Why are scientists so committed to spreading the idea of climate

File: images.png (15KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 384x384px

Because it's happening you illiterate motherfucker, it's people like you that makes it hard for science to reach the general public.

>>8522754
/thread

>>8522754
says who

>>8522781
fuck off, groupie

>>8522754
>>8522781
Prove to me that "climate change" is a real thing

Do it using chemistry

>>8522796
>Prove to me that "climate change" is a real thing

Prove to me that "climate change" doesnt exist

This is fun, isnt it?

>>8522812
Oh and since you requested chemistry you must be fully versed at a high level so it would be a piece of cake for you to prove it wrong, with your expertise and all.

Oh boy this is fun tossing logical fallacies around..

>>8522812
>>8522818
burden of proof you literal absolute retards

>>8522838

Yes, im aware. I intentionally made a logical fallacy.

Problem is that there is a healthy list of people who say climate change is a thing and no one has refuted it. The research is there and it is your prerogative to ignore it. But we will shame you for doing so nonetheless.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

Climate change was proven long ago, the burden has readily changed to the opposite side as proof has been found. Now it is your job to show why they are wrong, because all evidence to the contrary so far has been narrow, cherry picked, or simply a description of one element of forcing/sensitivity vs every aspect.

>>8522812
You're making the claim. Burden of proof is on you.

>>8522754
$.05 has been deposited into your account

>>8522750

Why don't you watch this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

It's entertaining and educating at the same time

>>8522750
In order of effort:
1) Get through this playlist
>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
2) Read his sources.
3) Enroll to a climatology degree at your nearest university.
Have fun

File: AM_I_RIGHTXD.png (1MB, 1102x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1102x1600px

>>8522750
Actually, weather would be a good name for the global warming/climate change effect.

Lets call it "Unnatural Weather."

File: snakes.jpg (68KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x600px

>>8522750
Fuck off, we need to do something about the snakes.

File: find a different planet.png (255KB, 470x446px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 470x446px

>>8522750
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

but you won't get the fuck off my board

>>8522750
It's easier to manipulate people when you can make them feel guilty about something. Whether the actual thing is real or not is irrelevant.

File: 1477435167688 the man himself.jpg (20KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x333px

>>8522979

Weather: the actual thing is real.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00087.1

>>8523053
>implying deniers are going to even read that shit

>>8522750
OP youre an idiot.

Are there any other legit science forums that deny climate change as much as /sci/?

>>8522750
even if he's trolling; people like this are the reason Trump won the election

>>8523080
>legit science
>/sci/

>>8523086
>muh coal mines!

Hearty kek when they realize that the coal is never coming back.

>>8523115
and that the jobs that have and are leaving the country are never coming back.

will be interesting to see what Trump does

>>8522754
fpbp

>>8522796
Google 'emission spectrum of the Sun', 'emission spectrum of the Earth' and 'absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide'. There's your chemical proof right there.

>>8522812
>>8522818
>asked to provide proof
>goes on a insulting frenzy
That's how you know you don't have an argument

>>8523115
Pretty sure as long as humans roam earth, coal if accessible will be burnt. Obviously AGW is a literal power grab through a meme by parasitic entities but regardless of the parasitic load, fossil fuels will be burnt. All in all, AGW just seeks to make fossil fuels less efficient in order to feed more useless eaters like climate scientists, politicians and new age enviro priests pushing their inefficient and somewhat toxic alternatives such as wind and solar.

The real crises is not related to climate but will occur when these inefficient energy sources are fully merged with societies draconian parasites. It will be pretty much lights out and a world where parasitic entities typically thrive, hidden from the light, hidden from sight, feeding, engorging themselves, perhaps even multiplying and sucking the life blood from society as a whole while contributing nothing of value themselves.

>>8522894
If climate alarmism was actually knowledge, it could be explained and understood in layman's terms. Propaganda like this pretends to do so, but it misleads from beginning to end. For example, the claim that the models are predicting anything is fantastic: look into it and you will see that no matter how the temperature statistics had behaved in the last few years, there would be claims that the models agree with them. In other words, the models haven't been predicting at all. Yet the models are the lynchpin of claims that if fossil fuel usage isn't dramatically cut, the results will be catastrophic in a few decades.

The final claim in the video, that we should cut CO2 emission but NOT because of any prediction of catastrophe, is quite the spin. The reasonable viewer might notice the illogic: if there is no expectation of disaster, then it makes no sense to cut back on energy production. On the contrary, given everything we know, humans should be increasing energy production. Cheap energy -- which is overwhelmingly the province of fossil fuels -- is the lifeblood of civilization. Where cheap energy is not found, for millions of people, there is suffering and death. To understand the facts is to understand how dangerous and shameful propaganda like this is.

>>8523261
>>8522894
Only 7% of CO2 is from man. The Earth puts out the rest. This Guy made the mistake of believing scientists that manipulated data, and even Falsified data for crooked politicians so they can make money taxing us for everything that causes CO2. If you want to learn the real story and have fun doing it look up "The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies" on Youtube. It is funny and they explain things a LOT better than he does. Veritasium, if you're smart, you would take this post down because most people NOW have found out the truth about "Man Made Global Warming". Fist up, Fight for Truth.

>>8522796
Molecules in the atmosphere absorb IR rays from the sun. Thus, they become excited and start vibrating. These molecules then bump into other molecules in the atmosphere as they vibrate; the net effect is an increase in the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere as energy is spread out by molecular collisions. And the temperature of anything is directly proportional to the mean kinetic energy of the molecules that make it up.

Can't wait to hear your excuse as to why I'm wrong, even though I'm not.

>>8523080
>on the same website as /pol/
>denying climate change

You're actually surprised?

back to /pol/ cunt

We have already done too much damage. We are at a point where it is irreversible. All we can is have the attitude that at least it will not make the human race extinct in our lifetime

On another note, would you like to live in a time period knowing your species is going to die in your lifetime because it fucked up?.

>>8523080
>>8523092
underfucking appreciated

daily reminder to go back to /pol/ with all the other engineers

>>8523269
Fist Up Own Ass, Go Back to /pol/

>>8523288
>believing in chink hoaxes
>>/reddit/

>>8523261
go go go

back back back

to to to

(((pol)))

>>8523239
hey /sci/

Do you ever wonder if biofuels made from global warming denialists could be a renewable source of energy?

Join mean in supporting research into this important new fuel source.

>>8523300
plase lave

\pol\

plase

File: no one cared who I was till I put on the mask.png (929KB, 704x952px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 704x952px

>>8523269
>Only 7% of CO2 is from man.
That man is you.

>>8522750
>It was global warming, but then they changed it to climate change meme.

global warming causes climate change. scientists never did stop saying that the earth stopped warming.

>>8522750
Why are non-educated people so committed to denying it?

File: 1374179381937.jpg (40KB, 432x476px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 432x476px

>>8522796
Easy peasy lemon squeezy

From the American Chemical Society:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

What did she mean by this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M

File: 67e96bb3500309081ea31dfb44776362.jpg (75KB, 638x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 638x800px

>>8522750
please kill yourself.

>>8523455
she meant you should kill yourself

>>8522796
>Prove to me that "climate change" is a real thing

I don't need chemistry to do that.

Notice how one day it might be sunny and fine, and the next it rains? The climate has changed between those two days. You see? One day the climate was one way, the next day it's a different way. Change took place. In fact, it's always changing. Have you noticed the seasons before?

>>8523455
Damn, even the Weather Channel are done with these people.

>>8523513
climate is not weather, go the fuck back to /pol/

File: yaranaika.jpg (46KB, 513x583px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 513x583px

New topic: Prove climate change will harm any given anon more than all the annoying regulations

>>8523531

Yes, climate does involve the weather.


climate
ˈklʌJmət/
noun
noun: climate; plural noun: climates

the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

>>8522812
>of course it exists!! prove it doesn't ahah XDD
t. religionists/psychologists

>>8523539
oh a semantics argument how enlightening

lets all pretend that when we talk about climate we mean the climate in North America, or on Mars, or in the sun because we never fucking specified

The Climate in Climate Change refers to the Global Climate you autistic piece of shit, and it is not the weather

climate is not weather and don't you ever go around pretending that it is on this board again

>>8523533

go

back

to

/pol/

you

insufferable

faggots

Remember, /sci/, climate change deniers are the same people that reject ideas like evolution and think the earth is 6,000 years old. Why do you respond to these threads?

>>8523552
You're literally too autistic to live my man.

>>8523552
>The Climate in Climate Change refers to the Global Climate you autistic piece of shit, and it is not the weather

If the climate changes spatially and temporally, on the scale of hours, days, weeks, months and years, then it is reasonable to assume that it could change on the scale of tens of years, hundreds of years, centuries and so on.

Don't act like you read the discussion and have any idea what my argument actually is.

>climate is not weather

It is, it literally is, climate is prevailing trends in weather you stupid fuck.

>>8523553
Because unlike the stupidity of YECs, denial of AGW is pretty clearly linked to harm.

>>8523566
No, because the climate doesn't change spatially and temporally on the scale of hours and days. When a tornado knocks down a mailbox in Tennessee it doesn't change the jetstream. When a thunderstorm happens in New York, it doesn't change the amount of CO_2 in the atmosphere. When a stray group of clouds obscures the sun in southern China, it doesn't nudge the global mean temperature a bit.

Climate is the totality of the things that make the weather. Weather is the part, and it gives them such different properties that referring to them as the same object is ignorant at best. One of the more important ones is that the climate is damn-near closed, whereas weather systems are as open as your mother's gaping vagina.

>>8523566
>It is, it literally is, climate is prevailing trends in weather you stupid fuck.
"Prevailing trends in weather" Isn't "weather" though. The average US family has 3.19 people, do you think they need a whole room for the 0.19th person to sleep in?

>>8523603
>do you think they need a whole room for the 0.19th person to sleep in?
on average yes

File: Back to pol.png (322KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 546x700px

ᎩᏅᏌ ᎻᎪᏙᎬ ᎢᎧ ᏀᎾ ᏴᎪᏟᏦ

>>8523239
>>8523261
I think I have bingo!

>If climate alarmism was actually knowledge, it could be explained and understood in layman's terms. Propaganda like this pretends to do so, but it misleads from beginning to end.
o I am laffin

>>8523533
>annoying regulations

That sounds like something ExxonMobil would post.

>>8523300
>>8523513
$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

Thank you for helping us take on the world's toughest energy challenges™

-ExxonMobil

>>8522754
>weather is happening
Ok

The question isn't is the climate changing. The question is does it matter.
And if it matters.. what's the best way to go about changing it without crippling your economy with retarded regulation and carbon taxes.

Skeptics are the ones who keep changing the names and they've pushed them so much to the point that they've become common
Call it global warming and random people will tell you its climate change because they've been indoctrinated to by constant media exposure to that term spouted off by people who don't know what they're talking about
Look up who coined that term as being the same as global warming

>>8522869
You can tell when a thread is a genuine troll thread when the best post here was outright ignored by the OP

File: Pavlov.png (11KB, 476x152px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 476x152px

>>8524592
>who coined that term
I think 'climate change' was officially (EPA, NASA) introduced during the regency of the Lesser Bush because 'global warming' was deemed to be too ominous. Now climate change = shifts in climatic norms (includes global cooling). Unless brainwashed.

pollution, heavy metals, nuclear accidents, deep water horizon-like disasters and the like are still bad, right? or just a little price to pay for the trumptopia? brb, getting cancer just from breathing

I'm going to die in 40-70 years and not planning to have children. I want to benefit as a consumer right now because I'm poor. If GDP growth would be higher with less environmental regulation and carbon taxes, and if this outweighed the short term negative externalities, then I don't really care about climate change even if it is true, which I assume it is

>>8522750
Oh shit a political cartoon you sure showed them.

>>8524770
After reading a bit, it seems like the consensus among economists is that climate change is hurting economic growth and that a cap and trade system on carbon is the most market friendly solution with the least worst tradeoffs. Make the cap high enough to appease the right and there you have it. The left can't organize politically for shit so it's moot anyways

>>8524716
Look who coined that term. He's a known skeptic.

