. they're in near-equilibrium in terms of gas exchange...if you remove CO2 from the air, it also draws CO2 out of the ocean.

>>8342891
>you can't adjust temperature records to account for measurement bias! that's FRAUD!
>you can't trust the temperature record! it doesn't adjust for the urban heat island effect! that's FRAUD!
can't have it both ways, friendo :^)

>>8343178
>One of the axis isn't even labeled.
both of the axes are labeled
>The data points are bullshit, the conclusions are wrong
Ah yes, dismissing all the evidence entirely out of hand because you don't like where it leads. That's the sure sign of a denier, folks.
>it's not original research
Well, duh. Never heard of a "review of the literature" before? Besides, if xkcd is going to publish three times a week rather than three times a year, you really can't demand that every joke be rigorously examined and peer-reviewed.

>>8342600
>Renewable, distributed energy systems have their own merits a thousand fold over our current power generation and distribution
Huge drawbacks too.

>We should be dropping coal and oil companies for ideological purposes more than any other reason.
That's not how economy works.
>Do you faggots not realize that if we fully invested in renewables now, you could be not paying for electricity at all in 10 years?
Stop drinking the green's memes, most renewables still struggle without the government tit and some will never be viable.

>>8344152
>implying big oil isn't on the government tit

>>8342627
>It is always possible to gun down immigrants. It was done with great success during the last Balkans war. Also mothers with their children were given the brakka-brakka.

t. read something about it once on Wikipedia

>>8344159
Oil needs massive subsidies to stay economical? Don't think so.

>>8344164
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

>>8342817
>For starters consider the cost of making all cars and all trains electric. That's billions if not trillions of dollars.

Well how about you consider the costs of all trains and cars that are in existence now.

>>8344164
In the US alone, fossil fuels are subsidised to the tun of billions of dollars per year. Up until quite recently, those figures were significantly higher. The fossil fuel industries have been coddled by government for decades.

>>8344204
*tune

why does everyone assume that fossil fuel based engines won't be replaced within a couple decades?

>>8344215
Because people are short sighted.

/thread.

File: Noes.gif (188KB, 289x240px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 289x240px

>>8342120

>>8343433
It's a lot easier to reduce your risk of avian flu than zika risk, especially with climates becoming more favourable for mosquitoes

>>8343005
Sorry senpai, you should have used memetext to get irony acrosss

And, shooting that family probably didn't do well for their career, or their lives in general

>>8342859
>Nuclear is cheap as fuark.
It only is, if you don't count mining and waste-disposal

>>8342088
>first 19950 years are heavily smoothed
>last 50 years aren't
what does he mean by this?

>>8344288
see >>8342302

>>8342088
why didn't the earth heat up and die when CO2 levels were 3% in the far past?

>>8344309
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

>>8344288
>>8342302
He literally addressed this in the comic.

>>8344372
So he acknowledges he is wrong, and somehow that makes him right?

File: 2.png (47KB, 325x283px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 325x283px

>>8344372
>>8344388
This should be in a more visible place, much like the sources

>>8342093
(You)

>>8342121
Get >>>/out/
They'll be able to help, that's their thing.

>>8342559
Yes, fuck the money. I'd get some income from siding fees etc. Call me a faggot but this planet is our only home at the moment. It's beautiful too. There is so much left to learn and experience and enjoy. It's worth saving unless you think Venus is a great future. Too bad we can't explore there. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just like earth at one point teeming with life.

>>8342826
KANGZ

>>8342600
Power will never be free. Someone has to pay for infrastructure and its upkeep.

>>8342734
I heard somewhere that there are more efficient plants than trees.

>>8342824
>Economics is a science
WEW

>>8343363
It's the other way for me. I was ignorant in high school. Ignorance is truly bliss.
>>8343544
This should be part of the plan desu.
Stop the unfettered growth in poor countries that only makes everything worse. Hand out free condoms and birth control if you have to. Do anything possible. It will spare many headaches.

>>8344164
The u.s. sucks big oil cock and swallows it's black ejaculate like it's a gokkun video. Tax breaks and subsidies and old fashion tax evasion are rampant.

>>8344239
This would be better if the graph stayed in the back so I could read it.

Climate Nazis have been predicting that NYC is only 20 years away from being underwater since the '70s. I don't doubt climate change is anthropogenic but I'm still skeptical of all of the sky is falling predictions.

>>8343128
I like xkcd
Its fun

>>8344392
>>8342088
Also unlabelled: the period over which the method of measuring temperatures shifts radically, with proxies used and trusted to estimate temperatures centuries into the past abandoned because they diverge from the measured "new trend" and unreliable, unsystematic instrumental data massaged based on guesses and assumptions.

>>8344204
tax breaks are not subsidies retard

File: 1416021055780s.jpg (7KB, 250x245px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x245px

>>8342120
>global temperature

>>8342757
It's not a strawman when those are literally the exact talking points I've seen in climate change denial arguments. Especially the bit about CO2 increases lagging behind temperature increases.

>>8342088
>XKCD

Reddit pseudo intellectual detected

>>8342120

The colours are misleading. They're giving you the impression it's hotting up when it's not. Only the location of the line indicates the temperature.

Fuck off with your fucking shill graph

Make it again with a solid red line for every year, otherwise it's just fucking biased

File: borg.jpg (29KB, 350x271px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x271px

>>8342305

4chan is /pol/ now

You will assimilate

Resistance is futile

>>8344822
The colours indicate time, allowing for easier viewing. If it were all one colour then you wouldn't see the line move and it would create a big blob.
Sure the blue and yellow colour is a bit misleading but it isn't hard to figure out what's going on because of it.

>>8344412
You should have replied with SCIENTISTS desu

>>8344782
>It's not a strawman when those are literally the exact talking points
Let's take an example: CO2 following temperature.

The strawman: CO2 levels lag well behind temperature in the long-term proxy record, indicating that the change of CO2 level could not have been the primary driver of past major temperature changes, Therefore, today's rapid CO2 level increase can't possibly be responsible for today's warming trend or threaten catastrophic warming in the near future.

