>U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has in

File: boredbugs.jpg (38KB, 387x461px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 387x461px

>The order comes as Trump's administration has moved to curb the flow of information from several government agencies who oversee environmental issues since last week, in actions that appeared designed to tighten control and discourage dissenting views.

Really making America great there.

Climate change is real, the earths climates are increasing.
BUT you're a fucking retard if you think it's man made

Either Donald Trump is a pure and true retard, or he's been informed that the climate snowball is already rolling too fast to stop and that the best thing to do is to make as big a short term money grab as possible before it totally wrecks the earth.

File: images (5).jpg (21KB, 469x313px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 469x313px

>>8627617
Here comes dat boi

>>8627623
Hes a little bot of both

Earth's natural state isn't to have ice caps.

>>8627614
this sort of green shit is disastrous to the economy

>>8627629
This.
Just cause you fairy faggots are used to the current climate doesn't mean that's what is earths equilibrium state.

>>8627630
>t. coalnigger

Even africans in mud huts can use combustion-based energy sources. It's unfortunate your negroid brain can't comprehend any source of power beyond that.

>>8627617
the climates are increasing huh? I'm glad you see it that way.

>>8627629
>>8627635
Reminder that earth's natural state isn't to have humans either, 4.5 billion years of earth's history says hi.

File: lstday.diff_.2003_cb_pre.jpg (215KB, 800x816px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 800x816px

>>8627629
Geologist here.

You would not survive the Eocene

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

>>8627609
still mad over your failed scam?

If you ignore it long enough, it will get bored and go away.

>>8627802
go be 13 somewhere else

Remember when the Pentagon said that climate change was a clear and present danger to national security?

Remember what happened last time we had a dipshit republican president that ignored threats to national security?

I don't know about climate change but it smells like bullshit to me and always will.
Either way, climate can and will change regardless of anything we do.
So, I don't give a fuck.

>>8627623
>totally wrecks

Yeah, because the planet was never hotter/colder than this, right?

>>8627824
>my feelings are more valid to me than facts
well as long as you acknowledge that you're retard all is good

>>8627842
>My hypocritical ""interests for the greater good"" are more valid than your realistic expectations

File: ngeo1327-f3.jpg (95KB, 946x671px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 946x671px

>>8627629
Earth's natural state isn't to have humans, or complex life, that is if you look at the entire geological history of Earth. Humans evolved during a time in which ice existed at both poles, as did most life that lives under the current climate conditions. Expect mass extinctions when the climate shifts grow more severe in the future.

>>8627617
Climate change is natural and man made. Mankind's effects however (anthropogenic) are far larger on the current trend than natural forcings. In fact, if you took out all anthropogenic effects, Earth's climate would be slightly cooling / stabilized.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

The blue area on the graph shows if only natural forcings existed on the climate, compared to anthropogenic forcings.

>>8627614
>tighten control and discourage dissenting views.
>dissenting views
>leftist propaganda distributed using tax money and the official stamp of government approval

>Really making America great again there!
Exactly.

>>8627800
Conditions during 'the great dying' bordered on triggering a runaway greenhouse effect, such as that which boiled away the oceans on Venus. CO2 was at about 800 ppm at that time. It took about a million years to get to that level (a fairly quick change on geological timescales). We're already halfway there in a little over a century.

>>8627800
>Geologist here.
Calling bullshit on that.

>You would not survive the Eocene
Now here's some retarded scare-mongering. Even the warmest part of it would have been very friendly to human life, more than today's climate.

A warmer world is a world with less extremes of temperature and less extreme weather events, because it increases the water vapor in the air, which increases the heat capacity, stabilizes temperature, and enables long-range heat transport. It's a world lacking a Death Valley and a Hurricane Alley.

Anyway, cold weather is much more dangerous to humans, furless tropical apes, than hot weather. Heat waves kill a few sick old people who aren't used to the heat.

>>8627895
>climate change isn't real
>but it's actually a really good thing

>>8627883
This is the problem with people like you. You are so far up your own ass in identity politics, that anything that "leftists" latch onto, like climate change and other scientific issues, you immediately discredit simply because a majority of leftists understand that it's occurring.

Maybe, just maybe not every single idea supported by liberals is bad, just like maybe, just maybe not every single idea supported by conservatives is bad. I'm anti-immigration, anti-importing refugees, and anti-globalism in many respects, yet at the same time I'm a scientist and I understand and agree with the evidence for climate change, because it's not a political issue, it's a scientific one.

The mistake is that the majority of liberals, or as you say "leftists" that "understand" climate change, really don't understand it. They have about the same grasp of the issue as any other normal person with no formal education in the matter, and parrot things they read in the media, instead of looking at the scientific literature. That said, much reporting in the media on climate change is fair, depending on the source.

Climate science is as its core, a scientific, not a political issue. Of course there are many divisions within the field; you have economists for example that do nothing but study the economic impacts of climate change, or physicists who study the greenhouse effect, or chemists who study radiative forcings and climate sensitivity. The evidence stands for itself, however it's an issue with political and economic ramifications, which is why it has become so politicized by both sides of the field. Climate scientists in general don't like to politicize their research, but the media and politicians love to.

Overall though, the solution to climate change replies on policy changes, as well as economic responses, which is why the issue is so damn contentious. Conservatives do not want more taxation, or regulation, even if future benefits of taxes will pay themselves.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/24/1984-george-orwell-best-seller-list/?xid=gn_editorspicks&google_editors_picks=true

>‘1984’ Is Back on the Best Seller List After Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Alternative Facts’ Comment

>>8627895
Human civilization (70%+ based on coastilnes) didn't exist in the eocene maximum. Our greatest cities / ports didn't exist then. There weren't nearly 8 billion people reliant on agriculture and fisheries (that are collapsing) back then.