ITT : dumbfucks who can't distinguish "climate" and "weather"

Weather designs the physical phenomenons that bring us rain, snow, and sun. Weather is not disrupted or changing, or at least not enormously, because otherwise we would die instantly.
So of course there's going to be cold days, rain, and even some peak cold in some areas.

Climate on the other hand is the study of all these phenomenons in the medium-to-long terms. When weather is about how hot tomorrow will be, climate is about why the hurricanes have been so deadly, why it is almost never snowing in Western Europe any more, and why 40°C are now common occurrence in the Summer when before they were considered abnormal.

>>8524584
Renewable energy, recycling, and landmark protection provides much more and enrich the country more than blind resource mining.
A city that spends big amount on staying clean and recycling waste will see its tourism revenue increasing, as well as a rising standards of living. Not to mention how combatting pollution by favouring commuting also reduces traffic, improves quality of living for tourists & residents alike.

File: snow_britain.jpg (149KB, 621x750px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 621x750px

>>8524822
Antonyms of 'skeptic': adherent, believer, devotee, conformist.
Do we not have enough of these?
>>8524889
>almost never snowing in Western Europe
>40°C are now common occurrence
That is still considered abnormal.
How long have you been living here?

>>8522750
Why do you faggots think threads like this are welcome here? You have an entire fucking board dedicated to discuss nonsense like this. FUCKING USE IT. >>>/pol/

>>8525086
>literally arguing semantics

>>8522750
>I thought scientists wanted to spread the truth

Scientists are just people after all. Prone to virtue signaling, forming tribes, shitting on the enemy etc. Plenty of infamous shitstorms in math, physics, etc. Remember the "Science advances one funeral at a time"?

Now add that in this day and age science is increasingly centralized, depending on government funding, basically a monopsony. Not a good recipe for objectivity.

>I put all my savings in oil companies and am seeing the benefits for the first time in months because of the temporary market euphoria and cognitive dissonance surrounding the new president elect's self-contradicting use of the phrase "free market": the thread

>>8525175
These are the very same arguments anti-vaxxors and anti-gmo advocates use.

Why do you post on /pol threads /sci?

>>8522869
Why is consensus considered proof now? I can get loads of people to agree that race is not real, but we know that they're wrong.

>>8525175
You've convinced me. I'm getting all my information from /pol/ and Breitbart now, so we can both see the world objectively.

>>8522781
queerbait is queer

>>8525175
The problem with that statement is climate change is interdisciplinary now. You either must believe that nearly all scientists are in on some actual conspiracy together (which is ludicrous) or they know something you don't.

File: 022815_snowball.jpg (88KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x720px

>>8525086
>Antonyms of 'skeptic': adherent, believer, devotee, conformist.
>Do we not have enough of these?
People use different words to mean different things. "Skeptic" can also mean "non-believer", which has entirely different implications.

>>8526112
>Why is consensus considered proof now?
It's not.
People talk about "scientific consensus" because it's a very useful tool for gauging whether or not something is true. Obviously, looking at the evidence yourself is the best, but learning enough about a field takes time and effort, and there's a real danger of fooling yourself because you don't know the subtleties of the subject. Asking an expert would make sense, except that for basically any question you can find experts who disagree with each other.

So we appeal to the consensus of experts. If the majority of people who have dedicated themselves to studying X say that Y is true, it's probably a good idea to believe Y.

It's not perfect, but the alternatives are much, MUCH worse. See for example, politicians "debating" AGW.

>>8522754
Climate change is the worst meme possible

It's the elephant in the room, any other scientific field doesn't resort to false claims like le 97% of researches agree or pictures of sad polar bears

It convinced countless people that the world is LITERALLY ENDING IN 10 YEARS

Do you understand this? Can you at least admit THIS is bullshit?

Why is bill "the end is" nye making TV shows about how the world is ending in 10 years and calling everyone who denies climate change to be charged with murder?

This isn't the face of legit science

>>8524572
The satisfaction of having you climate toddlers throwing tantrums is enough for me. Even if I honestly believed in climate change being manmade, I'd still pretend not to because you're such fucking faggots.

Although it'd be nice if based exxon paid me some.

>>8526221
It's not that ludicrous when a "conspiracy" only requires a money incentive to be followed by adding "and its effects on climate change" to every research you do.

They don't need to attend any secret gatherings, just stay the course

>>8523295
>go back to /pol/ with all the other engineers
isn't that the truth. transitioning from university to an engineering job was like night and day. i have no idea why engineers are so conservative. probably because they've got no interests in anything other than blinkan lights and such. most engineers couldn't care less about something unless it happened on their doorstep.

>>8526296
Naked contrarians have shallow, contrarian motivations, news at eleven.

>>8526380
If you weren't such faggots and made it so easy to rile you up, it wouldn't be happening

>>8526294
> any other scientific field doesn't resort to false claims like le 97% of researches agree
That's not a false claim though. Also, yes, other fields HAVE resorted to that level of debate when put up against people who don't give a fuck about evidence. Look how biologists handled arguing with creationists.

>pictures of sad polar bears
>the world is LITERALLY ENDING IN 10 YEARS
Don't blame climatologists for crappy science reporting.

>>8526304
>It's not that ludicrous when a "conspiracy" only requires a money incentive to be followed by adding "and its effects on climate change" to every research you do.e
There isn't universally a financial incentive to do that, though. Many climatologists are working in countries where the government is pack full of deniers, or at least tries to down-play AGW and delay action against it. On the other hand, you have groups like the (now well known) climatologists working for Exxon, who wrote lots of internal documents talking about the risks of AGW.

Plus, there DEFINITELY is money and recognition in publicly denying AGW.

>>8526221
The fact that almost all of the different scientists are dependent on government $$$ for their livelihood is not to be ignored.

The fact that you pretend that very few of these scientists are specifically investigating whether or not Anthropogenic CO2 is causing catastrophic/disruptive/whatever-term-du-jour climate change appears to be of no concern to you. Must are just looking at or modeling the effects of a warming world; which almost no one denies.

You seem to have no grasp of just how ridiculous your false choice of "Climate Change is TRUE!" or else there's a "Huge Conspiracy" is.

Things almost all scientists believed in that were wrong:

Atoms are the smallest piece of matter.
Phlogiston theory of combustion
Continents are fixed
Space and Time are fixed
Classical mechanics.

By your reasoning, the only possible way all those scientists believed in those theories was because of a huge conspiracy. Get over your ridiculous strawman argument!

And go read up about Lysenkoism. And Deutsche Physick

>>8526389
>The fact that you pretend
The fact that you ignore

File: government-v-soon-funding.gif (22KB, 600x497px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x497px

>>8526384
>Plus, there DEFINITELY is money and recognition in publicly denying AGW.
Citation Please.
There's truck loads of money funding Climate "Scientists" and literally trillions in the whole green industry. Its very hard for an (non-famous) skeptic to get funding.

>>8526383
Contrarian blames others for his own faggotry, world shocked and appalled.

"If only we pretended to give a shit about him!" says panicking populace

"Oh, how could we have been so arrogant, dismissing his ideas just because they had no basis in fact or evidence!"

Women could be heard wailing and gnashing their teeth in the distance.

>>8526401
I didn't post any ideas or argue here

Just saying, that as long as you keep acting like little princesses, it's going to be fun to rile you up

>>8526404
And I'm saying that you are a shit person and that I'm not interested in convincing you of shit. Go fuck off to /pol/ or whatever hole you crawled out of.

>>8526396
>Citation Please.
Huh? There's definitely a bunch of well-known, well-paid deniers on the payroll of groups like Heartland and CFR. Many of them have training as scientists.

>There's truck loads of money funding Climate "Scientists"
Sure, in total. So what?

>and literally trillions in the whole green industry.
The Green industry doesn't pay climatologist's salaries. Also, it's tiny compared to Oil, Coal and Gas.

>Its very hard for an (non-famous) skeptic to get funding.
How so?

>>8526407
I didn't ask to be convinced of anything

>>8522754
>one image
>names it images

And you are calling who illiterate?

>>8526441
brainlets can't multiimage

File: retard alert.jpg (26KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 349x642px

>>8522869
>intentionally made a logical fallacy

You can't make this shit up

>>8522869
>Climate change was proven long ago
Yeah, I remember something about sea-levels rising a meter by 2010 in the 90s... Why did they push that back 100 years? Are we doing that good now?

>>8526304
Complete bunk. Right now climate scientists in the US are facing being defunded and disbanded. Instead of giving the conservative oil shills the answers they want they're sticking to the narrative that climate change is caused by humans.

If the incentive really was money they would be reversing their stance on climate science right now to support the new government's wishes. But they don't because ethics.

Your argument doesn't even hold up to the simplest of logic.

>>8526309
Yeah, I couldn't agree move. Engineers are all single-minded cunts who have as much empathy and taste as a potato.

Same for the blacks

>>8526577
The UN backs most of the AGW meme and their budget is for all intensive purposes a bottomless money pit. They may want to cut back on their wildly speculative and inaccurate models and just concentrate on pure fear mongering propaganda bombardments now anyway. Every tornado, hurricane or storm is ripe for exploitation in the meme machine.

I know if I was heading up the UN that's what I would do, the carbon taxes at all levels of government in all corners are sticking so to speak so who needs the "science" at this point? Besides, like has been repeated ad nauseam the last few years the debate is over! Just force the meme tax from here on out and tomorrows children will accept it as normal. The idea of a "climate scientist" is a bit inane anyway, can be relegated to part-time or weekend work and just pocket all that carbon tax.

The science of climate change for and against is total politicized dogshit.

However as long as it encourages asshole corporations to stop shitting all over the planet for a quick buck, I don't mind.

File: Capture.jpg (100KB, 834x649px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 834x649px

>Global Cooling meme again

During the period of the so-called "global cooling" scare, there were only 7, yes SEVEN peer-reviewed papers published on the topic, compared to over 40 papers published on the topic of global warming, all of which were highly cited, while the global cooling papers received hardly any citations at all.

There was never, and has never been a "Global Cooling" concensus among climate scientists, even in the period that proponents believe it came from:

Source:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>8526617
>I know if I was heading up the UN that's what I would do, the carbon taxes at all levels of government in all corners are sticking so to speak so who needs the "science" at this point?
Governments don't NEED to collaborate to construct massive, global scientific conspiracies just to raise taxes. They can already do that by themselves.

>Why are scientists so committed to spreading what they believe, based on the best available evidence, is the truth. I thought scientists wanted to spread the truth

There is a contradiction in here somewhere...

>>8526636
>https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
The ironic thing about all these global warming conspiracies is that these same people claiming conspiracy ignore the actual, documented trail of money from the petroleum industry giants like Shell, BP, Exxonmobil, Big Coal, etc. directly to denialist foundations and "think tanks" like Heartland, Cato, George C. Marshall and Global Climate Coalition.

There is a climate conspiracy out there, but it has nothing to do with renewables or carbon taxes. It has to do with a multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry collaborating and coordinating their efforts with foundations, organizations and individuals who promote and spread climate change denial. And they do it incredibly well, look at popular opinion on the topic today, their efforts and the millions of dollars they have spend helping spread misinformation has worked, and they have been doing it for DECADES.

>>8525175
This guy gets it.

>>8525175
>virtue signaling
This is just a made up /pol/ word

>>8526658
>>8526304
Please see

>>8526657
You actually believe that the global fossil fuel industry, which in the US alone is worth trillions of dollars, has no money or vested interest in spreading climate change denialism? You think they are the good guys here? You believe that they have no vested interest in eliminating their regulators so that they can earn more profits?

But no, the real conspiracy to you retards is scientists following the scientific process for decades, publishing and peer-reviewing their data and coming up with scientific models via the scientific process.

Next you'll say some horseshit about a "green industry" and "muh carbon taxes," same exact bullshit companies like Exxonmobil pay people like Roy Spencer to parrot for them.

I wish people would understand that all the science backing climate change is all based off models that are constantly changing because previous models failed to make accurate predictions. Sure, climate is changing but don't spout off the current prediction as fact. I think something comparable to what's going on is like if people spouted the age of the Earth hundreds of years ago when the science wasn't settled on it yet. One year you're saying it's thousands of years old, then millions, etc.