Knocking down the strawman: this is fallacious reasoning. It only presents a line of argument which doesn't, by itself, make the case. In fact, temperature driving CO2 shows potential for positive feedbacks and runaway warming. The actual data is in line with sophisticated computer models and scenarios (too complicated to explain to laymen, but trust that all the true scotsmen agree) in which other potent factors drove climate change in the past, but CO2 increase will drive climate change in the future.

The actual argument: a major leg of the case made to the public that they should believe in global warming, notably in the scissorlift scene of "An Inconvenient Truth" (a presentation still lauded by global warming alarmists and recommended for popular consumption), is the idea that deep into the past there is a clear long-term correspondence between CO2 and temperature, which should be taken for CO2 controlling temperature. However, since the CO2 lags far behind temperature, which the people presenting this information knew very well, it can't have been driving the temperature changes. It's not just a wrong argument, but deliberate fraud. Therefore, global warming alarmists (particularly ALL of those on record endorsing "An Inconvenient Truth"), including the so-called "climate science mainstream", have been demonstrated to be dishonest and untrustworthy.

Response to the actual argument: setting up and knocking down the strawman. Behavior fully as dishonest as the original deception.

>>8343128
I laffd and I'm not even ashamed about it

>>8344836
>"An Inconvenient Truth" was simplistic therefore global warming ain't real
"Skeptics" everyone.

>>8344869
People who have been proven liars now need more than just "their word" and "their models" to support global warming

>>8344836
>sophisticated computer models and scenarios (too complicated to explain to laymen
And how do you propose we solve that? That we shouldn't do anything that can't be explained easily to laymen?

>>8344872
All the modeling research is available with your standard scientific publication access.
And Al Gore isn't a climate researcher, so really your point about a "climate establishment" is unbelievably moronic.

>>8342305
Engineering is home field for crackpots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSgp755DSA&t=29m58s

>>8344827

Oh and it just so happens the colour gets really really bright as it gets through the 20th century. Gee what a coincidence?

>>8342305
I remember when /b/ was the ONLY containment board on 4chan. I miss those days. Soon /sci/ will become yet another in the growing list of containment boards. This current strategy has no endgame solution. 4chan will eventually be doomed.

>>8344822
>Make it again with a solid red line for every year, otherwise it's just fucking biased

Idk why people hire graphic designers to make things legible when there are geniuses like you dispensing wisdom like this in the public fora

>>8344869
>simplistic
>fraudulent
That wasn't a simplification. Moreover, it wasn't presented as a simplification.

It was presented as THE smoking gun for global warming: The CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up. The CO2 goes back down, and the temperature goes back down. Yes, scientists use all sorts of complicated and hard-to-validate modelling on a system too big and slow to experiment with, with no possibility of a control group, but they're just fine tuning and you don't need to understand all that stuff, you just have to look at this relationship, and it's plain as plain can be.

Nobody who colludes in selling a load of shit like that can ever be trusted again, nor can their students, or the programs they set up or otherwise came to manage.

>>8344905
>Yes, scientists use all sorts of complicated and hard-to-validate modelling on a system too big and slow to experiment with, with no possibility of a control group,
What's your solution?
>but they're just fine tuning and you don't need to understand all that stuff
You do
>you just have to look at this relationship
All it tells you is there is a feedback effect, yes. It's just something you have to integrate into models, which is already the case.

>It was presented as THE smoking gun for global warming
In that particular film, yes. No, of course, it's not really a strong enough argument to convince climatologists, which is why it's a whole fucking field of research. "An inconvenient truth" a popularization film made for a wide audience. Maybe it was badly done. Regardless, what's your better solution? Normies don't like being told that something can't be explained in one hour to them and that you have to actually study a variety of topics.

>>8344898

Oh let's make it a line that is blue with cold colours for the last 200 years, then let's make it get progressively brighter and hotter towards yellow for the 20th/21st centuries shall we?

Oh what a coincidence that what we were trying to demonstrate with the graphic was that temperatures having been getting hotter in the last 60 years. I guess we could have picked neutral colours, so the numbers could speak for themselves. Oh well, I guess we'll just be deliberately misleading!

>>8344939
>neutral colours
what the fuck are you talking about you fucking spastic?

>>8344942

You're calling me a fucking spastic because you don't even understand warm and cool colours? Who the fuck is the spastic now you fucking spastic?

>>8344952
What the fuck do you define as a "neutral colour"?
How do you make a spectrum of "neutral colours"?
You sound like a schizo.

File: Neutral-Colours.png (11KB, 650x434px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 650x434px

>>8344956

Well neutral colours normally means this, but I mean neutral to the idea of temperature.

E.g. why couldn't they use a rainbow spectrum, starting off in red and going through to violet for the most recent years?

>>8344975
It uses a "rainbow spectrum" (whatever that means) going from violet to yellow.

>>8344979

Going from cold colours to warm colours. What a coincidence.

Some people would look at that graph and think "look how it gets really bright and yellow towards the end! I guess the planet must really be getting hot!"

When actually the colour of the line has nothing at all to do with the temperature.

>>8345008
>What a coincidence.
That's called making a point.
The actual values are still there, bob.

>>8345008
All you need to know is that in may 2015 the temperature became unhinged.

>>8345033
BUT DUDES COLOURS LMAO

File: why you can't trust warmists.jpg (115KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 500x333px

>>8344923
>What's your solution?
For starters, acknowledging the true limits of our understanding. And besides that, acknowledging the proper relationship between experts and laymen, and the necessity of providing honest, convincing, and comprehensible demonstrations of relevant competence before being trusted to guide policy.

When laymen just trust experts because they dress up like experts, endorse each other, and say that the real argument is too complicated for laymen, we get lobotomies, space shuttles, and multi-trillion-dollar bailouts.

>what's your better solution?
For starters, not presenting and endorsing a brazenly fraudulent argument to the public.

Climate scientists should have been howling at the inaccuracies in "An Inconvenient Truth", and resigning in protest from organizations that persisted in endorsing it. That they weren't shows a pervasive lack of integrity.

