Global warming is causing all this cold! Don't you know anything?

File: 1000words.png (124KB, 612x556px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 612x556px

And co2 is a killer! (except for plants of course)

>>8588035
>>8588036
4/10

>>8588035
ITT climate conspiracy theorists
also butthurt libtard millenials who don't understand that funding of science requires a "cause" (made up or not) to rally around
also, grow the fuck up

>>8588035
that's actually a pretty cool picture.
thanks for sharing!

>>8588046
what's wrong? don't like it when someone doesn't say the world is going to end?

>>8588169
>desertification is caused by climate change

This is why you get shit on.

File: wintereartheast.jpg (204KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 800x800px

>>8588213
Here's one from the other side. Cheers.

>>8588214
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=403

>>8588035
You mean like from the toilet?

File: mohippo-largesquare.jpg (189KB, 663x663px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 663x663px

>>8588035
Unfortunately for you I actually study Earth Science.

It'll take a moment to explain. The arctic is actually warming faster right now than the temperate and tropical zones. This much is easy enough to find information on you can just google it.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

Because the Earth's atmosphere is separated into cells called the Hadley, Farrel, and Polar cells this means that if one warms faster, in this case the Polar cell, the difference in temperature between them decreases. So the arctic is becoming more like the temperate zone. This means that what was once a barrier between cells is much less of a barrier and cold polar air is not as much trapped in the arctic as it once was allowing it to cross into the temperate zone more easily bringing cold arctic weather down into the United States, Europe, and Asia.

Does that make any sense to you or are you too stupid for real science?

>>8588035
Talking about this here is pointless due to paid shills.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-09 at 4.21.11 PM.png (125KB, 1194x227px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1194x227px

>>8588214

This is why you get shat on.

extreme weather is a facet of climate change

OP BTFO

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

133KB, 829x493px

>>8588356
I'm smart enough to see when people create mumbo jumbo every few years to explain their failed models.
Studying Climate science. So who exactly will be paying you for your "skill" once you graduate? Soros? Clinton Foundation? Government in general? Carbon taxes?
Curious...

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

41KB, 562x437px

>>8588438
>I'm smart enough to see when people create mumbo jumbo
Apparently not, since you post purposely misleading graphs.

>>8583533
>>8583536
>>8583540

I'm just a brainlet, but this is what I have come to accept is most likely happening: as I understand it, we were actually supposed to be entering a cooling period right about now, but instead global temperatures are sharply rising since the start of the industrial revolution (as a global average, not talking about recent bizarro weather in the north).

>>8588438
Using phrases like
>Soros
>Clinton Foundation
just makes me filter out anything you say. Why can't you just stick to the science itself? Political lines like that aren't convincing in the slightest.
>The science is rigged by the Rothschilds.
If you can't trust science, you literally can't trust anyone or anything, and I can't comprehend how you've convinced yourself that you can. How have you come to choose the sides you seem to have chosen in this debate? Because your choices seem completely arbitrary.
>Because it's _my_ side. The side I was born with. The side of my mom and dad and uncle.
It's the only explanation I can come up with, and it's wholly illogical. Either that or you're a teenage memester who thinks he's being really clever triggering all these strangers on the internet.

>>8588356
I'll give you a little bit of trivia to help out anon.

Ask if they've ever heard of an LP or kerosene refrigerator, the kind they commonly have in an RV. It uses the LP or kerosene to heat one section of a closed loop made of steel tubing. As one area of the loop gets heated another gets cold. If they are sophisticated enough to understand how that whole system works then you can actually have intelligent debate, otherwise it shuts up the idiots because it's a real working device you can point to.

>>8588595
I have never heard of such a thing. Thank you for that.

>>8588477
I post peered reviewed charts, you post cartoons...
You're on the wrong board >>>/co/
>>8588521
Those aren't phrases, those are names. Grade three grammar.
>>8588595
Ok, so what exactly is your point? Is this board general mechanics or science? Your attempt to deflect is typical, and pathetic.

>>8588356

Still waiting...

Who exactly will pay you for your "skills"?

>>8588207
Nice buzzwords

File: 117897979891.jpg (9KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x240px

>>8588356

So, if the engine on your car is running hot, than somewhere in that warmer than average system, there's a "cold spot", that's cooler than it would be on average?

Sounds legit.

>>8588819
No. We're saying that the closed Earth system has an uneven distribution of energy, and that although there are spots that can be colder than normal, the overall system can still be heating up.

In your example, it would be like saying you've just started the engine, there are spots that are higher than normal, and yes, that anomaly has not yet distributed evenly.

You're comparing an evolving system with one that has already matured.

Apples and oranges.

>it's another retards at /pol/ trying to raid /sci/ with IQ's equal to the room temperature thanks to the global warming episode

You know if you teens stopped following shitty narratives to find a meaning for your empty lives actually studied to learn things you would be more helpful to the cause you're supposedly supporting right?

>>8588692
>I post peered reviewed charts
It's like you can't make a post without lying. Pathetic.

File: sci climate thread simulator.png (169KB, 792x653px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 792x653px

>graph stops at 1855
>see, recent warming is tiny!
this has been posted and thoroughly debunked so many times I have to conclude you're just trolling. 2/10

>>8588692
>peer reviewed charts
ackshually you didn't. think you did? show me one peer-reviewed paper authored by David Lappi, who made the chart. show me one peer-reviewed paper that contains the chart in question. protip: you can't.
>so what exactly is your point
that guy's point is that heating an object can actually cause parts of it to cool. which is why global warming causing localized cooling is perfectly reasonable.

