climate denialists BTFO

This isn't something to gloat about, anon. This is terrible.

You can't even notice 1.5 degree, not to say about .2

Wow we're almost back up to where we were during the middle ages. Good thing we're keeping things in perspective like making a chart that doesn't include this data. Of course such a thing would be ethically wrong and disingenuous especially when you consider that global temperature has been in flux before dinosaurs roamed the earth but hey.

>>8582725
No one denies the numbers. The real issue is the cause. It's unlikely that humans are the cause. The earth goes through cycles. That's a fact. May have nothing to do with human industry. So creating all these bureaucratic laws and restrictions is just a bunch of political fart sniffing, e.g. "Look at me I care!"

>>8582777
Trips confirm.

File: warming-north-america.gif (12KB, 520x312px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 520x312px

>>8582777
>making a skeptical of yourself
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

isn't this surface air temperature data all fabricated?

If obama can launch sanctions of Russia based on lies, tell lies about hacking the election, engage in rampant child trafficking & satan worship

Why can't they lie about temperature data

>>8582796
yes, every single weather station in the world is lying about the surface air temperature data to make sure it follows their agenda

File: hmmmakes me think.png (152KB, 1760x513px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1760x513px

>>8582793
>believing the IPCC about anything

>>8582780
>No one denies the numbers
I do. I just don't trust the people assembling these enormous data sets, I don't trust their sources or their motives. I don't trust NASA or their NOAA, the UN or the entire climate science industry. I trust the weather forecast most of the time, the science of meteorology, but even they get it wrong occasionally. Even forecasting 1 week out is hard. 1 year ridiculous, 10 years laughable. For the insult of trying to predict 100 years out? Then basing a preemptive tax on it!? They should be rounded up, arrested, charged with scientific fraud, sent to prison. Either that or charged with uttering religious prophecy and not being a registered religious institution.

>>8582805
stfu idiot

File: 1480053357643.jpg (76KB, 480x454px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 480x454px

guys the alarmists are just exaggerating we're not all actually going to die starving to death in 50 years right?

>>8582806
Are you suggesting that a return to such temperatures would be 'fine'?

>>8582816
There won't be a west in 50 years
So nothing to worry about

File: 5-stage-denial.png (299KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 500x500px

>>8582780
>in the second stage

>>8582806
Copernicus is not IPCC, Sherlock.

>>8582725
>NASA and NOAA for data prior to 1979
notice how the graph starts changing right around the 80s

File: global-warming-opinion.jpg (22KB, 236x287px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x287px

>>8582814
>forecasting
>weather versus climate
one of these things is not like the other

>>8582777
The medeval warm period isn't corroborated outside of Europe you dingus.

File: we_deliver.jpg (5KB, 286x136px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 286x136px

The Climate Fakers are getting desperate.

File: btfo-cup.png (74KB, 400x420px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 400x420px

>>8582728
Who doesn't enjoy a hot cup
of BTFO on a winter evening?

>>8582816
No, because we can realistically adapt by using nuclear and we'll get better ROI from solar with a weakened atmosphere, like we do with the panels in space. We can also handle agriculture in closed environments and still get food by controlling smaller manmade climates instead of harvesting from nature. Nobody is going to starve from climate change except third worlders who lack the resources for manufacturing (which is going to ramp up the refugee problem like never before).
The real problem is going to be due to us making that switch on energy at the last minute instead of doing a gradual rollover, which is going to fuck everyone over for a while because our power grid and transportation systems are based on fossil fuel. That combined with the refugees which will have to relocate due to damaged ecosystems, will result in a kind of scarcity (not from lack of production, but rather growing demand which outpaces it).

It's kinda funny almost. You'd think /pol/ would be all over preventing climate change if it meant stopping the influx of future refugees, but a lot of them probably can't piece two and two together.

>>8582814
phew, mate, go back to your containment board and keep your tin foil shit out of here
>distrusting the scientific process which is what got us here and what this board is all about

>>8582777
>>8582806
https://xkcd.com/1732/
made for dummies, not entirely accurate, but just to illustrate how you make yourself look when you say this stuff

File: Loehle 2008 Correction.jpg (30KB, 528x336px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 528x336px

>>8582793
One again, the statistical abomination of gluing high frequency, high resolution data at the end of low frequency, low resolution data. Amazing how that creates a hockey stick.

Climate "Scientists" wouldn't last a day in statistics grad school. How about an honest proxy reconstruction? Pic related.

Source: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf

And he was vindicated by Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier. "A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia." Geogr. Ann. A 92.3 (2010): 339-351.

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

188KB, 289x240px

>>8582850
Climate is weather measured over the long term. These climate prophets you call "scientists" are making ridiculous assumptions and predictions that lean towards a predefined narrative because that is essentially what they are being paid to do. If they do not do this their funding is cut and they look for work elsewhere. The world is a business Mr. Beale.

>>8582893
>distrusting the scientific process
This isn't the "enlightenment" or Renaissance anymore. If you are not packing a bit of tinfoil these days you really aren't paying attention to the world around you.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#four
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.

All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

In 1954 this was the issue of primary concern. Although the so-called "moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.

>Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent
Is worth repeating because this is precisely what the man made climate change cultists are pronouncing. That they are stupid animals and authority figures will manage these resources better than they ever could, taxation is a great first step, eventual control and rationing the answer. Dark days ahead.

>>8583023
>lawfulpath.com
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8582780
>It's unlikely that humans are the cause. The earth goes through cycles. That's a fact. May have nothing to do with human industry.
Did you learn English by reading Trump tweets? "That's a fact." is neither a convincing argument, nor a complete sentence.

>>8582870
>No, because we can realistically adapt by using nuclear
Given the shitstorms about nuclear proliferation, and the insane upfront costs of nuclear power stations, that's probably not going to happen.

>we'll get better ROI from solar with a weakened atmosphere
"Weakened atmosphere"?

>We can also handle agriculture in closed environments and still get food by controlling smaller manmade climates instead of harvesting from nature.
That would be completely unaffordable for the majority of people.

>The real problem is going to be due to us making that switch on energy at the last minute instead of doing a gradual rollover, which is going to fuck everyone over for a while because our power grid and transportation systems are based on fossil fuel. That combined with the refugees which will have to relocate due to damaged ecosystems, will result in a kind of scarcity (not from lack of production, but rather growing demand which outpaces it).
Sure, assuming there is a "moment of realisation". Personally, I think a gradual acceptance long after it's too late is more likely.

>It's kinda funny almost. You'd think /pol/ would be all over preventing climate change if it meant stopping the influx of future refugees, but a lot of them probably can't piece two and two together.
Yeah, long-term-planning really isn't their strength.

>>8582996
>Climate "Scientists" wouldn't last a day in statistics grad school. How about an honest proxy reconstruction?
What exactly do you think they DO for a living?

>honest
>E&E
At least put some effort into it.

>>8583023
>These climate prophets you call "scientists" are making ridiculous assumptions and predictions that lean towards a predefined narrative because that is essentially what they are being paid to do. If they do not do this their funding is cut and they look for work elsewhere.
You could actually try posting some evidence to support your conspiracy theories.

>This isn't the "enlightenment" or Renaissance anymore. If you are not packing a bit of tinfoil these days you really aren't paying attention to the world around you.
Paranoia isn't the same as being concerned. One is a delusion, and they other is a response to an observed threat.

>http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#four
Oh dear.

>Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science.
Please stop.

>All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
Obviously the folks who sell coffee to NOAA and the CRU.

>>8583061
/pol/ is obviously a reliable source, and not at all a haven for edgy children, attention-seeking conspiracy theorists, and angry morons.

>>8582893
>>distrusting the scientific process
The "scientific process" is a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was bullshit and the "experts" were wrong.

Let's start from one obvious fact: at this point, finding out that global warming isn't happening, or isn't a threat would be collectively devastating for the careers of most people employed as climate scientists. Furthermore, individual climate scientists do take a position that global warming isn't happening or isn't a threat, and this is individually devastating for their careers. On top of that, for several decades now, people who become climate scientists have been taught from childhood to accept on faith that this position is correct, and merely needs to be "studied" and refined, not questioned.

Now let's add another obvious fact: no one person or small dissenting group can check either the data sets (which require temperature readings taken all over the world for a span of decades) or the models (which require supercomputers and teams of programmers and physical simulation experts). Both are large-scale endeavors requiring large teams of people, who are both individually and collectively incentivized to produce results that support a certain conclusion, as well as huge budgets from organizations that have political agendas that generally benefit from findings which support that same conclusion.

These are not circumstances under which the scientific process as we know it can be expected to happen.

Rather than science as it is usually practiced, this is essentially a large, not-disinterested bureaucratic organization guessing about some aspect of the future. They're applying science, but they're not doing science. Like NASA saying the space shuttle would save money.

>>8583044
Heh, do I sense denial? Yeah I know its a crazy Christian board but regardless of the articles true source, fact or fiction, it's a good read. Having graduated from an electronics program the terminology really made my cranial gears grind. I never fathomed electrical mathematics being applied to the social and economic realm like that. For me, there is no mistaking what man made climate change is, a mass social conditioning and energy control program ushered in through consent of the masses, mostly out of fear and a promise to save earth. Wew, history repeats.

>>8583075
>The "scientific process" is a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was bullshit and the "experts" were wrong.
Sometimes. Other times it's a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was pretty much spot on.

>Let's start from one obvious fact: at this point, finding out that global warming isn't happening, or isn't a threat would be collectively devastating for the careers of most people employed as climate scientists.
Not really.

>Furthermore, individual climate scientists do take a position that global warming isn't happening or isn't a threat, and this is individually devastating for their careers.
Nope.

>On top of that, for several decades now, people who become climate scientists have been taught from childhood to accept on faith that this position is correct, and merely needs to be "studied" and refined, not questioned.
No.

>These are not circumstances under which the scientific process as we know it can be expected to happen.
Science is working normally. You just don't like the answers it came up with, and are throwing a tantrum because of it.

>>8583092
>Other times it's a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was pretty much spot on.
...and the "checking for themselves" aspect is key. When it's too expensive to check, or the standards for refutation are too unclear or the position is not even theoretically refutable by any presentation of evidence in the present, you're not talking about something that can be established to the kind of standard we normally associate with science and base science's generally good reputation on.

>>Furthermore, individual climate scientists do take a position that global warming isn't happening or isn't a threat, and this is individually devastating for their careers.
>Nope.
Oh, so you're one of those obvious reality deniers.

>>8583057
>Given the shitstorms about nuclear proliferation, and the insane upfront costs of nuclear power stations, that's probably not going to happen.
Neither are the reason new nuclear plants aren't being constantly built
It's only regulation that stops it, something Trump will eradicate

>>8582806
>scale
>thousands of years before present
>millions of years before present
Sure does look like a peak in that last 100 years. It's not like the atmosphere was made of much larger concentrations of CO2 in the distant past.

>>8582996
Why does that graph stop its data record right when Western industrialization gets into full swing in the 1940s? That's not even counting India and China catching up.

>>8582996
>One again, the statistical abomination of gluing high frequency, high resolution data at the end of low frequency, low resolution data.
They have the same resolution and frequency. Five year average, moron. Try again.

>>8583057

Vostok ice core

>m-muh CO2 ppm!
>m-muh ~50 years of semi-reputable data points
>m-muh atmospheric models that omit clouds

>>8582796
This isn't /pol/

File: Pigs.jpg (78KB, 599x337px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 599x337px

>>8583075
You can take all of that one step further by the actions taken to mitigate man made climate change so far, in hindsight something looks seriously awry. These actions are all energy sinks and result in additional emissions, starting with the massive and never ending echo chamber conferences hosted at taxpayer expense, to the super computers chugging away 24/7 in cooled computer rooms on the questionable climate modeling programs crunching of their questionable data sets, teams of programmers forever massaging the output.
The cap and trade or carbon tax programs requiring substantial administrative overhead bloating already bloated bureaucracies, assigning arbitrary conditions on emissions computed to somehow adjust earths temperature in the process, all just farts in the wind really.

Also this resulting push and subsidizing of so called green or renewable sources of energy, most of these new age trinkets and baubles - solar and wind - are manufactured in China which laughs in the face of man made climate change controls on industry, and so by outsourcing manufacturing to another corner of the globe we are supposed to believe we are fixing something while impoverishing our own economies? We are also now expected to take on these inefficient and unreliable sources of power and pay for that out of pocket to appease the bureaucracy that forced them on us?

If good alternatives to fossil fuels are discovered they won't need any help to make themselves worthy. Most of all, in the end, fossil fuels will be spent as long as the upright monkey walks the face of this earth. Should they be spent below an EROEI of 1 before viable alternatives are discovered so be it, natural depopulation gets underway and the problem solves itself. All the legislation points to so far is control of how those are spent and by whom. I just don't trust most of these people taking over the reigns now that 'the debate is over and the science is settled'. Science is never settled.

I'll fully believe the Climate Alarmist memesters when they stop giving retarded meme reasons for their hypothesis being right like "97% of us believe it's right" and go with the more tried and true method of our mathematical models predict X in the next Y and then in X years Y happens, instead of getting BTFO nearly every year.