The idea that it's necessary to persuade the public is an extremely dangerous one for scientific integrity, particularly when it lines up with one's desires to feel important, win arguments, signal virtue, forward other agendas, advance one's career, expand and secure one's income, discredit rivals, enhance the prestige associated with one's occupation, and dominate others.

Once you decide that it's sufficiently important to persuade the public to accept a position that you will bite your tongue when you hear a bad argument in its favor, you cease to be a scientist and become a politician, with the pose of being a scientist just your angle.

>>8345050
>And besides that, acknowledging the proper relationship between experts and laymen, and the necessity of providing honest, convincing, and comprehensible demonstrations of relevant competence before being trusted to guide policy.
And what does that mean?

All I see is a declaration of principle, but you don't have any better solution.
If you had to make a popularization movie, what would be the content? "If you're watching this, chances are you don't have the scientific education to understand any of the advanced modelling works, so meh."?

In a perfect world, the fact that the people actually researching the topic broadly agree should be well enough to convince the public and policymakers to act on CO2 emissions, but oh surprise it wasn't. So you need to make actual science communication, which means you're gonna use simplistic arguments, which will be wrong if you look at them hard enough.

I blame the degenerate ameriburger culture of "dude experts are totally wrong 100% of the time lmao" and "I read a boatload of blog articles about a topic, that makes me educated"

>>8345033
1979?
Wew, you need to go back 20,000 years to the last glacial maximum and even then better to go back a few million years and see what's really up. Earth is cooling and anyone could make super scary gifs to illustrate that. Any warming should be welcomed and encouraged.

>>8345077
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

>>8342098
*slow claps*

*steps out of the shadows*

Heh... not bad, kid. Not bad at all. Your meme, I mean. It's not bad. A good first attempt. It's plenty dank... I can tell it's got some thought behind it... lots of quotable material...

But memeing isn't all sunshine and rainbows, kid. You're skilled... that much I can tell. But do you have what it takes to be a Memester? To join those esteemed meme ranks? To call yourself a member of the Ruseman's Corps? Memeing takes talent, that much is true. But more than that it takes heart. The world-class Memesters - I mean the big guys, like Johnny Hammersticks and Billy Kuahana - they're out there day and night, burning the midnight meme-oil, working tirelessly to craft that next big meme.

And you know what, kid? 99 times out of a hundred, that new meme fails. Someone dismisses it as bait, or says it's "tryhard," or ignores it as they copy/paste the latest shitpost copypasta dreamt up by those sorry excuses for cut-rate memers over at reddit. The Meme Game is rough, kid, and I don't just mean the one you just lost :^). It's a rough business, and for every artisan meme you craft in your meme bakery, some cocksucker at 9gag has a picture of a duck or some shit that a million different Johnny No-Names will attach a milion different captions to. Chin up, kid. Don't get all mopey on me. You've got skill. You've got talent. You just need to show your drive.

See you on the boards...

>>8345104
Learn to form arguments of your own.

>>8345107
>invent shit and blow it out of my ass

B-but then I would sound stupid... like you.

>>8345077

We don't want to end up as another Venus

>>8345070
>you don't have any better solution
What you seem to have in your mind is the idea that scientists have a moral imperative to direct policy, when what they have is an ethical imperative not let any such agenda interfere with their scientific integrity.

There can be no reconciliation of the ideas that scientists must direct policy and scientists must be dedicated to the truth and to the principles of intellectual humility that are fundamental to science.

Any human being will have strong policy preferences irrespective of the narrow questions they might focus their attentions on as scientists. Once you start to view using the role of a scientist as a means to direct policy, you stop being a scientist, and starting injecting bias into your field.

I refer you again to the cartoon at: >>8345050

People get into climate science because they want to save the world. They start from a socialist/environmentalist ethos that man's influence on the natural world is inherently bad and must be reined in by government domination of the economic sphere and general diminishment of humanity. Then they look for ways to justify it.

Powerful motivations, demonstrated willingness to deceive, demonizing and hounding out dissenters, a need to incorporate large amounts of data from diverse sources, and models too complex to run on anything less than a purpose-built supercomputer means we have no actual idea of what the evidence says. Never mind the laymen, no single expert can check enough of the argument on their own to call a strong position anything other than a product of faith.

>>8345221
>What you seem to have in your mind is the idea that scientists have a moral imperative to direct policy
No I didn't say anything of the sort. Again, Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, and I'm not either. This isn't about climate scientists. Do I have a moral imperative to do what I can to avoid destroying our environment? Fuck yes.

You seem to keep switching your argument between how to do science communication and claiming that climate science is wrong.
Are you sure you know what you're arguing?
>People get into climate science because they want to save the world.
Sounds like a load of bullcrap. People who want to save the world go into politics and activism.

>>8345221
>hurr durr I discovered that entropy doesn't always increase contrary to what I learned in high school, therefore physicists are full of shit ahurp a durp
I am not exaggerating, this is the exact level of your argumentation.
The fact that you were given a simple picture isn't dishonesty. If you want to actually dig into it, go all the way and don't stop at some fucking "skeptic"'s blog

File: GErPT8c.jpg (83KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x300px

>>8342120

>>8345228
>This isn't about climate scientists.
Lamest. Dodge. Ever.

>>8345232
>The fact that you were given a simple picture isn't dishonesty.
Already answered: >>8344905
>That wasn't a simplification. Moreover, it wasn't presented as a simplification.
Presenting a graph of CO2 following temperature as a graph of CO2 driving temperature change, because they seem to line up (when you don't look at them closely enough to see that the CO2 changes happen after the temperature changes), is fraud.

Defending it as a "simplification" is fraud.

Endorsing it as a "good introduction for laymen" is fraud.

If a person or organization has defended or endorsed such a thing, you don't need to know anything else about them: you know they're frauds.

>>8345251
>Lamest. Dodge. Ever.
You keep attacking Al fucking Gore, lad.
One sentence you say that it's scientists responsibility to fucking resign (wew) if someone does some not-good-enough popularization, on the other you claim that they shouldn't bother about popularization at all. You don't have a leg to stand on.

