a goddamn witch hunt

>>8541562
I've read about it. I think Trump will have to accept he cannot deny a well stablished scientific fact. If he fires all the scientists that accept global warming, he will end with a Department of Energy made entirely of dumbasses.

>>8541562
>because this is unacceptable.

And what are you going to do about it, Spartacus?

>>8541574
Somewhat reassuring, but Trump isn't exactly the kind of guy who 'accepts' it if he can't have what he wants.

>>8541581
I'm going to welcome US scientists when the inevitable brain drain happens.

>>8541562
>The President elect hasn't got the right to know the names of government employed scientists.
>>8541574
>a well stablished scientific fact.
a harmless, if not beneficial, theory

>>8541699
You obviously didn't read the article in the OP. This isn't just taking stock, this is a list of questions about scientific views of individual people.

Page 1

File: sac1.jpg (76KB, 1000x510px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1000x510px

>>8541562
Looks like he's poised to replace them with some young earthers

Maybe the democrats should have tried harder to win the election if they thought the planet was at stake in Republican hands.

>>8541796
Nah man, it was Hillary's turn to be president. The woman has been in the system for half a century, she has to be elected sooner or later, nevermind what the people seek in a candidate.

>>8541806
Her career is over. Next election she'll be 73/74 and even regardless of that, she lost to Donald Trump. Trump might actually get elected again considering how the democrats are continuing the retardation that caused them to lose this time.

>>8541796
>it's OK to deny scientific evidence
>because Democrats didn't try hard enough
U wot m8

>>8541830
Not saying it's okay but the democrats dropped the ball hard to allow someone who doesn't believe in it to be elected.

>>8541837
That's stating the obvious

>>8541783
Fucking hell

This most likely isn't a traditional witch hunt as much as it is an attempt break down the climate change vanguard for business purposes.

Basically if you're trying to push for more "job creation" in certain sectors the first thing you need to do is dismantle current and future regulations and reduce the creditability of those who vanguard it.

That way they will have a hard time swaying the community in the public, private and government circles.

The problem is oddly enough the biggest obstacle isn't western scientists but China who at this point must enforce environment regulations or watch their own people lose a chunk of their average life span and suffer from respiratory diseases.

>>8541897
>educe the creditability of those who vanguard it.
Sounds like a witch hunt to me

>>8541909

But the key here is that it's not based on moral or social principal so much as it's based on business.

Trump most likely gives zero fucks about the entire environment issue but since it's interfering with future business policy he's willing to setup this inquiry just for the business purposes having zero care about the stakes at play on either side.

>>8541699
>a harmless, if not beneficial, theory
No please, don't start with this denying shit

>>8541928
In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether the motive is ideological or financial. Science should be able to do their job without fear that they are persecuted if the government doesn't like their findings.

>>8541938
>Science
Scientists*

People need to see this

>>8541938
I am so confident in the scientists that are too scared to justify their scientific findings to a business mogul.

Clearly we don't need to worry about their methods.

I still have some hope. Obviously, people cannot bullshit themselves to the leader of the U.S. forever. Though, he will lose support if he backpedals. However, he never denied the idea that we need to change certain things about the environment, rather that China is just taking advantage of it. Idk it's all pretty fuzzy right now. I just hope musk redpills him.

>>8542122
>he never denied the idea that we need to change certain things about the environment
He called climate change a hoax on multiple occasions.

>>8542109
We don't. Science is self correcting. We don't need an outside authority with a lack in expertise to tell us what's what. It's supposed to be the other way around.

File: 1481416239216.jpg (176KB, 854x859px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 854x859px

>>8541562
It really wonders me that the US is a first-world successful country. About half of its citizens voted trump, the other half is made of creationists and other science deniers, how does such a country achieve such an economic and scientific success?

>>8542181

WW2

>>8541562
If people can't accept nuclear power then it should all burn. the solution to global warming isn't economy crushing subsidies for wind and other meme powers

>>8542177
But considering how policy is being implemented, not actual environmental issues.

>>8542181
Do you really think other countries are any better? Your average retard knows very little about science.

>>8542221
What the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?

>>8542184
This. You needn't be smart to fire boomstick.

>>8542224
Are you implying that climate change isn't an actual issue?

>>8541562
Thank god. Those faggots should be arrested for spreading fake "science"

>>8542237
0/10

>>8542181
>About half of its citizens voted trump, the other half is made of creationists and other science deniers

Good news, these are both the same half

>>8542109
Right, Trump just hasn't been convinced. It's not at all that he believes in any conspiracy that is mildly convenient.

>>8542181
Brexit

>>8542109
>justify
No one's asking them to justify their findings. And that's exactly the problem, because justifying them is easy.

>>8542232
No, it's real and humans are mainly the cause. But it's quite questionable the methods employed by politicians to educate about the problem and find solutions. Most scientists would agree that nuclear is one of the best options, but it scawy shit that stains political careers because ecofaggots are anti science hippies.

Trump has zero scientific background. His education is a joke as well, he has BA from Penn. That's it. No graduate studies, nothing scientific in his background. He probably has very little if any understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, let alone earth sciences. His education was 50 fucking years ago, how much could he even remember if he wanted to?

We have retards like this with no scientific background running everything in our government. At least the typical Lawyer politicians can be smart enough to delegate and listen to experts in their respective fields, while not understanding the science themselves.

His entire cabinet is filled with people just like himself, pseudo-intellectuals with fucking Bachelor's degrees.

Compare this to Obama's cabinets. I disagree a lot with some of Obama's positions and the way he has violated the 4th amendment during his tenure, but his cabinet picks aren't all that bad. His DoE position was led by Steven Chu, and currently Ernest Moniz. Chu is a physcisist with a fucking Nobel Prize for his work. Moniz is a nuclear physicist from MIT, has a BS from BC and MS / PhD from Stanford.

Their replacement is fucking Rick Perry. A guy who barely passed his classes. He only has a BS in Animal Science from Texas A&M. This is the same guy who wanted to cut funding for the DoE, while at the same time forgetting the name of the organization when he was attempting to justify the cuts.

I mean fuck, hate Obama all you want, but at least his cabinet members had some kind of experience and expertise in the organizations they led.

>>8542221
lel, you think Trump's admin will bring a nuclear renaissance? Think again. Petroleum Industry wants to maintain and expand their monopoly on electricity and transport energy in the US. They are not in the interest of Nuclear gaining momentum.

>>8542254
>Hasn't been convinced.

Neither has any other denialist who refuses to look at the evidence and relies on cherry-picked presentations from think-tanks like Heartland and George C. Marshall to formulate their opinion on climate science.

I guarantee you this. Trump will not change his position. His cabinet, his fucking advisers on his transition team deny the science of AGW. You think a man that makes appointments like Rex Tillerson, Rick Perry, Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Reince Priebus, and Scott Pruitt, all of whom deny the scientific evidence for climate change, is going to change his mind? It doesn't matter. Even if he did the people he appoint would not and nothing would change in his energy policies. He is a shill for the Fossil Fuel industry. Nothing will change that.

>>8542221
Um, isn't coal and gas power also heavily subsidized and close to tax free?

>>8541562
the war on science marches on.

>>8542342
lol america's already going through a nuclear renaissance, all Trump has to do is sit back and take credit for it.

>he thinks the nuclear lobby isn't powerful too
>he thinks there isn't big money in the nuclear industry

jej

>>8541562
>This is starting to look like a witch hunt on scientists who publish inconvenient findings.
Is this satire?

Academia has been doing this for fucking decades.

Libtards BTFO enjoy a dose of your own medicine cucks

>>8542521
Last I remember was oil prices going down and nuclear permits being delayed as fuck.

I don't think many people like nuclear in the US so he isn't gonna take credit for it. Republicans and Democrats alike are really scared of it.

>>8542522
I know that tactic
>pretend you're heavily oppressed by guys you don't like while most of it is them thinking you're a total gaylord, but still treating you fairly
>get power
>actually heavily oppress people pretending that it's an eye for an eye and it's justified

>>8542521
There is no real renaissance. How many new plants are being opened this year, next year?

Also, yes the Nuclear industry, particularly the Uranium industry is part of the reason the industry itself hasn't expanded. Research into alternate Nuclear power plants like Molten Salt reactors was never fully realized, and I read somewhere that this was because the government wanted Uranium plants that could produce fissile material as a byproduct of the reaction for nuclear bombs. Of course this was decades ago during the Cold War, and things have changed a lot, yet we still haven't had a resurgence in this type of research despite there being a lot of potential.

The Uranium companies themselves are probably more interested in simply maintaining their monopolies on the Nuclear industry itself than allowing investment into alternative forms of Nuclear, which would require billions in investments.

>>8542524
Americans are weakly in support of nuclear power and nobody gives a fuck about what spineless paid off establishment candidates fear.

>>8542527
Sounds like you're describing radical leftists to me.

>>8542527
Stormlards have no imagination, that's why they became stormlards in the first place and repost the party line over and over and over and over again on every site they can. They're like robots, unthinking and unfeeling. They may as well just be coded bots for all the insight you get out of them.

>>8541590
I'm setting my sights on business with or in China within the next 10 years.

>>8542536
You're unable to see a simple direct similarity and I'm the unthinking robot? Seems legit.

>>8541827
I puke a little when i feel my head nod in agreement.

>>8542535
It's a good thing I don't like full blown Marxists about the same but slightly less compared to whatever muh degeneracy crowd likes to call themselves.

>>8542543
>I'm a "muh degenerate" stormfag for simply pointing out that academia has been witch hunting scientists that don't fit their leftist narrative for the last 40 years.

Yes, you truly are the rational one here.

>>8542545
>witch hunting
You mean peer reviewing papers and getting massive butthurt from the guys who got heavily criticized. But hey even Einstein got heavily butthurt after errors in his work were pointed. Science hurts feelings the most.