You have to be a massive ignoramus to think that climate change is not a significant issue to the future of our civilization. The impacts are slow to observe on a human lifespan, but they are still significant. SLR alone will force mass migrations, and wet areas will see increased rainfall, while arid regions will become more arid, and thus lead to more problems with agriculture. Food + water shortages + mass migrations...

I just hope that we can engineer solutions to these issues. Human ingenuity is important, but tackling climate change is a massive mess.

>>8627617
>BUT you're a fucking retard if you think it's man made
it is man made, everyone affects the climate, especially us.

that being said, trump is the best option to stop this with his china trade wars.

>>8627895
see >>8627887 there's a reason it coincided with something called "the great dying"

>>8627887
>>8627913
You're confusing the Permian-Triassic extinction event (the Great Dying) with the Eocene thermal maximum. Eocene maximum was much more recent in geological time, the P/T extinction occurred on boundary between the paleozoic / mesozoic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

That said, the termal maximum is still associated with extinctions, such as benthic foraminifera.

Even if climate change isn't real (it is), we all ought to waste less, conserve more, and clean up after ourselves properly.

>Conservatives
>Doesn't conserve
An impetus for reflection

>>8627609
No need to worry anon, the increased CO2 emissions will be offset by Trump destroying the economy.

>>8627609
Through stimulation by high potential high frequency current it is possible to create ozone, excite the usually inert nitrogen in the atmosphere allowing it to be utilized and also plausable with other elements, such as carbon which essentially means we could clean and repair our atmosphere.
Trump, and a lot of presidents before him know of the methods to do this, and such methods have been available since the beginning of the 19 hundreds. https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-568177-apparatus-producing-ozone
He does not go on to explain in his patent the many other uses for this, including but not limited to the the environmentally friendly production of nitrogen fertilizer.

Tell me again how climate change is not a fabricated problem to boost fossil fuel prices? Don't get me wrong we are doing damage, but only because its allowed to happen for inflation. This is what trump will end. He is actually a lot like JFK, just not as much of a gentleman

>>8627609
>people still think we can revert the damages of climate change
At this point it really doesn't matter if we ignore it or try to deal with it. We passed the point of no return a long time ago and within the next century we will begin the notice the effects at full force.
Bees dying off due to the erratic changes in weather will be biggest blow.

>>8627617
We're just the only major source of CO2, ice core samples have drawn relations between CO2 and temperature as well as lab models and scaled down experiments of the atmosphere.

>>8628073
These are actually as a result of our weakening magnetic field, animals require this for navigation and perception purposes. These weakening fields are a result of global plate tectonic cycles and is a normal cycle. Its just we have greatly sped up the heating cycle

Everyone is overlooking the quantum side of this. Your can let the light in but not through sin and Satan.

>>8627828
Sure the earth will be fine, but we still have to live on the damn thing.

File: image.jpg (157KB, 792x633px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 792x633px

>>8627895

I'm also a geologist.

>>8628095
Here's your guaranteed reply.

Everytime someone brings up climate change nobody makes an argument for it or presents data. It's been around since Al Gore and it's always just a repeated mantra. Fuck off or explain the science and dissolve any counter-argument.

>>8628400

>Everytime someone brings up climate change nobody makes an argument for it or presents data.

More like people never listen or respond back when legitimate arguments for climate change are posted. Instead threads consist of mostly shit flinging about meme tier carbon/sea levels or muh corruption/ fake news.

Protip, climate change concerns more than just muh ozone and muh water. I have on multiple occasions posted with publication links about the ramifications of climate change when it comes to likelihood of pathogen outbreaks.

I have also provided arguments about man's influence on the climate via wide spread land erosion.

What do non-industry Republitards get out of being anti-science?

Is it seriously just contrarianism?

>>8627828

Yes, but there we weren't around for it to effect. The last time there was a "wobble" in the Earth's climate it forced every hominid in Northern Europe die or migrate south.

>>8628400

What's the point? 97% of climate scientists agree with it. These are people who have spent their lives going through education and travelling the world studying climatology because they a genuine interest in it. Climate change denialists are armchair "scientists" who have no knowledge about the climate other than some graph Monkton posted and what their favourite republitard candidate told them. And because they're denying it for the sake of politics, they'll never change their mind anyway.

Its easier just to tell you to fuck off.

>>8628459

Money. Not for the whjole economy mind you, but for their special interests and donors.

>>8628400
Not true. I post in most of these climate change threads here, and I routinely present scientific papers, data and quotes from the literature.

See
>>8627874

>>8628457
This is true. Every single time someone posts evidence in these threads it gets ignored, instead resorting to shitty """arguments""" like "IT'S A RELIGION!" "IT'S NOT (((SCIENCE)))!" "IT'S A CULT!"

Every single fucking thread. It's almost as if these people have been brainwashed from reading too much WUWT / Climateaudit.

Climate change is a pseudoscience moneymaker. Remember Al Gore? Yeah...

>>8628473
Not all 'scientificial' paper are worth to read. Even if they fulfill the scientificial standards ie has sources and AIMRAD, they can be full of shit. May climate change papers makes a huge deal about few decimals of a degree

>>8628457
Every time you are asked to think by yourself you just talk about these 'publications'. Climate scientist are sub 110 iq idiot savants whom cant think by themselves

>>8628492
Are you actually in any scientific field.
>citing publications isn't thinking for yourself
As a chemist should I not use established rules and findings to
Further my own ideas ? Should
I discover atomic weights by myself in order to be a clear thinker

>>8628482

You fuckers are more than happy to use scientific papers when it benefits you like supposed IQ differences between populations, and republitards are more than happy to use them when a new oil extraction technique is developed, but when its something you don't like you sperg out and become denialists.

When we pass the tipping point and a runaway greenhouse effect starts taking over the deniers are gonna say "see the climate's changing on it's own!" as we burn to a crisp.