File: carpe-diem-oil-prod-20-to-15.jpg (60KB, 684x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 684x480px

>>8526667
Ya the climate change bullshit is really affecting oil industry production. They are controlling the masses you retard. They need useful idiots like you.

>>8526673
A useful idiot for the oil industry calls someone else one. P O T T E R Y

Also, have you ever heard of OPEC before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC#2014.E2.80.932016_oil_glut

>>8526678
Ya, the oil industry is fine. Stop pretending the world stops running on oil just because the thought police have enforced this perspective.

>>8526672
>I wish people would understand that all the science backing climate change is all based off models that are constantly changing because previous models failed to make accurate predictions.
That's utter bullshit.
The core science behind AGW is pretty simple, and can be shown only with basic physics and collected data. The models are there to make more accurate predictions, not as some kind of conspiracy fudging machine.

>>8526686
You just agreed with everything I said then came up with stuff to disagree with me with.

>>8526683
What the fuck are you trying to argue? Seriously, I can't even understand your point. Are you trying to say that the world still needs petroleum? No shit, did I ever once state that wasn't the case?

Getting off fossil fuels is not something that happens overnight, I agree with this, but we have to reduce our dependence on it. Nuclear exists and is a viable alternative as a jump-gap into more sustainable renewable energy. The petroleum industry has not helped with Nuclear however, they have a vested interest in maintaining their lead in the energy sector, and marginalizing Nuclear for the very same reasons they want to marginalize renewables. Look at countries like France who produces the vast majority of their electricity with nuclear. We could have been that way in the US, as well as leading the world in nuclear technology if our government wasn't so short-sighted, and special interests didn't rule Washington.

There aren't even any real arguments against renewables like wind anyways, some of the most vocal ones are that it is ugly / dangerous to birds or some other such nonsense, even though far more birds are killed from things like striking buildings / airplanes than the tens of thousands that wind turbines kill each year.

Solar is an advancing technology as well, and large concentrated solar plants are effective and can produce large amounts of energy in regions where there is a lot of sunlight year-round. There is plenty of potential in renewables, and there is no excuse not to invest and develop them when petroleum is a non-renewable resource.

File: 654.jpg (99KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x900px

Why do mods ban uni threads but not obvious /pol/ shitters and invaders?

>>8526725
/sci/ is a really slow board, with a very small userbase compared to other boards on 4chan. I'm not surprised at all that there's very little moderation here.

File: E3150003-Sonar_image_of_ocean_floor_showing_mid-ocean_ridge-SPL.jpg (251KB, 530x387px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 530x387px

>>8526389
You're confused. I'm a geologist so I know more about the natural sciences than matters of combustion and quantum mechanics and such. So I choose to explain to you how idiotic your statement is by describing the history of plate tectonics.

There was an old fashioned philosophical view that the planet was steady over long geological time periods. This was a belief, rather than a scientific theory. Call it an assumption people made. People had never set out to prove it because for centuries there was no way to do so. There was however a strange quirk in map making which was known since the first map makers were able to accurately draw the continents. That the east coast of South America fit the west coast of Africa like pieces of a puzzle.

The old philosophical belief still held and it was dismissed as chance. But strange things kept cropping up, like the Appalachian mountain range matching up with the ancient mountain ranges of Britain and Scandinavia and fresh water species existing on opposite continents between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Data was stacking up against what was always, up until that point, a philosophy, not a scientific theory.

Then came Alfred Wegener in the early 20th century. A meteorologist who studied ice flows. He came up with the theory of continental drift but unfortunately had no way to prove it. Nobody listened to Wegener for 50 years. Lack of evidence shelved his theory.

Until the United States military came along. They were mapping the sea floor and discovered the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge. Suddenly, decades after he died, Wegener's theory was proven (which is why it's a theory, not a hypothesis).

>>8523269
>Only 7% of CO2 is from man
Citation needed

File: nature02372-f2.2.jpg (183KB, 800x698px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x698px

>>8526389
Do you actually think now that continental drift or plate tectonics will be overturned? Here is actual seismic imaging of a goddamned fucking plate subducting into the mantle.

If you come up with a different hypothesis you MUST EXPLAIN THE DATA. There's no way on God's green earth you have a chance in hell of overturning plate tectonics now. It is not only a scientific theory give it a few more decades and it will be an established law as clear as Newtonian physics.

The overwhelming amount of data supporting man made climate change is almost as clear as plate tectonics is now. There's a few unclear points of data, like high altitude clouds and highly charged solar particles interaction with the magnetosphere but these things can't possibly overturn our understanding of man made climate change at this point. It would be like wondering what would happen to a high speed train in a rainstorm. You may not be able to predict how the rain will affect the speed of the moving train but you sure as hell can tell it won't be enough to force the train to move in reverse.

You've been given repeated access to data and studies. If you have an alternate hypothesis you MUST EXPLAIN THE DATA and stop using philosophical bullshit to evade the question. My guess is you're too ignorant to form a valid hypothesis anyway.

>>8526389
>The fact that almost all of the different scientists are dependent on government $$$ for their livelihood is not to be ignored
circumstantial ad hominem is not an argument. I thought they taught you about logical fallacies over there on good ol' /pol/?

>>8526755
>>8526768
I'm not a geologist, but I do have a BS in geology and you are correct. You don't see physcisists or biologists coming out and denying plate tectonics, they accept the science, even though they aren't geologists, nor do they have a deeper understanding of plate tectonics. The same can be said for climatologists / atmospheric scientists / earth scientists. I am not an expert on climate change either, but I accept the scientific consensus of the people who collect and validate the research / evidence and do the modelling.

Also, if I remember from my education, I believe the US navy was studying magnetism in the Atlantic in oceanic rocks or something like that, because it was crucial to understand it for detection of submarines during the cold war, and the data they collected showed that there was a spreading center in the Atlantic because of the reversals in magnetic field direction on the rocks they studied, in magnetic striping. This correlated with magnetic field reversals that align magnetic minerals within the rocks in different directions depending on the field lines. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a few years since I learned that stuff.

File: sticker.png (11KB, 367x522px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 367x522px

>>8526271
Opposite of 'skeptic': adherent, believer, ..
>"Skeptic" can also mean "non-believer", ..
Fascinating.

File: angery.jpg (46KB, 800x795px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x795px

There have been a suspicious number of /pol/-tier garbage threads recently. The Stormer-TRS coalition must be working overtime.

>>8523621
Only 1/4 family would have, so on average no.

>>8522750
>not fully believing that climate change is going to kill us all and its all our fault means you deny it exists

I fucking hate these threads, have a (You)

>>8526934

What's different about climate:

In the end is about energy policy. And all resource problems are reducible to energy problems. The political consequences are just *huge*. This is unavoidable.

File: 1448122803939.jpg (44KB, 301x267px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 301x267px

>>8526782
Sounds good

>>8526396
That's what 2 months in Afghanistan cost.

>>8526949
What I don't understand is why a silly climate meme and not just the facts? Fossil fuels are depleting and looks like we have already passed peak conventional oil globally, we are already seeing major oscillations in cost and production along with demand destruction cycles. Fossil fuels are critical to modern life and the ramifications of this depletion compounded by growing use by a growing population are enormous and far scarier than a changing climate which has always changed.

I think the disinformation and misinformation is a bad sign and a real indication of the true motives and intentions of the powers that be behind AGW. This is not about fixing anything and in fact making things far worse, this is about control of power and control of life, who gets it and who doesn't for what looks to be a rough ride ahead.

At first, pre 2k, it looked like the third world was the primary target of inefficient expensive alternative energy and technologies, draconian control of remaining resources but now it is obvious the first world working class is the primary target of the new age energy poverty model as they are the only class left with wealth and power for the new age AGW parasite to siphon from.

When things really start to wind down resistance to this control will rise that's for sure and looks to already be happening. The frog in the slow boil pot is getting a bit rowdy!

>>8526221
Or you can justifiably believe that anyone who goes into climate science is a brainlet unfit for physics, astrophysics, geophysics and so on, so their models should be considered worthless.

>>8527734
>I think the disinformation and misinformation is a bad sign and a real indication of the true motives and intentions of the powers that be behind AGW.
What "disinformation and misinformation"? So far people have just posted conspiracy theories.

>This is not about fixing anything and in fact making things far worse, this is about control of power and control of life, who gets it and who doesn't for what looks to be a rough ride ahead.
Now you're just making shit up.

>>8527750
You can believe that, but it's completely stupid.

>>8526409
>Huh? There's definitely a bunch of well-known, well-paid deniers on the payroll of groups like Heartland and CFR. Many of them have training as scientists.

Show the grants for SCIENTIFIC work. Not talking about lobbyists etc.

>and literally trillions in the whole green industry.
>The Green industry doesn't pay climatologist's salaries. Also, it's tiny compared to Oil, Coal and Gas.
But it sure does pay for propaganda. Much more money than the skeptics get.
And you said "Tiny"? Did you say that $1,500,000,000,000 is tiny?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm

And what's this?
$7,000,000,000,000 initiatives. Makes the oil companies look like bit players.
http://business.financialpost.com/investing/climate-change-initiatives-a-7-trillion-funding-opportunity-for-capital-markets-carney

Al Gore worth:
Year 2000: $700,000
Year 2016: $170,000,000

File: f97cd77fdd9692943cd3d18015eb3a0bad87687ad6e03800bbd6573a1296716c.jpg (388KB, 3032x2064px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 3032x2064px

>can't accurately predict tomorrow's local weather
>thinks they can predict global climate decades from now

>>8526768
>You've been given repeated access to data and studies. If you have an alternate hypothesis you MUST EXPLAIN THE DATA and stop using philosophical bullshit to evade the question. My guess is you're too ignorant to form a valid hypothesis anyway.

You are seriously butthurt. And stop pretending that the burden of proof isn't on climate change "science."

Beside, the actual hypothesis is simple, "anthropogenic CO2 does not cause catastrophic/disruptive/fear-du-jour climate change." No hot spot, not significant positive feedback, and there was a period of 17 years of flat temps. Sorry buddy, your theory has been falsified.

As I've said before, There was no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. Prof. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval).
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."

Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

There was an actual pause: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

>>8528501
Climate change is real, we're causing it, what you've said is not an argument.

File: 0 Global Cooling.jpg (63KB, 509x304px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 509x304px

>>8526630
Absolutely false.
285 PEER REVIEWED GLOBAL COOLI|NG REFERENCES RIGHT HERE!
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Kosiba, A. "The problem of climate cooling after 1939 (in Polnisch)." Czas. geogr 33 (1962): 63.

Fletcher, Joseph O. "Polar ice and the global climate machine." Bull. Atomic Scientists (1970): 40-47.
"... the cooling effect of the 1950s and 1960s shows that some other factor is more than countering the warming effect of CO2.... Man's contribution to the atmospheric dust load is increasing at an exponential rate.

Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate." Science 173.3992 (1971): 138-141.
" An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Lamb, Hubert H. The current trend of world climate: A report on the early 1970's and a perspective. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1974. "Much has been written about the global cooling... has been overstressed as regards to its practical implications... There are solid grounds for regarding this as a dangerous misconception."

Kukla, George J., and Helena J. Kukla. "Insolation regime of interglacials." Quaternary Research 2.3 (1972): 412-424. "...the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experiened hitherto by civilized mankind."

File: Cooling 1969.jpg (49KB, 631x430px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 631x430px

>>8526630
>>8528517
NEEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. "LAWRENCE UVERMORE LABORATORY." (1972). "Global cooling of natural origin could exceed in magnitude changes experienced in historical times.

Potter, Gerald L., et al. "Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation." (1975): 697-698.

Kukla, George J., and Robert K. Matthews. "When will the present interglacial end?." Science 178.4057 (1972): 190-202.

Gribbin, John. "Cause and effects of global cooling." Nature 254 (1975): 14.


Lamb, H. H. "Changes of climate." Wright & Moseley (1975): 169-188.

Fletcher, Joseph O. MANAGING CLIMATE RESOURCES. No. RAND-P-4000. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1969. "We may already be inadvertantly influencing global climate. ... a weakening circulation, southward shifts of ice boundary..."