File: Alice-facepalm.jpg (24KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x275px

>>8582796
>Why can't they lie about temperature data

>90% of scientists agree on global warming
>calls them all liers involved in global conspiracy
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>"described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money."
>remaining 10% scientists actually indicted for lying and being part of global conspiracy
>still have to see climate change deniers on a /sci/ence board every fucking day.

Dood, You've been brainwashed into a mouthpiece working to brainwash other people into becoming mouthpieces. Just accept that your brain has been fucked with. Just stop and think for a moment. It's not too late to wake yourself up.

>>8583146
Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that AGW is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to climate research budgets?

>>8583235
Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that evolution is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to biological research budgets?

>>8583252
fukken REKT

>>8583057
>nor a complete sentence
Subject: "That"
Verb: "is"
Object: "a fact"

>>8583235
Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that the earth being round is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to astronomy research budgets?

>>8583252
Because biological research constantly produces plainly useful, economically positive results far in excess of its costs, and doesn't spend the vast majority of its funding generating confirmation for the theory of evolution?

>>8583235
Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that vaccine safety is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to medical research budgets?

>>8583194
If we're gonna play the "where does the funding come from", we can talk about where these 90% of scientists(which is a fake number) get THEIR funding from

>>8583263
Everything you just said is true for climatology. Most papers nowadays are not attempting to prove what climatologists already know is a well-evidenced fact.

>>8582777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=25

>>8583265
Holy shit, vaccine safety isn't "settled science", or even science. Vaccines kill people every day, and have sometimes caused rather than prevented epidemics by infecting people with the disease they were supposed to protect against.

Each new vaccine and every batch of vaccine is a potential disaster, averted only by the competence and conscientiousness of the people producing it and confirming its safety, and even then, some people have a bad reaction and die from good batches of good vaccines, because the human immune system is a highly complex system with great individual variation.

Saying "vaccine safety is settled science" is like saying "food safety and nutrition are settled science".

>>8583057
>>8583069
>>8583092
At least someone has the time to respond to these morons, you're doing good work anon. Honestly, I would bother replying as well but I've given up on debating these retards years ago. You cannot convince someone that is wrapped up in conspiracies to understand the scientific evidence. They simply cherrypick and use mental gymnastics every single time, and will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence presented is.

They are nearly the equivalent of evolution deniers, or flat Earthers, or any other number of wackjobs that deny basic scientific ideas and concepts, despite the strength of the evidence supporting them.

>>8583266
>we can talk about
How about no. There's no point arguing with idiots. Nobody wins.

If you REALLY wanna know, google it for fucks sake, but we both know you won't do that because you're not here for learning. You're here for the argument, or rather here for the fight. Your fight or flight reflexes are hot wired and overriding other parts of your brain which might allow you to see reason. Take a few breaths anon.

>>8583274
>Vaccines kill people every day
>Sometimes caused rather than prevented epidemics by infecting people with the disease they were supposed to protect against
Post your source / evidence, and it better be from an academic medical journal, not some blog or other non-credible scientific source.

Would you rather diseases such as Polio or Small Pox still exist, instead of being eradicated? What about HPV in females? Measles? Meningitis? Diphtheria? Do I need to continue listing all the various diseases that have been irradiated due to vaccinations that otherwise would still be causing massive public health crises worldwide?

The safety of vaccines (which is not disputed, and is based in scientific EVIDENCE of their safety) is even irrelevant when you look at the statistical data for the amount of good they have done overall.

You sound like a typical anti-vaxxer that has zero arguments based on merit or evidence. To say that there is no negative effects whatsoever for Vaccines is not true, but it is also equally retarded to pretend that vaccines have not had an overwhelmingly positive impact on public health.

Seems like, while even before that edgy /pol/ """""invasion"""""" a few days ago there were contrarians lurking here constantly, for the sole purpose of starting these exact type of threads, that it's getting worse and worse.

What's so strange is I don't even understand why they come here in the first place, is it like >>8583291
says that you're only here to argue, not actually engage in a conversation where evidence is presented and rebutted? Seems to me like every single time evidence is presented supporting climate change, you have nothing but a bunch of edgelords responding not by attacking the evidence itself, but constantly falling into logical fallacies and attacking the messengers, instead of bothering to escape their echo chamber and look at the evidence itself.

You are so wrapped up in a circle-jerk of mindless science-bashing nonsense that you refuse to be a skeptic, and question your own pre-conceived notions about the evidence for climate change. It's so much easier when you don't have to question anything, and can rely on your "skeptic" echo chambers like WUWT or Climatedepot to provide you with whatever cherry-picked misnomers they wrote about on their blogs in the past few days instead of actually looking at the scientific evidence itself by reading the scientific papers that present the data. Of course your average armchair expert from /pol/ has no such time for those things, not that your minuscule attention spans would allow it regardless.

>>8582725
>2016 confirmed as the warmest year on record, warmer than 2015 by close to 0.2°C
Warmer than the runner up (1998) by 0.02°C... with a 0.1°C margin of error.

So no, not "confirmed", and the way of measuring the global temperature continues to change every year.

>>8582806
>Muh IPCC

Every. Single. Time. I know you won't respond to me, but I'm going to do this anyways:

The IPCC does not collect data. The IPCC does not publish scientific papers. The IPCC is essentially a bridge between the climate researchers around the world, and policymakers in world governments. It's meant to present the information that researchers have collected, and combine it into an assessment for policymakers to read and understand the impacts of climate change.

It does not, I repeat NOT carry out any research of its own. It's not a research organization, and the vast majority of climate research worldwide is done by independent researchers working for public and private universities. Government organizations like NOAA and NASA for example obviously contribute as well.

Now that that's out of the way, let's address this silly graph that I'm assuming you, the same person that always posts these images in these threads, posts every single time. I mean honestly, a full rebuttal to this would take dozens of posts, but I'll try to keep it brief. First off, this is a misleading graph, not because it is inaccurate, but because of the way the data is presented. If you look on the X-axis, which is geological time, the far left which is the far past has increments of 100 million years, which moves to 10 million after the Cretaceous / Tertiary, into 1 million in the Pliocene, and then 200,000 in the Pleistocene. Even less in the most recent Holocene era. This means that on a normal, equidistant X-axis these exaggerations would be a lot less significant, and you would see a much more flat change in temperature overall in Earth history.

Second, it's always hilarious to see the so called "skeptics" harping on paleoclimatological data which has nothing to do with the current trend of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the associated rapid rise in temperatures in the post-industrial revolution era.

Yes, Earth has been warmer in the past, colder too.

>>8583267
>Most papers
I didn't say "most papers", I said "the vast majority of its funding", and I didn't say "attempting to prove", I said "generating confirmation".

The big money goes into stuff like satellites and supercomputers. Why do people with control of such funds approve this spending? To generate confirmation, to strengthen the political case for basing policy on belief in AGW.

...and you know, the science isn't anywhere near settled. They keep discovering new feedbacks.

File: Education.png (301KB, 480x449px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 480x449px

>>8583276
That's just ad-hom and strawman.
The cherry picking goes both ways, in fact the cherry picking data problem is one of the biggest flaws in climate science aside from the fact the climate doom prophecies have for the most part proven overblown and inaccurate discrediting any farther flung predictions. The frightening part is that in light of these inaccuracies and mistakes, instead of admitting them the dogma is amplified and seemingly no reconsideration of the theory examined. CO2 emissions and nothing else being the dogma.

In more enlightened times our places of higher education taught rhetoric, critical thinking skills and the need to always question why.

>>8583309
>climate change
We know we are coming out of a relatively recent ice age, we know climate changes with man or without man. This so called climate science has only been bashing itself, it's sole application in the real world to implement a carbon (life) tax in all corners of the globe if possible. The high priests of climate doom science admittedly concede their tax will not solve anything and omit the fact they put food on their table through this science. It has also garnered a rather large faction of very devout climate alarmists and zealots in tow who would I fear give up their rightful claim to a portion of this worlds fossil fuel bounty and by extension their very life in order to save the planet from impending climate doom? These people in my opinion are extremely ignorant on the matters of energy and living in the oil age. Some seemingly so ignorant in fact that it would be hard to believe they could comprehend even a fraction of their so called climate science themselves yet they are true believers?

Hey, we just don't want to be dragged down into your new age dark ages, it's time well spent in my opinion.

>>8583350
Once again a massive wall of text consisting of nothing but hyperbole, conjecture and memes, no evidence presented as typical for your average """"skeptic"""" because people like you have never read a scientific paper on climate change in your life, and never will because you prefer to be ignorant. Also hilarious how you treat a scientific field as a monolithic entity in which everyone things the same / parrots the same things, there is far more diversity in climatology, and Earth sciences in general than many other scientific fields, and you have people that are multi-disciplinary with background in all other major scientific areas studying climate. The language and the way you type belongs on /pol/, not /sci/, so kindly leave and go back to your echo chamber where no one will challenge your rhetoric. Here, I'll help, just click this link >>>/pol/. Funny how you complain about ad hom when your post is nothing but an ad hom attack on climate science, that does nothing to address any evidence, but simply goes into the typical alarmist conspiracy territory.

Have you ever thought for once in your life that the vast majority of climate researchers aren't alarmists, and that the majority of alarmist propaganda comes from the media and non-climate scientists themselves? In your world, you view every non-educated environmentalist as a climate scientist, an expert in their field with years of research behind them. You live in a world of lies and delusion.

>new age dark ages
Absolutely delicious, you truly do have your head far up your own rectum.
>in more enlightened times
Man you sure do like to tip your fedora ultra hard. Honestly, considering you literally have no arguments, it seems that you're just another typical /pol/ contrarian, I'm seriously questioning why I even bothered typing this all out now.

File: HoloceneTemperatures.png (10KB, 473x216px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 473x216px

>>8582725

do you know what regression to the mean is?

i am putting together a report which calls into question the nature of the climate data.

does this observed phenomenon follow a linear progression?

what progression does it follow?

by answering these questions we can more accurately predict what will happen in the future.

my bet is on a fluxuation towards being warmer for a period, and then back towards the middle before progressing to a cooler temperature, and repeating this periodic cycle.

looks a lot like a sine wave right?

figure out the formula for it's function, and you will be the winrar

File: global_surface_temps.png (53KB, 534x387px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 534x387px

here's an irritating example of someone who is misleading the public by implying that this trend has a linear progression.

all they did was zoom into the graph on this one spot so you can't see it in the context of the overall trend.

either this guy has never taken a stats 101 course, or he's being deceptive

File: Greenland-ice-core-data.png (4MB, 3880x1778px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3880x1778px

>>8583381
there is a period (frequency) to the function of this graph.

it's pretty easy to figure out. solve it for yourself for homework, and you'll know more than any so called "climate scientist" out there

here's another example where they purposefully included outliers in their calculation of a deceptive mean, rather than excluding them, as is the practice when you wish to have a true representation of the data.

outliers are defined as being more than 3 standard deviations from the mean

File: hockey-game-630x499.gif (25KB, 630x499px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 630x499px

>>8583388
actually, i think this data might be entirely fabricated, but i don't have time to investigate their sources. it just looks so much different from the stuff normally out there, and it's from a site called mother jones, go figure

>>8582814
"the world's average long-term temperature will be 2.7-8.6°F higher in 100 years' time depending on our actions taken now and in the future" ≠ "it will be 71°F and raining in Seattle on March 1 2116"

look up "climate vs weather"

>>8583376
>>8583381
>>8583382
>>8583390

so a lot of modern "climate change" hubbub is really based on hand waviness, rather than math and data?

>>8583398
yes without a doubt. the notion that it's hand wavy it is self evident too.

>>8583316
>the fictitious runner up (1998)
the actual runner-up is 2015,
Lrn2data fgt pls

File: Capture.jpg (115KB, 749x998px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 749x998px

>>8583376
Oh boy here we go again, same idiots arguing about the little ice age, medieval warm period, and saying that the current trend is natural or some other variation of the same argument that has been debunked time and time again.

>>8583381
This is how climate data has always been presented. Data is plotted to a baseline average temperature, even the skeptic scientists involved in the field of climatology (yes, they do exist, I know! Shocking!) do this method of statistical analysis of the data. Stop being delusional.

How about you go read the UAH or RSS satellite data yourself that the claims that 2016 is the hottest year on record are based on, or alternatively you can continue to shitpost.
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1
>The record warmth was caused by long-term global warming combined with the strong El Niño event that occurred in the winter and spring of 2015-2016.

>>8583390
That's Mann's hockey stick, is this babbies first time looking at climatological data?

>>8583398
Yes, just trust the opinion of some random shitposter on 4chan you moron.

>>8583400
>yes without a doubt. the notion that it's hand wavy it is self evident too.
Do you take pride in your ignorance?

>>8583382
>a period to these aperiodic data
Lrn2time-series fgt pls

>>8583404
you're waving your hands again

>>8583410
i'm looking right at that shit and it has a period to it. it is in no way aperiodic. it's not a perfect sine wave, but it has a period.

>>8583404
>This is how climate data has always been presented

Then the way it's always been presented is wrong. It's also deceptive when you make such a claim as "this is what will happen in the future" which clearly is baseless in fact, and entirely based on your appeal to emotion, and excessive gesticulation of your hands.

>>8583411
Nice response, not that I expected much. You can't form a single argument as you have no evidence, again nothing but conjecture and hyperbole. Maybe you should look up the definitions of these words as I assume you have no idea what they mean.