And it wasn't a dodge, it was again a way to ask you the question YOU keep dodging. What the fuck do we do about it? Obviously the general public isn't convinced to act enough simply by the existence of hard to access actual science, so how the fuck do we convince it so? Hiding your head in the sand isn't an answer by the way.

Also the dichotomy you introduce between simplification and fraud is false. A simplified picture is always wrong.

What you're doing is exactly the same as some retard going "WHAT? THE RUTHERFORD ATOMIC MODEL ISN'T REAL? BUT THIS IS WHAT I SAW IN A POPULAR SCIENCE MOVIE. OH MY GOD PHYSICISTS ARE SO FULL OF SHIT AND MOTIVATE BY OBSCURANTISM"

You're a goddam idiot m8.

>>8345251
>when you don't look at them closely enough to see that the CO2 changes happen after the temperature changes

What is 'latency time' for 100 points

>this fucking thread
>my fucking sides

>>8344822
This is the dumbest post I've seen in recent months. And I visit /mu/.

>>8344869
It wasn't "simplistic", it was *wrong*. And when someone's argument for something is *wrong*, that can lead you to the conclusion that their conclusion is *wrong*, especially if there's was the primary argument for said conclusion.

"Just cause John lied about not killing Jane, doesn't mean John killed Jane. lmao, believers 1 "skeptics ;^)" 0 haha will they ever recover"

>>8345321
>It wasn't "simplistic", it was *wrong*
False dichotomy

>>8342305
>thread about global warming
>fucking racist nationalist /pol/ boogeymen on MY board >;^(
k

File: 1462839968409.jpg (61KB, 1122x540px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1122x540px

>>8345324
>strawman STRAWMAn!! t-tu quoque haha! a-apeal to authority! keep the fallacies comin man i can do this all day !!
That isn't even a dichotomy, are you retarded? I never said it could only be one of those two things. You claimed it was one thing, I corrected you and said it was another.

>>8345337
>That isn't even a dichotomy
It is. Every simplification is ultimately false. The Rutherford model is also false. Do you yell at your high school physics teacher?

And you still haven't provided a single valid answer to what you would do. I suppose you're able to entertain a hypothetical, right? Imagine for a moment AGW isn't the result of a Jewish conspiracy. The public still isn't taking it seriously though.
What's your solution?

>>8345273
>You keep attacking Al fucking Gore
I keep talking about people ENDORSING, DEFENDING, and REFUSING TO CRITICIZE a work which purports to be a presentation of their findings to the voting public.

>One sentence you say that it's scientists responsibility to fucking resign (wew) if someone does some not-good-enough popularization
You people just can't stop lying, can you? I mentioned resigning from organizations that endorse a fraudulent propaganda work.

>the dichotomy you introduce between simplification and fraud is false. A simplified picture is always wrong.
I'm not talking about simplified greenhouse effect models that don't account for every detail but familiarize you with some of the basic mechanisms and factors at play.

I'm talking about a presentation of evidence where cause and effect are reversed. The scissorlift scene is not a simplification. It's fraud. It's lying about the evidence to make it look like CO2 has not just clearly influenced temperature, but that changes in CO2 have had a dominating effect, determining every major direction change from rising to falling temperatures and from falling to rising temperatures, when the evidence they're showing actually refutes any claim of historical temperature variation being primarily caused by CO2 level.

It's the difference between a world where it's incredibly obvious that a change of CO2 level will change the global temperature, and one where it's incredibly difficult to establish that the effect of a CO2 increase won't be lost in the noise of natural variation and other influences, such as land surface darkening from human occupation.

In other words, it's the worst kind of lie to tell about a controversial subject: that there's no room for doubt, no need for debate or further study, the conclusions are obvious by straightforward reasoning from easily-gathered, independently-confirmable evidence.

>>8344875
>All the modeling research is available with your standard scientific publication access.
>And Al Gore isn't a climate researcher, so really your point about a "climate establishment" is unbelievably moronic.

Yes, and when you take the mathematical assumptions upon which those models are based and try to "hindcast" (for example, but not with these numbers, predicting what the temperature would be 50 years ago based on data from 100 years ago), you get the wrong answer.

CO2 is a ghg, yes. That's not the problem. It's that alarmist assumptions about its power and the entirely assumed positive feedback loop involving water vapour, are wrong and probably wrong, respectively.

Please stop regurgitating the opinions of others when you don't understand them.

>>8345371
>you get the wrong answer.
Those are quantitative models, you don't get "wrong" or "right" answers, you get a certain correlation.

What you don't seem to understand is that models based on competing hypothesis produce WORSE results, which is the whole reason for favoring CO2 driven AGW.

>>8345369
>a controversial subject
It's not in the way you think.

>that there's no room for doubt, no need for debate or further study
Dead wrong lad. Just because people don't accept the story YOU prefer doesn't mean that they stopped doing research. Climatology is still an active field of research, more active than ever. And guess what, it's not moving in the direction you want it too.

>>8345380

You should take a look at models that account for solar activity. They don't produce "WORSE" results.

Oh and btw, alarmist models don't include the Sun. Nor do they include the wind, ocean oscillations, El Nino, volcanoes or many other factors. Fucking LOL @ your models.

>>8345403
>They don't produce "WORSE" results.
But they do.

>>8345388

Just abandon the thread already. You're getting fucking raped by that guy.

>>8345405

Ah ok, I'm arguing with an ignorant idiot who knows nothing at all. K, bye.

>>8345409
Nigger the whole basis of the IPCC conclusion is that retrofitted AWC models give a better account than retrofitted solar activity models.
What in the flying fuck are you talking about?

>>8345406
Nobody is getting "fucking raped", you might want to leave for a board that would be simpler to understand for brainlets, like /x/.

>>8345403
>Oh and btw, alarmist models don't include the Sun. Nor do they include the wind, ocean oscillations, El Nino, volcanoes or many other factors
But that's wrong?
Tett, Meehl, Stone, Gillett and a plethora of other studies include them.

>>8345388
>doesn't mean that they stopped doing research
They declared it "settled science" with a "scientific consensus" and started labelling anyone who actually examines the question anymore a kook or shill.