>>8588828
I.Q. 132, sanctioned test. I'm more than bright enough to be here.
Can you actually answer questions, or just constantly deflect them?
I'll ask this again. Who or what exactly, funds all this "climate science"?

>>8588857
Uhh... ExxonMobil? It's ExxonMobil, right?

>>8588844
I see. You consider half the planet locked in a deep freeze, to be localized cooling. Interesting...

File: 1483874759867.jpg (238KB, 636x937px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 636x937px

>>8588035
is this the daily climate bait thread? it's been disproven because they did the math wrong

>>8588830
It's snowing in Africa right now...

>>8588860
No, don't you see that the kikes fund all ur (((science))) al gore as well. your climate (((science))) is a joke, it's completely funded by al gore and obama, u kno this tho right? who pays u shill? u on obama's payroll to? Fucking kike, i'll nevr trust ur lies, just like everything else you (((nasa))) jews spread, like roung earth. Fuck you shill, I am redpilled, ur just a bluepilled kike shill faggot. All climate (((science))) is lies to regulate every aspect of our lives. WE NEED FOSSIL FUELS. the entire world runs on fossil fuels no matter what, and man can't change the climate ONLY GOD CAN. ur a fucking retard, you would know if you ever opened the bible once in ur life. Fucking kike. Go ahead, post your (((peer review))) corrupt science. Remember climategate? No one believes your jew lies anymore kike shill. ur DONE.

>>8588864
Europe and parts of North America is not half the planet. You probably think the European continent alone occupies a quarter of the Earth's surface.

File: concerned frog.png (198KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 550x535px

>>8588874

>>8588035
It's winter in the northern hemisphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter

>>8588873
>Extreme and unusual weather patterns year after year are totally normal and fine. Certainly not a sign of any CHANGES to the CLIMATE.

>>8588875
Semantics, Is that the best you got?
lame

>>8588886
Define unusual? Please use an exact comparison to weather patterns between say 720-890 A.D.
I'll make it easy...

File: map-blended-mntp-201501pg[1].gif (175KB, 990x765px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 990x765px

>>8588864
>half the planet locked in a deep freeze
are you referring to the fact that it's currently winter in the northern hemisphere?
winter happens every year, my child.

but no, this is localized cooling. notice how some areas were warmer and some were cooler in January 2015 (relative to January averages 1981-2010), despite the fact that the globe as a whole was significantly warmer than the 20th century average for January.

>>8588922
Hahahahaa son, wow, just wow. Using "data" from NOAA which receives all of its funding in order to promote "climate change" paranoia. Unreal, do you have any links to some Al Gore speeches I should watch?
I'm going to debate my dog now. I need to bring up the competition a bit...

>>8588922
>are you referring to the fact that it's currently winter in the northern hemisphere?

He's referring to snow in Georgia, US and Greece.

Pay attention.

>>8588957
Thank you, why doesn't anyone else get it? Completely blinded by bias disguised as "science"?
cheers

File: 1447876512009.jpg (93KB, 600x615px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x615px

>it's another /pol/ thread made by reddit kids who only got concerned with global warming because of trump's tweets

>>8588947
lol i know right? these stupid (((science))) dogs trust obama and al gore, fucking climate priests, its a disgrace to real science. all science today is jew funded, all kike lies. (((noaa))) what a joke, just like (((nasa))), not going to believe there lies. all these climate (((scientists))) do is fake the data, fake everything to satisfy their kike overlords pushing for carbon taxes, fucking shills. look at all the milllionare climate (((scientists))) out there like spreading the propaganda flying in there private jets. Fuck al gore. ipcc shills. what happened to (((science)))?

File: Global Cooling affects polar vortex.gif (20KB, 527x273px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 527x273px

>>8588356
That's funny. Once upon a time they said the "breaking of the cell barriers," i.e., change of the polar vortex was caused by global cooling.

>nb4 warmist paper claiming global cooling was just a journalism fad
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s
>As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” >is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the >1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate >influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged >CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the
>“non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

>>8588973
Oh look this shit again. You the same person that posted this last time, you know when I responded to you and you never replied after I proved your source (notrickzone) lied about those 285 papers being all from peer-reviewed, scientific sources? Do I seriously need to do this again man. Fine. Reply this time don't run off with your tail between your legs (i'll continue next post).

>>8588973
>http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
>http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
>http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs
You've posted those links before, and there's still just as bullshit now as they were then.
Most of the shit there isn't peer-reviewed papers at all, and the stuff that is is mostly analysis of aresol forcings, not predictions of a long-term cooling trend.

Stop reposting discredited bullshit.

>>8588961
No it's another /sci/ thread with nothing but deflections and insults, rather than sensible answers.
Because there are no sensible answers that don't involve manipulated and skewed "data".
Therefore, no sensible answers period.

>>8588982
>Because there are no sensible answers that don't involve manipulated and skewed "data".
Well, I guess that's one way of "winning" an argument - just claim any evidence you don't like is fake.

File: Capture.jpg (351KB, 891x1227px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 891x1227px

>>8588977
Let's start here. The 9th link on that page links to this:
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/254014a0

Is this a peer-reviewed paper? Is this published in a scientific journal? No. This is an editorial piece, it's not a scientific paper. It's simply talking about the concept of Global Cooling, not supporting a position on the concept.