>>8583410
i come from a background in mathematics and digital signals processing, but i'm applying common mathematical techniques to the analysis of this time series while keeping in the back of my mind that it is nothing more than a signal.

currently creating a function which produces a graph that looks very similar to these data series.

>>8583417
>But it's wrong because muh feelings that it's wrong, you didn't take into account muh feelings in this matter MUH FEELINGS

Hmmm. Standard /pol/-think where you only talk in emotion-driven arguments, while simultaneously accusing others of doing the exact same thing. The hypocrisy is incredibly.

Once again, you present no credible, evidence-based argument. Do you need to look up the definition of evidence as well?

Did you even bother to look at the RSS link I posted, do you even know what RSS or UAH is? Do you know about the satellite temperature records, how they are processed / researched? Do you know the first thing about climate science, or are you just another armchair ignoramus who read WUWT one day and decided he was an expert on all things climatology?

>>8583419
more hand waviness. typical brainlet response when they are confronted by a superior intellect.

File: wonka.jpg (67KB, 355x236px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 355x236px

>>8583422
let me know when climate data becomes a linear progression and i'll tell you how many days left the earth has.

>>8583422
>evidence-based argument.
my evidence consists of this:

your analysis of the data is inconsistent with the rules of statistics. your analysis is flawed.

>>8583376
btw if anyone wants to steal this idea go ahead, just give a credit to /sci/ for btfo'ing the climate change conspiracy

meme magic

>>8583424
>>8583426
It's absolutely hilarious how some shitposter on 4chan believes he knows all the answers that people that have dedicated their entire lives to studying climatology (some even statisticians themselves!). Armchair analysis of climate science is a cancer, it's filled with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual contrarians like yourself who think you're so special and smart, and you know oh so much better than everyone else. Meanwhile, you're here shitposting on /sci/ with the rest of us "brainlets."

Man, if you have all the answers, why don't you go publish your mind-blowing, ground-breaking linear progression analysis of SST, RSS, UAH satellite, and land-temperature data? Surely someone of your absolute brilliance would excel rapidly in the field, publish his findings and completely annihilate all the volumes of other climatological data that exist currently, correct?

So please, go enroll at a University with a climatology department, present your mind-blowing groundbreaking ideas to your professors, and get involved in the research process! Surely you can change everything with your shitposts, right?

>>8583434
>dedicated their entire lives
ah, i knew that's why you're so butthurt.

this isn't the first time a mathematician has had to gently break to another colleague that their entire life's work has been a bust. it's hard, man. trust me, i don't want this to be more painful than it has to be.

>>8583434
>climatology department
the problem with -ology's are that they can only exist if they publish papers. those papers don't have to be accurate, they just have to meet the consensus of the community.

mathematics is a bit different, but it's very simple.

either you're correct, or you're not, and you need to be prepared at any moment in time to boil any assertion you may make down to the smallest possible piece of formal logic, known as an axiom. when you're incorrect and someone points this out, you thank them (after being sufficiently embarrassed at your lapse of skill), and improve your methods so that you get the right answer. remember, all answers are set in stone.

in -ologies, you just have to get enough likeminded people together and socially ostracize anyone who is skeptical of your position, or cannot see any reason why you are correct. after a long enough period of time you magically become the "consensus" which, technically, even though it's still not the same thing as being correct, is generally accepted, and the media is able to push it upon the public, increasing your chances of getting funding.

File: World_map_showing_surface_temperature_trends_between_1950_and_2014.png (92KB, 708x370px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 708x370px

>>8583382
>Greenland Ice-core-data
>Greenland

hmm
1.cherrypicked
2.1920-1960 period looks weird
3. 1977-2016 period not depicted (most important period)

>>8583435
I'm not a climatologist, I'm a Geologist, but nice try.

You sure have proven what an ignorant fuck you are when it comes to climatological data when you think a linear progression over a massive amount of geological time is an appropriate statistical analysis.

It really shows just how little you know of paleoclimatology, and just how complex climate forcings are, not that you even know the first thing about radiative forcings or climate sensitivity.

Also, yes I trust experts in their field. When I go to a doctor, I don't go to a dermatologist when I have a cardiovascular issue, I go to a cardiologist or a cardiothoracic surgeon, in the same way that I don't go to a Biologist, or an organic chemist to learn about climatology, or a physcisist to learn about evolution. Scientists specialize, just like doctors, they can be incredibly knowledgeable in their area of expertise, you know, which is why we call them experts in their chosen field. Scientists specialize just like doctors do. This is why you have many scientists with crack-pot ideas about things outside their field of expertise, like Roy Spencer, who is a creationist despite being a climate scientist as well. Not to defend Roy though, he does a great job at making himself look like a retard.

>>8583445
People like you show how truly ignorant you are of the scientific process, and the field of Earth Sciences (Geology included for myself) in general. There is no such thing as "meeting the consensus" in the scientific process, the vast majority of climate scientists don't even publish on the topic of climate change, and not every single paper in the field of climatology is even relevant to climate change.

Again, you have presented no evidence, not even a single coherent argument this entire thread to support a claim that climate change is not an anthropogenic scientific phenomena. All you have done is whine and cry about statistical analysis that you clearly haven't even begun to understand

>>8583455
But le first year math students studying things any half-brained person can self-study on their own disagrees with you, because it's not a STR8 LINE - ehehehe.

Reminds me of the times when we had all the "SCIENT-ISM" threads.

>>8582725
So since 1880 the global temperature has raised a little over a degree?
Shit people, everyone stop your engines before we get grilled alive!

File: vostok.png (100KB, 1789x757px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1789x757px

>>8583099
>...and the "checking for themselves" aspect is key.
Which is why that's done so often. There are multiple independent groups working at every step from collecting observations all the way through aggregation to studying effects to modelling.

>Oh, so you're one of those obvious reality deniers.
That's nice.

>>8583137
>Vostok ice core
Yes, what about it?

>>8583146
>You can take all of that one step further by the actions taken to mitigate man made climate change so far, in hindsight something looks seriously awry. These actions are all energy sinks and result in additional emissions...
Even if that was true, all that you would have established is that politicians are bad at solving problems. That's news to exactly no-one.

>If good alternatives to fossil fuels are discovered they won't need any help to make themselves worthy.
The problem is that your definition of "good" is fucked up. You're confusing "beneficial for society" with "highly profitable", when greenhouse gas emissions are an externality.

>>8583262
The existence of AGW is "settled science" (as much as science can be settled). The scale, speed, geographical impacts and evolution of it are not.

>>8583328
>Why do people with control of such funds approve this spending? To generate confirmation, to strengthen the political case for basing policy on belief in AGW.
The really bizarre thing is that you seem to believe AGW is manufactured by politicians, when politicians are among the LEAST interested groups of people in doing anything about AGW. Think about it - they get power by racking up votes and money by sucking industry dicks. Threatening to create taxes that push up manufacturing and electricity costs hurt them - that's why all of the "global summits" have been massive flops.

What do they actually stand to gain?

>>8583461
Another retard detected that didn't even bother to understand that small changes can have massive impacts globally.

I bet you're the same type of person that argues that CO2 isn't important because it's a very small part of the atmosphere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&index=28&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>8583455
you're trusting experts in their field who aren't experts in mathematical analysis.

when a mathematician says "hey, your data looks different than what you said in your analysis", you listen

>>8583462
that old peak is even higher than the industrial revolution's peak

>>8583469
>he thinks you NEED to be ONLY and solely a mathematician to know math
no

>>8583469
>>8583472
What do you expect from a guy who thinks a linear regression is a "linear progression?"

>>8583471
>industrial revolution's peak
where?

>20,000 years ago

The right doesn't want anyone to focus any attention on this, so they DENY DENY DENY DENY because it allegedly distracts us from the ONE most important and only issue the right has - you figure out what that issue is.

>>8583476
>one important issue

if only it were so simple. the only issue you need to sort out is how to not be a cuck.

hint: learn mathematics.

File: 132932.image0.jpg (69KB, 535x886px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 535x886px

>>8583473
how would anyone confuse or mixup such basic, and clearly distinct concepts?

i said what i meant.

>>8583382

Why does it stop at 1960?

>>8583464
the idea that the changes will be net bad is completely nonsense though

>>8583495
Oh, so we're moving the goalposts again.

First it's
>Global warming isn't real! How arrogant is man to think he can change God's Earth!
Then
>>Global Warming isn't real! The Earth's climate has changed in the past and it's natural! Everything is natural! Man has no impact whatsoever on climate!
into
>Alright ALRIGHT! Maybe man does have an impact on climate, but that doesn't mean that global warming is even a problem! It's going to be good for plants! It's got what plant's crave! Not all of it will be bad!
to
>Ok, so it is caused by man, and the effects won't be good for human civilization in the coming century, but we can't do anything to stop it guys, so researching / studying it is pointless! Cut all funding also we should just keep burning fossil fuels because everything runs on them thus we shouldn't bother with alternatives! Stop being alarmist!

Which is it this time? What's the next evolution for a "climate skeptic?" What phase are you currently on?

>>8583498
I don't believe its happening at all

>>8583498
you're using a logical fallacy to demonstrate your point. this is handwaviness

>>8583414
>looking right at that shit
>>8583420
>looks very similar
Time-series analysis by "looks"?
I'm copy-pasting this to my Professor,
he needs a good laugh right about now.

>>8583498
if the facts were good enough, people would have no problem accepting your assertions

File: 1472093641022.jpg (417KB, 1280x858px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1280x858px

>>8583372
I am a realist. There is ample evidence in all of these climate change threads here on /sci/ that the "science" is far from settled and apparently science is never settled except with man made climate change!?

In a court of law all you need to do is raise reasonable doubt, or prove by a preponderance of the evidence. The theory of man made climate change leaves much doubt, a preponderance of evidence impossible to produce because of the sheer number of variables involved, feedback loops, unknowns, the amount of data, the number of hands that touch that data, the quality of that data and of course one entire half of this so called science - projection - fortune telling - prophecy - whatever you want to call it.

The fact politicians and by extension "climate scientists" already have their grubby little mittens in my pocketbook riles me which is why I contribute here from the peanut gallery. Worse, what they plan on doing with this pilfered wealth from myself and other well meaning people here in the first world, the only people left on the planet with wealth to pilfer! All climate change policy is geared towards more concentration of power and wealth, nothing at all to do with environmental remediation.

I am saying that in a court of law, which many of these man made climate change proponents may find themselves some day, could result in charges of financial fraud with conviction because there is ample evidence accumulating of malfeasance in this man made climate change "industry" which reeks of nothing more than global fascism. Of course that is a pipe dream, this is larger than any court, they are writing the new global carbon (life) laws with this junk science and more likely it will be "deniers" who find themselves on that stand for failing to conform to dogma, climate heresy. Of course even I will bend to the new normal if it ever came to that. You should celebrate some outside the box thinking while it still exists for you are here anon, after all!

>>8583471
>Antarctic climate 120,000 years ago
>industrial revolution 200 years ago
one of these things is not like the other

>>8583504
The facts and evidence do "in fact" stand for themselves. Now my problem that you are too ignorant to actually seek out the information yourself, as most climatological research papers are freely accessible over the Internet, you can readily find and read .pdfs for a wide variety of scientific studies that show the evidence for atmospheric CO2 not only being anthropogenic, but causing the current warming trend:

You can even access most temperature record data, ice core data for paleoclimate, and even satellite data yourself these days, and do your own statistical analysis of the data, not that you would. Data-sharing in the field of climatology has grown more and more as public interest has increased. For example, RSS satellite data:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

You choose to be ignorant, I don't blame you, it's the easier path in life. A good skeptic questions his own perception, he looks at the evidence, the data himself and makes conclusions based off it, not conjecture and feelings.

They aren't my assertions as well by the way, they are the assertions of an entire scientific body which you choose to wholly dismiss, all because you "feel" that it's wrong, an argument purely from emotion, not logic or reason.

>>8583506
>There is ample evidence in all of these climate change threads here on /sci/ that the "science" is far from settled
Because people keep reposting the same debunked shit. The only people posting newer content is the climate change side.

You're fucking retarded if you're using /sci/ as evidence that the science is far from settled.
Would you use /pol/ as evidence that the holocaust didn't happen because there is ample evidence in all of those holocaust threads there on /pol/ that the debate is far from settled and apparently the holocaust death count was never settled.

>>8583328
>The big money goes into stuff like satellites and supercomputers.
because surely those are only good for confirming what we already know about climate change. I can't possibly think of any uses for an orbital monitoring system that can measure temperatures across practically the entire globe, or for a supercomputer that can run extremely complex simulations that would otherwise take lifetimes to model.

>>8583506
>apparently science is never settled except with man made climate change!?
except for vaccines not causing autism, evolution being real, continental drift happening, chromosomes physically crossing over in recombination, the Earth being round, the planets orbiting the Sun. those were all once controversial in some way or another, and they're all considered settled science now because of how much evidence has been collected and how strongly and consistently it supports them.
>The theory of man made climate change leaves much doubt
in the eyes of contrarians, certainly.
>a preponderance of evidence impossible to produce because of the sheer number of variables involved
basically, if it's too complex for you to read or understand, you discount it. you can't read a seismic plot; do you still believe in sequence stratigraphy?
>politicians and by extension "climate scientists" already have their grubby little mittens in my pocketbook
in other words, your dad pays taxes and you don't like how Uncle Sam spends that money
>I am a realist.
you're a delusional twit who shits on people who dare to think they know more than him.