Nearly all climate research conducted starts from the assumption of global warming, and affirms prior firm belief in CO2-driven global warming even at the stage of requesting funding or applying for positions. You can't even get an advanced degree anymore without effectively giving loyalty oaths to the party.

>>8345432
Yes, there's a scientific consensus. And there's still research. Imagine that! It's still progressing and being refined. It's just giving no sign of going the way you want it to go, sorry bub you're gonna have to live with the butthurt.

I can't help but notice you're STILL swaying away from the simple question I asked you five times now.
Like every tinfoil brainlet, all you can do is try and steer away the conversation. You really shouldn't be hanging out around here.

And of course since you've proven unable to substantiate any of your claim you have to fall back on the "IT'S A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY" brainlet defence.

File: kaczynski.png (11KB, 313x188px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 313x188px

>>8342305
>Why do so many /Pol/ fags browse this board?

File: 1429454471035.gif (653KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 480x480px

>>8345403
>Oh and btw, alarmist models don't include the Sun. Nor do they include the wind, ocean oscillations, El Nino, volcanoes or many other factors.
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
Do you have to get a certificate of full retardation to be a denialist?

So what exactly do republishits get out of denying climate change? Is it just mindless "dem crazy liberals believe Y therefore I must believe X" contrarianism?

>>8345452
Because gotta burn that oil.
And for the libertarian branch, it's because to any sane person the existence of AGW implies that state regulation must exist on CO2 emission so since they can't find a solution to it within their ideology they would rather deny it exists at all.

>>8345403
>alarmist models don't include the Sun
>this is what brainlets actually believe
https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/improved-constraints-on-21st-century-warming-derived-using-160-years-of-temperature-observations.pdf

How does it feel making such an obviously retarded claim that you've burned through what little credibility you had in a single post?

>>8345440
>asks rhetorical question containing assumption such that any direct answer would affirm the same fundamental position
>gets response addressing underlying assumption
>hey, why are you dodging the question?

>there's a scientific consensus
>And there's still research.
>just none that ever questions the consensus position
>totally real, honest research
>yup

>you've proven unable to substantiate any of your claim
When all else fails, declare victory for the day, and tomorrow carry on talking as if none of the points were made.

This is what we call "the scientific method".

>>8345469
>gets response addressing underlying assumption
But you didn't. You said something about scientists. I'm not asking you what you would do if you were a climate scientist, I'm asking you what you would do if you were you, or Al Gore, assuming AGW wasn't a global Jew conspiracy.

If you can't give a better answer, then really you can't use the whole "dishonesty" angle. Or are you claiming that there is no moral imperative to not destroy your own fucking habitat?

>>8345469
>just none that ever questions the consensus position
Every research that includes other factors questions the scientific consensus. You're just unhappy about how the results turn out.

Still waiting for those quantitative models who give a better account with solar activity, bubbey boi.

>>8345456
No I mean like what does the average Joe schmoe Republican get out of it? I mean yeah okay Exxon Mobil pays some conservative think tank to say what it wants which Rush Limbaugh repeats, but I mean whats going through the average Republican's brain when they so vehemently deny it? What's actually in it for them?

>>8345491
Preservation of their lifestyle I assume.

>>8345494
That would include your lifestyle too pal. since you are on a computer on the internet you are officially contributing. So carbon tax first then comes regulations on what you can eat(i hope you like bugs and soy milk becuase the UN sure as shit wont give up foie gras and lobster thats the serfs job) what car you can drive how long you can drive what you can buy and how much and from how far away you can purchase it from since you are on 4chan i assume you purchase some kind of imports occasionally (say goodbye to amazon and ebay). A carbon tax is a start it worms its way into your life next thing you know the jackboot is on your throat and you never even knew it was coming because you wanted to save the planet. I agree with a lot of the science but i always ask what does "reduce consumption" means. Its not a conspiracy by scientists they do get piblished easier if they toe the line. its the Elites who hate people who benefit the most from pushin alarmist positions. We should break away from fossil fuels they are finite and dirty but i'm sorry if i wont kowtow to some snobbish elite who thinks i enjoy life too much.

>>8345491
Whats going through your head when your deny natures way of purging an overpopulated species?
Let the fittest survive

>>8345635
>It's an unreadable schizo post
I'm not particularly attached to my lifestyle lad. And my computer is fully powered by nuclear power.

>>8345643
i admit i rambled a bit. My point is that Elites wont stop at conventional power generation methods they will strip away every liberty until you live in a one room apartment stack with no bathroom and no car,eating bugs and algae for the rest of your life. You think that the left pushing this cares about your standard of living? Fuck no they want the pie all to themselves just as much as any "right wing think tank" Also they hate nuclear too

>>8345643
Not the original poster you're replying to.

Post is readable and makes a relevant point.

Play your games, disregard and insult all you wish... but realize its at your peril.

>>8345643
My other point is that we should and can fight climate chnage but we should nit concede personal liberties on something that is obviously being used to scare us into forfeiting them. There is so much hyperbole surrounding this issue and its being bogarted by human hating dark green ideology

>>8345635
>admitting climate change is real and man made will 100% result in some dystopian situation where "the elite" force us all to live like shit just because therefore it my duty to deny it an ensure that everyone dies instead
I'm sorry but not only are you dumb but you're mentally ill as well.

>>8345650
Don't concede an inch to these despicable asshats. They don't play by any particular rules regarding honour/integrity. They label, lie, and backstab without a second thought whenever it suits their purposes.

The reason this one pretends to be concerned about global warming is because it sees an opportunity capitalize off nuclear.

They are opportunists. If it weren't this issue it would be another. Or maybe waiting on the street for a mark to rob blind.

>>8345655
Ok sure. This kind of political rethoric doesn't belong on /sci/ tho Alex Jones.

>>8345662
I think you missed my other points. Being skeptical of hyperbole, misrepresented research and political manipulations on a tenuous issue is not "denying"

>>8345650
>>8345657

enjoy your new life comrade.