You're also pretty defensive about he slightest implication of you possibly belonging to a group your views align with.

>>8542552
>You're mad that I'm fitting you into a group you're not in thus proving you're in that group.
Ok

>>8542545
Name some of them.

Who? Roy fucking Spencer? John fucking Christy? Richard Lindzen? Who are all of these blacklisted people you mention, because those three alone are the largest critics within the field of atmospheric sciences themselves and they still publish.

All you are doing is creating conjecture. You post shit without backing up anything, it's so typical.

>>8542553
Damn man why're you adding so much shit to my post? I didn't even call you a neonazi and you feel the need to definitely prove you're not from /pol/.

ITT and the whole internet: /pol/tards turn every discussion into contentious drivel.

>>8541783
What the fuck is wrong with his face? It looks mirrored.

>>8542575
we're supposed to be symmetrical

>>8542253
I think anon was referring to liberals lack of belief in evolution concerning racial equality.
That's the /pol/opinion, anyways.

>>8542598
His face looks like it got HAAH WAAW'ed

>>8542545
>academia has been witch hunting scientists that don't fit their leftist narrative for the last 40 years
Except we haven't, at all. If you disagree then be explicit and give examples.

>>8541562
>We need to become vocal
Exactly this. Start a petition. Write your local Governor. Protest.

Most replies in this thread have an 'oh well' attitude. It seems like you faggots don't even care at all that censorship on science is becoming a reality. How the fuck is no one outraged about this?

People working on climate change are also scrambling to move all their work to backup servers outside of US government control, because they know that Trump's administration will simply delete all of their data once he takes office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/

Maybe we could hold a book burning too. Why go only half way?

>>8543331
this is seriously messed up

>>8543330
> Write your local Governor.
The majority of US governors subscribe to the idea that global warming is a hoax and the scientific community is a bunch of con artists trying to pull a fast one on America.

Besides, it doesn't matter what the people want. More people wanted democrats, yet in January the republicans will have complete, unrestricted control of all aspects of the federal government as well as most of the states. They can then further enhance their ability to ignore what the people want by passing laws barring people from voting so that only their supporters can participate in elections.

The GOP has basically secured control of the US government for the next century, regardless of what the people want.

>>8543332
That's just the way America works. If stomping on a bunch of scientists will get some corporate executives even bigger bonuses, they'll do it every time. In the US, MBA > PHD.

>>8543334
>The majority of US governors subscribe to the idea that global warming is a hoax and the scientific community is a bunch of con artists trying to pull a fast one on America.
They do so because of a strong lobby of the fossil fuel industry. It would be incorrect to state that all Governors are immune to the demands of their constituents. Just look at how diary farmers have a hold on milk subsidies in Europe. Relatively small groups of people can get policy pushed through by simply becoming vocal, so that the local establishment cannot ignore them. Scientists aren't organized enough to have their voice heard in the political arena, but they definitely should be. Scientists are always striving to be a-political. But hopefully this will be the turning point.

>>8543344
>That's just the way America works.
>just
How can you trivialize this? This is a profoundly undemocratic process.

>>8543345
Scientists have fuck all in terms of money. The fossil fuel industry is made of literally the most profitable businesses in human history. Who do you think those governors are going to listen to? The businessmen they venerate as the people who create everything that makes society great, or the academics they condemn as marxist infiltrators and filthy liberal traitors?

This is America. Here, money is how people measure your worth as a human being. Rich person = good person, smart person, wise person. The richer you are, the more deserving you are of being listened to because you're obviously a winner because you're rich. That's the way Trump thinks, and it's the way most politicians think. They're not going to listen to someone who just happens to know things about the subject when they could listen to someone who has lots of money instead.

>>8543359
That to me sounds like a roll over and die kind of attitude. Why go down without a fight?

>>8543347
> This is a profoundly undemocratic process.
America is very proud of the fact that they aren't a democracy.

>>8542181
>>8542253
>>8542619
If you factor out the old-earth creationists, or people who believe God created humanity but everything else evolved, you'll realize that it's closer to 15% of the population that actually believe in 6000 year old creationism

>>8541574
>I think Trump will have to accept he cannot deny a well stablished scientific fact
and I think thats bullfuck. I mean, I dont want to go down the "literal hitler" road, but dictators are known to use systematic propaganda coupled with "persuading opposition" to be silent

(where persuasion might be threat of a death sentence, threat of your family being tortured/raped/executed, or, as more likely the case with trump, threat to lose your job/position/livelyhood)

if you think Trump doesnt have the means to do very serious damage to this planet, you are sorely mistaken

>>8543361
> Why go down without a fight?
As someone who has lived in an authoritarian state: Because not every death is equally bad. Where I grew up, if you protested against the government or big business, they would torture you. One of their favorites was nearly drowning you in raw sewage over, and over again because it didn't leave much in the way of visible damage. And then after months of that, maybe, just maybe, they would let you die of the diseases that you caught. I'd rather just lie down, go to sleep, and never wake up.

>politicize an apolitical topic (climate change)
>justify it as a means to push a political agenda
>act surprised when the parties that oppose said agenda then become speculative of the apolitical topic used to justify their actions
>add in the fact that we've had like 2 or 3 "points of no return" and people become less concerned due to a "boy who cried wolf" effect when people in the early 2000's said major cities would be underwater by now.

That said Trump will probably come out believing in Climate Change soon enough. I give it 2 months, tops. There's a reason he keeps inviting/allowing people to Trump Tower to talk to him about it.

>>8543362
Democracies are just mob rule so I don't know why you would want to live under a system without checks and balances, i.e. a republic.

>>8543371
That sounds absolutely horrible. It may sound paradoxical, but it is also exactly the reason for why you should become vocal now. Because as it stands, no one is getting tortured just yet. But that may change if you let it happen.

>>8543375
>politicize an apolitical topic (climate change)
>justify it as a means to push a political agenda
Nonsense.

It's the science that motivates policy, but you people seem to think it's the other way around. YOU are the one who is politicizing the science, when scientists are only trying to drive policy with science. It's a one way street, but you and people like you are turning it into a roundabout.

Good.

Unilateral action on climate change is absolutely pointless and there isn't enough political will to cut CO2 emmisions globally. (Assuming of course that cutting greenhouse gasses would have the desired effect, which is a big assumption when you consider the fact that climate models overestimated global warming over the past 20 or so years.)

A fossil fuel boom will provide thousands of jobs and cut energy prices for the poorest.

>>8543364
Not really.

42% of Americans believe the following statement: God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
> More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades.

>>8543380
your own information confirms what I say though- they don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth

File: Gallup Poll Creationism.png (32KB, 599x384px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 599x384px

>>8543364
>>8543380

>>8543379
>there isn't enough political will to cut CO2 emmisions globally
Except that will was starting to develop with the Paris agreement.

>A fossil fuel boom will provide thousands of jobs and cut energy prices for the poorest.
And it will take away jobs and will necessarily increase taxes to fund disaster relief funds in the long run. You're short sighted.

>>8543375
>politicize an apolitical topic (climate change)
>apolitical topic (climate change)

>climate change
>apolitical

so you think humans polluting the biosphere to the point where it is no longer habitable for the human species is a topic that political leaders shouldnt be concerned with?

why are you even here? are you one of those popsci highschool faggots that thinks he's smart because he watched a 10 minute video explaining 1+2+...=-1/12 ?

you a seriously cancer.
leave

>>8543383
They believe in equal to or less than 10,000 years. Whether they believe it's 10,000 years on the dot or 8,000 years or 5,500 years isn't much of a difference. All of those can reasonably be classified as young Earth creationists. Sure, not all of them believe in the exact 6,000 number, but all 42% believe in 10,000 or less.

>>8543378
>YOU are the one who is politicizing the science

Because I'm the one arguing that the redistribution of wealth will somehow reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

>>8543389
>when humans came into existence = when the universe came into existence

They were polled on the former, not the latter.

>>8543390
Neither am I you moron. This thread is about censorship on science.

>>8543391
People who believe in young humanity also believe that the world was created for humanity.

>>8542539

>China
>actually caring about global warming

they are literally the ones killing the fucking planet

>>8541562
can you blame anyone of doing this?
the level of miss information we have since 2014 about the global climate is literally insane...with the last one of those http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/14/noaa-issues-jaw-dropping-assessment-unprecedented-arctic-warming
being a terrible copy and paste of info from 2013 with some general thoughts about something that happened on 2014 along with a card from 2016 that doesnt even say anything remotely close to what this article talks..
problem is there is insane amount of money being fed on the climate change (in both ways) and this needs to stop one way or another

>>8543396
>also believe that the world was created for humanity.

Didn't know Christianity preached Anthropocentrism

>>8543395
Yet that's always where this leads. Every single time. This has never been about actually solving "climate change." If it was, you would support leaving the free market to resolve the issue. The free market, which has been responsible for pretty much all real scientific advancement in the last three centuries. But no, it's always followed up by demands of more taxes, more regulation, more government.

>>8542524

>implying this wasn't Obama continuing the tradition of sucking Saudi cock

Trump hates saudi arabia, he'll go nuclear just to ruin them

Safety regulations for production industries in the US will be lowered, you chaps are going to be making a lot more goods in the future. Trump is ultimately against climate change and is going to milk this presidency for all it's worth.

>>8543404
You've got to be kidding me. Aside from the fact that the vast majority of science is funded with public money, game theory will tell you that climate change is a tragedy of the common problem that the free market isn't set up to deal with, just like over fishing and the destruction of the ozone layer.

>>8543403
When it comes to humanity and the world, it does. God is still placed above humanity in the hierarchy, but in the US Christians generally believe that the world was made to be used by humans and that God gave it to humanity.

>>8543388
>so you think humans polluting the biosphere to the point where it is no longer habitable for the human species is a topic that political leaders shouldnt be concerned with?