>>8628482
>huge deal about few decimals of a degree

You realize that for a system as chaotic as our planet, a tiny change in global temperature can have monstrous effects?

global warming is a good thing, imagine Canada becoming an agricultural powerhouse.

>>8628482
So basically, you refuse to read anything that contradicts your biases. It's nice to know that you could give a shit about being a rational, skeptical person when it comes to your own, dare I say "beliefs."

I'm not afraid to read contrarian papers, or examine the arguments of denialists, because reading their arguments simply makes it easier to find the flaw in their methodology and debunk their claims. Deniers often use cherrypicking and flawed understandings about how climate models are computed in order to dispute climate change, not rational or scientific analysis of the evidence. They often take quotes out of context from scientific literature, showing how they don't even read the papers they criticize, and instead look for anything that sounds like it supports their agenda, even if the overall argument of a paper had nothing to do with what was quoted. See a few threads ago when some sperg posted a Hansen paper from 1981 and took one quote completely out of context from the paper as evidence that climate change was not occurring.

You would rather remain in your safe space / echo chamber where no one questions your denial dogma than be a true skeptic.

>>8628520
For a short while until other adverse effects catch up.

>>8628526
what is a short while? 200 years?

>>8628520

Until the trans-atlantic conveyor stops circulating warm water because of the fresh water the Greenland glacier poured into it and it becomes uninhabitable.

>>8628529
I'd say on the order of decades if not less than a decade but I'm sure I don't know enough.

>>8627609
WHEN have we--all of us as one society--sincerely started dealing with the destruction of our environment: our air, water and land that is our life.

Look at all the overdose suicides and the suicidal people--suicide walkers--walking across the street, staring mindlessly into a portable idiot box, hoping a texting-driver will kill them with their car or truck. Lots of kids these days suiciding away from their miserable lives and families this way. Of course, the police don't tell us when these kids suicide (when their phone is found beside their dead, mangled body with half an unsent text message); same as they don't release the suicides on subways.

Negative part is that if they revealed all these suicides--stopped lying--more people would see the epidemic of kids who hate themselves enough to want to kill themselves and some parents might talk to their children. But if the parents are carelessly suicidal themselves then these children have no hope because their parents will never sincerely talk about suicide cause they won't face their own suicidal tendencies.

So my question back is "When is someone going to do something positive, sustainable? Rather than merely saying what we have yet to do, should do or what we should not still do? Where's and what's your answer to fear, greed, lust, hate and hopelessness?

>>8628501
They have never met a scientist, they are unaware that falsifying data will end your career.

>>8628567
Well there was the Paris agreement recently and what does suicide have to do with this?

>>8628082
You're full of shit. Bees especially don't utilize magnetism at all for navigation. This applies to maybe geese and some fish.

>>8627895
There's enough of us here to have threads about our field
>>8618458

>>8628586
And deep-sea crabs

>>8627635
>>8627629
Are you fucking retarded? You think anyone actually care about the planet or that we have the capacity to destroy it? The only thing we can destroy is our ability to live on it. That's what ecology is about not "dude, like, the earth is a living organism and shit bro, pass the blunt" hippy shit.

>>8627609
>What if we just IGNORE the problem of climate change instead of dealing with it?
absolutely nothing bad will happen if you ignore climate change.

>>8628482
>"Nobody brings up evidence"
>"Yes they do, here are some peer reviewed papers"
>"No, those are untrustworthy because of these (((reasons))) I just made up"

Do you realise how fucking dense you sound

>>8628467
literally nothing bad will happen if you burn the observatory

Heh heh... not bad... kid. Those are some mighty fine ((((((scientific))) (((papers)))))) you got there but... I've got one last Trump card up my sleeve. You see... >>8629325 says we're all gonna be fine so *lights cigar* you can just run along back to your lab now.

File: f1qk0.png (424KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 640x480px

>>8629473
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCdX_KQloTk
>I just hope medical science can cure me

>>8627609
fake news
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/316195-epa-spokesman-political-staff-wont-interfere-with-science

>>8629551
He said it only after a big deal had already been made about it.

>>8627630
Need a planet with fresh water and breathable air to have an economy

File: 1485052747078.png (41KB, 666x335px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 666x335px

>>8627874
>climate change data from 1850
>1850
Anyone familiar with the scientific setting and instrumentation should realize that your data is only as good as it's "Calibration" and how well it can be recreated.

Do we really think that common calibration techniques across several instrumentation tech levels, across different measurement processes carried over with accuracy through the decades? I would argue that all temperature data pre-1960 before the advent of climate satellites are unreliable at BEST.

This unreliable nature of instrumentation/calibration is further compounded by the admittedly tiny delta T that is presented (0.5C/1F).

But lets take a step back, does a temperature change of 0.5C or 1F even exist? and if so does it really show in this data set? and if so how do you account for this when there are so many outside factors accounting for this tiny temperature change?

When you recognize the scientific uncertainty associated with this agenda being presented, you cannot help but recognize it overtly political *(and unscientific) nature.

>>8627609
Climate change is real, but the left's solutions to it are garbage. Fining them too much for emissions will just make them move to China and they don't even have to pretend to care about the environment over there.

>>8629566
Doing a reverse image search on the image you posted leads only to links from WUWT and a creationist blog (Cornwall alliance for the stewardship of Creation).

>I don't understand how to read the charts / graphs: the post

Climate data from the 1850s is mostly from surface temperature records, and is most certainly valid data, pretending it doesn't exist simply because you don't understand it does not eliminate it as evidence. Some records go back even further than the 1850s by the way. Thermometers existed back then too, you realize this right?

Anyways, that graph you posted on the right is a complete and utter joke. All you have done is made the temperature range incredibly high as to say that an increase in global average temperature means nothing. For fuck's sake, it goes from -10F to 110F, do you not understand what a massive fucking temperature range that is, and how that completely skews the way the data is represented? Yet you don't question it, so much for skepticism.