Braslau, Norman, and J. V. Dave. "Effect of aerosols on the transfer of solar energy through realistic model atmospheres. Part I: Non-absorbing aerosols." Journal of applied meteorology 12.4 (1973): 601-615.

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have Had An Ambiguous Climatic Influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.

Carter, L. J. 1970. The global environment: M.I.T. study looks for danger signs. Science 169: 660-662. Increased turbidity causes gobal cooling.

Lamb, H. H. 1969. Activite volcanique et climat. Revue de Geographie Physique et de Geologie Dynamique 11: 363-380.

>>8528517
...and how many were published supporting the warming hypothesis? Because, just saying a number doesn't do much here, if there were 2,850 articles published in this time frame and the rest supported warming, your number is only 10% of the total.

File: Hansen 1981.png (120KB, 689x628px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 689x628px

>>8526630
>>8528523
There was an 83% consensus on global cooling at the time.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s

>As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” >is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the >1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate >influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged >CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the
>“non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Bryson 1974. A perspective on Climate Change. Science. 184:753-760. The "debunking" paper falsely classifies this as "neutral." Bryson thought anthropogenic aerosols were causing global cooling.

Byerknes, J., 1958: "Related Fluctuations of Trade Winds and Northern Climates," Geophysics Helsinki, Vol.6 , No. 3-4. 169-177

Budyko, Mikhail I. "The future climate." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 53.10 (1972): 868-874

>>8528523
That's also a graph of temp. in the northern hemisphere, there is a reason it's called climate change. You do know how averages work, right? Also, what about global heat content? That's another major indicator that denalists never touch.

>>8528528
>notrickszone
Oh lord, with title like ''MASSIVE COVER UP EXPOSED'' I'm sure it's extremely high quality material.

Do you have access to any scientific repositories, can you produce a meta study showing the conclusions of climate articles published since the 1970s? Can you also produce the logic behind the point I think you're trying to make, which is wholly religious. Because the hypothesis changed therefore it's never advised to take the prescriptions and warnings headed by the results of experiments into account?

>>8527734
You have to understand the mind of conspiracy theorists. In an effort to excise themselves from the masses, or ''sheep,'' they'll devise a ''truth'' that they're privileged too as a touchstone for their elevated status. They are the underdog, they are on a noble quest to spread this ''truth'' to others, who will then immediately recognize the worth of their newfound teacher. This restarts the cycle, the original ''teacher'' is validated by this elevated status, his quest continues. Theorists possess this remarkable ability to partition their mind, taking without reservation information from strangers that is contrary to the evidence, while inferring that the ''truth'' they possess is the real ''truth'' and it's being actively suppressed for nefarious reasons. They are the hero in the story, their narrative is one of fighting against a Goliath. Only this David is delusional, and they're not fighting giants, but windmills.

A great example is found here in this thread. The global cooling consensus is a myth that paints the propagator as someone who has ''done their homework'' and ''found the truth in plain sight'' without realizing that what they've found is the ''truth.'' It's no secret that climate science has matured since the 1960s, and it's also no secret that LBJ was warned about the long-term impacts of human action on the climate. The American Metelogical Society has done peer reviews of the literature, and you'll find their results starkly in contrast with the idea ''ALL OR MOST SCIENTISTS THOUGHT THE EARTH WAS COOLING IN 1960s and 1970s.''

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

File: milk.gif (23KB, 648x418px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 648x418px

>>8528341
Seriously? There is blatant fear mongering in the AGW realm to start with, when did pure science ever come off like that? It's very unlikely the supercomputer climate models are predicting anything accurately and yet it is published as fact and unarguable. We have climategate which could just be the tip of an iceberg, hordes of new age climate scientists completely biased before they even hit the virtual climate lab. I mean everyone wants a juicy paycheck and probably nice work if you can get it but to say there isn't bias from the getgo with these people would be naive.

As far as the power grab goes and making things worse it most certainly will. The field of climate science is not offering any sort of solution to their doom prophecy, just an extra tax load on the population that shuffles carbon credits around, enables governments to enlarge and bloat on the premise of saving the people from themselves - this is also a very naive path as history has so often proven. Fossil fuels will continue to be used on the same scale they always have until the EROEI is less than 1 and probably beyond. Such a plan, to control all emissions on earth would require a draconian totalitarian regime the likes of which has never been seen but often fantasized about in the head of every despot who ever walked the face of earth.

AGW aside, the best course is to stay the course, let the free market dictate the price of fossil fuel and if mass nationalization happens so be it. Drop the misplaced fear mongering, it's unproductive and accomplishes nothing, smells like religion. When cost of fossil fuel swings up again there is a natural response from the alternative sector and the most efficient systems may establish themselves on their own merit. Government subsidies into ridiculous CO2 sequestration and highly inefficient alternatives will make things worse than they have to be.

They want "social acceptance".
Scientists are by definition low-test, low sosial status and mostly retarded individuals seeking sexual activity through retarded means->they retarded.
They can't even grasp really fucking simple principles like if sun gets blocked in, it also get blocked out.
2. The point of reducing fossil fuels is for "eternally" working earth, without the need for limited resources.
3. We want to use non-cancer producing chemicals for energy.
4. most importantly, people dont give a shit about someones cancer lottery, they would rather play and get a few certain pros. As for them the pros outweigh the cons of toxic chemical emissions. Accept that the "people" are retarded and barely worthy of life, and unworthy of a vote.
Now thank your deity or principle for getting to read this.

File: Frequency_distribution_of_climate_sensitivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png (3KB, 652x152px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 652x152px

>>8528493
>But it sure does pay for propaganda. Much more money than the skeptics get.
The money isn't going to proponents of AGW, it's going to climatologists. You can't just assume corruption, you actually have to demonstrate it.

>And you said "Tiny"? Did you say that $1,500,000,000,000 is tiny?
Compared to oil money? Yes, that's tiny.

>Al Gore worth:
Why the fuck are deniers so obsessed with Al Gore?

>>8528495
Weather isn't Climate.

>>8528501
>And stop pretending that the burden of proof isn't on climate change "science."
They've met their burden of proof. If you want to challenge the established view, it's on you.

>Beside, the actual hypothesis is simple, "anthropogenic CO2 does not cause catastrophic/disruptive/fear-du-jour climate change."
It also appears to be wrong.

>No hot spot
The hot spot wasn't a prediction of AGW. It's absence is interesting, but not a contradiction.

>not significant positive feedback
Basically every study shows significant feedback.

> there was a period of 17 years of flat temps
1998 was a warm year, particularly on the satellite record. A single unusual year doesn't invalidate a trend that's been running for most of a century.

>The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
NOAA (no "the") tends to use surface records, which are widely considered more reliable. The surface record doesn't have the "hiatus".

>There was an actual pause
>McKitrick
No.

>>8528517
Your list of papers is bullshit.
Looking through the list, there's a bunch of papers talking about the cooling trend in the 1940's (which is real), and a bunch of papers that say nothing about global cooling at all. There's also papers talking about the very long term cooling, and papers talking about volcanism.

It's as if someone for "cooling" in a bunch of journals, and paid no attention to what the found because they wanted the biggest possible number.
>notrickszone
Oh. Well then.

>>8528528
>There was an 83% consensus on global cooling at the time.
Just stop. This is stupid.

>>8528561
>fear mongering
>bias

The only two words in the climate denier's dictionary!

>>8528561
Here is another sign of the paranoid, the damaged, borderline insane. The illusion of an ''us'' vs. ''them'' mentality, again the proponents always fancy themselves the hero. Here the evil is the government, spoken of as if it were a monolithic entity, a hive-mind, when in fact it's composed of multiple agencies and bureaus each looking after their own interests. But such a candid look at THE government doesn't suit them, the villain has to be nefarious enough to inspire fear and organized enough to give the listener cause to believe they could really be pulling off something so sinister and evil. This one reads like a lament against their helplessness, a condemnation of the lion's perceived injustices from the perspective of a lamb.

Here our specimen isn't really arguing anything, but they're tossing out several hooks to see which one sticks; the government is evil, their trying to strangle the fossil fuel industry, no plan will work, there is no plan, etc.

>>8528585
I should also mention that these types have a built-in defense mechanism copied straight from religious doctrine. It's best summarized as, the more we're fought, the more that disagree with us, etc. the closer to the truth we are. This mindset allows individuals to proudly declare themselves correct in light of any evidence to the contrary, explains why such weight is given to parts of data, removed from context, while thoughtful examination is easily dismissed as a conspiracy against them.

>>8528585
I don't know if you have been living under a rock your entire life and are completely ignorant of history of something but fascism has been rising for more than one generation now so maybe it all looks normal to you, to have enormous all empowered governments working hand in glove with enormous multinational corporations.

Read the post again, the solution is to drop the fear mongering over climate and address the real problem which is depletion of fossil fuels and who is going to be controlling those depleting resources from here on out and through what means. My solution is leave it to the private sector and the free market to decide along with the population at large, the last thing you want to do is assign that responsibility to a parasitic entity that contributes nothing to a solution and consumes large amounts of money and resources enforcing draconian polices it drafts on the fly based on mountains of bullshit like a department of climate change which my own country recently spawned.

If you are not paranoid of fascism in this day and age you are simply not paying attention. Good luck!

>>8528561
>Seriously? There is blatant fear mongering in the AGW realm to start with, when did pure science ever come off like that?
Whenever people were actually at risk.

>It's very unlikely the supercomputer climate models are predicting anything accurately and yet it is published as fact and unarguable.
Have you never looked at a scientific journal in your life?
Nothing in them is published as "fact and unarguable" - they're platforms for shit to be argued about.

>We have climategate which could just be the tip of an iceberg
Three investigations, no evidence of significant wrongdoing.

>hordes of new age climate scientists completely biased before they even hit the virtual climate lab.
What?
What the hell is a "new age climate scientist"?

>The field of climate science is not offering any sort of solution to their doom prophecy
Yes they have, "stop emitting so much CO2". I think you're confused about what the job of climatologists actually is.

>just an extra tax load on the population that shuffles carbon credits around, enables governments to enlarge and bloat on the premise of saving the people from themselves
You're confusing climatologists with politicians. Also, the political dissuasion on how we should solve a problem is distinct from the scientific discussion of what the problem is.

>Fossil fuels will continue to be used on the same scale they always have until the EROEI is less than 1 and probably beyond.
That would be a terrible plan.

>Such a plan, to control all emissions on earth would require a draconian totalitarian regime the likes of which has never been seen but often fantasized about in the head of every despot who ever walked the face of earth.
No-one but you has proposed that.

>AGW aside, the best course is to stay the course, let the free market dictate the price of fossil fuel and if mass nationalization happens so be it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
At least TRY to read something before commenting on a subject.

File: 01 Linear Forcing 1.3 C.png (82KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 720x540px

>>8522964

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9

" Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century."

False, Monotonic yes, accelerating, no. See

Thomas R. Knutson , Rong Zhang, & Larry W. Horowitz. Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century. Nature Communications 7, Article number: 13676 (2016) doi:10.1038/ncomms13676

For a graphic of the non-accelerating warming see, pic related:

The rate is linear and equates to a climate sensitivity mere 1.4 C degrees! Keep in mind that this graph is based on the heavily tampered Hadley CRU data, meaning that satellite data would show a much lower climate sensitivity!

https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/30/prospects-for-a-prolonged-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-the-early-21st-century/

I'm sorry that Professor Curry, the former head of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences is an evil denier. So much for a "consensus."

>nb4 but they didn't detrend the AMO!
Great circular reasoning buddy." Gosh the AMO has nothing to do with long term temperatures, so if it exhibits a trend, we'll just subtract it off!"
'Cause any trend must be caused by anthropogenic CO2.

>>8528621
>>8522964__________________
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 15 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
“…The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing…”
columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 1 March 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
doi:10.1038/nclimate1863

Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
doi:10.1002/grl.50541
__________________
Met Office – July 2013
“The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
….Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
__________________

>>8528607
>Read the post again, the solution is to drop the fear mongering over climate and address the real problem which is depletion of fossil fuels
Don't just assert shit to people who'll disagree with it, it makes you look like an idiot.