Perhaps "apolitical" is a bad way to phrase it.

But pushing globalism and socialism under the guise of "addressing climate change" is an unnecessary politicization of the issue.

And it doesn't help that the biggest advocates are also vehemently anti-nuclear, which is the best current alternative.

>>8543409
The only middle eastern nation Trump will fuck over is Iran, and the Saudis would love to see that.

File: Ann Coulter - Earth quote.jpg (55KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 850x400px

>>8543403
> Didn't know Christianity preached Anthropocentrism
Welcome to America.

>>8543379
Filthy shill confirmed.

>>8543418
> Aside from the fact that the vast majority of science is funded with public money
Do-nothing academics funded by public money that goes nowhere. The actual new inventions come from the private sector. The public sector has wasted trillions on fusion research over the last fifty years that has produced nothing, while the private sector is on track to have a commercially viable fusion reactor in 2020, after only a single decade of work. That's the difference. The public sector just spends money. The private sector produces results.

Seems like everyone is still overreacting to a Trump presidency and still acting like he's "literally Hitler"

He's just pulling a Nixon goes to China with climate change.

>>8541562
I don't see how asking around about which people are involved in climate change research necessarily means it's a fucking witch hunt to silence people. Maybe he actually wants to hear them out? He wouldn't be inviting major climate change advocates to Trump Tower if that weren't the case.


>>8543331
>>8543332
That's just paranoia-fueled reaction from the people who drank the "Trump is turning us into 1930's Germany" kool-aid.

>>8543430
>while the private sector is on track to have a commercially viable fusion reactor in 2020, after only a single decade of work.

who's doing that?

>>8543431
He wants to know so knows who to look out for when he pushes his agenda to start increasing production. His cabinet are against climate change and its regulations for business.

The reason it's bad is because you're going to re-create the Dust Bowl, once the fossil fuel industry has quite literally, dried up, you're leaving behind massive amounts of infrastructure built for an obsolete purpose. Better to secure a predictable future.

>>8543436
If the fossil fuel industry stops being good business, the market will move to other sources of energy. There is no reason to trust governments trying to declare what is a "predictable future." The future is inherently unpredictable, the only thing you can do is adapt when changes happen. The market can do that. Governments can't.

>>8543438
Did you even understand the final part of my post.

>>8543430
You fail to see the literal decades of fundamental science that are necessary to develop technologies like fusion. You fail to see that fundamental science is integral to technological development as a whole. You fail to see that the public sector doesn't just 'spend money' but does research that is not profitable in and of itself. You fail to see that knowledge, though not directly profitable, is necessary to develop profitable technologies.

It's like pointing at the antenna at the top of a sky scraper, and saying that the person who built the antenna is the true genius because its the tallest part of the building.

>>8543436
>we need to regulate more to control muh evil super rich oil companies

or we could just free up the market and make it more economically feasible for alternative energy sources to develop on their own.

>>8543445
If it is necessary, then by definition it will be profitable because people need it and so they will pay for it. Research that is not profitable is worthless.

>>8543451
Useless research now may be useful later on. Just think about all the 18th century mathematicians who solved equations just so they could name them after themselves. Useless then, now used in quantum mechanics and whatnot.

But you both are pussyfooting around the fact that most major research developments in the public sector are ones with military applications.

>>8543451
It's about profit margins you moron. Why invest in fundamental science when you can fund something that'll give you a return immediately? It's not a sound business plan to do research for 70 years without a return on the investment.

>>8543457
>most major research developments
That's a very specific set of applications, which is why I didn't go down that road. Pretty much all of modern medicine for instance wasn't developed in a military setting, for instance. And ironically, the medium over which we are communicating right now wasn't either. It was set up by two groups of publicly funded academics.

>>8543457
> But you both are pussyfooting around the fact that most major research developments in the public sector are ones with military applications.

Beginning as a military research project doesn't necessarily make a development less useful to the general public. The creation of the internet was heavily rooted in the Defense Department.

The reason a lot of public money is spent on military research is because that is what people can agree on. America will always be a fan of killing people, so support for publicly funded military research will always outstrip things like publicly funded medical research or less popular things like that. The military is just the only way to get Americans to agree to support science, so that's what we're stuck with.

>>8543466
>The creation of the internet was heavily rooted in the Defense Department.
No it wasn't.

>>8543473
>what is Semi-Automatic Ground Environment
>what is ARPANET

>>8543476
Those were used to develop the TCP/IP protocol. The initial setup, predating ARPANET, was a purely academic endeavor to link UCLA with SLI. This was used to secure funding to develop ARPANET. Do some more thorough digging because the wiki article skips over this.

>>8543385
The weakness of the Paris agreement only supports my argument for a lack of political will.

>>8543385
My point is that we're going to need disaster relief either way.

>>8543426
I'm a shill for jobs and cheaper energy bills.

Shoot me.

>>8543489
>There is an agreement. So therefore an agreement will never happen.
Flawless logic.
>My point is that we're going to need disaster relief either way.
No shit. It's about how much we're going to need.

>>8543492
Ironically you're shilling for high taxes also.

>>8543499
The argument is that the Paris agreement will do absolutely nothing to curtail climate change. With a president hell bent on combatting climate change, this is the best he and the world could do. The political will simply isn't there, because people will not have their living standards harmed in the short term.

Therefore, if the climate is going to change regardless, why not make the most of it? Thousands of jobs and cheap energy bills make a huge difference to people's lives.

>>8543513
You think in black and white white terms. This isn't an all or nothing game,and the problem isn't going to be solved with one agreement.

Any global environmental crisis in history was initially approached with skepticism. Ultimately, a solution is possible nonetheless. This one is no different.

>>8543513
> With a president hell bent on combatting climate change, this is the best he and the world could do.
Because he can't get anything actually binding. That would require Senate confirmation, and the republicans, who oppose any action on climate change because they dismiss it as a hoax. Thing is, the senate by design doesn't reflect the people. A party can have a majority in the US Senate with the support of less than a tenth of the population. So even if there is popular support for action on climate change, the republican party can block it regardless of what the people want. That's not a problem of political will, that's a problem with the design of the federal government.

>washingtonpost
Russians hacked the climate.

>but dictators are known to use systematic propaganda coupled with "persuading opposition" to be silent
A bit like SJWs and die-hard dems have done for the last 8 years.

>>8543418
>Aside from the fact that the vast majority of science is funded with public money,
You don't see as much a conflict of interest there as there would be if funded by the fossil fuels industry?

>>8543423
You know full well that Trump has called out Saudi influence in US politics repeatedly. In fact one of the first things he wants to change is to ban foreign funding of politicians and lobbyists, which is clearly a dig at the Democrats' present closeness to Saudi Arabia.

>>8543526
Define action on climate change.

>>8543513
>Therefore, if the climate is going to change regardless, why not make the most of it? Thousands of jobs and cheap energy bills make a huge difference to people's lives.
You're probably right.

>>8543517
>Any global environmental crisis in history was initially approached with skepticism.
What?

>>8541562
To be fair we don't know yet what he intends with the information. It's not unusual to ask for information about the skills and knowledge of your employees. Hopefully he's not stupid enough to try anything.

>>8543528
> which is clearly a dig at the Democrats' present closeness to Saudi Arabia.
The Democrats have been trying to move toward normalizing relations with Iran over the howling of the Saudis. It's Trump and the Republicans who want to give the Saudis what they want by scrapping the Iran nuclear deal. The Republicans are the ones who literally hold hands with the Saudi royal family.

>>8543533
Maybe he's going to weed out special interests just like AGW cultists have purported to do by harassing researchers whose data doesn't support the foregone conclusion.

>>8543532
> Define action on climate change.
Apparently talking about it at all is too much for republicans.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wisconsin-agency-bans-talk-of-climate-change/

>>8543533
Why do you think Donald "You're fired!" Trump is asking for a list of names of people who work on something he dismisses as a hoax?

>>8543334
>passing laws barring people from voting so that only their supporters can participate in elections.
i agree with what you said but this is patently bullshit. showing your ID to vote is common sense, and america is again the only country where you can just show up an vote

>>8543545
Global warming IS a hoax, a giant money making hoax
far too many liberals/politicians have profitted off it

>>8543535
that ain't true
the republicans just passed that bill to sue the saudi's
Obama is literally a muslim

>>8543528
>You don't see as much a conflict of interest there as there would be if funded by the fossil fuels industry?
No. Because contractually the funder has no say in the results. This is different with privately funded science. There, the results are the intellectual property of the funder, not the scientist.

>>8543380
haha can't wait for america and "real americans" to go down the shitter where they rightful belong

>>8543584
we're gonna make american white again

>>8543573
> showing your ID to vote is common sense
If the government provided said ID to all eligible voters free of charge, maybe. As it sits, they don't. Furthermore, what form of ID qualifies has already been used by politicians to control which citizens are voting. In North Carolina the state government literally went through data on what forms of ID are commonly used by each race, and disallowed the use of IDs that non-whites used more.

This is actually going to benefit us. People are going to lose their jobs, research is going to be stopped, funding is going to dry up AND THE SCIENCE WILL NOT CHANGE ITS STORY.

Think about that a moment. Right now right wing nutjobs are claiming that climate change is a conspiracy to get research grants and shit. When the research grants are canceled and the scientists don't change their story because they are ethically bound to tell the truth, the last argument against man made climate change will be gone.

It sucks but I await the future. We're right and we know it, and no amount of threats will ever change that. Suck on it deniers you will not get your way.

>>8543587
As much as you leftists like to brag about equality, none of you would willingly live in a non-white majority country
Nothing wrong with what the republicans were doing, whats wrong is this disparate impact thinking by you people.