The way the data is plotted on the right is most definitely the way you plot climate data. You choose a baseline of average temperatures (~30 years), which you compare the data to, this is a standard statistical analysis and is completely valid, the fact that you don't understand this is baffling and proof of your ignorance. The temperature anomaly is the change from the baseline, either greater than average, or less than the baseline. It's not a "magnified view," this is the way climate data has been studied for decades.

Educate yourself. Every single time I think you denier retards can't get any dumber, you outdo yourselves.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/absolute-temperatures-and-relative-anomalies/

So to recap: your sources are shit. The graph is nonsense and makes no sense, and you are in general a blathering moron who will eat up whatever nonsense is posted at WUWT without question.

>>8629581
This. Only solution is human extinction.

>>8629566
>Do we really think that common calibration techniques across several instrumentation tech levels, across different measurement processes carried over with accuracy through the decades?
Do you really know nothing about climatology?

http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

>I would argue that all temperature data pre-1960 before the advent of climate satellites are unreliable at BEST.
The satellite data suffered from several large biases which made it useless until recently. Once the biases were corrected it has been shown that they are in high agreement with the temperature record. The reason you claim it's more accurate is because it confirms your pre-conceived beliefs. You are not arguing honestly, let alone scientifically.

>This unreliable nature of instrumentation/calibration is further compounded by the admittedly tiny delta T that is presented (0.5C/1F).
This is not tiny in its effect or when compared to the changes in the paleoclimate record. But of course you probably think that's unreliable as well, since it isn't convenient for your ideology.

>But lets take a step back, does a temperature change of 0.5C or 1F even exist? and if so does it really show in this data set? and if so how do you account for this when there are so many outside factors accounting for this tiny temperature change?
Again you show your ignorance of climatology while attempting to pretend that you have enough knowledge about it to judge its accuracy. There is plenty of research that shows the accuracy of the temperature record, and plenty of research that determines the effect of the various factors on temperature.

>When you recognize the scientific uncertainty associated with this agenda being presented, you cannot help but recognize it overtly political *(and unscientific) nature.
I cannot help but recognize that your lies are politically motivated.

>>8629581
>>8629615

IT'S A WEALTH TAX, CHINA IS GOING TO DO IT AS WELL!

Industry will move to the next cheap labor country on the list, and make them rich!

Is China/India going to accept losing it's wealth or tax the new guy?

>>8629623

Your argument does even less than the person you're refuting!

He at least provides reasoning for his skepticism
>small temperature range
>potentially imprecise instrumentation
>margin of error compounded by many variables across shaky models

You just said, "Wow you know nothing obviously!"

Way to go.

>>8629609
>pretending temperature data from 1850 doesn't exist
That's not what I'm doing, I'm actually considering it more than you have. Have you ever been responsible for calibrating the instrumentation of an entire lab? What records do exist for the processes used with the rudimentary instruments that did exist at this time, makes the entire data set from 1850-1960 suspect. It does have it's usefulness don't get me wrong, but by blindly ignoring this perspective you have outed yourself and your agenda. You pretend as though there isn't evidence post-1960 that doesn't show slight temperature gains... but you give it too much importance. +0.5F is the best you can show, and even then it doesn't account for all possible reasons for this. Adhere to your own scientific principles or discredit yourself anon.

>Thermometers existed back then too.
From this statement you clearly haven't understood my point. Data is nothing with out methodology and calibration. NOTHING.

>how that skews the data is presented
You seem to have a problem with your own data, it doesn't look scary enough for you when presented normally? hmmm.

>this is the way climate data has been studied for decades
Starting about when the politics took over huh?

>you are a blathering moron
So the person who doesn't understand how calibration and methodology impacts a data set isn't? For the purposes of this debate please restrict yourself into only using the valid data that exists post-1960.

>educate yourself
Why does this give you political capital to destroy the 1st world life style?

>>8629667
>He at least provides reasoning for his skepticism
What skepticism? All I see is denial and misrepresentation of the scientific evidence. Skeptics accept evidence.

>small temperature range
False, as I've already explained.

>potentially imprecise instrumentation
The research we have says that it is precise enough to determine that the Earth is warming rapidly due to human's greenhouse gas emissions.

>margin of error compounded by many variables across shaky models
The models have been accurate for decades.

You just ignored the actual arguments I made. Why do you need to misrepresent and lie if you are actually arguing rationally?

>>8629669
Not him, but define "Normally."

>>8629623
>do you really know nothing about climatology
>Proceeds to manipulate data when you're not looking
You realize that you have invalidated all this data that was at least partially usable? Let it be what it is - out dated and unreliable as collected with nonstandard methodology and uncalibrated and antiquated measurement apparatus.

>Once the biases (in the data) were corrected
Do you not hear yourself? Leave the data alone, stop putting political spin on it... and stop literally changing the data to suite your political agenda. It is truly baffling how you consider data manipulation to be credible. Imagine kiddo if you were in your senior science lab and you just erased all your data because "it didn't work for you" and filled in your own data that allowed for the pre-choosen conclusion you arrived at prior to collecting any data at all?

>a delta 0.5F over 15 decades isn't tiny
yes it is.
>it's effect isn't tiny
you have been unable to show causation in this regard.
>paleoclimate record
It's even tinier when you want to start bringing in data from tens of thousands to millions of years ago.

>it isn't convenient for your ideology
what ideology is that? Requiring you to stick to the fucking scientific method? wow.

>There is plenty of research that shows the accuracy of the temperature record, and plenty of research that determines the effect of the various factors on temperature
Here you show your ignorance of data collection, instrumentation, calibration, and methodology. It's very clear you've never stepped foot into a laboratory.