If you had actually bothered to read the Thomas Peterson paper on the myth of the 1970s Global Cooling consensus here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

You would know that the methodology involved looking at PEER-REVIEWED scientific papers published in the climatological sciences at the time during the 1970s. A newspaper article, or an editorial in Nature is not a peer-reviewed paper and is not evidence for a consensus.

The paper discusses how in the scientific literature of the time, there were far more papers published about potential warming, or papers that had no opinion on the phenomenon than global cooling.

I'll post more bullshit sources he uses in the next post. You going to respond this time or have you already run away?

File: Thug dog.jpg (97KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x800px

>>8588947
okay now I KNOW you're just trolling
take your (You) and your 4/10 and go beddy-bye
>I'm going to debate my dog now. I need to bring up the competition a bit
actually, I'm your dog. you've been arguing all this time with your dog, retard. now go fill my water bowl or I'm going to shit in your bed.

>>8588957
>it's SNOWING
>in WINTER
>GOSH

>>8588989
>Well, I guess that's one way of "winning" an argument - just claim any evidence you don't like is fake.
His eyes open!

>>8588989
No, claim that the evidence (which isn't even based on reality, it's all modelling) wrong, because it's wrong.
I am very leery about any "science" that says the debate is over, it's a closed case.
That smacks in the face of everything science is supposed to be.
Any person with even a shred of objectivity would see that.

>>8588999
Triggered son?

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

63KB, 509x304px

>>8588977
>>8588981

>Most of the shit there isn't peer-reviewed papers at all,
> Stop reposting discredited bullshit.
> Gosh, I'm tired of getting my ass kicked.
> I know, I"ll pretend that 285 papers which show global cooling/skeptical of CO2 induced dangerous warming never happened.

Yeah, those fantasy responses of yours. Back in the real world, reality has reared its ugly head.
If I ever had any doubts about the level of delusion of warmists you certainly disabused me.

File: (You).jpg (246KB, 870x722px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 870x722px

>>8589006
>the evidence (which isn't even based on reality, it's all modelling)
you know they've literally got a bunch of thermometers sitting around at stations all around the globe, right? and they can measure air temperature from orbit using microwave cameras on satellites, right?
apparently you've moved on from claiming that the measurements are fake to claiming that there aren't actually any measurements at all.

>>8588997
Among other sources, he links to things like the "CIA" as a legitimate scientific body on climate science.

This entire post is such a load of massive horseshit, and what's hilarious is it was meant to discredit the paper I posted above about the 1970s Global Cooling myth, and it completely fails to accomplish this goal because he doesn't use the same methodology that the paper used. He doesn't used peer-reviewed sources, and he treats newspaper / magazine articles as proof of a scientific consensus:
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

Here, this guy is claiming that the CIA is a research entity that did research on the climate during the 1970s or some shit.

>>8589011
Nice response by completely ignoring everything I typed. Keep your head buried in the same though, it's working out real well.

Explain how what I posted was inaccurate, I used a DIRECT LINK provided by your source. Go read the picture I posted, that is directly from one of the "studies" that this guy claims supports a global cooling "consensus" (Hilarious how now deniers care about a consensus when it supports something they want to believe, but when there's a real consensus based on actual, current scientists in the climate science field, it's ignored).

Again, you said this:
> I know, I"ll pretend that 285 papers which show global cooling/skeptical of CO2 induced dangerous warming never happened.

I've already shown that the author of your links apparently doesn't know what a real scientific paper is. Many of his links are in fact not to peer-reviewed scientific papers, and much of those that actually are have no opinion on global cooling, and he has cherrypicked quotes out of context, hoping his readers don't actually bother to read the papers themselves.

>>8589011
Here's another quote that the guy cherrypicks to make it seem like it supports a global cooling "consensus" despite it making no clear opinion on the topic:
https://ecommons.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/5865/Magill_Bonnie_L_1980_sec.pdf?sequence=1

Keep in mind, this paper he links to is from a graduate student in the field of GEOGRAPHY, not Earth Sciences or even climate science, KEK.

>general consensus that a major upheaval in climate is taking place. …There is no way of determining, however, whether or not the world is entering into another major ice age or if the present cooling of temperatures is simply a pause in the warming trend that began in the mid 1800s

Do I need to continue blowing you the FUCK out using your own """sources""" or will you give up again and run away, just like last time?

File: Consensus on Global Cooling.png (240KB, 513x460px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 513x460px

>>8588997
>If you had actually bothered to read the Thomas Peterson paper on the myth of the 1970s Global Cooling consensus here:
> The rapid response team worked for hours to deny 285 papers! Look at our great "response"

>read our politically motivated garbage!
>>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Read it, nice cherry picking. Ignored all the inconvenient articles that didn't fit the warmist narrative.

It is not a coincidence that Connolly was a co-author of that paper. Yeah, the same Connolly who "edited" 1000s of wikipedia articles to erase global cooling references and pretend there was always a consensus on warming. You warmists are nothing if not fraudulent.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.K86uuCYs.dpbs

>nb4 evil denier blog.
Try facts and logic buddy. I know that all you've got is Muh Popularity, Muh Authority and Muh Ad Hominem.

>>8589037
Again, that picture is from a fucking letter, or newspaper article, NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
>Corpus-Christi Caller Times is not a scientific academic accredited journal

HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU?