File: 1472105973270.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>8345664
>it's a "schizo trying to pull everyone he can down with him" episode

>>8345669
>skeptical of hyperbole
You would think that would includes claims about every left wing politicians being out to lock you in a box.
It's not Obama's fault your life sucks. Seek help.

>>8345674
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

have some quotes all of these are real btw and from bona fide climatologists environmentalists and other people involved in this issue. i bet you wont read it anyway

>>8345674
also i voted for obama

>>8345650
>Fuck no they want the pie all to themselves just as much as any "right wing think tank" Also they hate nuclear too
"the elites" are already rich beyond your wildest dreams what can they possibly have to gain from making your dystopia come true?

>>8345677
>here is a bunch of out of context quotes that will confirm my schizoid delusions
The very first quote is technically right, which is the only kind of right that matters, and you're a living proof of it.
The general public doesn't vote on what is right, it votes on what it believes to be true, by definition.

>>8345345
>It is
Alright, please describe the dichotomy I've created. I said something isn't "oversimplified", it's flat-out wrong. A thing *could be things besides those two, it could be acceptably simplified, correct, overcomplicated, any number of things. But you claimed it was just oversimplified, and I assert it is fundamentally wrong. There is no dichotomy here.

>Every simplification is ultimately false
Yes. But that doesn't mean that every simplification can only be false due to it being a simplification. If a proposition was wrong and complicated, and I simplify it, it's fundamentally wrong regardless of me warping it to make it easier to explain.

>The Rutherford model is also false
It conveys the general idea of the truth, it's just wrong in that it sacrifices some of the truth in order to do it. What we're talking about is less like the Rutherford Model and more like the Four Humors model.

>And you still haven't provided a single valid answer
Probably because I haven't been asked a question.

>Imagine for a moment AGW isn't the result of a Jewish conspiracy
Right, le /pol/ notsee boogeyman. I never said anything about a conspiracy.

>The public still isn't taking it seriously though.
What is "it"? The public *does take AGW seriously, whatever it's source is. If "it" is the AGW-skeptic position, there's little I can do about public perception.

>>8345686
Ask any dictator why they abuse repress and indiscriminately kill their populations. To have an easily exploitable populace who will never threaten them and is simple minded and easy to control. Also many of them subscribe to extreme Green ideologies that lead them to believe that any higher standard of living is "unsustainable" no matter what i mean many people in here already espouse that view that modern life is "unsustainable" and that their lives are threatened by the populace having too much freedom.

>>8345689
Really i don't think you have to see context to understand the gist of what they are saying that they hate western society and its people. All you can do is call me schizo. I don't believe in NWO or JOOZ any of that crap but i do think that extremist environmentalism and its policies and proponents have an inherently anti human bias. look at Naomi Klein or any of the other authors who easily mesh either socialism or communism or any other form of totalitarianism with extremist environmentalism its like peanut butter and jelly it goes together perfectly.

>>8345694
>It conveys the general idea of the truth
What the fuck does that mean?

>I never said anything about a conspiracy.
You did several times.

I can't believe you have the guts to still show your ugly mug when your easily verifiable claim about models not including solar activity was so immediately wrong.

>>8345698
>I don't believe in NWO or JOOZ any of that crap
Then why are you discussing politics in this thread?

>>8342103
They can determine the temperature of past times from doing ice cores

>>8345702
Because if you don't think that climate policy and politics are inherently linked you are blind. Go on tell me how to solve climate change without just renewable and nuclear. you cant becuase people drive cars they buy stuff on the internet. they like to eat meat. all those things are bad for the environment and cause climate change according to the research. But the only way the government can stop those is by stripping your liberties away. We should fight it with capitalist ingenuity and western thinking not with economic restructuring and the destruction of industrial society

>>8345708
This is a /sci/ thread. Nobody asked you to sway the discussion about politics.
Your political rethoric is unwelcome, especially if you're gonna try to use it as an alternative to scientific arguments.

>>8345699
>What the fuck does that mean?
Like if I said the Earth is a sphere. That isn't the truth, but you get the general idea of the Earth's shape.

The Rutherford Model conveys the general idea of an atom's structure, protons and neutrons in the nucleus with electrons in layers around it. We know that's not entirely accurate, but it's sorta kinda good enough.

>You did several times
>your easily verifiable claim
I must wonder which posts you think are mine. You know 4chan is more than just you and one other person, right?

And I guess we're just dropping that whole "f-false dichotomy!" thing? Or was that not you?

this is the shit that happens when retards think it's okay to take sides on a quantifiable issue, and turn it into an us-vs-them thing instead of the fucking graphable trend it is

there is a consensus among the scientific community that man-made climate change is occurring; the effects are difficult to predict, but saying "it'll probably be no big deal based on my NOTHING evidence, so i'm going to ignore it" is the worst possible attitude anyone could take

>>8345708
>let's fight consumerism, excess, and personal luxury at the cost of something as personally intangible as "the earth" by using the power of PRIVATE BUSINESS! it's not the prerogative or the fucking raison d'etre of a government to supercede on its citizens' behalf when they start doing shit that is stupid, shortsighted, and demonstrably bad for them!

>>8345722
I also agree with this though i have trouble believing the apocalyptic rhetoric its an issue that should be tackled

>>8345727
So you are saying government has a right to intervene in private citizens lives and strip away their liberties because they live lives that are too luxurious and they like to buy too much shit according to some government bureaucrat who likely lives a life twice as luxurious? This is your brain on extreme environmentalism. Also what is your definition of "excess, consumerism and personal luxury" becuase a computer and internet is the definition of all those.

>>8345729
the problem with the rhetoric is that it's very worst-case, but it could also be a 100% accurate prediction; we could get some terrifying sea/wind-current fuckups that cause marine extinctions, topple terrestrial ecosystems on their heads, cause people in africa to freeze to death as people in scandanavia die of heatstroke, and eventually we all die

or it could turn out to be no big deal; the fact that it's a possibility, and that we have the means to set ourselves on a trajectory where we're not reliant on fossil fuels/massive inefficient farming setups means that we have the obligation to set upon that trajectory, if only as a duty to the future population of earth. like, let's be real, we're not colonizing mars anytime soon.