>>8583506
>facts are fascism
ok

Living in literal denial.

Here are actual argument for AGW:

1. CO2, CH4 and N2O allow visible light to pass through and reflect infrared light. This is 19th century basic science, experimentally observable and very easy to proof.

2. CO2 have been rising since industrial revolution. It is now higher than it's ever been in 800ka (longest ice core record), probably highest it's ever been until about 3 Ma ago. Again experimentally measurable.

3. This rising CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion. Fossil fuel has lighter C isotope than plant/animal CO2 respiration or ocean outgassing. This is also easily measurable.

4. What do you think happen if you put gas with greenhouse properties into the atmosphere? You get the greenhouse effect. Simple logic there.

5. The heat imbalance predicted by simple logic is observable through satelites.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
There are more incoming energy from the sun than there is radiated back from earth. Conservation of energy states that the Earth must be warming because of this.

Elementary, Watson-kun

File: 1471642735681.jpg (36KB, 600x657px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x657px

>>8583506

The funniest thing about these threads is that we'll all be dead before the true "answer" is revealed.

>Inb4 "save the world for our children!"

File: C1I9CJKUQAAdQRs.png large.png (133KB, 829x493px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 829x493px

>>8583382
>>8583376
I'm an actual climate /sci/ here, focusing on ice cores. These data doesn't seem right, what are the sources? Which cores and proxy are they basing their T reconstruction from? The lack of error bars and the unusually high resolution of said T reconstruction should be the trigger there.

For example, pic related is a commonly circulated misleading figure. Why? Because the original citation

http://klimarealistene.com/web-content/Bibliografi/Alley2000%20The%20Younger%20Dryas%20cold%20interval%20as%20viewed%20from%20central%20Greenland%20QSR.pdf

has nothing to do with <2000 yr T reconstruction, if you see the actual paper it was talking about the younger dryas climate even 12ka ago. The reason the authors doesn't address the <2000 yr T reconstruction is because it was just mathematical noise, because said T reconstruction is based on bootstrapping water isotopes (which has a lot of variability) onto a T curve so it's only good on longer timescale

File: Untitled.png (188KB, 688x1448px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 688x1448px

>>8583533
Here's the closes figure to the climate denying figure on the actual citation. See on how it doesn't address any of the <2000 yr variability, as the T reconstruction from water isotopes is incredibly noisy. The main citation for water isotopes temp reconstruction is from Cuffey & Clow (1997)

File: Untitled.png (111KB, 420x611px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 420x611px

>>8583536
Here is the Cuffey & Clow 1997 paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Clow/publication/248797622_Temperature_accumulation_and_ice_sheet_elevation_in_central_Greenland_through_the_last_deglacial_transition/links/0a85e52f3d6b321a55000000.pdf

Small excerpt on pic related. They specifically say that their T reconstruction spans a long period and were not good enough on high resolution. So in layman term is quantity over quality

File: Untitled.png (82KB, 1001x697px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1001x697px

>>8583540
Here's the final proof that I'm an actual climate scientist, and while T reconstruction from ice cores is what I do for a living and incredibly important to benchmark climate models, I'll end with a quote from Richard Alley himself, the author of the misleadingly quoted study

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred."

>>8583533 >>8583536
>>8583540 >>8583560
You've spent time at McMurdo?
What's it like?

>>8583569
More than McMurdo, I also spent quite a while (in fact most of my time) in the "deep field" sites from McMurdo.

McMurdo is neat. It's like a small mining town where everyone works for the same company (Lockheed Martin, the logistical support for US Antarctic program), but everyone is young, outgoing and adventurous with some super cool Antarctic hardened cowboy free spirit cool old guy & lady (like a plumber, heavy equipment operator, etc) who has spent 30 seasons on ice sprinkled here and there. The town is nice, we have 3 bars and government subsidized $4 beers.

In the deeper field sites is more about community bonding, you spend time with like 10-20 people in complete isolation, 2-3 hours of plane/helicopter from McMurdo for several months and you only get supply flights like once every 2 weeks so you get to know everyone very intimately, and due to self selection everyone who ends up there ended being a super cool person.

>>8583560
This sounds more like a confession of faith than a rational assessment.

>>8583617
Yeah, sometime he had too colorful of a language I agree. He's not a great communicator against skeptics but he's a great communicator for the neutral public.

Anyway his point still stands, basically during sea level rise 20ka ago coming out of the Last Glacial Maximum, there's no million dollars beach front properties and billion dollars worth of infrastructure around the coastlines. During the Cretaceous warming humans didn't even exist and during the Holocene warming there's no 7 billion people in the world who rely on industrialized scale food production from very specific areas (Iowa for corn production for example).

To put it the other way say even if climate change is completely natural, say we detect a supervolcano that's gonna explode in 50 years that will cause essentially a nuclear winter like condition minus the radiation with aerosols that blot the sun and guarantee that most crop fails, kill all tourism industry in the tropics, deal record cold winter that is assuredly cripple a lot of transportation infrastructure. Supervolcanoes are "natural" too, but it is an impetus on society to prevent that, because the modern human civilization is built on the current pre-industrial climate assumption. Any climate change natural or not would deal a ton of cost to society.

This is also I personally disagree with some people to the left of me who think that geoengineering as method to mitigate climate change is a no no.

>>8583506
>I am a realist.
>in a court of law
>in a court of law
If you are involved with law, then you
are nothing remotely like a realist.

>>8583258
its a subject predicate, not an object

>>8583504
>people would have no problem accepting your assertions

That's not true at all, if it were, scientologists, creationists, flat earthers and so on wouldn't exist.

>>8582870
>Nobody is going to starve from
>climate change except third worlders
...and who gives a shit about them?
Humanity ... BAH HUMBUG!

>>8583078
>do I sense denial?
no, but maybe you sense scorn,
derision, and ridicule

>I know its a crazy Christian board
O RLY

>>8583381
>zoom into the graph
The data starts at 1880. They didn't zoom into anything. Why are so many deniers willing to lie?

File: expand iguanodong.png (943KB, 1545x895px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1545x895px

>>8583533
>>8583536
oh yeah, I remember that thread! the denier throw an absolute hissy fit, insisting that he was supporting his claims even though the dataseries didn't appear ANYWHERE in the citation. good times...

>>8583670
BTFO

File: cool dino.png (123KB, 201x236px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 201x236px

>>8583990

>>8582759
Dude. Know your shit. It makes a difference

>>8584035
Concepts like positive feedback are completely lost to these people.

It will be like the wild west, but global. Yeeehaw to robot cowboys!

File: post-26847-he-cant-keep-getting-away-with-2bPg.gif (2MB, 245x295px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x295px

>>8584496
>climate change turns the earth into westworld

>>8583883
wrong, look again, goy

>>8584782
>Heartland
Always get a "hearty" kek from these douchebags. The same exact group that spend millions lobbying for Big Tobacco during the 1980s and 1990s, doing the same exact shit with global warming decades later. Taking money directly from the fossil fuel corporations, as well as through third party donors and special interests. It's absolutely insane.

>>8585117
Look at this for example:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Essentially, when it was revealed the extend that corporations like Exxonmobil, the Southern Company, Shell, etc. were donating money to libertarian / conservative think tanks that spread climate change skepticism, the corporations suddenly ceased publicly disclosing their donations, instead shifting towards donating to third party organizations, like Donor's Trust:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust

Donor's Trust is an organization that takes its donors money, and donates it to other organizations in their interest, without the true source of the money being traceable. This means that a company like Exxon, or individuals afflilated with it, can donate to a third party organization like Donor's Trust completely anonymously, and then have their money given to wherever they want it to go, such as entities like the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, or Americans for Prosperity. All of these "think tanks" are conservative / libertarian ones that spread climate change denial, and hold conferences each year where they invite denialist bloggers / celebrities and other assorted morons to preach their cherrypicked statistics and data.

These same organizations directly fund climate change denial researchers like Willie Soon, who has received millions of dollars from these organizations in order to engage in scientific research on asserting that solar activity alone is responsible for the recent warming, a hypothesis that has widely been debunked due to records of current and past solar activity that tell us that solar activity has not changed significantly enough to influence the current trend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon


But of course, all of this is lies and bullshit, right? The real conspiracy is with those damn evil climate scientists.

>>8583318
So it's essentially a bully. I know, for a fact, that the IPCC makes phony papers whenevr a so-called "denier" publishes a paper, and that ohony paper directly refutes their findings and is quickly peer reviewed, too. It might be true or false, but they publish a paper.

Scientists who are with the IPCC are under a lot of pressure to keep abreast with the "internal agenda" to promote the myth of climate change and are also reatened to not have their papers published if they go against the grain.

And, for all their babbling about how climate "dneiers" are insane, they have a very strict policy of no contact with any "deniers"

literally a cult.

Believe it, it's just the governemnt fucking up people.

Enjoy your gulag in 20 years where you run your fan at home by a mechanical turbine while you live in a rainforest, wasting away your life to """""protect the planet""""""

>>8585183
Ah yes, the standard old conjecture and baseless claims without a source, with the speaker claiming he "knows for a fact" as if the silly opinion of a shitposter means jack shit.

Maybe you should read up here about the IPCC assessment process. I know you won't, because if there's anything deniers have proven is that they don't care for facts, or evidence. All you care about is feelings and emotion, which is all your arguments ever amount to.
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=27675

The fact that you simply decided to blurt out random thoughts instead of doing some research that would immediately disprove any of your claims shows how truly deluded people like yourself are of the facts.

>literally a cult
Another baseless conspiracy territory accusation. These types of claims never get old, it's almost as if you, dare I say it, do it for free?

You honestly sound like some kind of 14-year old that just discovered WUWT or some other shitty denialist blog, and because edgy 14-year olds tend to be rebellious contrarians, you immediately altered whatever worldview you had before to fit the new narrative you built for yourself and your simpleminded nonsense.

Understanding climate science is hard work, it really is. You have to actually put effort into understanding the research and the data, that is to say the EVIDENCE which people like you wholly ignore in favor of the easy road - an explanation of conspiracy, conjecture and hyperbole in which you don't have to do any serious investigation, because you can just let the talking head echo chamber """skeptics""" do that for you!

>>8585183
>So it's essentially a bully.
yes.

please see
>>8583445

>>8585183
Usually when you make an argument you need to provide evidence to support your claims in order to convince the other people.
Why would you expect anyone to accept your baseless assertions?

>>8585195
So skipping all the bullshit, I skimmed that PDF. And it is not about what I'm talking. I'm talking about how researchers are threatened about not getting published or not getting their foot in the door in the first place.

The IPCC also corraborates with governments and it is not a long shot to think that the governments influence the organization, along with the UN. Their entire existence is built upin publishing papers that fit, not scientific accurary, but a specific agenda. That is the entire problem. They will do anything to keet their views and they have the cimbined power of givernments and a very good media program to back everything up.

Dven if a scientists inks that what the IPCC does is wrong, there is no chance for him to go against the norm and declare this, because then his career is fucked.

These things never find their ways in official papers pr laws, because these are grounds for legal action.

>>8585229
You're still just asserting shit.
Provide evidence or fuck off.

>>8582893
so we're basically still below 3.5k years ago-levels...

>>8583318
so the IPCC is a loby. thanks for clarifying that, for the dumb people here who thought it was a fucking scientific body acting based on proven science, which btw climate "science" isn't.

>>8582850
>2500 scientists say we've caused global warming

I guess you could call someone a scientist even if they're under pressure to fit the political agenda and under pressure of their peers to not be viewed as skeptical a scientist to have a chance to get published and not see their research thrown in the bin.

But then again, don't force me to. I don't believe climate scientists are ethical, I don't need to know their opinion because they could literally circlejerk anything and call it "consensual"

File: green_fear.jpg (33KB, 220x126px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 220x126px

>>8585229
Drain the swamp of climatism.
Atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT has called for severe measures: "They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up," he said. "Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations."

>>8585334
provide evidence your work and your field is clean.

Or fuck off and quit whining when people don't believe you.

File: doubt.png (16KB, 486x264px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 486x264px

>>8583636
>against skeptics
skeptics --> denialists --> heretics
Isn't that the path to the new dark age Carl Sagan was talking about?

File: Marcott.png (24KB, 909x705px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 909x705px

>>8585404
>so we're basically still below 3.5k years ago-levels...
Maybe - if we are, we won't be for much longer.
Why does that matter? It's the rate of change that's the real issue.

>>8585407
>so the IPCC is a loby. thanks for clarifying that,
It's a body that presents an overview of climatology research to politicians and the general public. The say as much on their website.
http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

>which btw climate "science" isn't.
Reality doesn't agree with your political views, so you're throwing a tantrum about it.

>>8585412
>even if they're under pressure to fit the political agenda and under pressure of their peers to not be viewed as skeptical a scientist to have a chance to get published and not see their research thrown in the bin.
Because nothing ruins a scientists life like overturning our current view of the world, right?
I'm yet to actually see any of the supposed witch hunts that were going to hunt down the people who published evidence against AGW (unless you want to try to defend Willie Soon).