Hopefully the conservative supreme court overturns that garbage

>>8543573
Voter ID is hardly the only thing that's been happening. Look at the restrictions on early voting. Retired people who are reliable Republican voters might be able to get to the polls on a Tuesday, but younger people tend to have to work on Tuesdays. The restriction on early voting disproportionately targets younger people, who are more likely to vote for Democrats. There are a whole slew of things that, taken together, can determine who is able to show up to the polls and vote. That way, the Republicans can maintain total control of all branches of the government regardless of how unpopular they become with the majority of the country.

>>8543595
> It just so happens that what we did fucked over non-whites, after we just happened to very carefully look at the data to make sure that we were only fucking over non-whites. There's nothing wrong with that!

>>8543595
I want to live in Japan-senpai

>>8543606
I am a racist & proud of it, you can't shame me

>>8543609
Because they're smart enough to keep the shitskins out.

>>8543606
Also: Imagine if the founding fathers followed your thinking
And the US was a brazil tier shithole
Would that be better, would that be more MORAL or ETHICAL?

>>8543613
They are smart enough not to be white.

>>8543611
You're doing a great job of that yourself already

>>8543616
Theres nothing that stops non-whites from getting a valid ID

>>8543617
Missing the point

>>8543611
Restricting voting based on race is literally unconstitutional. It's right there in the 15th amendment.

Also imposing a cost requirement on voting is unconstitutional under the 24th amendment.

>>8543620
Requiring an ID is not unconstitutional, even if it disproportionately effects blacks

>>8543620
Shitlibs don't respect the 2nd, so why should they be able to hide behind the 15th or the 24th? When it comes to making sure Jamal or Tyron can fuck over the country even more, you people are suddenly strict constructionists and devoted to liberty. But when a white man wants to be able to defend himself, it's suddenly archaic and backwards.

>>8543587
>>8543604
sounds just like a bunch of whining to me. both failed to make any sensible points. I guess you'll have to come to grasp that you're gonna need an ID to vote and pay for it, like everywhere else.

>>8543621
Just like saying "you can vote if your grandfather could vote" is fine, even if it disproportionately effects blacks.

>>8543626
they could have left the country any time

>>8543626
Yes, it was fine. Name a single good thing that came from allowing blacks to vote.

>>8543622
If you respect the constitution as a proper republican you should respect all of it. It's not about whether liberals respect it or not. Or are you hiding behind constitution only when it fits your narrative all the same.

It seems like every wrong a liberal does enables republicans to fuck over the country for any reason. In fact it seems that anyone opposed to republicans is a liberal.

>>8543630
Democrats winning more elections. A party that ever so slightly better than Republicans.

ITT people who actually think Donald Trump is a fascists.

>>8543631
> implying republicans aren't shitlibs too
Trump had to fight tooth and nail through the liberals in the republican party.

> If you respect the constitution as a proper republican you should respect all of it.
The Constitution is a piece of paper. What matters is the nation. If parts of the Constitution get in the way of the good of the nation, then the leader should ignore them.

>>8543641
Are you 15?

>>8543636
Blacks voted for republicans until the dims started bribing them with free stuff to get them back on the plantation. After all, it was the republicans who freed the slaves, the democrats were the ones who supported slavery then just as they do now. The republican party has always stood for freedom, not dependancy. For a while that was enough for the blacks, but eventually after decades of pampering they got greedy and started demanding free stuff. The republican party stood against that sort of thing, but the dims were more than happy to pander to it.

>>8543641
>The Constitution is a piece of paper. What matters is the nation. If parts of the Constitution get in the way of the good of the nation, then the leader should ignore them.
Then I guess we should confiscate those guns.

>>8543644
Just try it. It'll give us a good excuse to start killing all you leftist cucks.

>>8543649
>Idiots killing innocent police officers doing what the government passes as a law
>Then getting killed themselves and portrayed as violent gun nuts
And so Republicans' electorate dies.

>>8543652
> implying the police aren't on our side
You leftists want Tyron to be able to gun them down in the street without consequences. Why the fuck would they listen to anything you people told them to do? The police overwhelmingly supported Trump because he gets them. He gets that this is a fucking war and there are no rules in war.

>>8543643
>Blacks voted for republicans
thats untrue
blacks never voted republican
It just wasn't quite a landslide for democrats as it was post-60's

>>8543652
Police and Military voted republican in a landslide

>>8543657
>>8543662
So stats?

>>8543664
only around 20%~ of the military voted Hillary

>>8543657
>>8543662
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-president
Guys calling shots are more pro Clinton than Trump. I guess they will be even more pro Clinton once they get shot by people who want war against the democratic will of the nation.

>>8543672
Trump is the will of the nation. He won, shitlery lost. Deal with it.

>Climate change
>Turns into a /pol/ thread
I'm starting to agree with /pol/ that undesirables shouldn't be allowed to vote, I just have a different opinion one what constitutes "undesirable"

>>8541574
>If he fires all the scientists that accept global warming, he will end with a Department of Energy made entirely of dumbasses.
He's not looking for "all the scientists that accept global warming", he's looking for climate researchers, which have no place in the Department of Energy, and can only be there as products of bureaucratic empire-building or political plants.

You don't need climate researchers all over the place in the government, especially not global climate researchers. You just need one federal department for them, so you can see how much you're spending on climate research, how many you're employing to do it, and what results it's producing at a glance.

All of this is shrill pearl-clutching from liberals over the horrible things Trump is going to do that are actually catching and stopping the underhanded things liberals have been doing, like abusing executive control to misappropriate funds meant for other worthy and important research to shovel money to people who help push leftist policy, like global climate researchers.

>>8542510
The war on science was lost years ago, when no one bat an eye when James Watson was fired for saying simple truths.

>>8543592
they'll just spin it as "look, those filthy liars are so desperate for us to give them money again they're still crying wolf about the climate hoax"

>>8543828
>climate researchers
He's looking not for climate researchers but for people involved in it. Never stopped him from putting unqualified people anywhere else anyway as if climate researcher was going to ruin energy department which needs to do its climate research homework either way.
>All of this is shrill pearl-clutching from liberals over the horrible things Trump is going to do that are actually catching and stopping the underhanded things liberals have been doing
All of it is abusing power. It's textbook example of covering up the abuse of power by saying that everyone is super really corrupt and eating babies there. There were many such cases and it never ended well.

>>8543662
Only because police and military are stacked to the brim with trigger-happy rednecks lacking any sign of intelligence let alone wisdom. We need another Vietnam war to cull their ranks.

>>8543870
>Never stopped him from putting unqualified people anywhere else anyway
name one

>>8543875
How about replacing a nobel laureate and top theoretical physicist with Rick Perry, a man with a degree in 'animal science' from a shit-tier uni.

Or putting Ben Carson, a man with literally zero experience in urban planing, in charge HUD.

Or letting his brat kids who have absolutely zero political experience, let alone any real world experience in anything important, sit in on his policy meetings.

>>8543875
John Cena for instance

>>8543875
Betsy DeVos
>political science degree

>>8543592
>THE SCIENCE WILL NOT CHANGE ITS STORY
And what story is that, exactly?

The one where we're all underwater now because we didn't drastically cut emissions 30 years ago? Or the one where we'll all be underwater in 30 years if we don't drastically cut emissions now?

The real mainstream research is saying global climate change may become a mild inconvenience a century from now, assuming that we, with our rapidly-advancing technology and growing capabilities, do absolutely nothing about it.

Honest research into solutions shows a variety of options, many of which don't need to be started any time soon.

We don't need to be spending one hundredth what we are on climate research, let alone taking or preparing any practical action now.

>>8543891
he probably got thrown off by the word urban, he thought "mmh urban sounds like something a black guy would get. put carson in"

>>8543906
or, alternatively, "we need a token minority to make it look like we don't have an all-white cabinet"

>>8543901
>The real mainstream research is saying global climate change may become a mild inconvenience a century from now, assuming that we, with our rapidly-advancing technology and growing capabilities, do absolutely nothing about it.
>Honest research into solutions shows a variety of options, many of which don't need to be started any time soon.
Horseshit.

>>8543891
Rick Perry has all the qualifications they need for closing that department
Ben Carson grew up in the ghetto, thats the experience he needs, he's also conservative so he'll end all the bullshit HUD initiatives started by liberals

His kids will have positions in his administration, so ofc they will sit in.

>>8543891
>tedious credentialism
Yes, we know. The left controls the colleges, and the bureaucracy, and therefore True Annointed Competence.

>>8543916
What's wrong with an all white cabinet ?

>>8543920
>conservatives aren't let into college
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>8543932
Nothing. But Trump faces quite a lot of racism accusations, so it makes sense he would put the one black politician who is willing to associate with him into office.

Watch out for that Kanye advisory position too

>>8542339
good post

>>8543901
>it's not a problem I swear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg&t=89s

>>8543995
>a youtube video
wtf is that suppose to mean? this is literally /pol/ tier level of argument, i expect better from you

>>8543953
>conservatives aren't let into grad school
>conservatives aren't given teaching or research positions in academia
>conservatives aren't allowed to rise through the ranks of government positions to become experienced managers
There are exceptions, but it's mostly true. There's even a strong bias against letting conservatives into the good colleges, that conservatives built.

This is how liberals work: they get into positions of authority to use their authority in bad faith, especially to get other liberals into, and keep conservatives out of, positions of authority.

Basically the only effective resistance to this comes from elections, and fields that involve real personal danger and self-sacrifice, like police and military.

Trump got elected because the people are tired of switching back and forth between suicide progressives pushing toward the cliff and ratchet conservatives giving weak resistance to the next step toward the cliff and then resisting any step away from it.

>>8542109
Bruh, have you ever talked to a business mogul?
If you're an undergrad then you can just go talk to the business majors and extrapolate from there. These aren't rational decision makers based on facts, they're entirely driven by profits for themselves.
Doesn't even matter whether the business guy is convinced really, climate change is just an extrenality to them

>>8543375
I actually agree with the point you're making here.