>My solution is leave it to the private sector and the free market to decide along with the population at large
That's a terrible plan. Why do you think we have things like emissions regulations?
Look up "The Tragedy of the Commons".

>the last thing you want to do is assign that responsibility to a parasitic entity that contributes nothing to a solution and consumes large amounts of money and resources enforcing draconian polices it drafts on the fly based on mountains of bullshit like a department of climate change which my own country recently spawned.
What the fuck? Did you just have a stroke or something?

File: 02 Greenland Ice.png (184KB, 817x464px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 817x464px

>>8528621
>>8522964
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

What did they say?
" The relation between changes in modern glaciers, not including the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica."

Nice cherry-picking! Antarctic Sea Ice is growing:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
and its mass is growing:
Zwally, H. Jay, et al. "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses." Journal of Glaciology 61.230 (2015): 1019-1036.
And Greenland ice is growing, see pic.
I guess climate "scientists" ice/snow that isn't doing what it's supposed to do.

Greenland is growing:
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

>>8528621
>>8522964
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
- continued
before you do the simpleton science certified "hurr durr denier trick of cherry picking 1998" isn't it funny how so many climate scientists acknowledged that pause?

Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”

__________________
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010
Does the Global Warming Pause in the Last Decade: 1999-2008?
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;….Themodels did not provide answers to the physical causes for warming pause. The mechanism still remains controversial….”

__________________
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
The role of natural climatic variation in perturbing the observed global mean temperature trend
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”

__________________
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides…”
__________________

File: 03 - NO HOT SPOT SANTER 2005.gif (140KB, 1022x707px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1022x707px

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

" the uncertainties of model projections must be balanced with the risks of taking the wrong actions or the costs of inaction."

Muh, Pascal's Wager. Except for they conveniently forget to talk about economic destruction, and the severe risks of acquiescing to United Nations' governance.

Generally speaking, Climate 'Scientists' vastly underestimate the uncertainties in their models, pic related. And go back and look at:

Thomas R. Knutson , Rong Zhang, & Larry W. Horowitz. Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century. Nature Communications 7, Article number: 13676 (2016) doi:10.1038/ncomms13676

File: 05 Sherwood trys to find a hot spot.gif (71KB, 1017x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1017x400px

>>8528652
>>8522964
- continued

>nb4 Sherwood's bogus paper.
Sherwood tormented the troposphere data into getting a tiny hot spot by kriging wind data. And adding 2005 to 2012 data.

Only one problem. THERE WAS NO TROPOSPHERE WARMING DURING THAT TIME. So how could a hot spot appear when there was no warming?

Pic related, Sherwood on left. Reality on the right, actual predictions in the center.

How funny that millions of radiosonde measurements are wrong, not to mention highly accurate satellite temps. But bizarre wind correlates which get tweaked to get the desired effect! How can you look yourself in the mirror while taking that ad-hoc rubbish seriously?

>>8522869
>But we will shame you
Are you a woman, a numale, or "other"?

>>8528621
>Keep in mind that this graph is based on the heavily tampered Hadley CRU data
Conspiracy nonsense.

>>8528634
What are you even trying to show there?

>>8528642
>Nice cherry-picking! Antarctic Sea Ice is growing
You're bring this stuff up like it's some kind of bombshell, when it's actually just common knowledge.
Global warming is North biased, so there's not a lot of point comparing stuff to the Antarctic ice mass trends.

>>8528652
>the severe risks of acquiescing to United Nations' governance.
More conspiracy nonsense. The UN isn't some kind of NWO. They don't get to goven shit.

>Generally speaking, Climate 'Scientists' vastly underestimate the uncertainties in their models,
You actually need to demonstrate that. Stop just asserting shit.

>pic related
We've already been over this. The "hot spot" wasn't a prediction of AGW.

File: 04 SOUTH POLAR TEMPS NO WARMING FOR 35 YEARS.jpg (62KB, 484x292px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 484x292px

>>8528656
>>8522964
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

Cherry picking the Southern Peninsula of Antarctica. What about the rest of that continent? Oh yeah,
Flat to negative temps for decades. Pic related. And go back and look:

Record Antarctic sea ice:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
Growing Antarctic Snow/Ice mass:
Zwally, H. Jay, et al. "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses." Journal of Glaciology 61.230 (2015): 1019-1036.
In short, a deceptive article.

Oh, and the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling for nearly 20 years.
Turner, John, et al. "Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability." Nature 535.7612 (2016): 411-415.

>>8528649
I'm not the guy you're speaking to, but what why are you framing the issue in such stark a fashion? Here you say:

>.. isn't it funny how so many climate scientists acknowledged that pause?

No, why would it be funny? It happened, it's something that occurred. The only way you'd think this is ''funny'' is if you believed some grand cover-up and widespread distortion of the evidence. On a geologic time scale, a decade is a fraction of the blink of an eye. All you've done is opened the door to another question:

Did the warming of the previous decade have more to do with solar irradiate than we thought? Did we get the weighting wrong with respect to warming factors? It's not a silver bullet at all, why are you framing it that way? If you are blaming the Sun, can you also find some evidence to suggest that the Earth's heat content displays the same pause?

I'm curious here, because as I understand it temp. data isn't the only measure but the amount of heat trapped in the Earth due to the greenhouse effect includes lag effects, etc.

File: GISS - Hansen Rewrite History.gif (173KB, 657x594px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 657x594px

>>8528667
>>Keep in mind that this graph is based on the heavily tampered Hadley CRU data
>Conspiracy nonsense.
Look at these graphs buddy. (CRU and GISS keep in close contact and both use the same data set)

>>8528670
What are you even arguing for?
No-one asked about the temperatures at the south pole. No-one is surprised that they're not warming. You're just spamming this shit because you think it somehow discredits AGW, when it actually doesn't.

>>8528675
almost like relative temperature anomaly is relative

>>8523302
Is there anything worse than seeing people misuse memes?

>>8528675
Cute picture. It doesn't demonstrate anything.
Read through the actual paper where they proposed the adjustments, and criticise the decisions they made.
"They changed it so you're lying" is an absurd line of reasoning.

>>8528667
>>>8528642 (You)
>>Nice cherry-picking! Antarctic Sea Ice is growing
>You're bring this stuff up like it's some kind of bombshell, when it's actually just common knowledge.
>Global warming is North biased, so there's not a lot of point comparing stuff to the Antarctic ice mass trends.
>Global warming is North biased,
Because they theory failed in the South? Sorry buddy but the original predictions failed:

Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

And the embarrassment of failure in the South Pole led to the ridiculous theory
"Global Warming creates more Antarctic Sea Ice." But even that's been debunked:
Shu, Qi, Zhenya Song, and Fangli Qiao. "Assessment of sea ice simulations in the CMIP5 models." The Cryosphere 9.1 (2015): 399-409.

"Forty-nine models, almost all of the CMIP5 climate models and earth system models with historical simulation, are used. For the Antarctic, multi-model ensemble mean (MME) results can give good climatology of sea ice extent (SIE), but the linear trend is incorrect. The linear trend of satellite-observed Antarctic SIE [sea ice extent] is +1.29 (±0.57) × 105 km2 decade−1 ; only about 1/7 CMIP5 models show increasing trends, and the [modeled] linear trend of CMIP5 MME is negative with the value of −3.36 (±0.15) × 105 km2 decade−1"

>>8528689
>Because they theory failed in the South? Sorry buddy but the original predictions failed:
So you're claiming they changed the thery in response to new evidence?
Wow, what a shocker.

>>8528635
Tragedy of the commons? We are well past that stage and resources are rapidly depleting, there are no commons left. What part of fascism do you not understand? What part of the revolving government - corporate door do you not grasp? The private sector alone provides the service and the consumer pays for it, why add a layer of bureaucracy in the middle picking their nose and taking a cut? Deciding which corporate entity gets what based on whose dick was sucked last?

A stroke? Do you not believe my country actually spawned a literal 'department of climate change'? This is what your idiot tribe of AGW cultists is already creating. Sometimes I wish I did I guess, this new bloated outfit will pretend to be doing the people of my country well and protecting them from an evil changing climate full of deadly CO2 particles. In reality, all it will do is create big fat people who wear ties and revolve between corporate board rooms and government offices in ivory towers.

>>8528689
What does this say about AGW as a world-wide phenomena?

File: 100 Billion is all we want - IPCC.jpg (169KB, 1537x715px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8528667
>>8528652
>>the severe risks of acquiescing to United Nations' governance.
>More conspiracy nonsense. The UN isn't some kind of NWO. They don't get to goven shit.

At this point you're waxing delusional. The Climate Change treaty they've been trying to negotiate (for many years) gives them some genuine powers of governance. And of course, they're going after that $100,000,000,000 a year.
Pic related.

>>8528692
Please go back to /pol/.

>>8528691
>>Because they theory failed in the South? Sorry buddy but the original predictions failed:
>So you're claiming they changed the thery in response to new evidence?
Could you be any more disingenuous?
They didn't change the theory in any substantive way. They tweaked it so the lacks of melting south pole sea ice results didn't falsify their predictions. Namely their predictions of significant warming at BOTH POLES.

See the original citations:
>>8528689
Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Hiroshima should prevent any IP that has posted on /pol/ from posting on /sci/ for the next 72 hours

>>8528682
>Cute picture. It doesn't demonstrate anything.
>Old temperature data contradicts my faith so I dismiss it.
I read the paper, and it was problematic. They did a time of reading adjustment to past data which made Urban data COLDER than rural data. Impossible.

And they also "tested" their algorithm so that when it only used "rural" data, it cherry picked data that matched urban data. In other words, the data used for "homogenization/corrections" when chosen from rural data was way different (warming more) from the regular data. That ugly little fact was carefully buried in the supplementary material; they hoped no one would notice it. But I did. So yes, homogenization pulls in urban heat or a rural proxy for urban heat. And that is crap.

Besides, despite your faith in pal reviewed writing, It doesn't demonstrated that the actual data processing is done just as it is described by the paper.

File: ed9194ac401a5c18ec1fb2a94b8c2b59070c240c5e24a2057783b8fb0b66ea16.png (75KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 400x400px

>>8528577
>Weather isn't Climate.
yeah weather should be easier to predict. lmao

File: amaps.png (88KB, 756x488px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 756x488px

>>8528692
>Tragedy of the commons? We are well past that stage and resources are rapidly depleting, there are no commons left.
What the fuck?
That's completely retarded.

>What part of fascism do you not understand? What part of the revolving government - corporate door do you not grasp?
I feel like this isn't actually a discussion, and you just want to rant about something off topic.

>>8528694
>At this point you're waxing delusional.
Says the conspiracy theorist.
I don't know if it';s just you or a bunch of people. but there's been non-stop spam of that picture and "the UN-NWO is coming!" nonsense in every damn thread. Actually put some forward even the slightest evidence, or fuck right off to /pol/.

And no, I don't care who the Pope shook hands with.

>And of course, they're going after that $100,000,000,000 a year.
No they're not. If they were, you would have given a source the last dozen times I asked for it. You made that up.

>>8528703
>Could you be any more disingenuous?
Yes, lots.

>They tweaked it so the lacks of melting south pole sea ice results didn't falsify their predictions. Namely their predictions of significant warming at BOTH POLES.
I'm still not sure why you think this is a big deal.
The South pole is warming slower than predicted. The North pole is warming faster than predicted. That's all very nice, but it doesn't change the big picture - which is warming of global average temperatures.

File: despots.jpg (252KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1000x1000px

>>8528699
Why is it that all your tribe can do is copy and paste graphs and charts of simulations provided to you by your handlers or resort to ad hominem and strawman attacks?
Why so allergic to conspiracy? After all it makes up the bulk of most criminal codes but you somehow think people in power are immune to plotting, scheming and intrigue?

In the case of AGW there couldn't be a more blatant conspiracy by certain elements in society, some in government, some in the private sector, some even in what appear on the face of it to be 'benevolent' charity fronts or environmental fronts I suppose, seeking an all encompassing planetary control of fossil fuels as we live in the oil age. It has to be the most open conspiracy hidden in plain sight ever and gets more obvious with every passing day, by who opposes it, who supports it and some well documented history.