>I don't need to know their opinion because they could literally circlejerk anything and call it "consensual"
Ah yes, the "fuck experts, what do they even know?" argument.

>>8585424
>"They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,"
How the fuck would that help?
If you think they're taking bribes, cutting down on the amount of money they';r getting above the table isn't going to prevent that. It's pretty obviously just a "fuck you for disagreeing with me!".

>>8585430
>provide evidence that there's not a global conspiracy
How?
What would that even look like?

>>8585496
Calling yourself a "skeptic" doesn't necessarily mean you're being skeptical.

>>8585502
Ice core scientist here, just calling out bullshit on your figure, Shaun Marcott's (a person I know personally) paper is a 120 years median running average proxy based T reconstruction.

Second paragraph here
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

YOU CAN'T just patch up a modern T measurements with sub-annual resolution like HadCRUT satellite data onto a proxy reconstruction median 120 years running average. You're comparing apples and oranges, and the misinformation sadly goes on both sides.

Sometimes a climate change enthusiast (non-scientist) comes up with interactive figure like that and it's just scientifically misleading despite their best intention

>>8585569
>YOU CAN'T just patch up a modern T measurements with sub-annual resolution like HadCRUT satellite data onto a proxy reconstruction median 120 years running average.
Why not? They're not exactly the same kind of animal, but they're still useful to compare. Obviously the older data lacks the resolution to do a proper job of displaying steep trends like the newer data (maybe?), but that's not really important here as I wasn't trying to compare trends.
Also, I'm pretty sure HadCRUT is surface instrument data, not satellite data.

>Sometimes a climate change enthusiast (non-scientist) comes up with interactive figure like that and it's just scientifically misleading despite their best intention
Actually, I suspect this particular graph was put together Stefan Rahmstorf, and first appeared here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

>>8585603
>Why not? They're not exactly the same kind of animal, but they're still useful to compare. Obviously the older data lacks the resolution to do a proper job of displaying steep trends like the newer data (maybe?), but that's not really important here as I wasn't trying to compare trends.

Because then if you want to compare apples to apples you need to run a 120 year running average on the HADCRUT data, which then would smooth out the rate of temperature increases. Earlier you were arguing about how the Earth is warming at unprecedented rate, well you can't compare the rate of modern warming as observed with modern measurements to the proxy T reconstruction using smoothed 120 year average.

>Also, I'm pretty sure HadCRUT is surface instrument data, not satellite data.
You're right on this, my bad sorry.

There's a reason why the Shaun didn't patch up their T reconstruction with modern surface measurements in the last 100 years on the paper itself

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

>however, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. 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.

In the end though it's a minor nitpick, but it is still misleading. Back on the question, is the rate of global warming we've seen today unprecedented? The answer is we don't know for sure. Is the modern warming manmade? Definitely. Should we try to stop it? Definitely considering the societal cost.

>>8582870
>we can realistically adapt
...along with all our crops and livestock.
Yeah, it's just that easy.

>>8585412
>I guess
science is not about guessing, DeLoy

>>8585496
>>8585430
Arguing with these people is what I imagine evolutionary biologists have to deal with when arguing with creationists, or physicists have to deal with when arguing with flat Earthers.

Please show us the evidence for your claims that climate science is corrupt, or alternatively, present evidence that discredits / undermines the current data / evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
>NO U SHOW US DA EVIDENCE
Oh here you go, you can do plenty of research for yourself as most climatological data is freely accessible over the Internet!
>NO U! NOT THAT EVIDENCE, SHOW ME DA EVIDENCE THAT SCIENCE IS CORRUPT
Sorry, but there is no such thing as "evidence that climate science is corrupt" or whatever it is you're looking for. However, you can gladly go over to websites like WUWT or any of the other thousands of """skeptic""" blogs that exist and look at their cherrypicked data that has been discredited and rebutted many times now.
>NO U! I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP CRYING ABOUT MY FEELINGS TOWARDS THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I'M UNABLE TO COME UP WITH A COHERENT ARGUMENT OR THOUGHT, NOR AM I ABLE TO ACTUALLY PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE TO DISCREDIT THE SCIENCE!
Also, my friend, the burden of proof on someone challenging the scientific evidence for climate change is on those who wish to disprove the evidence itself, meaning if you want to dismantle the current scientific views on climate change, you must publish and present your own data to peer-review that contradicts the current trends.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

File: Heartland-billboard.jpg (29KB, 392x164px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 392x164px

>>8585790
>http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
>Fred Singer's NIPCC
>HEARTLAND (toppest of keks)
>CO2 Science (Wow look at all these legitimate sounding names!)

T O P K E K

Let me "redpill" you on Heartland you dumb fuck, aka the organization that like other conservative "think tanks" is nothing more than a front for the petroleum industry to spread propaganda. This is not a "conspiracy" either, there is a large trail of evidence starting with numerous disclosed donations by Exxonmoil and Koch, the Southern Company, Shell, BP, etc. just to name a FEW of the fossil fuel interests that pump money into these think tanks to spread denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Keep in mind that Heartland is literally just one of hundreds of organizations that money from the fossil fuel industry has been funneled into during the past, currently through third-party organizations like Donor's Trust, but in the past they donated directly, records of which can be found here:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

Go ahead and read through the Scientific American article I posted earlier, alternatively, you can read the actual scientific paper that the article is about here:
http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

See
>>8585141
>>8585117
Notice how no one responded to my posts here anyways, because all """skeptics""" completely have their heads in the sand when it comes to the corruption of the fossil fuel industry in funding """skeptic""" efforts.

>>8582816
bud, bud listen. It's cool, we will probly be out of water and agriculture will be damaged and the sea might die off. But dude, dude, listen. We still got Trump and oil until then. "wink, wink"

>>8585860
>>8582816
The areas effected worst by climate change in the next decade will be areas that are already susceptible to droughts, thus exacerbating the problems we already face today. Then you have areas that are vulnerable to SLR, like Miami for example, one of the most vulnerable cities in the world, which is already experiencing yearly tidal floods in many parts of the city, and they are undertaking extremely expensive infrastructure projects to reduce the flooding.

Most of human civilization, including some of the most important cities economically worldwide, are going to be vulnerable to SLR, and expensive actions are going to be undertaken to prevent and reduce flooding, and cities that cannot afford to do this are going to be experiencing mass emigration to areas inland. The Refugee crisis in Europe right now is but a trickle of what will occur in the coming decades unless conditions dramatically improve in African nations, something that likely won't happen anytime soon.

Alteration of the world climate will lead to many more changes than the two above. The real danger of climate change is not to the planet, it's to our civilization. Earth has recovered from far worse things in the past, extinction level events included, massive volcanic events such as fissure eruptions / flood basalts (Siberian Traps for example), bolide impacts, as well as snowball Earth. The real danger is that our civilization is completely dependent on the current coastlines, and world population is only increasing every year, with droughts and crop failures becoming more abundant in the future.

>>8585790
Thanks. Got me the Full Text of CCR II: Physical Science (2013), good reference.

>>8585951
>climatechangeconsidered.org
>good reference
>Keeping your head buried in the sand

Good job continuing to be an ignoramus.

Of course you completely ignored the reply I made attacking the legitimacy of Heartland.

File: hqdefault.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

>>8582725
Yeah anon, and you can be the first in line to make a change!

File: ThePlutoCrats.jpg (94KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 700x394px

>>8582725
Sorry, but Fossil fuel will burn till the end of humanity.

Drop dead, profits are Top Priority.

>>8585762
kinda is. But you wouldn't know since you know nothing about the scientific method

>>8585781
you can't submit it to peer-review because it will get quashed since it doesn't fit the narrative.

If you even get the funding in the first place.

Climatology is the only "science" that thinks it's bad to be skeptical and critical. Galileo would be ashamed of you.

>>8586095
Certainly it will burn until it runs out. Developing new technology, so long as it isn't yet developed, will always be more expensive than just burning shit.

>>8586151
Hmmm. I guess that's why guys like Roy Spencer, John Christy and Richard Lindzen are never able to publish a single paper supporting their own ideas, correct? Do these guys struggle to get funding despite publishing against the scientific evidence?

Time and time again, people like yourself show just how truly ignorant and stupid you are in your understanding of climate science.

Same old arguments, claiming climatology isn't a "science" by whatever retarded definition you are cherrypicking for yourself.

Oh look once again he uses the "Galileo fallacy," how quaint. The old tired argument where climate """skeptics""" liken themselves to Galileo going against the Catholic church. Another classical logical fallacy. See, you're not Galileo. Galileo had evidence on his side, and he was essentially the equivalent of the climate scientists today of his time. He WAS the scientific body of his time, not the Roman Catholic church, he followed the scientific method, they did not.

Yet people like you become skeptics to a fault, at which they don't even bother to question their own skepticism, or actually review the scientific evidence for climate change themselves. Instead you lie in your echo chambers, parroting whatever other skeptics cherrypick.

You guys never grow, you never develop new arguments or ideas, you simply fall into the same old trap of rhetoric and conjecture, which is hilarious considering people like yourselves always put themselves on a pedestal, claiming to be champions of science, or the scientific process despite being completely ignorant to the methods of it during the past ~300 or so years of scientific advancements.

>>8582806
This graph speaks against your point. Current civilization would not survive in its current form if it was transported to the Eernian

>>8586151
>>8586166

>Galileo wuz burned at the stake for saying the Earth was round

No he wasn't. He was placed under house arrest because he was publicly criticizing the pope (something that normies WERE burned at the stake for). The arrest had almost nothing to do with his research that planets had moons.

That's what his research was: Planets have moons.

Not the earth was round.
Not a heliocentric model (developed by Copernicus).
Not that the sky wasn't a series of embedded crystal spheres (The Almagest had been rapidly losing favor in learned circles for CENTURIES BEFORE HE WAS BORN. There are indications of it in Dante's Paradiso for shit's sake)

He said that Jupiter had moons. That's it.

Let's recap:
Galileo was sent to his room for a few years for shitposting about the pope. He discovered moons. The End.

I am so sick of normies and this fucking Galileo meme bullshit.

>>8586251
When did I ever mention anything about Galileo's positions in my post you retard?

I stated the facts; Galileo was in opposition against a dogmatic entity in the Catholic Church, while Galileo would today be considered the scientific establishment of his time in Astronomy. I never said anything about heliocentrism, or moons, or Flat Earth.

File: Jupiter_family.jpg (178KB, 1920x1526px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1920x1526px

>>8586251
Also, you are also completely wrong about the Galileo Affair. Educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
>The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism
>FOR HIS SUPPORT OF HELIOCENTRISM

The evidence opposing Heliocentrism that Galileo presented were the moons of Jupiter, they themselves were not the focus of his disagreement with the Church. He was using the moons of Jupiter to argue FOR Heliocentrism based on his observations of the moons and the phases of Venus. Just because Copernicus developed the model for Heliocentrism doesn't mean that Galileo wasn't arguing for its acceptance vs. Geocentrism. He was using the moons of Jupiter and their orbit as an example of how Earth, Venus and the other planets orbited the Sun in a Heliocentric model.

>Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

How retarded are you that you can't even do the simplest of research before you make an argument, even when what you're addressing wasn't argued in the first place?

>>8586254
>Galileo had evidence on his side, and he was essentially the equivalent of the climate scientists today of his time. He WAS the scientific body of his time, not the Roman Catholic church, he followed the scientific method, they did not.

You implied that the Catholic Church's problem with Galileo had to do with his research. I implied you have no clue what you're talking about and spouting shit you've heard over the internet without doing any research of your own into the matter.


>Implying I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about
>Not seeing the irony in any of this

>>8586261
>Citing wikipedia for nuances in argument

I shiggidy diggitty

>>8586276
I knew you would retort with the
>MUH WIKIPEDIA
Argument, instead of actually responding.

Wikipedia articles just happen to have, what's that, CITATIONS that you can check for yourself, namefag.

>>8586261

Kepler's heliocentricism was widely accepted by the Jesuits of the time prior to Galileo. What, were they not Catholic?

>>8586278

You're right, I should start citing my sources better than you.

"Maffeo Barberini [then Pope] was an accomplished man of letters, who published several volumes of verse. Upon Galileo' s return to Florence, in 1610, Barberini came to admire Galileo' s intelligence and sharp wit. During a court dinner, in 1611, at which Galileo defended his view on floating bodies, Barberini supported Galileo against Cardinal Gonzaga."

from: http://galileo.rice.edu/gal/urban.html

And yes, I'm called the Bus Driver b/c I'm taking you to school

>>8586266
>>8586290
How does anything I said challenge the notion that Galileo had EVIDENCE on his side, in his argument for Heliocentrism, while the Church did not? This is a fact. The Church argued cosmology based on biblical sources. Galileo used observational evidence. Geocentrism was seen to have support in the bible.

>>8586281
>Following the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace ordered that Foscarini's Letter be banned, and Copernicus' De revolutionibus suspended until corrected. The papal Congregation of the Index preferred a stricter prohibition, and so with the Pope's approval, on March 5 the Congregation banned all books advocating the Copernican system, which it called "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture."
>Galileo's works advocating Copernicanism were therefore banned, and his sentence prohibited him from "teaching, defending… or discussing" Copernicanism. In Germany, Kepler's works were also banned by the papal order.