Climate change becoming a signature issue of the DEMs was probably the single biggest killing blow to any meangingful action on it. We should remember this when pushing for nuclear, or whatever the next big science oriented issue is.

>>8543430
>what is bell labs
>what is NASA
>what is the Manhattan project
When it comes to implementing technologies in an efficient way that's beneficial to society leave that to the markets.
Markets don't innovate for their own sake though, because that has huge risks that might not pay off.
When it comes to developing brand new technologies, governments are far superior.

And with regards to climate change specifically: the incentives are all wrong for a market driven approach. The optimal strategy is to use fossil fuels for as long as possible, until a new technology is developed that is cheaper. No where in that equation do the long term negative effects of CO2 emmissions come up. That's an externality that business people have no concern for, nor should they.
A carbon tax is the only way to do what you're talking about.

>>8544007
k theres a difference between 'conservative' and complete retard. obviously nobody likes retards. with the exception of ben carson, retards usually dont do very well in things that actually reauire skill and thought. look at trump: literally retarded his way to presidency but only by being
>our retard
when you have a party whose supporters think that the earth was made in 7 days 5500 years ago obviously its leaders will be retards since they have to be
>our guy


but theres been tons of conservatives who arent ridiculously partisan and polarized and are well-respected

>>8543409
Is that why he opened multiple businesses in Saudi during the election ?

>>8543528
>You know full well that Trump has called out Saudi influence in US politics repeatedly

He has millions invested in Saudi businesses.

>>8544062
>trump: literally retarded
Yeah, he totally won the election on dumb luck and not provoking smug liberals into jamming their dicks in the blender over and over, while pushing the only non-suicidal policy package on offer from a credible candidate.

But you go on jamming that dick in the blender. You libs are running around now waving giant flags with, "WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR TRUSTED!" I mean, you might think you're shouting "This is just like Harry Potter!" or "Trump is literally Hitler!" or "Electors who cast their votes as they promised are traitors!" or "We need a Ministry of Truth to stop the 'fake news'!" or "We will disregard the law and refuse to obey Trump!" or "Russians hacked the election!", but trust me, this is what everyone outside your bubble sees.

>>8542552
>>8542555
>>8543321

Is this the new tactic of leftists? You know, besides denying the fact that intelligence is genetic, that racial differences in intelligence is genetic, and that behavior is genetic, is simply to flat out lie and pretend there isn't a leftist witchhunt against any scientist who disagrees with them?

This is not a new phenomena. We all know about it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Superstition

Remember how Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn were treated? Remember how the Bell Curve was treated when it was released? Remember the backlash some British politician got because they got Robert Plomin telling him about some basic facts in behavioral genetics? Remember how some Harvard president got fired for repeating a truth about gender differences, or how James Watson had the same done to him for repeating a truth about race?

Don't play stupid. Insitutional leftism has hijacked academia, and as a result, any science that disagrees with leftism, especially behavioral genetics, and intelligence research are fucked thanks to them. There is a reason more people have heard of bullshit like "white privilege" then know anything about these field.

Fuck you, leftists. There is no political ideology that happily embraces the obliteration of human civilizations then yours.

>>8543535
Saudi Arabia was funding Clinton campaign you stupid liberal, while the same funders insulted Trump. Why are you talking about things you don't know anything about?

>>8544112
Fucking hell you are retarded. You are arguing against climate change by saying that scientists are ostracised by their peers for saying racist things. It boggles my mind that you think this is an valid argument. The sheer amount of mental gymnastics demonstrated here is staggering.

>>8544062
It's comments like these that show how fucking stupid Trump haters are. This leftist retard does know that Trump won because he basically took all the white working class democrats right? That's how he won the former Democratic states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. But then he continues with that stupid leftist generalization, that everyone who supports Trump is le dumb white creationist, even though if he took one look at his gallup poll, we would realize that while a good deal of Americans believe God created humans and the Earth, that doesn't mean they believe in young Earth creationist, and quite frankly, its on the same level as believing genes have no influence on behavior which too many lefitst believe, but I disgress...

The point is. Trump won the white vote. At every single education level, and at every way you can measure it, Trump won the white vote, and won traditionally non-Republican voter.

>retards usually dont do very well in things that actually reauire skill and thought. look at trump: literally retarded his way to presidency

Yes, Trump is just a retard. Yeah, he had the media and everyone else against him, but he won by being a retard. He is a successful billionaire builder, but he's a retard. Sure, I'm sure you could do better.

>but theres been tons of conservatives who arent ridiculously partisan and polarized and are well-respected

I'm sure you talking about spineless cuckservatives like Mitt Romney, losers who couldn't even beat Obama despite "moderating" his message, and whose idea of being well-respected is to bend over and agree with every leftist principles, like illegal immigration. The Republican party would have gone so far as to say white people are privileged if it thought it could get them vote. I am so glad Trump is purging some of them out of the party.

>>8544138
Fucking hell, even when you try to insult me, you leftist piece of shit just prove me right.

>You are arguing against climate change

I'm not arguing against climate change, although the topic has become extremely leftizied, and should be held in higher scrutiny so people don't fall for the doomsday leftist interpretation of climate change. Indeed, if the US was 100% white, climate change skepticism would be much higher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2_Ui1NchN4

>scientists are ostracised by their peers for saying racist things

I really love this. You say academia hasn't been witch-hunting scientist, and then I post a book written in the 90s showing the heavy presence of pro-leftist bias in science, in every level of academia, from the people who would be willing to fund your research topic. And that leftism is the main reason subjects like behavioral genetics and intelligence research are so heavily attacked, and what do you say? Hur, there is nothing wrong with that because scientist who published "racist" research deserve to be ostracized by their peers for being racist. Gee, with attitudes like yours, is it any wonder that the majority of behavioral geneticist and intelligence researchers keep their mouth shut?

Again, fuck you leftist. There is no political ideology that happily embraces the obliteration of human civilization then yours. How much cognitive dissonance did you experience writing that?

>>8544168
Ok retard, let me spell it out for you.

>the science tells us that there are genetic differences between different races of human
>unfortunately this truth is very inconvenient for SJW
>it is regularly attacked, and faults looked for in the methodology
>some people are not prepared to accept the results of science

>the science tells us that there is a human influence on climate change
>unfortunately this truth is very inconvenient for business owners
>it is regularly attacked, and faults looked for in the methodology
>some people are not prepared to accept the results of science

Funny how you only accept the results of science when it fit with your pre-formed view

>>8544112
correct

>>8544112
You forgot those Marxists who would throw water and eggs on that Harvard sociobiologist and harass him almost to the point he left academia.

>>8544153
he is a retard. have you not heard the guy speak? what kind of idiot spends 30 seconds in a presidential debate talking about his 'temperment'? have you never heard the shit the guy says? he's actually retarded. he doesnt seem like he has an attention span longer than 45 seconds. he won by catering to frustrations. everything he did can be reduced to that. people feel shitty about themselves and displaced in the world so it fucks their shit up. look at you, with all your anger towards the 'liberals' and 'leftists' lmao his team played u like a fiddle. but go on thinking youre not a loser just because you voted for a guy who's basically
>le strongman who'll rescue me from all my insecurities

and god forbid anyone try to understand why like 55 million peoplenwould vote for someone who's basically a textbook case of rallying and manipulating individual frustrations, lest faggots like
>>8544090
pop out of the woodwork

guess what! youre a loser now and youll be a loser 8 years from now :D

>>8544168
>is it any wonder that the majority of behavioral geneticist and intelligence researchers keep their mouth shut?

And what would you rather they do? Start preaching the gospel of white supermecy? Start selective breeding programmes? Start teaching children that other races should be looked down upon?

The differance is that genetic differances are pointless to achknowedge, because once accepted them you can't act on the information in a positive way. It changes nothing. It maybe explains some things in the past, but the is no action to be taken that depends on the result. Its a dead topic. It's pointless to discuss.

However, it doesn't take a genious to work out that going about talking about this all day is going to lead to racism. Not retard SJW 'racism', but old fashioned, definition racism. Thats why its not discussed. How can you not understand this?

>>8544207
>because once accepted them you can't act on the information in a positive way.

This is why you liberals are idiots, you genuinely believe that building or maintaining civilization is a negative thing
That the whole world being subsaharan africa would be PROGRESS because at least no racism or inequality.

Just fucking absolutely insane
Meanwhile you import more foreigners in the west and tell us they are now "one of us", and we need to cater to all their sensibilities

Reality must be censored because liberals believe reality is harmful to non-whites(they really mean their political agendas)
Anyways, Trump won, you lost.

>>8544153
oh, and before you lambast me for saying that he's a retard because the LCD republican is a retard, he's fucking lied and said more impulsive shit than half thr shit-posters on this forum.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

EIGHTEEN PERCENT OF THE SHIT HE SAYS IS A PATENT LIE AND THAT DOENST BOTHER U CUS
>le liberalsleftist cuckers

>>8544215
>He thinks that treating people differantly due to the colour of their skin is a positive thing

Yep, I'm done.

And for the record, no, I'm not a liberal. Not everybody is as polirised as you.

>>8544217
and for the record, i dont hate trump. i actually think hes more benign than hillary in some ways and, for better or for worse, will bring about some change for the working white American. what the ramifications will be? not sure. i think its good that a shitload of people whove essentially been forgotten about forbthe past 75 years now have someone who's willing to stand up for them, even at the cost of being a total retard. so trumps like a retarded Jesus of democracy, i guess
>he became a retard for our incompetency and impotence ;_; 7

oh and btw i was involved with a certain ''movement" thatd basically ostracize me by many irl and make me beloved by many in this thread but then everything started coming up Milhouse and when things fell into place I kinda saw things for how they are

>>8544181
>the science tells us that there are genetic differences between different races of human
Science confirms what is blatantly obvious on casual observation. Lunatic utopians try to deny it and pretend the confirmation is incompetent science.