>I cannot help but recognize that your lies are politically motivated.
>lies
What lies? I've made very few authoritative statements limited to my areas of expertise, one of which is data collection.

The politics manipulation tends to be among the crowd that is pushing for "MAJOR" life changing laws and regulations purposely molded to change the 1st worlds lifestyle for the worse. It is you who has the agenda.

>>8629683
>small temperature range - False
0.5F over 15 decades

>earth is rapidly warming
>rapidly
the speed of this 0.5F "warming" trend hasn't been shown, I think you are just unable to turn off your scarmonger language even for a second to discuss the actual data set like an adult. It's tiny, and barely provable, and it certainly isn't 'rapid'.
>b-but nobody will care if we don't embellish and scare them
be accurate and precise in your wording with unassailable data and you will have your audience.
>due to human's greenhouse emissions
causation? How many factors of ten is your average supervolcanic event greater than man's use of fossil fuels? These events are geologically frequent, yet here we are.

>the models we changed are accurate
you changed them, you manipulated them to your own needs, these are not valid data sets for this reason.

>>8629669
Oh look, it's this "everything is a conspiracy" faggot again that always shows up, can never refute the evidence, and relies solely on conjecture to present his arguments.You refusing to look at the evidence I posted yet again? Why don't you read them, gain an understanding of temperature anomalies and how the data is processed, then get back into the discussion?

No, you won't though. You use mental gymnastics and conspiracy to prevent yourself from having to question your biases. How convenient. I mean if you're so confident that you're right, surely you can automatically refute everything that Gavin Schmidt, an actual climatologist who studies the data, has to say, right? Surely you're not afraid to read an actual scientific source if you're so confident that your dogma is the correct position, right? You and your "cult" of denial are full of useful idiots like themselves that just parrot whatever bullshit you read on your blogs, instead of actually looking at the evidence, or seeing what climate scientists themselves have to say.

>Why does this give you political capital to destroy the 1st world life style?
More standard delusion that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, hardly surprising given your history of getting BTFO here every thread you shitpost in.

It's people like you who cannot in their mind separate the science of climate change from the economic impacts of climate change that are delusional. You have no evidence of your grand little conspiracy scheme, such that all you can do is cherrypick scientific information that you lack a basic understanding of, or claim that researchers are actively manipulating everything they publish, again, without evidence, because you have nothing else to go off of, no real arguments. You constantly bring up policy in discussions that have nothing to even do with them. Talk about politicizing a scientific idea? You're the one actively doing it.

>>8629684
he took issue with the 'normal' view in the pic. Can't have normies looking at our lifes work and not being scared shitless from our fear-mongering.

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

23KB, 480x360px

>>8629609
>Doing a reverse image search on the image you posted leads only to links from WUWT and a creationist blog (Cornwall alliance for the stewardship of Creation).

lulz

>>8627874
>Expect mass extinctions when the climate shifts grow more severe in the future.

Will this be in our lifetimes? Are humans going to be part of this mass extinction within our lifetimes as well?

>>8629691
>You realize that you have invalidated all this data that was at least partially usable?
Several different approaches have been taken to testing the accuracy of the temperature record, and they confirm its accuracy. Ever heard of Berkeley Earth? You tried to shed doubt on the record, while ignoring the actual research done on it. Shame on you.

>Do you not hear yourself? Leave the data alone
So on the one hand you claim that the data is not calibrated correctly, and on the other hand you demand that it not be corrected. And of course you just ignore the link I presented which explain why corrections are needed and how they are legitimately carried out. That's really the only trick you have, just ignore anything you don't like. That means you are not arguing rationally.

>you have been unable to show causation in this regard.
Scientists have.

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

>It's even tinier when you want to start bringing in data from tens of thousands to millions of years ago.
Oh so you do accept historical data when you think it helps your case? But no, the paleoclimate record rarely shows such rapid warming, but it does show that rapid warming is linked to mass extinction.

>what ideology is that? Requiring you to stick to the fucking scientific method?
The scientific method? Ha, you are simply denying the results of the scientific method you don't like.

>Here you show your ignorance of data collection, instrumentation, calibration, and methodology.
That doesn't respond to what you're replying to, moron. Again, there is plenty of research that shows the accuracy of the temperature record. Does it not exist?

>What lies?
Arguing that the corrections to the temperature record do not account for different techniques and calibrations. Claiming the satellite record is more accurate than the instrumental record and that the latter is unreliable before the former existed. Generally misrepresenting the scientific evidence.

>>8629703
>Oh look, it's this "everything is a conspiracy" faggot again that always shows up
I'm not on /sci/ very often, perhaps it makes it easier for you to believe there is just one guy who won't think like you do.

>climatologists are the only ones capable of reading and interpreting data
I always like this argument. I get a chuckle everytime. It's like Argument from authority or appeal to a higher power. You basically are attempting to take away my opinion by saying I'm not allowed to have one. I haven't ventured outside of my area of knowledge, have you?

>literally skipped 80% of the counterpoints i made
hmmm, i suppose you have ceded these points?

>BTFO
ahhh, now i see, you have what is known as a crippled brain, unable to make arguments because your emotional state has consumed your cognitive response. In short, u mad.

>>8629581
>Climate change is real, but the left's solutions to it are garbage. Fining them too much for emissions will just make them move to China and they don't even have to pretend to care about the environment over there.

If that is what you really believe, you aren't even trying hard enough to think of a solution.... its as if you've never heard of any of the political, economic, or diplomatic tools that are used on a daily basis to maintain various shit-storms from developing around the world.