Do I need to keep blowing you the fuck out or what? Read the fucking Wikipedia article ffs. It is well sourced. If you're not convinced, read through the goddamn reference list.

>>8586290
The Inquisition was in 1616 you fucking imbicile, you are citing things from 5 years before the Copernican / Galileo's findings on Heliocentric theory were banned.

Again, if you even bothered to read the Wikipedia article you would know this, or read any book on the Galileo Affair, such as this book which is cited many times in the article:
https://books.google.com/books?id=wKCZFJuMCaQC&printsec=frontcover&q=&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anyways, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand in the thread.

Also, you completely failed to respond to being called out on claiming I said anything about Heliocentrism, flat Earth or Jupiter's moons. Instead you simply took something I said out of context in order to go on a diatribe about Galileo.

holy shit why can't /pol/ just fuck off for once in their sad lives

>>8586297
>Quoting wikipedia is somehow winning this argument

Galileo having evidence on his side is besides the point if the affair is an entirely political one.

Don't shitpost articles from Wikipedia without even bothering to read the material it's sourcing and then complain when I refuse to bring myself down to your level.

Also, you would know that it was Galileo's discovery of the phases of Venus in December 1610 that was his real evidence in support of the Heliocentric model. Well you would if you read at all.

From: http://galileo.rice.edu/chron/galileo.html
>Tommaso Caccini, a Dominican friar preaches a sermon in Florence against Galileo and mathematicians who subscribe to the Copernican view which, Caccini avers, is heretical.
>1615 January - Caccini's superior apologizes to Galileo in writing.
>The Carmelite Friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini published Letter on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth's Motion and Sun's Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System, in which are harmonized and reconciled those passages of the Holy Scripture and those theological propositions which could ever be adduced against this opinion (Naples, 1615). In this book, Foscarini argues that the Copernican theory is compatible with Scripture.

Don't quote books at me, young man.

You're quoting from a single, non-academic, biased source an obvious fallacy and yet you say this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand?

Also I was shaming you both for this mistake. I'll let you get back to it if you promise to stop spouting nonsense.

This is from a review of a play published in Nature since you're incapable of reading primary or even secondary sources:

>In Goodwin's [the playwright's] rendering, the Pope encourages Galileo to write a “discussion between the followers of Copernicus and the supporters of Aristotle, a dialogue which contains arguments of all schools, in language which every educated man will comprehend”. When Galileo tells Urban that his working title is On the Flux and Reflux of the Tides, the Pope advises him otherwise: “Since it is a dialogue, why not call it such — A Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems.” Although renaming the book was a requirement of the Inquisition, it was dramatic licence to make it the suggestion of the Pope himself.

>Both are men of towering ambition, and each ultimately feels betrayed by the other. After reading Galileo's pro-Copernican magnum opus, the Pope complains. He had, he thought, received a promise that the book would give equal treatment to each side, Copernican and Ptolemaic: “He deceived me. He betrayed his word. He makes a joke of Christianity.” When Galileo learns that as a result of what he has written he will be under house arrest and his works banned, the scientist says, “This was never discussed. Never agreed.”

>>8586325

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7246/full/459512a.html

>>8586317
>Also, you would know that it was Galileo's discovery of the phases of Venus in December 1610 that was his real evidence in support of the Heliocentric model. Well you would if you read at all.

I literally said that right here
>>8586261
>He was using the moons of Jupiter to argue FOR Heliocentrism based on his observations of the moons and the phases of Venus
Well you would if you read at all.

I also never once claimed to be some sort of expert on Galileo, but what you are arguing has nothing to do with the central FACTS that Galileo's work stunted due to the Church's views. This is the entire point I was making, that Galileo, as the scientific, yes he was the SCIENTIFIC establishment at the time, and is considered the father of the scientific method, had his methodology questioned and silenced by the main body of authority in his time, the Catholic Church in favor of a non-scientific approach to understanding astronomical concepts.

All this shit about the relationship between Galileo and the pope means jack shit when he underwent a trial and inquisition from the catholic church itself. I don't care if they were best buddies, scientific knowledge was still suppressed in the favor of religious dogma. This is all that matters.

Still, you continue to argue based on a complete misunderstanding of what I said in my first post, in a thread about CLIMATE SCIENCE, not fucking Galileo you cunt.

I don't care if Galileo was technically treated well compared to others who underwent the Inquisition, he was still treated unfairly despite his evidence being supported by observations, not biblical scripture. This is the very principle of the modern scientific process, evidence-based interpretations observations based on natural, not supernatural phenomena.

By the way, if you bothered to actually read the Rice source you posted, you could learn more about how Galileo was treated in 1633, for example:

File: haha.jpg (41KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x437px

>>8586325
>This is from a review of a play

From the Galileo timeline. Note I have very little knowledge but a basic understanding of the Galileo affair, yet apparently you can't even read your own sources or understand the basis of the original argument I was making.
>With a formal threat of torture, Galileo is examined by the Inquisition. The next day he is sentenced to prison at the pleasure of the Inqusition and to religious penances. The sentence is signed by only seven of the ten cardinal-inquisitors.

>In a formal ceremony at a the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, Galileo abjures his errors.
Forced to admit his "errors" despite his evidence being supported by observations.

>He is allowed to return to his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, where he is under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Forced to be under house arrest for the rest of his life. Sure looks like he was treated with absolute fairness by the Church, right?

>Suffers from a painful hernia. He requests permission from Rome to consult physicians in Florence. The request is denied, and he is given to know that further requests such as this will result in imprisonment.
Wow, they seem like they were so kind and fair to Galileo, right, instead of allowing one of the brightest minds of his time to continue his research, they imprison him in his own home.

Do I need to go on?

All of this is from your Rice university source, in the Galileo Timeline.
http://galileo.rice.edu/chron/galileo.html

>>8586344
This too honestly, this guy's entire argument is pathetic.

>>8586346
> Has lost vision in his left eye and is now totally blind. He petitions the Inquisition to be freed. The petition is denied. He is, however, allowed to transfer to his house in Florence in order to be closer to his physicians. In March he obtains permission to attend church on religious holidays, provided that he have no contact with others.

Wow, what benevolance of the Church, they were so good in their fair and just treatment of a leading scientist of his time, simply for opposing the Church's dogmatic interpretation of Heliocentrism!

Note that the guy still hasn't responded to his claim that the entire affair had nothing to do with Heliocentrism at all, despite that being the main focus of his imprisonment.

You're not as intelligent as you think, Mr. """Bus Driver.""" In fact, seem's like the only Bus you're driving is off a cliff.

>>8586351
Billy likes to pretend he's the driver of the short bus he rides to Special Ed, please don't make fun of him.

File: religion_237.jpg (28KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x400px

>>8586341
>All this shit about the relationship between Galileo and the pope means jack shit when he underwent a trial and inquisition from the catholic church itself. I don't care if they were best buddies, scientific knowledge was still suppressed in the favor of religious dogma. This is all that matters.

Dead right. All this garbage that it was G's fault because he didn't suck up to the pope well enough is just that - garbage.

The pope was out of order in having an opinion on scientific matters, let alone in imposing his opinion on everyone.

And yes the RC church explicitly held the Copernican view to be heretical.

File: antarctic.png (566KB, 1484x1146px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1484x1146px

may as well leave this here as well, since this appears to be _the_ climate change thread atm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-antarctic-ice-shelf-crack-20170107-story.html

>The crack in this Antarctic ice shelf just grew by 11 miles. A break could be imminent

>An enormous rift in one of Antarctica's largest ice shelves grew dramatically over the past several weeks, and a chunk nearly the size of Delaware could break away within months, British scientists reported this week.

>If this happens, it could accelerate a further breakup of the ice shelf, essentially removing a massive cork of ice that keeps some of Antarctica's glaciers from flowing into the ocean. The long term result, scientists project, could be to noticeably raise global sea levels by 10 centimeters, or almost four inches.

I think the Special Ed. Bus Driver has left this thread, but why not continue to blow him the fuck out using his own sources?

>February 1616 - On orders of the Pope Paul V, Cardinal Bellarmine calls Galileo to his residence and administers a warning not to hold or defend the Copernican theory. An unsigned transcript in the Inquisition file, discovered in 1633, states that Galileo is also forbidden to discuss the theory orally or in writing.
Hmmm. But I thought Mr. Bus Driver that Galileo's trials had nothing to do with Heliocentrism, but the Moons of Jupiter?

>>8586354
The entire ordeal with Galileo just shows how much power the Church held during its heyday, and how they were able to effectively silence any scientific ideas that opposed the church dogma with threats of the Inquisition. Anyone with a groundbreaking discovery, like Galileo, had to present his findings through the church, and if they found something that contradicted the Bible, they would disallow it from being distributed and being taught.

Since we're on /sci/ board, is there anyone who can refute my basic arguments & evidence here >>8583524

There's no need to appeal for authority, except citing primary sources for data, as not all of us can individually collect all the climate data in the world.

>>8582829
I'm at 4 but because I really don't think its possible to fix within the short time we have
A full scale nuclear war would probably be the most effect thing to do at this point I think, though

File: Guffawing with Primates.jpg (126KB, 727x639px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 727x639px

>>8586325
>This is from a review of a play
W E W L A D
E W E A D L
W E W D L A
L A D W E W
A D L E W E
D L A W E W

>I'm called the Bus Driver b/c I'm a cautionary tale about why it's important to stay in school and apply yourself so that you can become a skilled laborer or a professional of some sort instead of ferrying brats around like me
FTFY

File: climate thread simulator.png (168KB, 792x633px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 792x633px

>8582777
>global temperature has been in flux before dinosaurs roamed the earth
>>8582780
>It's unlikely that humans are the cause.
>>8582796
>isn't this surface air temperature data all fabricated?
>8583461
>You mean like from the toilet?
>>8584782

>>8587989
I love how that graph captures the average /pol/ mentality so well. It's almost as if that comic on "mount stupid" was actually empirical data.

>>8583524
>>8586441
Your basic arguments and evidence give no range of expected temperature rise. Since you are discussing global warming, do you not think that might be an important piece of data to include?

File: erin lel face.jpg (13KB, 306x295px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 306x295px

>>8582725
>copernicus
>climate change service
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>8583422
You lack basic rigor in stats. Fuck off.
>>8583434
You lack basic rigor in stats. Fuck off.

>>8583636
>there's no million dollars beach front properties and billion dollars worth of infrastructure around the coastlines.

So over the course of a century we'll have to move beachfront properties a few miles inland, worst case scenario.

>>8585631
>Should we try to stop it? Definitely considering the societal cost.

If you want to stop climate change you will have to kill about 5 billion people.

>>8588028
Not an argument.

Are you guys saying that my little shitty frozen cottage in northern Sweden will soon turn into a multi-million dollar beach front property?

Man, I can't fucking wait to go to the bank tomorrow morning and bring them this exciting news.
I'm going to quit my job and take out a loan on my soon to be multi-million dollar beach home and travel the world.

Thanks guys!

>>8588228
more like kill the western world, the rest is fine.

If all the planet lived like indians, we'd need 0.7 times the earth to sustain ourselves. If we lived like americans, we'd need 3.5 to 5 earths, depending on the estimates.

>>8588235
Irony is that climate change will be mostly beneficial to wealthy countries in the northern latitudes, but only if they don't take in the 2 billion refugees climate change will create in the equatorial regions.

>>8588238
You think India and China aren't contributing to climate change at all. Fuck off and kill yourself you shitlib retard.

I guess it would be great if we all were destitute and half starved and shit in the streets, earth would be a paradise!

All this climate change talks is to limit growth and development of BRICS nations,impose more taxes and a speculative carbon credit market and to empower the nuclear cooperations.

>>8588285
Agreed. It's clearly the work of Reptilians.

>>8588233
Not an argument.

>>8588221
>MUH STATS
>I HAVE NO COHERENT ARGUMENT, BUT MUH STATS
>>>/pol/

>>8588249
>reading comprehension of a 5 yo

not worth arguing with

>>8588221
>I literally have no argument and have been blown out so hard I have no idea to respond... hmmm. this is embarrassing, what do I do? I know! Don't actually respond and just tell someone to fuck off! That will work! I'm a genius!

>>8583057
>Given the shitstorms about nuclear proliferation,

Everyone who has ever built a nuclear weapon has done so by building a custom-purpose reactor, or by centrifuges. No one has built a bomb from a civilian power reactor. It's simply much harder to use a civilian nuclear reactor than to build a custom purpose reactor from scratch, or centrifuges.

>and the insane upfront costs of nuclear power stations, that's probably not going to happen.

There are plenty of next-gen designs that have the possibility to be much cheaper, and possibly / probably cheaper than coal.

>>8588385
The problem is funding for those "next gen designs" is nonexistent, and even if it was, they would be tied up in decades of government regulation before the first one breaks ground.

The same thing applies to other alternative Nuclear fuels. There's just too much regulation of the industry due to environmental concerns, as well as too much upfront cost for companies to spend R&Ding them.

>>8588398
>The problem is funding for those "next gen designs" is nonexistent, and even if it was, they would be tied up in decades of government regulation before the first one breaks ground.