>the science tells us that there is a human influence on climate change
There's pretty much nobody who seriously disputes this. The dispute is what that influence is and how confident we should be of our predictions, and rather than "the science" telling us there will be a disaster unless we stop burning fossil fuels, that's coming from "people who call each other scientists" who also tell us that only they are smart enough to understand the science, which requires supercomputer models to predict the behavior of a unique chaotic system decades into the future, and even other established scientists from respected fields mustn't be listened to.

Here's where you warmists always go off the rails:
>>Shut it all down right away or there will be a total global catastrophe next decade!
>I've never seen any evidence that supports that, and when you showed me what you told me was evidence, later I found out it was full of lies. Also, you said that two decades ago and the only bad thing that happened is we moved most of our factories to China, where they burned even more coal than we would have, because we trusted people who said they were trying to fix it.
>>Why don't you believe that there is any human influence on climate change?

There are two parts to a real scientific consensus:
(1) Practically all the specialists in the field agree on something.
(2) Practically all scientists in other fields agree that the specialists in the field are qualified to make that statement.

The "scientific consensus" on global warming passes (1), but fails badly on (2), putting it in the same status as the scientific consensus that homeopathy works: the career homeopathy researchers all believe it.

>>8544231
kk so show us this overwhelming consensus by non-environmental scientists saying that climate change doesnt exist.

>>8544231
>There's pretty much nobody who seriously disputes this

What the fuck are you arguing about then? All your posts are filled with strawman fallacies, where you seem to think that everybody that doesn't mindlessly follow allong with your rhetoric is a stupid liberal and hence believes in everything that you've seen /pol/ say liberals believe in.

>fails badly on (2)
Citation needed.

>>8544231
>>8544237
Also just to add

> the scientific consensus that homeopathy works
what the fuck are you actually talking about. as I said, strawmen everywhere

File: 2016_09_13_31849.jpg (17KB, 610x335px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 610x335px

>>8542552
>You're also pretty defensive about he slightest implication of you possibly belonging to a group your views align with.

>>8544236
>>Here's where you warmists always go off the rails:

>>(2) Practically all scientists in other fields agree that the specialists in the field are qualified to make that statement.
>>fails badly on (2)
>show us this overwhelming consensus by non-environmental scientists saying that climate change doesnt exist.

Good job getting back on those rails. You're really convincing people that your position is founded in reason.

>>8544112
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/
That's funny because it speaks about how both left and right have their problems with science and constantly hate on Academia. Which pretty much puts Academia in somewhat neutral position. Like for example Academia think Nuclear is okay but Fossils are bad which is something different from both right and left. They also aren't afraid of GMOs.

The article pretty much proves you wrong, but hey you're just too retarded to read. It says how it's at odds with both extreme right and left in different ways. How's it saying that Academia is left propaganda?

>>8544255
Fossils are bad???? America sure is retarded. But yeah liberals are destroying science. If I try to criticise global warming everyone calls me a retard and doesn't listen to my arguments. There's a PoC in science after all. Trump is helping science is a certain way. Thank you God Emperor.

File: Exxon_Mobil.png (17KB, 803x578px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 803x578px

>>8543901

>don't need to be started any time soon.

>>8544265
>everyone calls me a retard and doesn't listen to my arguments

Thats because you are a retard, and your arguements amount to nothing but tard rage, logical fallicies and insults. You have been destroyed over every topic you have raised, but you've kept shifting the goalposts.

>>8544265
Maybe they're calling you a retard b e c a u s e they listen to your arguments.

>>8544255
Your take on the article:
>left and right have their problems with science and constantly hate on Academia. Which pretty much puts Academia in somewhat neutral position

The actual article:
>belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People

The difference is, leftists wage their war on science from within academia, often while calling themselves scientists and being treated as such by the management of colleges. This does not "pretty much put Academia in a somewhat neutral position".

Most of the non-science and "soft-science" parts of academia, plus the college administrations, are rabidly leftist, and they do what they can to suppress hard science they don't want to hear and replace it with political messages from leftist infiltrators playing hard scientist.

>>8544283
Nice cherry-picking

>Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally

File: yfw anthropogenic climate change exists.gif (988KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 500x275px

>>8542339

>>8542181
They're the same half mostly

File: exxon-mobil-logo.jpg (5KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 500x300px

>>8544283
>and they do what they can to suppress hard science

>>8544283
Liberal intellectuals doesn't always imply Academia when it comes to actual science. Tabula Rasa is mostly philosophy and psychology topic. Please do quote the one part and forget about how right is still trying to force evolution out of schools or they assault on modern medicine. Or how many big businesses like sugar or tobacco sponsored their own scientists to publish as many articles supporting their bullshit as they can.

Academia has plenty of professors who are left leaning but I haven't seen many actually respectable SJWs. The most left leaning are some soft sciences and that's it. Those professors hold their own opinions on thing that coincide with left more than right, but it can't be blamed on them, truth is just with slight liberal bias.

File: e58.jpg (60KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x370px

>>8544283
>they do what they can to suppress hard science

File: 1451673999289.jpg (99KB, 1035x700px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1035x700px

>>8544283
You're retarded, and you don't even realize it.
There's nothing inherently conservative about the idea that different races have different average intelligence levels. Political ideologies are debates over the most effective way of utilizing resources, not whether or not something is true.

I'm not even clear that you understand the terms you're using. Liberal, progressive, and leftist aren't the same thing.
Liberals believe in an "even playing field". This is the idea that everyone should be allowed the same opportunities, regardless of their personal characteristics. Progressivism and libertarianism are both descendents of this ideology, with libertarianism focusing on unrestricted individual freedom, and progressivism focusing on workers rights and protection from those in power.

Left and Right have their roots in the French Revolution, and using them in modern political context is a innacurate. The leftists can be generalized as those who want to equalize outcomes. Rightists want to ensure that those who have continue to have.

Right is often used interchangeably with conservative. There is some overlap, but conservative is more about the preservation of institutions that have been shown to work than about a specific status quo.

Notice that none of that has any relationship to beliefs about human intelligence, or about how best to handle climate change. Facts don't factor into political ideologies, because political ideologies aren't about facts, they're about methods of achieving outcomes. You can take the same fact, feed it into different political ideologies, and they'll come out with completely different responses to the fact based off the political algorithm they're running.
Imagine if we convinced everyone of the following:

File: Did Somebody Say Climate.jpg (41KB, 297x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 297x450px

>>8544408
>fact: the Earth's climate is changing at a rate that is dangerous for the planet's ecosystem, largely due to human emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. If emissions are curbed, then this may reduce the rate of climate change. The exact costs of climate change are unclear, but they look highly negative for humans.
The debate really wouldn't look quite different imo. Here's what I propose each group's positions would be on the matter. If you identify with one of these, and you feel that I incorrectly stated your position, please let me know.

>libertarian perspective: once the costs of climate change are high enough, then consumers and businesses will naturally move away from fossil fuels. We shouldn't intervene before the market consensus reaches this equilibrium.
>progressive perspective: climate change hurts the least powerful of us, therefore we should aggressively move off of fossil fuels and fund the development of new forms of energy

>classical liberal perspective: we should create a system that encourages the use of other forms of energy, incentivizing a move to cleaner energy types
>conservative: we should focus on adapting to climate change, rather than trying to dismantle proven systems in an effort to accomplish something that might not even be possible.

>leftist: We should make people to move to different types of energy, by force if necessary
>rightist: we should make sure that successful businesses aren't punished by moving to new forms of energy, regardless of other effects

File: 1459323553956.jpg (102KB, 513x572px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 513x572px

>>8544414
I believe that from this perspective, the climate change debate becomes much more explicable. Now that we're all discussing the same reality, we can talk about specific solutions more effectively, because some of these solutions ARE better than others.
Unfortunately irl, many of these groups are conflated, just as you were doing. Progressive, liberal and leftist are generally shoved together into the Democrats (along with several other ideological groups), and libertarian, conservative and right-wing are shoved together into the Republicans (along with several other ideological groups).
People should make a better effort to understand where their ideas come from, so that they can understand their own ideological biases better. Certain ideologies are effective in certain contexts but not others, while certain ideologies' methods work well in some cases but not in others.

If you haven't figured it out by now, there's no such thing as a "spectrum". There's specific belief systems and methodologies, and trying to shoehorn them into an arbitrary position on a "spectrum" that doesn't even measure anything is a pointless endeavor.

>>8544408
>>8544414

Nice post. You're fotgetting the final position, the /pol/ position. It goes something along the lines of

>climate change is a hoax you fucking libtard

Unfortunately none of the climate change discussions on here get very far past that.

>>8544414

>libertarian perspective: once the costs of climate change are high enough, then consumers and businesses will naturally move away from fossil fuels. We shouldn't intervene before the market consensus reaches this equilibrium.
i.e : When we see the wall coming, we should step on the breaks really fucking hard, even though the car won't stop in time.
>conservative: we should focus on adapting to climate change, rather than trying to dismantle proven systems in an effort to accomplish something that might not even be possible.
The systems are proven to work if you ignore the fact that they're wrecking the environment. If you don't ignore that, then the systems don't work, at all. You'd think conservatives would be about conserving, not the ones saying they'll adapt to change eventually.

It's much simpler to just deny the problem. Because if you don't deny the problem, then most of the ideologies don't make sense. It doesn't make sense to expect markets to adapt when the situation becomes critical, because when it does, it'll be too late anyway. It also doesn't make sense to keep the same habits when they're proven to be destructive, especially if they're destructive to the very habits that are causing the destruction. One way or another, the habits will need to change, because if it isn't forced onto people by other people, it'll be forced onto them by the environment.