You're just a meme moron with no ideas and no knowledge blabbing about "muh leftists"

doubters of climate change should take leading scientists' word or thoroughly investigate climate as much as scientists have. if they investigate it like the scientists have the will likely come to the conclusion, like most climate scientists, that anthropogenic effects on the climate very likely exist.

trump should continue the support of the research of climate change and support ethical research of geoengineering as a possible method to ameliorate detrimental effects of changes in earth's climate if it seems to be a necessary path of action to use

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZShFq-36MI

File: No thermometers.gif (101KB, 768x593px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 768x593px

>>8629609
>Doing a reverse image search on the image you posted leads only to links from WUWT and a creationist blog (Cornwall alliance for the stewardship of Creation).
Ad Hominem!!!!
> butts guberment money comes with no expectation.

>>I don't understand how to read the charts / graphs: the post
>Climate data from the 1850s is mostly from surface temperature records, and is most certainly valid data,
2/3 of the earth's surface is ocean. And very little of the land surface was instrumented back then. The data back then was certainly valid -- BUT ONLY FOR THE SMALL AREA NEAR THE THERMOMETER.

>>8629581

Anon even China is starting to enforce climate change policies because their air quality is so fucking bad that not only are their average lifespans going down they have occasional city wide emergencies.

China has no choice at this point, they don't have the luxury to act as if it doesn't affect them.

>>8629749
>doubters of climate change should take leading scientists word
>doubters of the Lord should take leading Priests word
How is that not an argument of faith?

>>8629757
>only valid for the small area near the thermometer
this. Not to mention on the CO2 readings, if you place your instrument over a field of grass you will get CO2 spikes off the charts above 800-1000 ppm. Data is only as good as it's instrumentation, collection, methodology, and calibration.

I've never seen so many people opposed to the scientific method before.

File: 3 Tampering Graphs.png (119KB, 672x1778px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 672x1778px

>>8629609
>The way the data is plotted on the right is most definitely the way you plot climate data. You choose a baseline of average temperatures (~30 years), which you compare the data to, this is a standard statistical analysis and is completely valid, the fact that
> You choose a baseline average
Because showing the actual values shows how small variations are. In fact, they are on the same order as the "corrections" of the data. Pic related.

This Is Why Warmist Graphs Never Show The Non "Corrected" Data. Showing the uncorrected data shows that measurement uncertainty is as high as the temperature anomalies!

>So to recap: your sources are shit. The graph is nonsense and makes no sense, and you are in general a blathering moron who will eat up whatever nonsense is posted at WUWT without question.
More ad hominem. If its not UN IPCC certified for "TRUTH" I can ignore it.

>>8629767
it is an argument of faith. i never said it wasn't. if you don't have time to thoroughly investigate it all and/or don't think you are good enough at thinking about the topic, then the best course of action would seem to be to go by the judgement of the people who seem to be smart, to have a tendency to be think about the topic with a good degree of objectivity, to have investigated the topic thoroughly, and have motivations that would lead you to think they would conduct themselves in a way that would invovle the best known scientific practices for trying to figure out accurate characteristics of reality.

File: 1484407055810.jpg (2MB, 700x8069px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x8069px

>>8629759
>enforce climate change policies because air quality
climate change =/= local pollution =/= air pollution
China has a major problem with local pollution, just like America did prior to common sense anti-pollution and environmental regulation. Everybody remembers the rivers on fire and acid rain, that all changed very very quickly didn't it just from minor changes to policy? pic related if not dissimilar to America/Europes past.

>china has no choice
I agree, they have to fix their local pollution measures, it really is a disgusting country by every metric.

Just a further note here, you seem to have a common confusion that most leftists possess. local pollution has nothing to do with the overall climate change debate. Don't forget your breathern are basically demanding that every "perk" of living in the 1st world be destroyed to allow for the 2/3 of dirt poor humans to have what your ancestors gave you while you go extinct.

>>8629788
>it is an argument of faith.
put up or shut up
>i don't have time to explain
put up or shut up
>j-just believe me goy
put up or shut up

>>8629780
>More ad hominem. If its not UN IPCC certified for "TRUTH" I can ignore it.
Honestly, people like you aren't even worth arguing with anymore. You're clearly too entrenched in denial dogma, and you refuse to look at any sources that don't confirm your biases.

I actually go to blogs like WUWT, climatedepot, etc. I don't fear information that goes against my biases, I go there, look at the data, and find the flaws in their retarded cherrypicking. It's not that hard to do when they do it so often. All you have to do is actually look at the "evidence" they post, read the links and follow up on their sources, once you get to the actual scientific evidence they base their claims off of, it's pretty easy to see how they are misinterpreting the results.

You are stuck in a world of conspiracy, you refuse to read anything that is critical of your worldview or expand your mind through actual skepticism. It's so ironic how people who claim to be climate skeptics are often so unskeptical of their own bullshit that they parrot and peddle. Don't dare question your own narratives, right?

Honestly, this sentence alone tells me everything I need to know about the type of person you are. There is literally no point in engaging in a debate with you here of all fucking places.

>>8629804
not him. but why didn't you address any of his well articulated points? Does ignoring his points help your side? Are you conceding said counter points?
>normal view isn't incorrect
>variations are small
>variations are on the same order as "corrections"
>why don't you show the non-corrected data
>measurement uncertainty falls within calibration/methodology error

>>8629700
>0.5F over 15 decades
Where is 0.5F coming from? You said before it was 1F. In reality it is 1.4F.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/

>the speed of this 0.5F "warming" trend hasn't been shown
You just said it's over 15 decades...

>causation? How many factors of ten is your average supervolcanic event greater than man's use of fossil fuels? These events are geologically frequent, yet here we are.
You couldn't be more wrong. There hasn't been a supervolcanic eruption for tens of thousands of years. The CO2 emitted by volcanoes annually is less than 1% of that emitted by humans. Not to mention that the aerosols produced by major eruptions mean they have a net cooling effect. Why are you asking questions that you could easily have googled?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

>you changed them, you manipulated them to your own needs, these are not valid data sets for this reason.
I already gave you a source which explains how these changes are valid, as well as given you a major research project whose main focus was to independently test the accuracy of the data. And you again pretended they don't exist. You lose, thanks for playing.