The IFR was basically completed in Argonne National Labs in 1994 as Clinton shut it down, and right now GE is offering to build several to England under the name S-PRISM.

Several molten salt designs look to to be able to be built in under 5 years because of the wealth of knowledge from Oak Ridge National Labs, such as ThorCon.

The only problem is regulations, and that can be changed. It is a difficult political problem, but at least it's easier than changing the laws of physics.

>>8582725
>climate.copernicus

Instantly discarded

File: sci.png (304KB, 527x308px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 527x308px

Man, I'm really getting tired of these threads.

>>8588647
Shockingly accurate

>>8582852
kind of like how global warming isn't corroborated outside of the northern hemisphere, right?

>>8585802
>Keep in mind that Heartland is literally just one of hundreds of organizations that money from the fossil fuel industry has been funneled into during the past, currently through third-party organizations like Donor's Trust, but in the past they donated directly, records of which can be found here:
>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
>Go ahead and read through the Scientific American article I posted earlier, alternatively, you can read the actual scientific paper that the article is about here:
>http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

I've read that paper from drexel.edu and it proves absolutely nothing. All that it shows it that oil companies etc. give money to conservative foundations. (most of them donate to liberal causes too, paper conveniently forgot to mention that.) And then, SURPRISE!, conservative foundations give money to conservative think thanks. Imagine that? And some of these think thanks are probably skeptical of climate change. Yet this ridiculous paper, DID NOT NAME A SINGLE THINK TANK.

In short, warmist drivel. Long on innuendo, very short on facts.

Meanwhile FedGov, Greenie Foundations, Leftist Billionionaires etc. openly pay for Climate Change "Science." As if their financial sponsorship doesn't taint the results.

Well it does. https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f2fa066e-d879-3d22-b78a-7b849c0ecd1b/undefined
"Georgia Tech Climatologist Chooses 'Career Suicide' to Keep Her 'Scientific Integrity'"

>>8588996
http://cjonline.com/blog/keri/2016-11-26/americas-conservative-road-destruction-our-last-chance
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
http://www.ecowatch.com/koch-brothers-donald-trump-2104864529.html

But all of those were from Socialistfags, so who fucking cares; show me one fucking conservative proof of global warming.

There is none, so shut the fuck up and suck my dick.

>>8588647
This is pretty accurate hehe

>>8588953
>global warming isn't corroborated outside of the northern hemisphere
Tell that to Australia.

>>8588996
Giving money to PR groups to deny science and giving money to scientists to test it are kinda different things. Particularly because we know Exxon's own climatologists were warning them about AGW at the same time as they were publicly claiming it wasn't real.

>https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f2fa066e-d879-3d22-b78a-7b849c0ecd1b/undefined
Really? Read your own damn link, she resigned and now she's trying to get attention.

>>8589028
Oh I get it, we should hand-wave the lack of global warming across the southern hemisphere by focusing on only locations with white populations. Got it

>>8589039
>lack of global warming across the southern hemisphere
Global warming is north-biased, but there's still measurable warming in the southern hemisphere.

>focusing on only locations with white populations
What the fuck?

>>8589028
>Giving money to PR groups to deny science and giving money to "scientists" to test it are kinda different things.
Your naivete is astonishing. Do you really think Climate "Scientists" don't toe the line? Very few don't, and their career is usually over.

Again: Read up on Prof. Judith Curry who quit a prestigious position at the Georgia Institute of Technology
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f2fa066e-d879-3d22-b78a-7b849c0ecd1b/undefined
"Georgia Tech Climatologist Chooses 'Career Suicide' to Keep Her 'Scientific Integrity'"

>>8589007
>There is none, so shut the fuck up and suck my dick.
I can't satisfy your homosexual fantasies as I don't swing that way. Why don't you talk to David Brock?

>>8589137
Yes, Judith Curry was so persecuted. She only worked at GIT for almost two decades, was a member of several climate research groups, and won an award for meteorological research. Yes, skeptics are clearly treated so horribly by the scientific community.

>>8589165
buh... but my narrative...

>>8589137
>Your naivete is astonishing. Do you really think Climate "Scientists" don't toe the line? Very few don't, and their career is usually over.
You can't just assert shit like that, you actually need to demonstrate it.

Again, I'm amazed that deniers don't seem to even understand what and argument IS, let alone how to construct one. When you make an argument you're trying to convince someone of something, by starting with premises they will accept and showing your conclusions follow from them. If you start with a claim that's going to be seen as utter nonsense then you've failed at step one, and and are just wasting everyone's time.

This isn't advanced shit, it's basic logic and reasoning 101.

>>8589217
This is why I ask them for the evidence for their claims every single time. When they give you their sources, you can find out exactly why their "arguments" are invalid.

Every single time they avoid the question, they don't present their evidence, and they go back into the same old logical fallacies and irrational, feelings-based responses. They don't care about the evidence, they only care about their emotional state, and how climate science makes them feel. They are in the mindset that a large, encompassing scientific body is entirely fraudulent, that the scientific basis for climate change is a conspiracy.

>>8588996
>As if their financial sponsorship doesn't taint the results.

Go back to bed Willie Soon.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

>>8589225
>I ask them for the evidence
...because what is Google?
Lrn2do-your-own-homework

It's not about fart gas from chinese sweetshop chimneys, it's about the giantic ball of plasma in the sky.

>>8582725
climate denialists? No one denies climate exists

>>8589840
that's code for the fully brainwashed
stimulus: 'climate'
response: 'man-made .. warming .. CO2'
all else is 'denial'

>>8589858
Do you post that exact same piece of nonsense in every thread?

>>8588647
Isn't it the other way around since literally nobody take climate changes seriously and now all attempt to halt it is completely impossible what with all branches of government are replaced with pro-corporate(/pol/'s candidates) people and every single plan to reduce emission is either completely retarded and unfeasible so it will never pass congress? Isn't the whole stop global warming movement basically useless and and will never ever make a relevant change because of their retarded policies? Weird, it's like /sci/ lack self-awareness or something.

>>8589225
>They are in the mindset that a large, encompassing scientific body is entirely fraudulent, that the scientific basis for homeopathy is a conspiracy.

There are two parts to a "scientific consensus" that the public should trust:
(1) A broad consensus in the specialty itself on the point.
(2) A broad consensus in the general scientific community that the specialists are sufficiently competent and trustworthy that they should be believed when they make such a claim.

The second one is what separates the scientific consensus on things like gravity or evolution from the "scientific consensus" on things like catastrophic AGW or homeopathy working.

Whenever you ask the general scientific community, you quickly find both a large percentage and a considerable number of eminent figures who either do not think that climate science is a sufficiently mature field to make such predictions reliably or have specific objections to the argument for catastrophic AGW conclusion.

>>8582725

Yeah, and we're letting Africans breed like flies and haven't nuked China and India off the map.

No one will ever fix manmade global warming, sorry.

>>8590296
Are the opinions of biologists relevant on the maturity of Physics as a science? Are they qualified to judge the scientific value of quantum mechanics, particle theory, dark matter, string theory, or any other theoretical physics concepts?

Conversely, are organic chemists qualified to criticize and critique evolutionary biology, or the study of cell cycles in eukaryotes? No, they aren't trained in the slightest in the field of evolutionary biology.

Your entire argument is that anyone with a scientific opinion has the right to judge the Earth sciences as a whole, even if they have no expertise or right to judge it, nor do they even understand the evidence itself because their profession does not require its understanding. So yes, I defer to theoretical physicists who spend their careers studying theoretical models to explain particle physics. I defer to evolutionary biologists who spend their careers studying macro and micro-evolution. I don't defer to people outside of a field of expertise for a subject which they are not academically trained to understand.

Your entire argument, so typical, just boils down to a feeling that climate science isn't "real science" because it disagrees with your personal beliefs / opinions.

>Whenever you ask the general scientific community, you quickly find both a large percentage and a considerable number of eminent figures who either do not think that climate science is a sufficiently mature field to make such predictions reliably or have specific objections to the argument for catastrophic AGW conclusion.
Once again, nothing more than conjecture. You present not a single shred of evidence to back up your claim other than your feelings, and I'm sorry, but your feelings are not evidence.

>>8583061
Cute but unfortunately for you again I'm studying Earth science.

You can't simply approach this problem and say 'look the Earth system changes a lot naturally therefore you can't separate natural variability from unnatural ones QED'.

This is very very very simple to explain. How do we know what the Earth's temperature was in the past?

Because we learned. We learned how to identify markers in rock and soil and paleontology that show how climate changed in the past. This is called paleoclimatology. Like an expert in accident reconstruction coming across pieces of a car. You're trying to say that because the pieces of car are statistically the same number as pieces of an unassembled car we can therefore make no conclusion about whether the car was in an accident or simply never assembled.

Yes we can. We can indeed know what caused past climate changes. It's called paleoclimatology. We can also learn about what's causing climate change NOW and by god if we can learn what's causing climate change you'd better goddamned well believe us when we say today's climate is caused by humans because we know.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235

The argument is long over friend. Your side lost.

>>8588197
>Your basic arguments and evidence give no range of expected temperature rise
read the GISS link. there are estimates of energy imbalance (after summing GHG, solar, and aerosol forcings) and an assessment of how well they correspond to observed warming under current models of oceanic circulation.

>>8590296
>Whenever you ask the general scientific community, you quickly find both a large percentage and a considerable number of eminent figures who either do not think that climate science is a sufficiently mature field to make such predictions reliably or have specific objections to the argument for catastrophic AGW conclusion.
[citation needed]
you know, there ARE plenty of "eminent figures" who think that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, or that evolution isn't real. through the magic of crank magnetism, a lot of them are climate change deniers also...

File: UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2016_v6.jpg (111KB, 1169x675px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1169x675px

but...

>>8590415
>Are the opinions of biologists relevant on the maturity of Physics as a science?
Absolutely. The layman has no better way of distinguishing between groups like physicists and groups like homeopathy researchers, or between fields in physics like general relativity (proven highly reliable for prediction within a certain well-validated range) and ones like string theory (not proven useful for prediction), than to listen to the general scientific community.

You can't just put on a labcoat, have a buddy give you a title that ends with "-ologist", and get together with some like-minded people to start a peer-reviewed journal, and expect people to believe that you're a real, serious scientist who should be listened to like you're just explaining that objects are accelerated equally by gravity whether they weigh one ounce or one ton.

For the layman, who you expect to depend entirely on social factors, it's the evaluation of the general scientific community that gives your group credibility.

If the consensus of your group is that A is true, and the general scientific community is not in consensus that your group is qualified to determine that A is true, then there is no scientific consensus that A is true.

There is no broad consensus among scientists that climate scientists are qualified to make reliable long-term predictions, such as the claim of catastrophic global warming. Therefore, claims of a "scientific consensus" are misleading at best, if not consciously fraudulent.

File: that's where you're wrong.png (38KB, 362x345px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 362x345px

>>8590599
>The argument is long over friend. Your side lost.

>>8591188
>>Whenever you ask the general scientific community, you quickly find both a large percentage and a considerable number of eminent figures
>you know, there ARE plenty of "eminent figures"
>"eminent figures"
>with scare quotes
>so you know they're not actual eminent figures
>unlike what you were talking about
>because I have no argument

>>8591264
>There is no broad consensus among scientists that climate scientists are qualified to make reliable long-term predictions, such as the claim of catastrophic global warming. Therefore, claims of a "scientific consensus" are misleading at best, if not consciously fraudulent.
Once again, you didn't even respond to the same exact point made above. This is conjecture, not evidence. Since apparently you don't understand the definition of the word, let me spell it out for you:
>Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Saying that there is no broad consensus on climate science when you back it up with no evidence shows how astoundingly ignorant you are.

Again, I ask you one last time. Present your evidence. You say that there is no broad consensus. Present the evidence that proves this, or get the fuck out of here.

If there is no such consensus as you say, explain how all of the following organizations, many outside of the climate sciences, agree with the scientific evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There is not a single scientific body, either governmental or non-governmental, that disagrees with the evidence for climate change. The last holdout was the AAPG, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which became non-committal in 2007.
Every other scientific organization accepts the evidence.

Then you can look at the surveys of scientists, both earth scientists and non-earth sciences scientists, such as Verheggen et al., 2014:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

There are numerous other consensus studies you can research for yourself.

Anyways, nothing you say has any evidence to support it, as usual. Amazing how all the necessities for the scientific progress go out the window as soon as you want to start being "skeptical" about climate change. Then, it's ok to not present any evidence and base your arguments on conjecture and conspiracy.

>>8591264
>You can't just put on a labcoat, have a buddy give you a title that ends with "-ologist", and get together with some like-minded people to start a peer-reviewed journal, and expect people to believe that you're a real, serious scientist who should be listened to like you're just explaining that objects are accelerated equally by gravity whether they weigh one ounce or one ton.
How the fuck do you have so little idea how science works?

The reason we think homoeopathy is bullshit isn't because a mechanical engineer took a glance at their labcoats and said "nope" - it's because actual people with experience in biology and medicine actually tested it, and found that it doesn't work.
Scientific fields don't exist in isolation, and the people working in them aren't four people collaborating an a basement somewhere.