You're the equivalent of quoting that Newsweek / Time magazine cover as proof of a scientific consensus that DIDN'T EXIST.

The worst part is you will never, ever admit you are wrong.

>>8589016
You mean the thermometers that were all brought in from the countryside into city centres? Those thermometers?
Wow I wonder how the temperatures went up? What next wrapping thermometers in black canvas then shrieking OH MY GOD THE TEMPS ARE THROUGH THE ROOF!
Climate "science" has discredited itself through disinformation. It's the MSM of science...

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

49KB, 631x430px

>>8589033
> The rapid response team member, "Bob Basement Boy" told me to get to /sci/ and start the ad hominem as fast as possible.
>Do I need to continue blowing you the FUCK out using your own """sources""" or will you give up again and run away, just like last time?
> Geographers don't count!!!!! So climate change is TRUE!

Clearly cartoonists turned psychologists count. As your fraudulent buddy shows:
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
Yeah, I posted a link to one of your fraudsters. And you posted a paper authored by a guy CONNOLLY, who was KICKED OFF WIKIPEDIA for his demagoguery. You probably admire him. But do you really expect me to take you seriously?

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

120KB, 689x628px

>>8589044
>Again, that picture is from a fucking letter, or newspaper article, NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
>>Corpus-Christi Caller Times is not a scientific academic accredited journal
>HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU?

Really getting your panties in a bunch, aren't you? Oh, I forgot, only publications that are pal reviewed by warmists and run by warmist editors count. How convenient. You're as bad as a fundamentalist who will only argue Christianity based on Bible quotes. What a self-serving echo chamber you live it.

>>8589037
Apparently you yourself don't like facts or logic either.

Here's another example about how bunk and bogus your "285 papers" source is:
Page 1, link # 13 Stewart and Glantz 1885
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00140504
Here's an actual quote from this article:

>By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere

>Clearly cartoonists turned psychologists count. As your fraudulent buddy shows:
I literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about faggot. I don't even read skepticalscience, but keep on being deluded. Not ONCE have you refuted a single thing I have said. You run around using newspaper articles as evidence of consensus, it's hilarious.

Also hilarious how you call me a "rapid response team" when you're doing the exact same thing, KEK.

File: NCAR Cooling Graph.jpg (34KB, 294x362px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 294x362px

>>8589044
>The worst part is you will never, ever admit you are wrong.
What did you say?
> I'll never admit that I'm a Paid Shill
ftfy

File: NOAA Radiosondes show 0.6 degrees cooling.png (212KB, 768x628px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 768x628px

>>8589063
>I literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about faggot. I don't even read skepticalscience
Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Hope the Soros Foundation is paying you well.

>>8589061
Yes, you ignorant douche. THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS HAS WORKED FOR THE PAST 300+ YEARS. We don't advance science through opinion pieces in newspapers. We advance science through the PEER-REVIEW PROCESS.

>>8589065
Nice rapid responses here. Who are YOU shilling for buddy?

Again, not ONCE have you refuted me dismantling your source. NOT ONCE. You have no response other than calling me a shill, or completely ignoring my arguments.

Another paper from your source is a paper on migratory habits of the armadillo (KEK)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900555

This is what this guy is using as evidence as a global cooling consensus in the 1970s, papers that have nothing to do with climatology. You going to respond to this Specifically? You going to ignore my evidence like you ignore the evidence for climate change as well?
>The nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) have been moving northward in the Great Plains region from the late 1800s to the 1950s but now seem to be retreating from their lately acquired northern range. The armadillos have a nontypical homoiothermic blood system which makes them fairly vulnerable to cold climates. Many other adjustments of animal ranges have taken place in the Holocene, even during the past few centuries and evidence indicates that in many cases climate changes played an important role.

LOL, this is the evidence this guy is using to prove there was a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on global cooling.

So typical.

File: Robock 1978.png (67KB, 652x283px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 652x283px

>>8589011
The paper your picture is from doesn't even mention global cooling or predict what will happen in the future. The arrow is not original to the picture. Deniers are pathetic and gullible.

File: Hubert Lamb Global Cooling.png (501KB, 703x588px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 703x588px

>>8589076
>Another paper from your source is a paper on migratory habits of the armadillo (KEK)
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900555

Idiot, Armadillo migration correlates/changes with global cooling/warming.

Meanwhile you've given exactly ONE paper. I gave 285. Your paper was by a Wikipedia Fraudster. Connolly. Who cherry-picked the papers he "found." Wow! Pal Review. I'm so not impressed.

File: Erasing Global Cooling2.png (104KB, 647x340px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 647x340px

>>8589080
>The paper your picture is from doesn't even mention global cooling
God forbid that the paper actually shows global cooling with graphed data. It looks like it wasn't even tampered. The nerve of some scientists!

File: doggolution.jpg (32KB, 480x430px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x430px

>>8589009
I'M THIRSTY. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO FILL MY BOWL BEFORE I DELIVER THE GOODS.
BARK BARK WOOF

File: Capture.jpg (137KB, 821x1019px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 821x1019px

>>8589074
>ANYONE WHO RESPONDS TO MY BULLSHIT IS A SHILL

Still failing to address a single argument I have made, but no worries, it's easy to just ignore evidence and call others shills, takes ALL the effort away from actually having to form a coherent thought!