>>8629823
>well articulated points

Lel

>>8629767
Are you this skeptical when Doctors tell you that your crippling autism was not in fact caused by vaccines?

>>8629830
>1F
>worth destroying the 1st world
you need to ring that alarm louder, i'm not terrified.
>supervolcanic eruption
then you admit when they happen, as they regularly do, it's where the world greenhouses really come from.
>volvanoes are nothing
ignoring the premise of geologic time scales? The point being that they happen often geologically and tower above any possible amount of CO2 generation humans could do. Your implication that burning fossil fuels will kill us all (considering much larger events have happened) is just ridiculous.
>why didn't you google
why didn't you answer the question and deflect to an unrelated point?

>i gave you a major research project whos main focus was to independently
>independently
lol, be serious though, leftists verifying a leftist agenda isn't independent. The correction factors are well within the levels of instrumentation error. Objectively this data doesn't prove your ridiculous doomsday scaremongering and makes you look silly. Skewing the data for political gain is indefensible.

>>8629840
>Are you this skeptical when Doctors tell you that your crippling autism was not in fact caused by vaccines?
lol, i kek'd
no, but if i was a doctor and able to observe and diagnose, why wouldn't i be able to have an opinion? That's my contention here, is that any number of /sci/ participants are capable of reading and interpreting data, yet when they do leftists like yourself always appeal to authority that only an all powerful Climatologist can possibly have an opinion on this. It's a ridiculous notion.

File: Look Everyone Im Projecting.jpg (34KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x333px

>>8629804
>You are stuck in a world of conspiracy, you refuse to read anything that is critical of your worldview or expand your mind through actual skepticism. It's so ironic how people who claim to be climate skeptics are often so unskeptical of their own bullshit that they parrot and peddle. Don't dare question your own

I always wonder how long it will take until you resort to your tried and true "you're a conspiracy nutjob!"
At least I know how you would react to other scientific skepticism:

MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE SKEPTIC THEORY YOU
Ether theory of light No ether There could only be no ether if there's a huge conspiracy
Continents are fixed Continents drift Continential drift can only be true if they're a huge conspiracy
Physics is deterministic Quantum mechanics Non-deterministic physics can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Phlogiston theory of Combustion No phlogiston No phlogiston can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Time and space are fixed Relativity Fixed space and time can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Catastrophic AGW will kill us CO2 has a weak effect CO2 Weak!!!??? Its a conspiracy theory

What is sad, is that you're projecting. You think Oil companies conspire to fun Climate Skeptical Research. Yet Anthony Watts doesn't get a penny from them. Neither does Steven Goddard. Neither does Dr. Happer. Or for that matter Richard Lindzen. Yet government which stands to make $Billions from $Carbon $Taxes funds the vast majority of climate "research." And you deny its influence.

File: Climate Change is TRUE.jpg (351KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1024x768px

>>8629867
>>8629804

Try again

Since you believe that skeptics of a big scientific theory are all conspiracy nuts, then this is what you would believe:

MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE__________ SKEPTIC THEORY_____________ YOU
Ether theory of light__________________________ No ether _____________________There could only be no ether if there's a huge conspiracy
Continents are fixed__________________________ Continents drift________________ Continential drift can only be true if they're a huge conspiracy
Physics is deterministic_______________________ Quantum mechanics___________ Non-deterministic physics can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Phlogiston theory of Combustion________________ No phlogiston_________________ No phlogiston can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Time and space are fixed______________________ Relativity____________________ Fixed space and time can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Catastrophic AGW will kill us____________________ CO2 has a weak effect_________ CO2 Weak!!!??? Its a conspiracy theory

>>8629835
>Lel
well articulated

>>8629867
>Neither does Dr. Happer

Care to explain this?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html

Care to explain this?
https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute
Keep in mind that Anthony routinely speaks at their conferences.

Care to explain this?
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

Care to explain this?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Care to explain this?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

>>8629879
>Fixed space and time can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Relativistic space and time can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy

>>8629860
>1F
1.4F. But nice counterargument. You really have nothing.

>then you admit when they happen, as they regularly do, it's where the world greenhouses really come from.
Haha, no. As I already said, the amount of CO2 currently emitted by all volcanoes is less than 1% of that emitted by humans, and there hasn't been a supervolcanic eruption for thousands of years, so they can't be used as an excuse for why CO2 concentration is rising. You have to be delusional to deny that man is the most significant source of GHGs, and you are.

>ignoring the premise of geologic time scales?
What about human time scales? That's what we're talking about.

>Your implication that burning fossil fuels will kill us all (considering much larger events have happened) is just ridiculous.
Everything you just said is wrong. First, I never said or implied that AGW would kill us all. Second, the fact that CO2 was much much higher millions of years ago has no bearing on the argument, since it is the rapidity and not simply the magnitude of the CO2 and warming that is causing damage to the ecosystem and infrastructure humans rely on. How many times do I have to repeat this to you braindead deniers? You can't argue rationally so instead you make up these idiotic strawmen. If you can't argue honestly then fuck off.

>why didn't you answer the question and deflect to an unrelated point?
Can you not read? I answered the question.

>lol, be serious though, leftists verifying a leftist agenda isn't independent.
Berekely Earth was championed by skeptics as independent and rigorous. It's only when they came to the conclusion they don't like that skeptics abandoned it. Your ignorance of climatology is once again showing.

Again, you have simply ignored the research I have posted. You have nothing. You lose.

>>8629860
>The correction factors are well within the levels of instrumentation error.
Which correction factor and why is this relevant?

The coastal cities we care about can be protected from ocean rise with significant landscape engineering. The temperature changes can be tolerated.