File: brainlet.jpg (305KB, 1500x1100px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1500x1100px

>>8591277
>"eminent figures"
>with scare quotes
>so you know they're not actual eminent figures
I was quoting someone directly, you brainlet. that's what intellectually honest people do; when we borrow someone else's words, we use quotation marks and references.
nice appeal to authority, anyway. just because someone is an "eminent figure" in one field doesn't mean they know what they're talking about on a different topic. (e.g. Ben Carson, who is a genuinely brilliant neurosurgeon who did groundbreaking work in his time, but is pretty much a moron on other issues, like whether evolution is real and what Egyptians built pyramids for.)

File: 460.png (727KB, 965x579px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 965x579px

>>8588316

Even the Pope agrees.

>Pope attacks emissions trading as a possible 'ploy'

http://uk.reuters.com/article/pope-environment-carbon-idUKL5N0Z43FZ20150618

>The pope, the first from the developing world, cautioned that carbon trading systems could be a smokescreen to allow large carbon emitters in wealthy countries to keep doing so, suggesting it might be "a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors."

File: this-motherfucker-knows.png (155KB, 459x306px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 459x306px

>>8590599

>>8582780
I deny the numbers

File: FUKKEN SAVED.jpg (9KB, 240x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x225px

>>8588647
100% accurate

>>8590599
>The argument is long over friend.
yeah man, guess we should just go injecting chemicals into the atmosphere and spend trillions on a massive global carbon control infrastructure system.

science is settled and you guys are 100% right, what could go wrong?

>>8591585
Anything the pope says on climate change is simply put, irrelevant.

>>8592178
>yeah man, guess we should just go injecting chemicals into the atmosphere and spend trillions on a massive global carbon control infrastructure system.
Always hilarious when people like yourself spew out conjecture proving that indeed you have no clue about the specifics of climate change / climate science.

There are no plans to "inject chemicals into the atmosphere" you dumb fuck. The solution to climate change is not to "inject" anything into our atmosphere, it is to wean society off our dependence of fossil fuels into alternative energies, such as wind, solar, nuclear and hydroelectric.

By the way, "inject chemicals into the atmosphere" is exactly what fossil fuel companies are doing right now, essentially terraforming out planet slowly.

>massive global carbon control infrastructure system.
Again, this is nothing but misunderstood conjecture from someone who read some bullshit on infowars, or breitbart and parrots their retarded opinions here.

If your "carbon control infrastructure system" refers to carbon taxes, which have already been implemented in certain cities like Vancouver for example, that has nothing to do with a control or infrastructure system, it is simply penalizing industries that generate a large amount of greenhouse gasses. By the way, most carbon taxes are revenue-neutral, meaning that other taxes are scaled back and replaced with carbon taxes.

Yes, the science is in fact settled, there is no longer a scientific debate over whether humans are causing the current warming trend, back in the 1970s there was a debate occurring, as the dynamics of our climate then wasn't very well understood, but the science has matured quote a lot in the past nearly 50 years, to the point where there are very few, if any detractors in the field, most of them being contrarians with crank beliefs, like Roy Spencer for example.

>>8592156
"100% accurate" if you mean /pol/ is armed with conspiracies, links to blogs like WUWT or "Notrickzone" and cherrypicked graphs, many of them fake / source-less while people from /sci/ actually have sources and evidence to back up their claims.

When called out on this, the /pol/tard usually responds with more conjecture until they get butthurt enough that they leave the thread and stop responding.

>>8586095
>implying it's a bad thing

We have too many humans already anon

File: r8ewSlh.jpg (79KB, 1509x663px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1509x663px

>>8592239

>there is no longer a scientific debate over whether humans are causing the current warming trend

This thread got me fucke up

Are we causing it or not?
>inb4 yes, no, maybe

I'm from /fit/ btw, no bully pls.

>>8592290
I recommend watching potholer54's video series on climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Will only take a few hours to watch them, but they are very informative and the information he presents is backed up with scientific sources.

>>8592290
As for the scientific debate, climatologists debate each other all the time over the specifics of climate change, their models, their data collection techniques, and their analysis techniques. It's part of what scientists do.

To say that there is no debate on climate change, I mean that the debate on whether human activity is causing the trend is something that is not debated anymore. It has been widely accepted that humans are having some impact on the global climate, due to CO2 emissions, and positive feedbacks that result from warming global temperatures, such as reduced ice albedo, or increased methane emissions from permafrost / clathrates, and increased atmospheric water vapor / clouds.

Guys, you're all missing the real issue here: reptilians. They want the planet's temperature to return to what it was millions of years ago so that they can live a comfy cold-blooded life and not have to hide behind their human masks anymore.

File: 1471807885831.jpg (327KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 720x720px

>>8592304
>>8592309
alright, thanks
y-you're big guys

>>8592304
I can recommend them. Or the channel in general, he's kinda too smug but he makes great content.

>>8590175
The world has other countries than the USA

>>8592554
>no source.

Nice try.

Anyways, this isn't about the environment than it is about the fossil fuel industry as a whole. The GOP are fighting against this War on Gas and Coal, and there's nothing that you can say that could change their minds.

>>8583682
"That is a ball."
"That is a fact."

>>8592290
First they came for your carbons and you said nothing, then they came for your proteins...

>>8588647

Every single time. SO TRUE.

>>8592290
Yes we are, but the Fossil Fuel Giants refused to die out.

>>8583130
Yeah right. 1000 year old proxies have a time resolution of 5 years.
Based on what evidence? The thermometers they had 1000 years ago? That's a bit of a problem isn't it? There's nothing more accurate to calibrate it against 1000 years ago. (And no, a 10 year old proxy will not have the same properties or levels of accuracy as a 1000 year old proxy. Funny how aging changes things.) So where did you get that "5 years" value? Oh, you just made it up.

Typical rapid response team crap. Just make it up and hope it sticks.

File: Predictions.jpg (116KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x531px

>>8583536
>See on how it doesn't address any of the <2000 yr variability,
We only have to add the variability/error bars when the data don't agree with our theory!

Where's the error bars in this graph? >>8582725
Where's the error bars in this graph? >>8582793
Where's the error bars in this graph? >>8583381
Where's the error bars in this completely debunked graph? >>8583390
Where's the error bars in this (with new tampering!) graph? >>8583381

Why are warmists such hypocrites?

>>8593429
>Why are warmists such hypocrites?
Because they want to kill off the Fossil Fuel Industry, that's way.

>>8583560
>and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that.
Clearly he forgot to mention the Medieval Climate Optimum. Oh that's right, Mikey Mann erased that. >>8583390

What next, you will also pretend the Medieval warming period didn't happen? That it was only local? What's the latest excuse to keep the money flowing?

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx

Example:
Rosenthal, Yair, Braddock K. Linsley, and Delia W. Oppo. "Pacific ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years." Science 342.6158 (2013): 617-621.

Improving air quality will actually excerbate climate change by reducing the atmosphere's albedo. It has been proposed that we artificially increase atmospheric albedo by launching sulphur compounds (like volcanoes do) into the atmosphere in an effort to combat the effects of climate change.

>>8593439
No they dont, they just want everyone to be responsible.

File: USHCN Raw and Processed.gif (20KB, 674x464px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 674x464px

>>8583560
>>8593449
>and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that.
I completely agree that we must openly display uncertainty and variability in the climate data. And that includes the uncertainty/variability from alterations to the raw data. See pic for an example.

So let me resort to warmist "logic." Since you're claiming that the data depicted here >>8583533 doesn't count because of processing and "corrections." Then you are a conspiracy theorist. Obviously they are conspiring against United Nations IPCC.

File: NASA 1981 to 2015.gif (173KB, 657x594px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 657x594px

>>8593473
>>8583560
>>8593449
>>and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that.
I completely agree that we must openly display uncertainty and variability in the climate data. And that includes the uncertainty/variability from alterations to the raw data.

Here is another honest example. Or is the forthright display of the data part of a conspiracy theory?

File: NASA 2001 to 2016 Change.gif (87KB, 995x597px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 995x597px

>>8593480
>>8593473
>>8583560
>>8593449
>>and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that.
>I completely agree that we must openly display uncertainty and variability in the climate data. And that includes the uncertainty/variability from alterations to the raw data.


And here is another honest example. Again, is the forthright display of the data part of a conspiracy theory?

>>8593471
Giving up your fossil fuels or at minimum letting some be skimmed by a globalist bureaucracy is the height of irresponsibility.

>>8593498
No it's not.

>>8591188
You blathering ninnyfucker.

IF. THE. TEMPERATURE. RISE. IS. WITHIN. NORMAL. VARIATION. IT. IS. FUCKING. NOTHING.

And it certainly appears to be so. All of the data you have so painstakingly provided also shows a reduction of warming effect from CO2 due to bandwith saturation at higher levels.

You're obsessing over nothing, and we're all going to have a chuckle about it 50 years from now.

>>8582814
A relative (PhD in physics from IIT, Chennai) determined man-made climate change is a hoax. When voicing conclusion, profs shushed him. Extreme liberal media in India too.

File: parasites.jpg (36KB, 460x367px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 460x367px

>>8593505
Yes it is. As governments grow they become rigid and incapable of flexibility thus unable to react quickly to changing environments, they also become bloated, corrupt and lack sufficient oversight, they lack any substantial input from the populations they supposedly represent and on top of all this start consuming more resources while accomplishing less.

If this is the "solution" to a non problem such as some excess CO2 emissions, cap and trade and carbon taxes, imagine how they will react to real problems.

A fool and his fuel soon part.

>>8593566
Why don't we try your way and then cry when people are killing each other over basic necessities.

>>8582725
heat island effect.

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

>>8593630
Wow, it's like Berkely Earth never even happened, the debunked denier memes just never die.

https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

>>8593630
I love how every few posts comes a moron who didn't even bother to read the thread, posting some asinine chart or wiki article with no further explanation of what they're even posting.

What does Heat Island even have to do with anything in this thread? Let me guess, you're attempting to argue that Heat Island makes all surface temperature records obsolete or some other bullshit that is simply not true and not supported by evidence.

>>8593517
>And it certainly appears to be so.
No, we have no evidence of the temperature ever rising this fast. What we do see is that when the temperature rises quickly, large ecological damage occurs. Both the cause and the effect are not normal. But you'll just keep denying the science because you don't want it to be true.

File: UAH April 2016.png (83KB, 2700x990px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 2700x990px

>>8593449
>What next, you will also pretend the Medieval warming period didn't happen? That it was only local?
The MWP WAS only local. IIRC, Asia and the Pacific were freezing cold during that time period.

>http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
>Image Source: co2science.org
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#Funding
>According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.
>Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.
>The center was also funded by Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company.

Yeah, okay. A+ for integrity.

>>8593473
>>8593480
>>8593488
>Scientists revise their work in response to new information.
If you want to claim there's some kind of conspiracy, you actually need to provide evidence for it. "Scientists aren't saying the things I would like them to say" isn't evidence of misconduct.

>>8593517
>IF. THE. TEMPERATURE. RISE. IS. WITHIN. NORMAL. VARIATION. IT. IS. FUCKING. NOTHING.
It isn't though. Warming at this rate without significant change in orbital forcings is incredibly unusual, and attributable ONLY to the equally sharp rise in CO2 forcing. And of course, isotope analysis clearly shows the rise in CO2 levels is coming from buried fossil fuels, and not volcanoes and such.
This isn't guesswork, we're at "holding a smoking gun" levels of confidence.

>>8593566
>As governments grow they become...
This isn't really the place for debating politics, but if your only claim is that governments aren't as effective or representative as they should be I won't disagree. That says nothing about AGW though.

>a non problem such as some excess CO2 emissions
It's not a non-issue, you just don't want to deal with it.

>>8593630
>heat island effect.
It's well understood, and accounted for in those corrections deniers keep getting upset about.

>>8593488
>And here is another honest example.
Actually it's an incredibly dishonest example since you are comparing land only data to land+ocean data. While implying that the difference is because of adjustments and not that they are two totally different data sets. you can find both graphs here and see for yourself:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

But you don't care, you'll keep posting this gif because you're a scumbag.

>>8593660
>>8593666
Doing good work here anon, sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in these threads that bothers to respond to these morons.

>>8593449
>http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
Look closely at their graphs.
Each graph has a rise in temperature that they've helpfully labelled "Medieval warm period", but the graphs all disagree on WHEN the MWP actually occurred, and how long it lasted. Some of them have it occurring ~600 years ago, others more than a thousand.

It's painfully apparent that they've simply slapped the label "MWP" onto the warmest part of every graph, and done nothing but wordplay to tie them together into a global event.

File: Religion.jpg (81KB, 568x505px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 568x505px

>>8593660
>provide evidence
For people wanting to rule the world all through history? That's a special kind of naivety and a waste of time with ample examples available, read some more history.

Not recognizing an attempt to control fossil fuel on a global scale whilst living in the oil age as an attempt to rule the world through control of energy is a special kind of ignorance.

Not recognizing it all being enabled through a plea to save earth, liberal fear mongering in regard to climate doom, the co-opting and bastardization of science and that when enabled would be a benefit to all, a special kind of faith in this day and age.

>>8593708
>provide evidence for your accusation of scientific misconduct
>OPEN YOUR EYSE SHEEPLY, ITS THE LUMENARTY!
Okay, never mind then.