Another one of his sources debunked, do I need to continue?
there is no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future

Look at this shit, # 22 of his links. Keep in mind, I'm only on the FIRST PAGE of THREE and I've already pointed out numerous errors that this guy apparently skimmed through.
https://ecommons.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/5865/Magill_Bonnie_L_1980_sec.pdf?sequence=1
Title:
>Temperature Variations in Southern Saskatchewan 1921-1970 Regional Identification of Trends
What does this have to do with Global Cooling? Read the image I posted. This paper doesn't even have the slightest thing to do with global climate, it is about regional climate and it talks NOTHING about global cooling.

It's also a scan of a fucking Graduate student's thesis, kek not even a link to if it was actually published to peer review or anything.

How can you take anything this guy posts seriously when he has already shown that he is willing to be deceptive to try and build his fake scientific consensus on global cooling? Read through his fucking sources. The most hilarious part is people like you claim to be "skeptics," yet you NEVER question your own bullshit sources.

Look at the images you're posting, it's almost like you have these prepared responses, almost like you're WOW, A SHILL!
>Lincoln Evening Journal
https://www.newspapers.com/title_1093/lincoln_evening_journal/
ANOTHER NEWSPAPER! WOW! MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THERE!
This surely looks like a scientific paper written by a practicing climatologist during the 1970s / 80s, correct? No, it's just another fucking opinion piece, probably citing other opinion pieces about global cooling at the time, like the Newsweek / Time articles.

>>8589115
yup...triggered.

>>8589091
LOL you're comparing two completely different data sets. In the 1970s NCAR did not have the data from the Southern Hemisphere that NASA has now.

Why do people care about climate change science? Because energy companies pay them to care? Propaganda? I literally do not give a shit beyond knowing that yes, man is having an effect on the climate and weather patterns on earth. This is literally indisputable.

If killing a few million humans in the 1200s when we had no heavy industry by comparison literally cooled the earth then I would imagine we are doing something now.

The only people who post these kinds of threads are either shills or autists who get some kind of enjoyment out of contrarianism for the sake of it, or I guess, maybe politically motivated posters.

Energy company jobs aren't coming back, the employment and industry based around many fossil fuels is going to go away, and not because of legislation, but because they will be simply out competed by cheaper alternatives than digging shit out of the ground and then shipping it around the planet to burn it and introduce a host of secondary costs in their local area.

File: CANCER.jpg (223KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x675px

>>8589085
if you're saying that we can accurately measure trends in global temperature by observing changes in the range of one mammal in the south-central United States...you really don't have much of a leg to stand on regarding methodology. yes, climate change could be affecting the distribution of armadillos. but so could hundreds of other factors. given how the article doesn't actually assess current changes in climate...
you can keep yammering on about 285 papers however much you like, but when so many of them don't say what you claim they're saying, that number becomes meaningless. and I think that other anon has done a satisfactory job in demonstrating that that is the case.

File: Capture.jpg (259KB, 850x569px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 850x569px

>>8589085
>Meanwhile you've given exactly ONE paper. I gave 285
One paper? I've posted at least 5 links, yes DIRECT LINKS from your source and am debunking them as I go. The author of your shitty website (Hmm, are you perhaps the guy that runs it?) has made numerous errors in claiming a scientific consensus on global cooling existed, by posting NON-SCIENTIFIC newspaper articles, and articles that have nothing to do with the Earth sciences whatsoever, like the Armadillo paper. What makes a fucking scientist studying Armadillos qualified at all to understand climatic trends, or ascertain an opinion on climate change?

Ken Richards, is that you? You shilling here on /sci/ of all places for your terribly-researched claims? A fucking 2nd grader could debunk your bullshit with ease.

You never even responded to one of the first links I posted above
>>8588997
Can you not read? This is one of the pieces of evidence Ken is using to prove a global cooling consensus. Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from this article:
>there is no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future
This is one of the sources he is using to support his claim. It directly contradicts Ken's entire point, IN HIS OWN SOURCE.

You going to actually reply to the evidence I have posted, or are you just going to call me a shill again? Probably call me a shill because you have NO ARGUMENT. Pathetic.

>>8589115

Yawn, ok fully bored now, good night trigger.
We'll meet again.

File: 0c3.jpg (68KB, 680x622px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 680x622px

>>8588035
>still bitching about something that can be fucked just by burning oil on an industrial scale instead of developing solutions to be safe from the whims of planetary environments by developing regenerative artificial environments in space we can easily control
baka, this is why i'm glad trump is taking away your funding. you people are useless. truly the brainlets of stem.

>>8589091
>Imma just rescale one graph, superpose it over another different graph, and call it a day

Holy shit, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

File: Dog Bath.png (298KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 500x375px

>>8589159
sleep tight, I left something for ya
:^)
arf

File: well?.jpg (312KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1440x1080px

One more thing before I go. How can any argument against "global warming" be made, when ALL "scientific" journals refuse to publish anything even remotely contrary to the narrative, and all that "scientists" will accept is peer reviewed "science"?
That's quite the nice little loophole you made for yourselves. It could even be called cowardly.
Spock would not be impressed.