>>8522754
Well then why doesn't science research how to reach the general public if it's so great?

>>8528676
>No-one asked about the temperatures at the south pole. No-one is surprised that they're not warming. You're just spamming this shit because you think it somehow discredits AGW, when it actually doesn't.

Wrong. I'm sorry that now the IPCC pretends that they didn't predict significant warming at BOTH POLES. But they did. See the references here:
>>8528703

>>8528721
And there it is, it's the fucking Pope again.
Fuck off.

>>8528721
I haven't copied or pasted one picture in this thread. But, seriously, go back to /pol/, if you've got something for us to read present it, give us evidence. If you're just going to make claims without backing them up, you're doing this:

>prove me wrong

It's nonsense and doesn't contribute to anything. You've made dozens of claims, and you're exactly the type of lunatic mentioned:

>>8528560
>>8528585
>>8528600

You don't present anything to analyze or dissect. You just say ''X is true and if you don't believe it it's because you're a sheep.''

>>8522796
IR spectroscopy indicates that double bonded carbons w/ heavy atoms like oxygen absorb large amounts of energy in the deep infrared. Oxygen itself is a greenhouse gas, though. So scientific community be runnin in circles cuz they ain't gonna fix climate change no matter what they call it. Besides, CO2 does more good than bad buffering Oxy and preventing it from augmenting fires. So it's pretty much needed. The best solution is alternate energy.

>>8528724
Okay, if a prediction in a specific region turns out to be incorrect but the overall message of warming is true...what then? Do we just toss the whole theory and start again?

>>8528577
>simulated
Bruh, post the hole damn article so we can see the failed hypothesis in the conclusion.

File: hot spot prediction and measurement.png (103KB, 641x340px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 641x340px

>>8528667
>>pic related
>We've already been over this. The "hot spot" wasn't a prediction of AGW.
>Please stop pointing out our failures. I can't answer this so I'll pretend I already did.

Now you're just flat out lying. The prediction was described in many places, and documented in Santer 2005.
See the graph of the predictions vs. results here:
>>8528652

And now you pretend that the hot spot wasn't supposed to be cause by AGW? Are you kidding me? What is this?

1. There are high water vapor levels above the equator.
2. The Hadley Cell above the equator features upward wind currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
3. The moist adiabatic lapse rate has decreased. DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CO2/WARMING
4. A decreased lapse rate means that water vapor will go higher into the troposphere above the equator.
5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense.
6. Water vapor condensation is an exothermic reaction. This is the creation of the "hot spot."

That's right AGW is supposed to decrease the moist adiabatic lapse rate which leads to increased water vapor in the upper troposphere which causes significant positive feedback. But the water vapor increase in the upper troposphere (and concomitant hot spot) just isn't there.

You warmists are pathetic in the way you try to rewrite your history to hide your failures.

>>8528717
>I feel like this isn't actually a discussion
Global fascism is at the heart of the AGW meme. A synthetic global problem that requires all governments to work together primarily with very large multinational corporations in screwing over any threat to the system itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet, environment or people. It has everything to do with deciding who is going to get carbon credits and who isn't. This is the ends of the means of the meme.

On the other hand, without the AGW meme, if the real truth of the matter was made available and people educated on how fossil fuels are used, how they are distributed and accurate simulations of known reserves plotted against projected consumption, some very startling conclusions would be made. Some real progress to an actual solution of a soft landing and slow wind down as opposed to enabling global fascism that will rule over our future with an iron hand in a velvet glove because that is all it knows how to do. We are only in the velvet glove phase for now fortunately.

>>8528749
And they say great fantasy fiction is dead

>>8528709
> They did a time of reading adjustment to past data which made Urban data COLDER than rural data. Impossible.
Which adjustment, and which years?

>Besides, despite your faith in pal reviewed writing, It doesn't demonstrated that the actual data processing is done just as it is described by the paper.
What? If the methodology they gave couldn't reconstruct their adjustments, they're be a shitstorm.

>>8528739
>Bruh, post the hole damn article so we can see the failed hypothesis in the conclusion.
Which article?

>>8528743
>Now you're just flat out lying. The prediction was described in many places, and documented in Santer 2005.
It was described in many places, but not as a prediction specific to AGW.
Also, the data still isn't that great, so we can't actually rule out a hotspot.

>>8528749
>Global fascism is at the heart of the AGW meme.
>enabling global fascism that will rule over our future with an iron hand in a velvet glove because that is all it knows how to do
I asked you for evidence, and that's what you go with?

>>8528577
>>No hot spot
>The hot spot wasn't a prediction of AGW. It's absence is interesting, but not a contradiction.
> We failed on that one, so we're going to pretend it has nothing to do with AGW.
ftfy

But it does. As demonstrated here:
>>8528743

File: polticalpriest.jpg (78KB, 750x395px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 750x395px

>>8528729
>give us evidence
It's not my hypothesis that man is warming the planet significantly and the burden is on the so called field of climate science. The problem like with any religion it is impossible to disprove. The cultist simply falls back on well rehearsed dogma and scripture provided by their high priests and prophets of the climate, points to prophecies of climate doom far down the road. This is really the most frightening aspect of it all, its resemblance to religion more than science. When in the history of "science" has it been employed to immediately usher in a tax? When has pure "science" made prophetic predictions of catastrophe unless such a tax was implemented? Fucking purely political garbage and mass social science, nothing more!

>>8528725
Well tell him to fuck off! What is a priest doing all mired up in this "science" anyway? Perhaps something to do with swaying the 1 billion cultists he already has in tow? Doesn't he have little boys to diddle?
>inb4 muh chemist!
He was a fucking child trafficker in south America before replacing a nazi pope in a huge PR move for the mother cult is all.

>>8528775
The Catholic Church needs revenues just like any other organization. He'll say what makes him popular. Also, he has a dope ass throne.

>>8528775
>He was a fucking child trafficker in south America
lmao
do you believe everything you read on Facebook, billy bob?

File: W1siZiIsInVwbG9hZHMvcGxhY2VfaW1hZ2VzLzNlNWQ5ZTA0YTllNmUxN2Q4NV81ODQyMjc1NTg2XzU0YTNmZWY3YTNfYi5qcGciXSxbInAiLCJ0aHVtYiIsIjczMHg0ODcrNis2Il0sWyJwIiwiY29udmVydCIsIi1xdWFsaXR5IDkxIC1hdXRvLW9yaWVudCJdLFsicCIsInRodW1iIiwiNjAweD4iXV0.jpg (111KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 600x400px

>>8528777
The Iron Throne can eat a dick.

>>8528761
You want evidence that AGW is enabling global fascism?
Was there a vote on the tax?
Who is involved in formulating policy? You or me or big government and big business?
Of the carbon taxes and carbon credit schemes so far implemented who is the net beneficiary? Who is primarily being burdened with these taxes and where does that money go?
Who is profiting from AGW? Who is being subsidized?
Who started and funded the initial research and maintains most of that funding today? Was it not a pseudo world government apparatus that rose from the ashes of two world wars? Who makes up this body and do we vote for them? Do we have any say whatsoever in their polices that are being implemented at all levels of government?
Is this really "solution" going to fix the hypothetical AGW? If so how?

I dunno, if there was textbook global fascism AGW fits into and really encompasses that ideology perfectly.

File: based.jpg (132KB, 861x787px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 861x787px

>>8528785
Well they do, more than any other organization in the history of civilization apparently and the mere fact they endorse AGW is highly suspect and disgustingly hypocritical since the single most effective measure they could take to "save" us from the dreaded AGW is allow birth control and sex education into their Papal states. Don't hold your breath on that one though, an organization like that thrives on mass misery and poverty which not coincidentally is what drastic energy rationing will bring about rather quickly in the so called first world, the primary target of the AGW meme.

File: ipcc-ar4-hot-spot-p675-web.gif (54KB, 550x498px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 550x498px

>>8528761
>>>8528743 (You)
>>Now you're just flat out lying. The prediction was described in many places, and documented in Santer 2005.
>It was described in many places, but not as a prediction specific to AGW.
>Also, the data still isn't that great, so we can't actually rule out a hotspot.
Stop lying buddy. And admit your utter failure.

What is this?
Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

And this?
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf . P. 675, 9.1(f).

Now look at P. 674 second full paragraph, first sentence:
"Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, "

Now look at the third full paragraph of P. 674, first sentence:
"The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above." This indicates that the above paragraph was describing anthropogenic forcings.

Now look at P. 675 (pic related). Look at diagram c, the "hot spot." What does the caption say about diagram c? It says, "c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, "
Again, the context of paragraph 3 of P. 674 shows that they mean anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Thus the IPCC said that the "hot spot" was anthropogenic.


And you are denying the basic physics (+ AGW) described below:

1. There are high water vapor levels above the equator.
2. The Hadley Cell above the equator features upward wind currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
3. The moist adiabatic lapse rate has decreased. DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CO2/WARMING
4. A decreased lapse rate means that water vapor will go higher into the troposphere above the equator.
5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense.
6. Water vapor condensation is an exothermic reaction. This is the creation of the "hot spot."

>>8528809
If the IPCC was wrong about hot spots, what does that really mean, is there no other evidence for AGW?

>>8528809
>This indicates that the above paragraph was describing anthropogenic forcings.
If you read the whole damn thing, rather than pulling carefully-picked quotes out of it, it's clear that the stratospheric cooling was the part that was specific to AGW. And that's the bit we've seen.

>The combined effect of tropospheric and stratospheric ozone forcing (Figure 9.1d) is expected to warm the troposphere, due to increases in tropospheric ozone, and cool the stratosphere, particularly at high latitudes where stratospheric ozone loss has been greatest.

>The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar
forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere

So the troposphere was expected to warm regardless of the source, and only the stratospheric cooling (which HAS been observed) was a specific prediction of AGW.

>>8528621
>nb4 but they didn't detrend the AMO!
>Great circular reasoning buddy." Gosh the AMO has nothing to do with long term temperatures, so if it exhibits a trend, we'll just subtract it off!"
>'Cause any trend must be caused by anthropogenic CO2.
You are so full of shit. The AMO is DEFINED as the detrended oscillation in North Atlantic SSTs. You aren't subtracting the AMO if you didn't detrend the SSTs, you are just subtracting SSTs! You are a lying little cretin.

>>8528870
Someone just got blown the fuck out.

File: butthurt.jpg (23KB, 300x348px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x348px

>>8523135
> will be interesting to see what Trump does
Trump will be Trump

Take the Carrier deal. The 800 jobs Trump claims to have "rescued" were never on the chopping block. But a few lies, a quick tax break to Carrier to back them up, and suddenly he's the hero of the people.

Expect 4-8 more years of this, at least.

>>8528864
>How dare you accuse me of being from /pol/!!!
>Posts retarded screencap from /pol/
Right.

>>8523086
Wouldn't surprise me if Trump cuts CO2 emissions a ton by forcing the economy into a deep recession via trade wars with China and Mexico

Do you guys know if there is an observable difference in the atmospheric content of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern?

Is the reason why the rate of sea ice loss is much higher in the Northern hemisphere because there is a lot more industry / electricity generation / shipping / air travel that emits greenhouse gasses in the Northern hemisphere, and the gas concentration is higher there compared to the southern?

Just curious, I'm trying to understand why sea ice is not decreasing as rapidly in Antarctica.

>>8528864
That's it! Pack it up boys, someone posted some random, source-less graphs from /pol/ that are probably from some denialist climate blog. Pack up your bags, it's over!

Do retards like you seriously think posting a few shitty screencaps from /pol/ is going to convince anyone?

He's even using the same old, tired "MUH IT WAS WARMER IN THE PAST ON EARTH THEREFORE GLOBAL WARMING IS FINE GUYS!" Typical bullshit where people completely ignore that there are almost 8 billion and growing humans alive on Earth right now, dwindling resources, water crisis's inevitable in the future in many regions of the world, and 70%+ of our civilization is based on the coastal zone where sea level rise will have the largest impacts. Not even to mention that our largest cities / economic areas of interest are also in these areas.