>>8544504
>It doesn't make sense to expect markets to adapt when the situation becomes critical, because when it does, it'll be too late anyway.
I believe this was exactly why Keynesian economics was invented.

>>8541783
no educated, successful person thinks this it's just to appease the american public

>>8544522
It was meant to deal with economical issues, not ecological issues. Recovering from the great repression was possible. Recovering from ecological collapse isn't. You can't un-fuck the environment.

Once the ball gets rolling, it'll be almost impossible to stop it. Trying to stop it when it will have been rolling for years is absurd.

>>8544522
Can you elaborate?

>>8544522
You expect a system meant to induce growth to do the exact opposite of that ?

File: despots.jpg (91KB, 961x668px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 961x668px

>>8544504
>It also doesn't make sense to keep the same habits
>the habits will need to change
The primary habit of humanity is to fornicate and consume resources, this will not change unless a draconian global police state is installed. The AGW meme is the means to that end, coming on with a velvet glove, to save earth and you with it, but underneath an iron hand that will squash you like the useless eater you are. The entire meme makes CO2 out to be a pollutant, that very molecule being critical to life on earth, it is a war on life making life out to be a pollutant. Trust these people at your peril! I am a libertarian and would rather see a natural depletion of fossil fuels and a natural correction in human population during and after that depletion, not a synthetic "solution" by corrupt authority figures. That will turn a bad situation into nightmare mode.

File: 1460680545614.png (20KB, 642x715px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 642x715px

>>8544580

>>8544408
>Liberals believe in an "even playing field".
This is about as true as "Feminism is about equality."

The modern, common meaning of "liberal" developed largely from its persistent use as a euphemism for "socialist" in the early 20th century. Today's self-described liberal is pretty much always a utopian of some stripe: if you ask them what they ultimately want, it's something self-inconsistent or inconsistent with physical reality, and usually even this is just an intentionally unsatisfiable justification for grabbing power.

To be a liberal, you can't honestly believe in principles, which is to say, you can't take the bad with the good. You espouse a principle until it results in an undesired outcome, then you want an exception. Principles, thus, are something you only ever talk about to try to influence people who truly believe in principles.

For instance, liberals were screaming bloody murder about Trump saying he believed his opponents were trying to rig the election and he would contest the results if they went against him. How could he make that accusation? That's undermining the public trust! How could he say he would contest the results? He's an enemy of democracy!

Of course, when he won, after their *covert* attempts to rig the election failed, they not only hypocritically claimed it was rigged and contested the results themselves, but began *overt* attempts to rig the election after the fact, such as by influencing and threatening the electors. They'd be in open rebellion if they didn't know they'd lose the fight.

...and that's how you recognize a liberal.

>>8544805
Its almost like you think that 50% of the population is the same person.

>>8541582
hes already backpedaled on a whole bunch of his ideas, no reason this cant be one of them

>>8541574
>global warming
>its hotter mainly on (in?) poles and Eu
>cold-er africa
what if poles slighty moved?!

File: baby.jpg (15KB, 635x414px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 635x414px

Words mean whatever I want!

>>8544198
>that Harvard sociobiologist

Who was that?

File: 1479690955086.jpg (304KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1280x960px

>>8544805
>missing the point this hard
Dude.

File: 6a00d83451586c69e200e5500c38c38833-800wi.jpg (83KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x576px

>>8541562
>politicize science research funding
>lose control of your own abomination
>cry when it is used against you

>>8544408
>There's nothing inherently conservative about the idea that different races have different average intelligence levels.

Perhaps not, but there IS something inherently leftist in denying it

>Liberals believe in an "even playing field".
Liberals don't actually believe in anything, they are sheep controlled by their masters. The point of this "equality" and "anti-racism" bullshit is the genocide of whites.
There is extremely evil long term agendas at the root of all left wing policy & beliefs.

There is noone more hateful than a liberal

File: liberalsblock.jpg (28KB, 338x409px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 338x409px

>>8545452
>There is noone more hateful than a liberal
hateful and bigotted.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

>>8542339
You basically have a point. A law should be passed that says cabinets within the executive government should be filled with those who have degrees and expertise within their field.

>>8545452
>>8545466
Go back.

>>8544222
>missing the point so hard
brainlet

It never fails to amaze me just how far the /pol/tards are willing to bend their ideas.

Just a couple of years ago you faggots were drooling over a candidate who radically opposed big government.

>>8544241
>>8544270
>>8544299
>m-muh Big Oil
Maybe minimal age limit should raised to 21 years on worksafe boards

>>8545636
then you wouldn't be allowed to post

File: tinfoilhat.jpg (414KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1024x768px

>>8545452
>Liberals don't actually believe in anything, they are sheep controlled by their masters. The point of this "equality" and "anti-racism" bullshit is the genocide of whites.
There is extremely evil long term agendas at the root of all left wing policy & beliefs.

Hows high school going for ya?

>>8545706
Yea ok m8, race doesn't matter huh? Thats why whites must become minorities in all their countries?

>>8545730
You are completely radicalised. You have lost the ability for critical thinking, if you ever had it to begin with. Look at the garbage you've been spouting in this thread. You've completely humiliated yourself, had all your arguements destroyed, yet still continue to post.

Go back to your containment board.

File: 1480946859463.jpg (45KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x640px

>>8545636
Even big oil is covering their asses in an attempt to hope history doesn't put too much blame on them.

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

Literally nobody agrees with your position anymore.

>>8545730
Just go back to >>>/pol/.

File: yfw anthropogenic climate change is fake.jpg (29KB, 605x328px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 605x328px

>>8545636
>m-muh Big Oil

>>8541562
>We need to become vocal, because this is unacceptable.
In case you didn't know, leftists are already whining to try to get the electoral college to change the outcome.

>captcha is selecting pizzas

File: killmenow.png (202KB, 863x431px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 863x431px

>>8545488
> Implying that would be passed through congress
:(

>>8545488
Would not be a wise idea because it will give people with money incentive to fuck education and academia up in order to stay in charge (instead of the other way around).

>>8541562
What's the problem? If the "science" is true, people should have no problem defending it, right?

This is only a problem if the "sciance" is biased or outright lies.

>>8545730

Dont you think its sad to gravitate around the same ideas over and over and over? Its always the same with your type, SJWs, race, minorities, leftists, the ''genocide'' of whites, its always the same thing, you guys never get out of this little loop.

How can you handle this?

Back to pol btw, theres exact copies of you all over that place so you'll enjoy your big echo chamber.

>>8545961
>doesn't care about the echo chamber.
Well enjoy your waste of resources then.

>>8545958
I am pretty sure if global warming is real these guys should have no trouble defending themselves from even the entire military of the united states of america.

>>8545972
agree with you. that energy put to good use. should be useful for people with money.

the only explanation remaining is that they are actually paying for the mumbo jumbo. as a diversion so that they can keep going to the bank.

>>8543404
>The free market, which has been responsible for pretty much all real scientific advancement in the last three centuries
nigga are you srs

>>8543676
>Trump is the will of the nation.
2.8 MILLION :^)

>>8541562
>starting to look like a witch hunt
>wanting to vet the people who are influencing policy is a witch hunt
>peer review by a third party is fascism

i figured scientists would be all for more rigorous review of published papers.

>>8546079
>Non scientists peer reviewing scientific papers
Do you want a climatologist to come and judge your plumbers work?

>>8546091
Imagine if plumbing was political.
>Fuck those plumbing """experts""" they don't know shit and are probably communists I know better
>Look at this anti mainstream plumber whose entire house is leaking, plumbing drones BTFO Academia will never accept his science

>>8546079

Not when when the world is at stake. Some flaws in methodology and theory aren't excuse to let the planet die because of capitalist greed.

File: IMG_3632.jpg (105KB, 710x1024px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 710x1024px

>>8546074
Shh CTR. If the election was based on popular vote, people who don't live in big cities wouldn't have their voices heard. Also Trump would campaign in NY and California if he needed the pop vote. Stay mad faggot. Enjoy the next 8 years.

>>8546207
/pol/ fuck off with your CTR shitting it's a science board on chinese tapestry forum months after election.

>>8546224
>science board
>doesn't allow criticism on a "scientific" theory like global warming

>>8546277
Yes that's why we have daily global warming threads.

>>8546277
You've been criticizing it. We've been calling you a fucking idiot for doing so unscientifically.

See the idea here?

>>8546312
That was my first post you faggot. And there's lot of people here presenting scientific arguments you retarded hillbilly.

>>8546319
My point is, those unscientific arguments are the reason discussions like these are discouraged.

>>8546319
>that was my first post
Well maybe you should learn to post better, because you sound like every single other moron on these boards that thinks they understand climate science without having to study it

>>8546207
>If the election was based on popular vote, people who don't live in big cities wouldn't have their voices hear
They have a Senator don't they?
~40-50% of the population is always going to be disenfranchised in a presidential election. The only thing that the electoral vote ensures is that occasionally the majority gets disenfranchised in an election. It's a retarded system, and you've proven to be a partisan hack by supporting it.

>>8546324
Oh ok. You see most of /pol/ are retard Americans that still believe the earth is flat and believe in creationism. But there's some of us who aren't. Some of us are scientists and those don't eat all the shit that the media give us. We question ourselves. Of course there are some retards that gheir only argument is muh Jewish conspiracy.

>>8546341
electoral college means you don't gain anything by running up the numbers in a single state
Thats a strategic flaw for the democrats, they congregated their shitskins into a few states which were already liberal

>>8546351
I don't think you're getting the point.
We shouldn't have the electoral college because everyone's vote should matter, regardless of the shittiness of their skin.
The only reason you like the electoral college is because it helped Trump win this time.
You won't like it in two days when the electors put Paul Ryan into the presidency.
It's a shit system regardless of anything else, and we should just use a popular vote.