File: Capture 2.jpg (143KB, 665x572px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 665x572px

Another example of this guy's "285 papers" bullshit, he links to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Report here:
http://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt

Direct quotes from the source again:
>we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate
Sure sounds like the NAS was absolutely certain Global Cooling was occurring and there was a scientific consensus from this quote, right?
>Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know

Also notice how this NAS article from 1975 is using the term CLIMATE CHANGE. So where are all the faggots now that always claim Climate Change was the "new term" to replace Global Warming? Where the fuck are you faggots now? BTFO. Before Al Gore, before any of your conspiracy crap existed, Climate Change was being used.


I see the guy has already scurried off though, think he got BTFO a few too many times.
The only way to get these people to fuck off is to look at their sources, find the contradictions and shut them the fuck up, forcing them to run away with their tail between their legs. Absolutely pathetic.

Whenever I see threads like this I hope that cern manages to cause catastrophic vacuum decay.

>>8589188
You're far to emotional to ever be considered a real scientist.
Religion might work better for you. Maybe performance arts?

>>8589176
So John Christy, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are all blacklisted from publishing? These are just three scientists in the actual field of climatology that continue to publish peer-reviewed papers outside of the consensus. Guess what though, the majority of climate science has nothing to even do with climate change itself, most is studying local climates, or paleoclimatology, or any number of the other disciplines involved in the science.

Once again, people like yourself show how absolutely ignorant you are of the Earth Sciences in general.

Post your evidence for
>ALL "scientific" journals refuse to publish anything even remotely contrary to the narrative

Or is this all, dare I say CONJECTURE? You have no evidence, you just spew out claims. No, sir. Spock would be ashamed of YOU because you lack even the slightest evidence to back up any of your claims.

The real cowards are individuals like yourself who refuse to even acknowledge the evidence exists in the first place.

>>8589197
Man, nice response to the evidence I laid out, do you have any other real responses other than ad hom? It's so hilarious that I've posted so much evidence to discredit this 285 papers nonsense and not once has any of you guys been able to attack my evidence. All you can result to is name-calling like a little child.

>>8589006
>I am very leery about any "science" that says the debate is over, it's a closed case.
>That smacks in the face of everything science is supposed to be.
"Settled" doesn't mean "indisputable", you twit. It means there's a broad consensus that it's true.

>>8589047
>You mean the thermometers that were all brought in from the countryside into city centres? Those thermometers?
Uh, I've not heard of any trend of thermometers being moved towards urban areas. I'm pretty sure that it's actually the opposite - the urban areas have moved towards the thermometers.
In any case it doesn't matter: adjusting data to remove UHI effects is considered normal.

>>8589061
>Arguing science using peer-reviewed data is like arguing Christianity using Bible quotes.
Holy fuck, just stop before you hurt yourself.

>>8589176
>One more thing before I go. How can any argument against "global warming" be made, when ALL "scientific" journals refuse to publish anything even remotely contrary to the narrative, and all that "scientists" will accept is peer reviewed "science"?
Lies.
You can't just make shit up and except people arguing with you will accept it.

>>8589197
>You're angry about how wrong I am, so that means I'm not wrong :-)
Well, that's a completely novel debating tactic.

File: Spockonsci.png (134KB, 450x312px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 450x312px

>>8589207
>>8589200
Valium might help, maybe Prozac?
You should look into something at any rate. Please calm down before you give yourself a heart attack.
Spock has gone from unimpressed to concerned. That's saying something considering Vulcans don't typically get concerned. Must be his human side...

>>8588864
Ice Ages have more to do with rotational obliquity than anything else you pingus.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-09 at 11.12.41 PM.png (14KB, 164x69px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 164x69px

>>8589037

>>8589230
Again failing to respond or address a single point. Honestly, it's amazing how people like yourself have such an amazing capacity for mental gymnastics in order to avoid questioning your echo chambers.

What makes the irony even more delicious is that people like yourself consider yourselves to be "skeptics." I thought a skeptic was supposed to question the evidence, even their own? A good skeptic does exactly that, looks at their own sources of information and questions them for their authenticity.

Yet all you can do is turn back towards the character assassination / ad hom crap, because deep down, you known you have nothing of value to present.

>>8588973
Well to be fair the effect would go either way. If you cool the temperate zone faster than the arctic you would get more breaches in the cell barriers. So arctic weather making it's way into the temperate zone is not a disproof of climate change.

>>8589247
I wasn't trying to "assassinate" you, i was trying to lighten you up. I failed.
I am very sceptical about all things, my life has forced me to be that way. I'm glad it did, because I have the innate ability to view all things objectively because of it, and it has offered me broad insights.
What really concerns me is the blatant misinformation. Example, 98% of scientists believe in "climate change". What that misleading statement fails to mention is that many of those 98% of scientists don't think human activities contribute in any substantial way. However that is not the way it is disseminated to the general population.
Another problem i have is that it is glaringly obvious that a great deal of emotion has been allowed into the topic. Emotion has no place in real science. Emotion causes people to do irrational things, like falsify data. There is also the financial aspect. I.E. who or what provides the funding for climate scientists? No one seems to be willing to disclose that.
This is ultimately why I don't trust it. Sorry.

>>8589306
>Example, 98% of scientists believe in "climate change".
Do you have a source for a figure on what percentage *do* subscribe to anthropomorphology as a reason?

>>8589306
Emotion is literally the only "evidence" that people like you can point out to dispute the evidence for climate change, whether it's through conspiracies, or conjecture.