>>8345738
i'm saying that one of the functions of government is to circumvent what's known as the "tragedy of the commons". personal benefit sometimes comes at a direct cost to collective benefit.

i'm obviously not saying i want to live in soviet-era russia. please don't act as though there isn't a huge spectrum of "government-hands-on-edness" in between "literally the ussr" and "randian capitalist magic fictional utopia"

>>8345729
If that was what you wanted to discuss you would have started a conversation about it instead of segwaying into an existing one and trying to defend a full blown denialist.

>>8345720
>I was agreeing with the other guy but actually I wasn't but actually I never argued against the other guy who I disagree with, just with you because fuck you
Go fuck yourself. Don't come into a conversation and then complain people mistake you for the side you take.

>>8345738
>hey guys you're gonna have to pay taxes on oil guzzling cars instead of electrics
>WOAW OH MUH FREEDOM IT'S 1984 IN HERE

File: 1441852501372.gif (31KB, 258x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 258x375px

>>8342088
>people who care about a transient future they won't be part of
lmao

>>8345747
>>8345755
the problem is that it hardly ever stops at just a little interference. i know thats a slippery slope fallacy but do you really think that amount of power and control is going to stop at some taxes to halt something as big as climate change? Especially when the problem is something as nebulous as a "too high standard of living" The government is there to serve its citizens not control them like a disproving mother they should solve this problem with as little intervention into their lives as possible. many people who have a "high standard of living" are also just trying to support themselves and their families. of course there were posters in here arguing to not have kids so humanism isn't really the strong suit of this site

>>8345752
They guy you're whining about literally replied to the same post I did. If you took five seconds from feverishly typing your reply maybe you could actually check who you're replying to.

>complain
How was I "complaining"? Half of your post was about how I had the nerve to show my "ugly mug" in the thread after I made whatever claims. I literally cannot reply to that without telling you that you've made a critical mistake.

>>8345755
>paying taxes will in any way help the situation assuming mankind is primarily responsible for the Earth's warming
lol, if we really have caused as much damage as you people claim, even flat out ending carbon emissions won't help much, do you honestly think one country taxing one kind of emission will have any reasonable effect?

wait so now denialists ITT are admitting they're full of shit and that anthropogenic climate change is real but we shouldn't do anything about it because muh liberty?

baby steps i guess.

>>8345760
some people are just too weak to live with freedom and need to be manhandled by a strong government. i'm ok if they want that for themselves, the problem is when they force this babbying upon everyone else and feel their morality is justified in this meaningless universe.

>>8345762
Ok so you're the guy who has been heralding those high standards of honesty for scientists, but when some other guy ITT claimed absolute bullshit about the influence of the sun in climate models, you were just happy to completely ignore it and let those arguments sit on your side of the fence?

Mmmmmh, looks like those high standards don't apply to yourself.

>>8345772
i never denied agw but i always had an issue with your imposed morality, kid. the species will go extinct whether you like it or not, really doesn't matter when. what matters is those of us who are living get to enjoy this transient existence as much as we want. you're literally fighting for a future that may or may not be. wasting your life to feel high and mighty.

>>8345777
you're gonna die anyway so you might as well commit suicide now like what's the point of resisting the inevitable look how cool and nihilistic I am :^)


idiot

>>8345785
>misses the point entirely
>calls me an idiot
lmao, pottery.

>>8345777
>the species will go extinct whether you like it or not, really doesn't matter when.
Lmao. Please read that again.

>>8345772
I'm a "lukewarmer" so i guess i'm a "denier" too there is a large spectrum of skepticism you know. Also mocking liberty, get out commie.

>>8345773
Thats not for you or anyone else to decide that's why the bill of rights exists in America. And why so many countries have a democratic system. That includes you too buddy.

IMO
we are already solving Climate Change by bankrupting coal and making solar and wind cheaper and with nuclear though my optimism will look misplaced compared to the doom n' gloom in here.

>>8345789
extinction != me dying. extinction is reached with a sufficiently small population that cannot reproduce without inbreeding.

>>8345794
>Thats not for you or anyone else to decide that's why the bill of rights exists in America.
so those who wrote this bill get to decide? why? because you choose this bill to decide for you. be an individual and decide for yourself.

>>8345794
>Thats not for you or anyone else to decide that's why the bill of rights exists in America.
>taxing gas and coal and encouraging a transition to solar and wind violates the bill of rights

Can't make this shit up

>>8345775
>Ok so you're the guy who has been heralding those high standards of honesty for scientists
Are you just guessing? Here's all of my posts ITT.

>>8345321
>>8345324
>>8345326
>>8345337
>>8345694
>>8345720
>>8345762
There you go. Now you can actually reply to my posts instead of who you think I am! What a revolutionary concept, it's almost like we're on an anonymous forum where the content of a post is supposed to supersede the identity of the poster!

>you were just happy to completely ignore it
I made two posts replying to other posts, and all my other posts after those were in a reply chain to one of my original posts. Do I have to reply to every post in a thread to satisfy your standards?

>>8345805
sorry, >>8345324 was not me, I clicked it by mistake.

>>8344891
>coincidence
I think you missed some markup, buddy.

>>8345797
Because it exists means i can express my opinions and views without being put in prison for crimes against the climate. or have to submit to the will of a larger whole. It's because it exists that i am given rights as in individual. The bills existence doesn't make those rights happen it simply states what is given inalienably by nature and pardon my theism "god" I personally decide that i reduce my personal consumption for the better of the environment but its not my place to tell anyone else what to do nor is it the place of government

>>8345802
I was talking about personal liberty. I do think you should tax fossil fuel companies instead of citizens if you absolutely must tax somebody. I just dont want to be beholden to some foreign government because they think i live too well

>>8345829
overall i think i've made my point the best i can. Work with people to solve this problem instead of repressing them as all that will make them do is resent you. Climate Change can be solved in a civil manner without breaking down everything we have built based on computer models .0nths of a degree temp changes and some events that "might" have been because global warming. it requires action not demolition. Thats all i'm gonna say

>>8345832
Bringing the first world down to third world levels will only enable a totalitarian world police state that runs on the remaining fossil fuels. Taxes or not, they will be consumed, thinking anything else is denial of human nature, to survive at all costs. Many people make a living simply trying to control other people, a climate scientist is one of those hypocritical parasites on humanity, nothing more than a new age priest. I guess better because they haven't started molesting children they are indoctrinating with their computer simulation of doom yet but give it time, history repeats.