>>8528878
Trump generated more money then you know how to count with that 40 IQ. It's always entertaining to hear libtards try to bullshit about political subjects that they are just fed twitter posts from their hugboxes.

>>8528998
I have zero evidence but I can spam ad-hominems : The post.

>>8522750
Climate does change everyday. its the truth

>>8529000
You have zero evidence except to post some shitty picture you took on /pol/: the post.

AGW has an entire scientific body of hundreds of thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers backing it up. Go ahead, screech and holler your "MUH ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY" since we all know you have read over your cute little logical fallacy sticky over there countless times."

Oh but wait, it's all a conspiracy anyways, just like every other little conspiracy you /pol/ faggots latch onto.

>>8529006
you don't even have any authority. The church of AGW is the laughing stock of the society.
>omg ur posting /pol/ pics
>you should look at some libtard echo chamber posts instead
no thanks, we had enough bullshit from your kind on this board today.

>>8529010
>no thanks, we had enough bullshit from your kind on this board today.
So you're leaving? Great.

>>8529012
No since this isn't your echo chamber you don't belong here. Even reddit makes fun of you AGW cultist clowns but you'll just have to go back and keep being ridiculed there.

>>>/r/eddit

>>8529010
Of course, go back to your little echo chamber hugbox please, shitpost in your cute little delusional Trump general threads.

You have no power here, you see on /pol/ all the useful idiots will eat up your little unsourced charts, your cute baby-tier denialist climate blogs, and your so called climate """"experts"""" like Roy Spencer, James Inhofe or Tim Ball.

Go ahead, you are the type of person who completely ignores any evidence that is presented anyways, because you live in a little, small world of conspiracies. It's honestly so pathetic. Also, nice "ad hominem" buddy. You're the type of pseudo-intellectual child that thinks he's "so smart" because he said ad hominem.

>>8529016
You're right, you have your own little echo chamber, now do as you said you would and run on back to it coward. Fun fact too: I've been posting on 4chan for over 10 years. You're probably a little Trumpfag kiddie who started posting within the last year, like most of the little fucks over on /pol/.

>>8522750
Why do AGWtards get BTFOd every single time they shit out a prediction ? Do they just like being wrong?

>>8529023
>starts talking about trump
You're the one confusing politics with science dumdum. Everyone told you that you lack any evidence to back up your claims and you do the typical libtard copout and bitch about Trump like he's actually the reason why you're a virgin failure in life with low IQ.
You're the delusional pahetic clown that has no place on this board >>>/pol/

>>8522750
What is even the endgame of AGWtards? What do they expect people to do if they buy their bullshit?

>>8529037
Reduce industrial emissions and plant more trees.

>>8522750
/pol/ is leaking again

>>8522750
KILL YOURSELFE

>>8528864
Looks like he's citing (even though he doesn't name his sources) one of John Christy's graphs intended to claim the models are all inaccurate / bad and thus should be thrown out, as well as a bunch of other graphs describing temperature data from the past climate, which is looks like he's attempting to argue that since there were warmer and colder periods in the past, that humans cannot be causing the current observable trend, which is a very commonly argued claim that doesn't have any evidence or merit backing it currently.

Also, please see some detailed breakdowns of why Christy's graphs are inaccurate and compares the models to the data poorly. The data is from stuff Christy himself presented to the house space, science and technology committee, the only reason he even gets to present his bullshit there is due to Lamar Smith, who is in charge of the committee. Keep in mind that Lamar Smith has received over $600,000 in funding from the fissil fuel industry, and people like Christy are linked to numerous institutions that also accept money from the energy sector.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets

http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html

I could also rant on about how people like John Christy and Roy Spencer are heavily tied to petroleum-industry funded think tanks like George C. Marshall, but I really don't have the space or time to do that, you can look that up yourself if you're interested. These guys have little to no scientific credibility anymore, especially Spencer who denies Evolution as well.

>>8529058
/pol/ knows the truth much more than any of you cucks do. You people are nothing but stupid liberal propagandists that believes in such fairy tales.

>>8522750
>it's not true if i don't think it's true

File: it's always funny in philadelphia.gif (827KB, 350x262px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 350x262px

>>8529166
>conservatives accusing other people of believing in fairy tales

>>8529197
>believing that scientists don't want profit
You liberals are delusional. wtf are you doing in 4chan? Back to tumblr faggot.

>>8526559
perfect

File: last 240.png (8KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 640x480px

>>8529134
If you can't attack the science, attack the person. It's much easier and no one in your target group will notice anyway. Who told you to leave out Carl Mears? RSS and UAH are the only providers of satellite-based quality class 1 (fully documented) data series. RSS (a private company) was established to control UAH (a university). Of course they are attacked because their products have become the de-facto reference over the last decades. Are you aware of any other data series that combines earth-based and space-based sensors and is historically consistent?

File: net_radiative_forcing.png (92KB, 582x801px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 582x801px

Pic very fucking related. Also, leaving this here:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

>>8529362
>look ma, i posted it again
Why do you post your session ids, carbon bot?

>>8529312
Except the RealClimate article I posted is completely attacking the "science" and methodology of Christy, not that you even bothered to read the article. Do I need to spell it out for you? The article explains in extreme detail how Christy and Spencer's graphs are inaccurate and biased due to their own manipulation of the baseline, and how they shifted CMIP5 up, while shifting UAH down at the same time to make the difference look far more extreme than it is in reality.

As to you claiming I can only attacked the "targets" of Christy and Spencer, hell yes I attacked them. These guys are blatant liars and manipulate the data to suit their own arguments, it's been shown multiple times.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=roy-spencer-catholic-online-interview

To top it off, I'll "attack" Spencer again, though it's not much of an attack, he has a way of making himself look very, very stupid:
>We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.

This is what Spencer actually believes. Now I'm not trying to argue that you can't be a scientist and be religious. You can if you want, but when you are injecting religious thoughts and ideas, which are wholly irreligious into your scientific understanding of the world, you have completely failed as a scientist, which does not, and never has dealt with the supernatural.

>>8529576
>look ma, i posted it again
you're goddamn right I did, because you faggots seem to think you can ignore the actual science

>>8528792
Stop being an insane idealogue. There are good reasons on the other side of the argument. The reason why carbon taxes are implemented is because it is one of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/01/carbon-price-will-reduce-emissions-more-computer-models-predict

http://www.cmc-nce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/BCs-Carbon-Tax-Shift-after-5-Years-Results.pdf

We should follow Canada's model. Try increasing carbon taxes, and reducing income tax, to make up for it.

>>8529312
http://www.unep.org/climatechange/ClimateChangeConferences/COP18/News/Sea-levelsrisingfasterthanIPCCprojections/tabid/105647/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Sea levels are rising even faster than the models predicted. This implies that a good portion of the heat has gone into the oceans, causing it to expand and rise.

Plants exting animals extingt, it's not even raining in rainforrest, desserts are spreading everywhere, nothing changed, op is still a faggot.

>>8528844
Whether or not they are wrong about it is irrelevant.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

>A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.

>Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.

Stratospheric cooling has been observed.

>>8529677
This. This is what happens when you get your data from people who have a blatant disdain for science. The guy's a creationist and denies evolution. You should at least question those sources before you post them.

>>8529312
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Sensing_Systems

>Research by Carl Mears, Matthias Schabel, and Wentz, all of RSS, highlighted errors in the early satellite temperature records complied by John Christy and Roy Spencer at UAH.
>bringing the derived satellite data into closer agreement with surface temperature trends, radiosonde data and computer models.

>>8529753
Looks like the hotspots are occuring as well.

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

>>8529711
>Following canada's anything
>the country that elected justin trudeau

no

>>8529242
That's not an argument.

Even on the off-chance that manmade climate change is not actually real, burning less coal and oil and using alternative energy sources would be beneficial either way. Coal and oil are limited and are responsible for bad air quality if burned (like smog). I don't understand why the debate is so big (in the US at least), it ultimately doesn't matter if humans are responsible for climate change or not.

>>8529711
>Try increasing carbon taxes, and reducing income tax, to make up for it.

Reducing income tax? More like income tax exemptions because all those people are now unemployed.

>>8530325
Actually no. It's corporate income tax.

>>8530343
>increasing taxes doesn't decrease profitability
hello bernie

>>8530257
>t ultimately doesn't matter if humans are responsible for climate change or not
it does as far as regulations and fines go.

>>8530392
pretty sure Bernie wants to increase corporate income tax, not decrease it.

>>8529806
That's how it should be. Sensors age, orbits decay.. Currently RSS shows a fast drop after the EN that is not seen on UAH.

File: lower stratosphere flat.jpg (50KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x539px

>>8528845
>>This indicates that the above paragraph was describing anthropogenic forcings.
>If you read the whole damn thing, rather than pulling carefully-picked quotes out of it, it's clear that the stratospheric cooling was the part that was specific to AGW. And that's the bit we've seen.

No stratospheric cooling in 20 years, see pic. By your own terms, climate change has been falsified.

File: Gavin Schmidt Admits Theory is Wrong.jpg (88KB, 442x852px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 442x852px

>>8528845
>>The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar
>forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere
>So the troposphere was expected to warm regardless of the source, and only the stratospheric cooling (which HAS been observed) was a specific prediction of AGW.

Figure 9.1a? Nice strawman argument, buddy. I was talking about figure 9.1 c. THAT's the FULL PREDICTION. And the picture of the full effect is at 9.1f. Clearly truth seeking is not your line of work. Please don't call your self a scientist. Paid Soros Shill? Sure.

I specifically pointed out that Figure 9.1c describes the Hot Spot which you pretend was not predicted by AGW, even though its right there in the IPCC report as an effect of mixed greenhouse gases. The full prediction being in 9.1f. There's quite the hot spot there.

And what of the temporal variant of the hot spot prediction? Namely that the troposphere would warm up more over time than the earth's surface? Are you going to also pretend that prediction didn't happen. Problem is, even Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS admits it. Pic related.

>>8530620
>THAT's the FULL PREDICTION. And the picture of the full effect is at 9.1f.
That's the Hot Spot prediction, The full prediction is 9.1f

>>8528845
Still denying the effects of AGW + Atmospheric Physics?
Don't know who you think you're fooling.

1. There are high water vapor levels above the equator.
2. The Hadley Cell above the equator features upward wind currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
3. The moist adiabatic lapse rate has decreased. DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CO2/WARMING
4. A decreased lapse rate means that water vapor will go higher into the troposphere above the equator.
5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense.
6. Water vapor condensation is an exothermic reaction. This is the creation of the "hot spot."

>>8528870
>You are so full of shit. The AMO is DEFINED as the detrended oscillation in North Atlantic SSTs.
Wrong buddy. You've really got to stop trusting Wikipedia to get it right. They're often wrong.

Instead, lets look here:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
"To remove the climate change signal from the AMO index, users typically detrend the SST data at each gridpoint or detrend the spatially averaged timeseries."

There it is, the AMO index is NOT detrended, instead the user is asked to detrend it (to pretend that AGW drives much of AMO index instead of the AMO being a fundamental source of global temp variability.)
>>8528870
>Someone just got blown the fuck out
> My Pathetic samefagging.
That would be you getting blown the fuck out.

>>8530610
Not really. While the pauses have gotten longer and longer, the overall trend still shows cooling. Plateaus do not invalidate this.

File: 03 - AR4 Fig 10-26.png (40KB, 560x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 560x480px

>>8529134
>Also, please see some detailed breakdowns of why Christy's graphs are inaccurate and compares the models to the data poorly. The data is from stuff Christy himself presented to the house space, science and technology committee, the only reason he even gets to present his bullshit there is due to Lamar Smith, who is in charge of the committee. Keep in mind that Lamar Smith has received over $600,000 in funding from the fissil fuel industry, and people like Christy are linked to numerous institutions that also accept money from the energy sector.
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html

Ad hominem? How pathetic. But what of these paid shills ad Simpleton Science and Real Bogus Climate?

Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

And Simpleton Science claims that Christy/Spencer got the starting point of their graph wrong. Except its exactly the same starting point as given by the as that given by an actual graph taken from UN IPCC AR4. It's here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
In the lower left hand corner of the page, enlarged with updated data.

Notice they have the starting date just like in the graph from John Christy/Spencer. So, not surprisingly, SimpletonScience lies like the sack of crap it is.

File: Cartoonist John Cook.jpg (12KB, 359x140px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 359x140px

>>8529753
Except even Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA GISS admitted that AGW predicts great warming in the troposphere than on the surface:
>>8530620

You've really got to stop trusting a cartoonist turned psychologist. Or is it that you only have to have a Ph.D. in climatology to make evil denier assertions?

>>8530668
>Linking Steve McIntyre, or any other GCM / Heartland shills
>Calling someone else a paid shill
>muh ad hominem
>WUWT
>Climateaudit
Yet you expect to be taken seriously when all you can do is link to skeptic blogs, not peer-reviewed scientific journals

File: pika.jpg (6KB, 273x153px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 273x153px

How the fuck do people keep up with the mountains of information on this subject in order to have a meaningful debate?

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1474434922589.jpg (51KB, 465x512px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 465x512px

It's real.
Real as in it's a natural process that's been blown out of proportion for grant money and making money off panic.

File: 2 frigs.jpg (64KB, 780x960px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 780x960px

>>8528988
>why sea ice is not decreasing as rapidly in Antarctica
Antarctica is relatively isolated (in terms of heat flow) from the temperate zones by the antarctic circumpolar ocean current. the arctic doesn't have this, so it is more quickly affected by warmer waters flowing in from lower latitudes.

also, warming in antarctica means more ice flowing off the landmass, which means that southern ice shelves are simultaneously replenished and depleted by warming (up to a point, of course). this is different from the arctic sea ice, which doesn't derive very much from the Greenland ice cap.

>>8528845
>>8528761

Real Climate says the hot spot (both spatial and temporal) its important: “The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. This is true enough.” And they have a diagram of the hot spot! Of course they follow it up with the “hurr durr the data is so noisy” excuse. Amazing how data which is accurate to 0.1 degrees can’t detect a 0.6 degree effect!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends.

And what of these papers predicting the hot spot?
1. Santer BD, Wigley TML, Barnett TP, Anyamba E. 1996. Detection of climate change and attribution of causes.
2. Mitchell 2001 Mitchell JFB,et al. 2001. Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.
3. Hegerl GC,et al.. 2007. Understanding and attributing climate change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
4. WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK AND GLOBAL WARMING. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. Vol. 25: 441-475 (Volume publication date November 2000) Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden.

>>8528999
lol, Trump couldn't even beat the stock market. he'd literally have more money today if he'd just put his inheritance in an index fund and spent the next few decades playing golf.

>>8528845
>>8528761
>>8530746
1. Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 201

2. Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007

3. McKitrick, R., McIntyre, S., and Herman, C. (2011) Corrigendum to Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 11, Issue 4, 270–277.

4. Karl et al (2006), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 1, 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25.

5. Po-Chedley S. and Fu Q. (2012) Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044018 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018)

>>8528845
>>8528761

Look at those papers here:
>>8530752
And why would there need to be explanations for the missing Hot Spot (and its temporal version) if it wasn't part of AGW? Just random people wondering I suppose?

When you look at anthropogenic climate change deniers you have to follow the money. Most of their funding comes from sources that would suffer huge monetary losses if everyone finally accepted the truth of man made climate change.

Even exxon mobile knew about the effects of fossil fuel emissions causing climate change back in 1977:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

>>8530744
Nice, after-the-fact explanation. Except that wasn't what was predicted:
Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

And the embarrassment of the ridiculous "Global warming causes increased Antarctic Sea Ice" rubbish had to be put to rest:

"Global Warming creates more Antarctic Sea Ice." But even that's been debunked:
Shu, Qi, Zhenya Song, and Fangli Qiao. "Assessment of sea ice simulations in the CMIP5 models." The Cryosphere 9.1 (2015): 399-409.

"Forty-nine models, almost all of the CMIP5 climate models and earth system models with historical simulation, are used. For the Antarctic, multi-model ensemble mean (MME) results can give good climatology of sea ice extent (SIE), but the linear trend is incorrect. The linear trend of satellite-observed Antarctic SIE [sea ice extent] is +1.29 (±0.57) × 105 km2 decade−1 ; only about 1/7 CMIP5 models show increasing trends, and the [modeled] linear trend of CMIP5 MME is negative with the value of −3.36 (±0.15) × 105 km2 decade−1"

File: do it faggot.png (877KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 540x960px

>>8530610
>I'm going to draw some lines on a graph to make it say what I want it to say
>see, if you ignore the sudden decreases, the trend is actually neutral, not decreasing!
this is what deniers actually believe

>>8530622
>this one effect causes warming in the upper troposphere
>therefore if it's actually happening, we will observe net warming in the upper troposphere
>because surely there are no other factors in atmospheric science that could possibly drown out or obscure this signal

>>8530643
>Instead, lets look here:
>Observed AMO index, defined as detrended 10-year low-pass filtered annual mean area-averaged SST anomalies over the North Atlantic basin
YOUR OWN LINK DEFINES THE AMO INDEX AS WHAT THE OTHER GUY SAID IT WAS AND WHAT YOU SAID IT WASN'T. You literally just told someone they were wrong and cited a source showing that they were right.
How does it feel to be too retarded to actually scroll down and read the rest of the webpage?

>>8530721
Haven't you heard? The debate is over! There is nothing left to do now but preach and collect the carbon taxes, perhaps persecute deniers to the full extent of climate law as that forms up. There is a virtual mountain of prophetic climate modeling data spewed out of the AGW orifices if you are so inclined to indulge. You will also notice AGW is attached to every weather anomaly from here on out as well although this will grow rather tiring after awhile.
>The new guidelines suggest that in the future, priests will also have a good grasp of the global climate change problem and will share this with their congregation.

>The aim is not political. The Church does not advocate for any policies that will erode basic freedoms or human rights

Hoho haha! That's a good one!

>>8530771

More conspiracy theories plz

>>8530672
>Except even Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA GISS admitted that AGW predicts great warming in the troposphere than on the surface:

It's good that you believe climatologists on something. I guess you'll believe them on this too.

http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot

>The results show that even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere.

That said, it's only one line of evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

>When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels
>What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
>If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation
>If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed
>Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening
>With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed

You need to take into consideration all areas of the research, rather just narrow-mindedly focusing on one thing.

>>8522750
We've never had so many cars running for so many years before
it's just entropy

File: 0 out of 10.jpg (52KB, 600x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x509px

>>8530763
holy shit, you are stupid.
Jacka and Budd doesn't make PREDICTIONS; as the title would suggest, it's all about MEASURING CHANGES AS THEY HAPPEN. There's no modeling in that paper, as you'd know if you'd bothered to actually read the whole thing.
>http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/24/041/24041533.pdf#page=74
Boer et al. also contradicts your boneheaded claim. from RIGHT THERE IN THE ABSTRACT:
>The simulated accumulation rate of permanent snow cover decreases markedly over Greenland and increases slightly over Antarctica.
HEY LOOK, MODERATE WARMING IS PREDICTED TO CAUSE SLIGHT INCREASES IN PERMANENT SNOW COVER IN ANTARCTICA
Also, this is an EQUILIBRIUM response (which has the luxury of avoiding messy circulation models). We're nowhere near equilibrium yet (still in a warming phase) and the whole point I made is that ocean circulation SLOWS THE RATE at which the Antarctic communicates with the midlatitudes.


Qi et al.:
>Antarctic SIE [sea ice extent]
and this is where babby learns the difference between sea ice extent and sea ice volume. hint: one is area, and the other is volume.

So basically, your argument makes sense only if you don't actually READ THE GODDAMN PAPERS YOU'RE CITING and instead just pull a few words out of the abstract and call it a day. QED, ya drillbit.

>>8530668
None your blogs gave a proper rebuttal to these points.

>Choice of baseline
>Inconsistent smoothing
>Incomplete representation of the initial condition and structural uncertainty in the models
>No depiction of the structural uncertainty in the satellite observations.

>Each of these four choices separately (and even more so together) has the effect of making the visual discrepancy between the models and observational products larger, misleading the reader as to the magnitude of the discrepancy and, therefore, it’s potential cause(s).

>>8526410
So you have no reason to discuss anything here but still you do nothing but shitpost.

Everyone really thinks highly of you.

>>8530643
You're confusing the AMO index with the AMO. But thank you for admitting that subtracting the AMO index is not the same as subtracting the AMO. Now that you've actually read about the AMO you can see that subtracting the index from global temps is invalid.

>>8522796
>climate change
>chemistry
you feckless moron

Reading this thread I've learned one thing, climate science is confusing as fuck. There's so much terminology, so many datasets / ways of measuring data, and climate itself is such an immensely complex system.
I agree with the evidence presented by climatologists, and I trust the scientific process, but it's not hard to understand why it is so difficult to have a proper public outreach on the topic, especially concerning the data and interpretation of that data by scientists. It's also not hard to understand why many ordinary, non-earth / climate scientists types have a very hard time grasping all of the models / data. There's just so much shit that is measured, so much data to look at / understand, and the science itself is constantly advancing and more and more data is analyzed / researched every year.

>>8522838
>burden of proof
babby's new buzzphrase

>>8523115
>>8523135
>Foreman says these jobs are going boys
>and they ain't coming back to your hometown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugB1MEJET6E

>>8528723
The general public is supposed to reach science by itself. That's what schools are for.

File: Spock-5-Dollar.jpg (30KB, 315x275px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 315x275px

GO BACK TO >>>/pol/!!!!!!!!

Isn't that the standard response when /sci/ can't answer the question? Lot of emotion here for people who claim to follow the scientific method...Spock would not approve.

>>8530924
Basically even single post in this thread that denies AGW has received at least one reply explaining why they're wrong. The people who've been told to fuck off back to /pol/ were either actually posting politics, or had clearly shown they weren't interested in they answers they'd been given.

If you want to accuse /sci/ of taking obvious bait that's one thing, but accusing them of avoiding the issue is laughable.

>>8530881
I don't think it is complicated at all. As modern civilization rolls into the 21st century, as fossil fuels deplete coinciding with a rise in their consumption and these resources being critical to life as we know it, there is a plan to take wide ranging control of these resources and dictate who gets them and who doesn't, who pays an arm and a leg for them and who gets them handed over on a silver platter.

There is the science of meteorology - weather forecasting - accurate to about 7 days out with current technology. There is no science of the climate that justifies anything but passing curiosity, the idea of predicting climate 100 years or even 10 years out is laughable and the only reason it is front and center every single day is because it is being used to justify this literal power grab of fossil fuels on a global scale. Of course there is some resistance to it, if there wasn't we would have already been living under a global totalitarian technocratic regime for some time now.

>>8530924
don't confuse /sci/ with /sjw/tards

>>8522750
Nobody takes /x/tards and their yet another doomsday meme seriously.

>>8530746
>>8530752
>>8530757

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=CD2BFEF42B08696F8D0E8805F2BB752C.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

> We support the findings of other recent studies (Po-Chedley et al 2015) that reports of weak tropospheric warming have likely been due to flaws in calibration and other problems and that warming patterns have proceeded in the way expected from models.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1

>Next, we assess the validity of the statement that satellite data show no significant tropospheric warming over the last 18 years. This claim is not supported by our analysis: in five out of six corrected satellite TMT records, significant global-scale tropospheric warming has occurred within the last 18 years.

>We show that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid- to upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record.

Same researchers with more up-to-date research.

>>8530941
Same conspiracy, still no evidence.
Go on, post that picture of the Pope shaking hands with people again. I'm sure you'll convince everyone this time.

>>8524615
This

File: 1372048614799.jpg (62KB, 183x232px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 183x232px

>>8522750

The Jews that control the funding for scientists strong arm them into propagating it, else they wont get funding.

It's honestly not that hard to figure out. Go ahead and refute me good goys.

File: the_blip.png (8KB, 280x140px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 280x140px

>>8532116
You mean selective breeding and natural selection? Very likely. Who pays the piper calls the tune.