Who or what provides funding for the deniers of climate science? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Who would have a vested interest in propping up voices that claim to be skeptical of the scientific evidence? Is there perhaps a multi-trillion dollar industry with a track record of monetary efforts to spread anti-science conjecture?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-global-warming-statements-climate-change.html?_r=0
https://insideclimatenews.org/content/long-tale-exxon-and-climate-change

This is just one single corporation. Look at other entities like the Global Climate Coalition to see just how hard fossil fuel interest will fight to spread misinformation and propaganda to dispute the scientific evidence.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228892927_The_oil_industry_and_climate_change_Strategies_and_ethical_dilemmas
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2000/alert6

Also, it's 97% with the consensus claim, and guess what, that claim doesn't matter whatsoever, consensus does not drive science, only EVIDENCE drives science, which is something climate skeptics repeatedly fail to understand. The evidence supports the scientific consensus on climate change, but the opinions of scientists in a consensus is non-scientific, thus it's better to simply look at the evidence yourself.

The whole 97% applies to climate scientists as well, not scientists who aren't in the field of climatology, which guess what, is itself a multi-disciplinary field with multiple experts in subfields, because climate itself is incredibly complex. Of course you have crackpots who aren't even Earth sciences dolling our their shitty opinions on subjects they aren't experts in.

>>8589327
Not sure what the total is, could look into it for you. While I'm trying to figure that out please watch this video from two days ago. It's about 4 minutes long, it's basically what I said. Thank you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6XsuBKgXAA

>>8589333
Please watch this, thanks.>>8589330

>>8588035
The earth is getting warmer... So what? What are we going to do about it?

>>8589306
You've done no research, assumed the things you don't know are secrets, and then call yourself "sceptical"? Seriously?

>What really concerns me is the blatant misinformation.
Then why are you spreading it?

>98% of scientists believe in "climate change". What that misleading statement fails to mention is that many of those 98% of scientists don't think human activities contribute in any substantial way.
I'm not sure how that's misinformation. Different studies have come up with different numbers for both of those questions, but they're almost all in that area.

>Another problem i have is that it is glaringly obvious that a great deal of emotion has been allowed into the topic.
That's normal. We're discussing a potential disaster, with a high cost to avert.

>Emotion has no place in real science.
"Ideal science", maybe. "Real science", as in the work done by real scientists, is definitional emotional at times.

>There is also the financial aspect. I.E. who or what provides the funding for climate scientists? No one seems to be willing to disclose that.
Did you even look? All of this shit is public information.
As an example:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history
>Today (July 2012), CRU is still dependent upon research grant income to maintain the size and breadth of our research and student communities. The European Commission of the European Union (EU) provides the largest fraction of our research income under the Environment and Climatic change Programme. Since the mid-1990s, CRU has co-ordinated 7 EU research projects and been a partner on 23 others within the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Framework Programmes. Although EU funding is very important, we also endeavour to maintain the diverse pattern of funding reflected by the research described in this "history of CRU" and in the list of Acknowledgements below.

>>8589333
>Fox News interviewing Judith Curry
Really?

>It's about 4 minutes long, it's basically what I said.
It doesn't say anything at all.

>>8588035
>cold
I live in Ohio and it's only snowed like three times this year, and was in the 60s two weeks ago. In what world is it cold?

>>8589327
Found this.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

>>8589345
Today (July 2012), CRU is still dependent upon research grant income to maintain the size and breadth of our research and student communities. The European Commission of the European Union (EU) provides the largest fraction of our research income under the Environment and Climatic change Programme. Since the mid-1990s, CRU has co-ordinated 7 EU research projects and been a partner on 23 others within the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Framework Programmes. Although EU funding is very important, we also endeavour to maintain the diverse pattern of funding reflected by the research described in this "history of CRU" and in the list of Acknowledgements below.

And there you have it, the E.U. What's the E.U.'s ultimate goal? Globalization. What's the fastest way to get it? Spreading fear that if it doesn't happen, we're all doomed. What's going to doom us? Climate change of course.

I'll give you this, at least you were honest.
Btw, I already knew the answer...

>>8589348
>http://www.petitionproject.org/
Oh no.

That petition is a joke. Most of the names on it aren't even scientists, let alone climatologists. Hell, there's a bunch of names on there that don't even seem to correspond to real people - searches for their name only turn up links to the petition itself.

You may as well cite a bathroom wall.

>>8589354
>And there you have it, the E.U. What's the E.U.'s ultimate goal? Globalization. What's the fastest way to get it? Spreading fear that if it doesn't happen, we're all doomed.
"And there you have it" indeed - scratch an AGW denier, find conspiracy theorist.

>>8589333
>Tucker Carlson
topkek

What evidence does she present in this video? It's her opinions, and she is a single voice. Of course she is going to play the victim card in order to gain more attention. She sounds like she's really just butthurt that her fence-sitting opinions weren't taken seriously in the field, she likes to claim that the natural variations are a small part of the changes, when we have isotopic data linking human CO2 emissions to those in the atmosphere and oceans.

It's hilarious because Carlson is probably the same type of uninformed idiot that completely denies climate science in general, while he has someone like Curry on who doesn't dispute the science, but disagrees with the impact humans have on climate. To see him sit there with his shit-eating grin feeling pity for Curry is just incredible.

Again, what evidence is presented here? All you have is her word, conjecture,, and sorry but I don't really trust Curry's opinion that deeply. Seems to me like she's getting ready to retire, and making it a bigger deal allows her to make the rounds on all these talk-shows to make some cash. If she really was discriminated against, or intimidated, then it deserves to be investigated / looked into and I would 100% support that if her claims are true, but again all she has provided is conjecture and opinion about how she felt.