>>8345805
>Do I have to reply to every post in a thread to satisfy your standards?
Well I don't know man, do scientists have to resign from any institution that ever had a word for Al Gore movie?

>>8344883

There aren't even labels on those axes. Can this guy get a permaban?

>>8345892
No, they can work wherever they want. Now how about you stop changing the subject? Or are you just going to keep accusing me of being someone else in the thread you don't like?

I'm starting to think you're just shitposting.

>>8346453
>Now how about you stop changing the subject?
But wasn't that your whole point? How climate scientists aren't reliable because they didn't disavow Al Gore's movie hard enough for its inaccuracy?
If you're responsible for severely criticizing everyone on your side, why doesn't this apply to you in this thread?

What will it take to get everyone to believe that global warming is real?

>>8346465
...no. My point was that the movie was fundamentally wrong, as opposed to just wrong via oversimplification of the truth as someone else claimed. That is all I said.

>>8345469
>none of the research ever contradicts the consensus
>therefore it's all rigged!
...or maybe the consensus position is actually accurate? there's practically no research published today that disputes the existence of evolution through natural selection; does that mean it's all a massive conspiracy against creationism?
(by the way, there actually ARE a good few published papers every year that poke holes in consensus predictions. skepticism isn't dead, even if you denialists and contrarians have coopted the term.)

>>8342941
the article is even sourced from a right wing site

>>8345491
I (as a Republican) don't care about global warming. If global temperatures can be artificially inflated to a higher point, logically, so too can we find the means to lower it.

Yet as of now, I see all this forced gov't regulation and "green" initiatives as arbitrary methods to combat a problem that for the most part have not affected society as a whole.

That and being a waste of money.

>>8347676
and every pushing global warmist garbage is politically & financially connected to it.

File: w-oil1114.jpg (85KB, 606x346px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 606x346px

>>8342336

>implying the U.S. is dependent on sand niggers for oil

>>8342088
>"look /sci/ I follow Elon Musk on Twitter" the post

>>8342088
>extrapolating
>any given year
nice try retard

>>8347676
>if global temperatures can be artificially inflated to a higher point, logically, so too can we find the means to lower it.

That's a funny way of saying "I don't know anything about physics and chemistry."

File: Selection_047.png (3KB, 183x83px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 183x83px

>>8345747

>it's very worst-case, but it could also be a 100% accurate prediction

What are probabilities again?

Can we assign an expected value to climate change?

LINDIBEIGE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0iwI4LZ5go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TlD26uscdQ

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MkTISjmJXM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al5SZnjZzgw

>>8342859
>Nuclear is cheap as fuark.

Maybe in theory where everything goes without hiccups in the building process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3

>According to some estimates, Olkiluoto reactor could be the fifth or sixth most expensive structure in the world
>a single fucking reactor

>>8347970
>Can we assign an expected value to climate change?

Yes.

100%

Because it's already happening.

>>8347992
>autistic LARPer is also a nutjob
stop the presses

File: hedoesntsaynthing.png (932KB, 825x991px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 825x991px

>>8347895
>posts a graph that says half of the oil in US is imported

>>8347676
Holy fucking shit dude. Ignorance is truly bliss. I've finally figured it out, why republicans are literally retarded. It's ignorance. You fags can't be assed with accepting anything that changes the status quo either. Fuck you for fucking this country up.

>>8348344
And democrats are smart independent thinkers. Which is why Hillary is their canidate.

>>8348344
>Fuck you for fucking this country up.
lol Americans think that they're all not under the same shitty party, have fun burning as Europe only gets better at everything

File: 1469220869445.png (43KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 560x407px

>>8344822
>hotting up

File: 9c9f004d0c8b605667cd48abea134b8f.jpg (12KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x236px

Life is ENTIRELY dependent on luck, where you're born and what genes are dulled out to you at conception is entirely based on luck, if you're born in a shity environment with good genes you'll have more opportunities to thrive in that environment than a person with bad genes in a bad environment, if you're born with good genes in a good environment you'll have more opportunities to thrive in that environment than a person with bad genes born in a good environment.


life is a fucking lottery.

Help me cope.

>>8348387
t. future muslim shithole

>>8348021
Most of it is from Canada though, so he's right about the US not depending on sandniggers. They depend on mooseniggers.

>>8349772
You are doomed.
>>8345777
>imposed morality
>Why do they have to order me?
American logic.

>>8348021
It's more than half. We export most of our oil because it's more profitable.

The whole meme with climate change is that there's literally no model that accurately predicts man made contribution to it. It might be true but we have no idea.

>>8345447
kek

>>8344412
Trees are aesthetic though

File: 197.png (532KB, 632x760px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 632x760px

>>8343128
>graph doesn't start at 0

File: 177.png (34KB, 732x606px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 732x606px

>>8343337

>>8343432
wealth is not zero sum

>>8345050
That picture is a meme, you can be for renewable energy if you like, but the money has to come from somewhere, because renewable energy isn't cheap, nor is converting current transport etc, and if it costs money, that money is being taken away from things which people might deem more valuable to them. So acting like people who don't want to spend their taxes on renewable energy instead of something else they value like say, healthcare, or defense, are evil people who want the world to burn is just absurd

>tfw lame global warming threads trigger the /sci/ autist

what am I still doing here

File: a perfect 5 out of 7.gif (2MB, 352x199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x199px

>>8347676
>If global temperatures can be artificially inflated to a higher point, logically, so too can we find the means to lower it.
holy shit
this is what Republicans actually believe? honestly hoping this is just a troll, in which case I give it pic related

>>8350997
A E S T H ET I C