>>8546347
And yet, you provide arguments counter to scientific evidence.

>>8546351
The vote does not need to be based on the states. This is my first post in this argument, and I don't mean to continue it, I'm just pointing out that assuming the only alternative to the electoral college is a state-based popular vote system is wrong.

File: KochEmpire.jpg (162KB, 960x1247px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 960x1247px

>>8541562
You know who to blame.

>>8546362
Climate science isn't exact as physics or chemistry. There's lots of variables we don't know about.

>>8546370
The facts remain. The Earth is warming up and CO2 levels are incredibly high, due to human activity, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which causes warming when released into the atmosphere. What conclusion is to be drawn from this?

>>8546370
>Evolution isn't as exact as physics or chemistry. There's lots of variables we don't know about.

File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>8546079
>peer review by a third party

>>8546376
You can test evolution in a lab. But you cannot test climate globally in a lab.

>>8546372
Just because CO2 levels are high and it is a green house gas you can't related it directly to GW. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas too. The sun itself has fluctuations in its output energy etc. During the Jurassic period the average temperature was much higher than today's and I bet dinosaurs didn't have cars.

>>8546418
>Water vapour is a greenhouse gas too.
Water vapour isn't being pumped into atmosphere by civilization, not directly anyway.
> The sun itself has fluctuations in its output energy
Which we're observing
> During the Jurassic period the average temperature was much higher than today's
It's not about high temperature but how quickly it rises. The current growth is nowhere to be found in the history.

>>8546418
>During the Jurassic period the average temperature was much higher than today's
Yeah, and there weren't any people around in the Jurassic either you stupid double nigger

>>8546415
And? What does a lab have to do with anything? You sound like one of those Electric Universe retards.

File: radiative forcing.png (70KB, 384x426px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 384x426px

>>8546418
>Just because CO2 levels are high and it is a green house gas you can't related it directly to GW.
Of course you can relate it directly to GW. You can directly measure incoming infrared radiation and determine what chemical it's radiating from via spectroscopy. So we know the radiative forcings of all GHGs from measuring them directly.

>Water vapour is a greenhouse gas too.
Yes, and warming from the greenhouse effect leads to higher saturation of water vapor in the atmosphere, forming a positive feedback loop. This does not support your argument.

>The sun itself has fluctuations in its output energy etc.
The sun's output has not changed much and can't explain the observed warming.

>During the Jurassic period the average temperature was much higher than today's
AGW does not say the temperature was never higher, it says that the *rate* of warming is unprecedented and the reason for that warming is unprecedented. Not to mention that humans are used to today's environment and not the Jurassic environment.

All of the arguments you are making point to a complete lack of basic knowledge of the topic you are trying to discuss. Educate yourself instead of pretending to know what you're talking about.

>>8546415
>But you cannot test climate globally in a lab.
No, of course not. You need to have laboratories and observation sites all over the globe, and the observations from all of those sites need to be combined, and then you need a theory to explain all of the observations. Which is exactly what climatologists have done.

>>8545182
E. O. Wilson

File: UN IPCC on logarithmic CO2 effect..jpg (76KB, 578x351px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 578x351px

>>8546372
CO2 has diminishing returns to greenhouse warming as it has a logarithmic temperature response to increased concentrations.
tl;dr CO2 is a WEAK greenhouse gas.

>>8546470
This chart is deceptive because it makes the viewer think the the forcing response is linear to CO2 increase, its not. Its logarithmic.
>>8546518

File: Solar Activity.png (127KB, 586x358px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 586x358px

>>8546470
>>The sun itself has fluctuations in its output energy etc.
>The sun's output has not changed much and can't explain the observed warming.
This statement is based on a cherry-picking of sources. There are a number of papers which show that there is a high variability in solar fluctuations. Pic related.

File: Different Solar Measures.jpg (80KB, 1181x926px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1181x926px

>>8546470
>>The sun itself has fluctuations in its output energy etc.
>The sun's output has not changed much and can't explain the observed warming.

Measuring solar fluctuations is highly problematic as the variations between different measurement systems is much higher than the variations within solar measures. This makes it very hard to determine actual solar variability. Pic related.
In fact, some measures will show solar intensity increasing while others will show decreasing activity during the same time period.

>>8546526
How long does it linger?

>>8546518
How exactly does diminishing returns imply "weak"? Diminishing returns tells you nothing about the actual effect of doubling CO2, which is not weak at all.

>>8546521
The chart is clearly labeled as the measured change for a certain period of time, so it doesn't imply that at all. Climatologists always talk about the effect of doubling CO2, not a linear effect.

>>8546524
The papers that found high solar variability have specific flawed assumptions. For example, the most recent paper in your image makes an assumption about minimum solar activity and irradiance. This assumption was tested and Shapiro's TSI was found to not be able to reproduce temperature reconstructions due to this assumption:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048529/full

>>8546530
Methane lasts about 12 years before being broken down by reaction with hydroxl radicals.

CO2 can last decades to millenia depending on which part of the carbon cycle it's recycled through. Most lasts 20-200 years before being dissolved into the ocean.

>>8541562
And that's not all:
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/CEI%20Agenda%20for%20Congress%202017%20-%20%20FINAL.pdf

Note that the Head of the CEI was being chosen by Trump to run the EPA.

>>8546604
Also: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RslXEPUGzBtEtZRjdydrDaAzOSElMksurFX1SzqDkbM/edit#gid=340788838

File: Another Hockey Stick.png (89KB, 370x262px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 370x262px

>>8546546
>>>8546524 (You)
>The papers that found high solar variability have specific flawed assumptions. For example, the most recent paper in your image makes an assumption about minimum solar activity and irradiance. This assumption was tested and Shapiro's TSI was found to not be able to reproduce temperature reconstructions due to this assumption:

Huh, what was that?
"Nevertheless, in a recent paper, Feulner used the TSI reconstruction of Shapiro et al. to drive a climate model. He compared the simulated temperature with temperature reconstructions, where the a number of climate model simulations were carried out, fed with different TSI estimates. His conclusion was that the climate model

… yields climatic conditions during past solar minima that are too cool and excessive fluctuations on timescales of several decades for Shapiro et al.’s [2011] TSI reconstruction"

I found this at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/how-large-were-the-past-changes-in-the-sun/#more-8468

Sheesh, for a moment I thought your were actually talking science. That maybe you were actually trying to get to the truth. Nope, quoting Chapter and Verse from the Gospel of Climate Change.

But seriously, the temperature reference was another variant of the oft-debunked "hockeystick." Pic related, straight from Feulner (2011). Seriously, this is classic garbage in, garbage out. If you assume that there's a huge hockey stick because "meh CO2" then solar activity can't explain recent warming therefore form climate change is true.

Translation: if CO2 drives climate, then CO2 drives climate.


>nb4 I didn't use that RealClimate source.
Don't waste your time.

>>8543384
>That bump in 2010

What the fuck happened then?

File: marcott dating.png (6KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 600x480px

>>8546627
>>8546546
>>8546524
What was posted in that paper, is related to Marcott's construction which he admitted was bogus for the late 20th century, at yes, your favorite climate site: RealClimate. Pic related: one of the redated proxies he used. Marcott's admission:

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

And some of the papers that debunk the hockey stick:
a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series” S McIntyre & R
McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777
b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-682
c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Geophysical Research
Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710
d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” A
Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617
e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of the House Committee
on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House subcommitteeon Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick
global climate reconstructions. US House of Representatives,Washington USA. Available for download from
ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006Wegman Report.pdf
f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O stalagmite record” A Mangini, C
Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p. 741-751

P.S. Better call in the rapid response team. Maybe they can do the Gish Gallop.

>>8546627
Hmm so your response appears to be that because a blog talked about the paper I posted... It's not science. That makes no sense. I posted it because I'd already heard of the Shapiro paper and the controversy around it.

Then you claim that Feulner's reconstructions are wrong because they look like "hockey stick" when they are simply standard TSI reconstructions.

Cool, now maybe we can focus on relevant existential threats instead of one that has been fabricated and exploited for political gain

>>8546638
You seem confused. The point of contention is not the late 20th century. Shapiro's reconstruction is identical to every other TSI reconstruction after 1950. The difference between his and others is that he has much bigger dips during Maunder minimums. Did you even read the paper? Or do you just not understand what's being discussed?

>>8546638
Debunking the "debunking" of the hockey stick:

>a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777

1. Wahl, Eugene R , and Caspar M. Ammann (2007). "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence." Climatic Change 85: 33-69

>b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-682

2. Wahl, Eugene R., et al. (2006). "Comment on 'Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data'." Science 312: 529

3. Rahmstorf, Stefan (30 June 2006), "Testing Climate Reconstructions," Science, 312 (5782): 1872–1873

>c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Geophysical Research
Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710

See #2 again.

4. Mann, Michael E., et al. (2007). "Robustness of Proxy-Based Climate Field Reconstruction Methods." Journal of Geophysical Research 112: D12109

5. Huybers, P. (2005). "Comment on "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components, and Spurious Significance" by S. Mcintyre and R. Mckitrick." Geophysical Research Letters 32: L20705-08

>d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” A
Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617

6 . Mann, Michael E., et al. (2005). "Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Past Climate." Journal of Climate 18: 4097-4107.

Continued...

>>8546638
>e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House subcommitteeon Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of Representatives,Washington USA.

See #1 again.

7. North, Gerald (29 August 2006b), "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last Millennium" https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

8 . HCEC Hearings 19 July 2006, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm

9. Vergano, Dan (16 May 2011), "Retracted climate critics' study panned by expert", USA Today. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/05/retracted-climate-critics-study-panned-by-expert-/1#.WFYA7vkrKHs

>f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p. 741-751

10. Comment on “Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?” by V. Courtillot, Y. Gallet, J.-L. Le Mouël, F. Fluteau, A. Genevey EPSL 253, 328, 2007