>>8589348
Source is the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (TOPPEST OF KEKS)

This is the Oregon Petition by the way, started in 1998, so it's been around for almost 20 years now with barely 31k signatures. Pathetic.
All this petition has is a bunch of unverifiable signatures on slips of fucking paper. That's it. It's not even a legitimate petition.
There's even numerous fake names on the petition, like Robert Byrd and Michael J. Fox (kek).
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

This petition is widely seen as a complete joke.

File: 420GB.png (75KB, 983x1013px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 983x1013px

>>8589037
>It is not a coincidence that Connolly was a co-author of that paper.
>Muh Ad Hominem.
the clue meter reads zero

>>8589306
>I am very sceptical about all things
>I have the innate ability to view all things objectively
*tips*
see, that sort of thinking is your first mistake. nobody has the ability to magically see everything objectively; we all see things through our own eyes and have our own inherent biases and preconceptions. a wise man recognizes this, rather than denying it, and watches his thought processes for signs of biased thinking. (take it from a guy with an anxiety disorder; you can't trust your own mind sometimes.)
nobody can eliminate their own personal biases. all we can do is minimize them through mindful thinking and by bouncing our ideas off of others.

>>8589366
You might be surprised.
Here's a question for you, is carbon dioxide pollution or food?

>>8589333
Well, I've watched. So a few things...
This is Fox News. I know it's cliche, but this station makes a strong appearance at having an agenda that is biased towards big business.
Although this could be normal for anyone under stress, her rapid and continuous blinking tells me she is under it. I don't understand why, as she is in friendly territory. That's just a circumstantial side note.
I can envision that far more money is put into GW research than everyday weather studies and that can be a problem, as baseline info is necessary to pick out the anomalies.
So onward to looking at her history and seeing if there's a trend in her behavior. Is she a shill? I don't think so. I'm thinking that in her quest to be neutral, she is finding that others do not have the same patience and consideration that she does to look for clues to alternate change sources.
On one extreme, this could be that those studying climate have already gone past where she is still foundering, and don't want to spend time rehashing old science that might still be a question for her. At the other extreme, crucial baseline work is missing. I do not have the education to answer that, but I suspect the former.

From personal experience though, i know Fox's reputation as a disseminator of false or skewed information is well-founded.

Until you can cite a source for a lower figure, I have to continue to believe that there is a reason 97% (not 98, though that's a triviality) believe in anthropogenic global warming and resultant climate change.

>>8589359
Fair enough. So where is the list of scientists who have agreed to the concept of man made "climate change"?
There must be one, right?

File: Climate_science_opinion2.png (140KB, 810x606px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 810x606px

>>8589376
Assuming by "food" you mean "required for the growth of plants", both.
Substances can have more than one impact on the world.

>>8589384
>There must be one, right?
There's a bunch, taken at different times using different questions, different eligibility criteria and different populations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

File: Autism.jpg (15KB, 250x235px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x235px

>>8589376
>is carbon dioxide pollution or food?
both and neither. you might as well ask whether atmospheric ozone is good or bad, or whether water is good for human health. (in other words, things that we need some of can be harmful at higher levels. the dose makes the poison.)

>>8588207
>funding of science
...about which you know zero.
Lrn2funding fgt pls

>>8589394
Just read through the surveys, thank you. I'm more convinced than ever now, that the science is not in. That isn't considered a non-consensus?
How?
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.
In just that survey, more than half aren't buying it. Do I need to post more?
Consensus?
Again thank you so much for that link Anon.
>>8589398
100% absolutely correct.

>>8589435
Well, you could post more, but I understand that cherry picking is hard work so you really don't have to.

>>8589394
It's also stunning to see how these questions were put forward. Suggestive much?
In a court of law it would be called leading the witnesses. Jury would be more apt.

File: thumbsup.jpg (51KB, 634x473px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 634x473px

>>8589440
"cherry picking" is easy to do when there's that many cherries around. Never mind picking, that's the canned cherry section in the grocery store! With all the one's in the produce department thrown in.

I give full props to the Anon with the courage to post that tonight.

File: Farquaad 4.jpg (133KB, 713x960px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 713x960px

>>8589435
>Just read through the surveys, thank you. I'm more convinced than ever now, that the science is not in.
Verheggen et al., Powell, Cook et al., Farnsworth and Lichter, Anderegg et al., Zimmerman and Zimmerman, STATS, and Oreskes all surveyed geoscientists as a group and found stunning (~90%) agreement. But you've decided to focus in on Lefsrud and Meyer, which surveyed ONLY petroleum geologists in Alberta (a province heavily dependent on the petroleum industry) and found that there was substantial disagreement among them.
The rational conclusion to draw would be either "this study is an outlier" or (IMO more correctly) "petroleum geologists in Alberta have different views from climatologists, or from geoscientists as a whole". But instead you've disingenuously chosen to cherry-pick it as representative of climatology as a whole.

Did you expect to fool anyone?

>>8589444
>In a court of law it would be called leading the witnesses.
in polling it's called a "push poll". care to point out any wording in ANY of those surveys' methodologies that you think constitutes a "push poll"?

>>8589508
No, I'm to busy drowning in cherry's at the moment. This is a really deep rabbit hole. I'll get back to you later. Good night.