Yes, thousands of species will go extinct. Yes, hundreds of millions if not billions will die from the wars that ensue from population displacement as the coasts recede. Yes, the planet will look different because of our actions.

But our species will still be here. We might be the cause of our era's Oxygen Catastrophe, but hey, the cyanobacteria survived that one, we'll survive this.

>>8629879
>>8629867
>skeptics of a big scientific theory
Skeptics accept scientific evidence. You aren't a skeptic, so your entire argument fails. The skeptics accepted all the modern theories you listed after they were proven. The deniers did not and never will.

>still caring about good goy bait when ISIS is raping your girls
What is your excuse to be a cuck-supra, Anon?

>>8629867
>In December 2015 Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.

>>8629900

>still not knowing that the Middle East is kept intentionally unstable to provide a live training ground and excuse for military spending, so that our armies are prepared for a real war

You're just falling for a different ploy, goy

File: IPCC Authoritarian.png (415KB, 907x587px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 907x587px

>>8629883
>Care to explain this?
>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html
Oh noes, someone emailed him about a paper and he sent a white paper he wrote!

>Care to explain this?
>https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute
>Keep in mind that Anthony routinely speaks at their conferences.
He spoke at a conference!!!! Heck Michael Mann has taken money from the power industry. Pic related. You're smearing attempts by very weak connections are pathetic.

>Care to explain this?
>http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
Oh noes! Dr. Soon got $60 K a year for 5 years (overhead is about 50%). Warmists get many millions from a not-disterested fedgov.

>Care to explain this?
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
I've read the original paper. It was an attempt at smearing by weak association. What did the author show. He showed that energy type companies and such give money to Conservative institutions. They also give lots of money to liberal institutions. Surprise! Conservative institutions often give money to Conservative Think Tanks. Which, without giving names or providing a shred of evidence, the author labeled some of these Think Tanks as "Climate Deniers." The author, not surprisingly, didn't not mention that liberal institutions fund liberal thinktanks which shill for climate pseudo-science.

>Care to explain this?
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
That ain't research so its irrelevant to climate "science" outcomes.

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

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8629910
>>>8629883
>>Care to explain this?

Can you explain this?
http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/climate-change/Documents/climate-finance-roadmap-to-us100-billion.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/Projecting%20Climate%20Change%202020%20WEB.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/countries-release-100b-climate-finance-roadmap-2020
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf (site sometimes is down)

Its all about the $$$

>>8629879
Just switch the first column with the second column and you will have reality. When your "skeptic" theory has been accepted by the majority of scientists you can complain. Until then your analogy clearly fails, since you are saying the current consensus positions are analogous to a current tinfoil position.

File: climate-funding-US-govt-spending-web.jpg (106KB, 550x389px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 550x389px

>>8629902
>In December 2015 Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.

Wow! A white paper he had already written; asked for a donation. If this isn't entrapment by a bunch of warmist dunderheads, I don't know what is.

Meanwhile UN IPCC is trying to fleece us for $100,000,000,000 a year >>8629912
FedGov will make may $$Billions of carbon taxes, not to mention new, vast regulatory powers. A Leftist Wet Dream.

You're truly delusional if you think governmental type organizations are disinterested parties.

File: Karl Popper.jpg (61KB, 287x425px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 287x425px

>>8629899
Skeptics don't believe in an unfalsifiable dogma. And certainly not one that has ad hominem built right into its name-calling (Denier is a reference to holocaust denial).

Anthropogenic climate change deniers are the kind of niggas that think doctors have a cure for cancer but don't use it to roll in the treatment and chemo bucks.

File: Mann Electronic Power Research Institute.jpg (94KB, 749x165px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 749x165px

>>8629910
>Heck Michael Mann has taken money from the power industry. Pic related.
Wrong pic. Here it is.

>>8629890
>1.4F
rounds to 1F. Implying that is grounds to dismantle the 1st worlds entire economy.
>amount of CO2 currently emitted by all volcanoes
>human timescales
again you dodge the point, you are basically saying there aren't any supervolcanos errupting right this second, and i agree, but won't recognize that these are not life destroying events and have happened within the time frames of mans existence.
>i never said or implied that AGW would kill us all.
So we agree this is not science and has no basis in the real world? wow, that was easy.
>CO2 was much higher in past
It fluctuates greatly, towering over the tiny amount you are so concerned about, yet so easily dismiss it?
>damaging to ecosystems and infrastructure
easily fixable for the 1st world. literally a non-issue.
>brain dead denier
>ignores geological temperature record
>ignores margin of error within own data set
>ignores that 1F is literally nothing
>ignores that 1F is barely recognizable within own data even after manipulating it heavily
wew. you've yet to address these points.
>championed by skeptics
omg lol

>>8629921
>You think Oil companies conspire to fun Climate Skeptical Research. Yet Anthony Watts doesn't get a penny from them. Neither does Steven Goddard. Neither does Dr. Happer.
Notice how when the denier lies, he does not admit his mistake, he doubles down on it and deflects.

>>8629893
>why is the fact that they are literally changing the data set relevant?

>>8629890
>Still no reply to this post.

Deniers have been BTFO for the millionth time.

>>8629899
Don't bother. It's astounding how quickly these threads turn to shit once these crossposting faggots show up. They have their heads so far up their own asses.

They have nothing to learn, they don't care about evidence. They don't care about facts. All they do is come into these threads and make the same exact replies using the same exact images every single time.

>>8629910
>>8629912
case in point.

Yep, Donor's Trust and Donor's Capital fund are completely legitimate organizations with no agenda, right? Anonymous donations to hide where they come from are perfectly fine when it supports my interests!

>>8629912
Wow, I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that governments around the world recognize that climate change is an issue with wide-ranging economic implications, and thus have decided to implement policy to counteract the negative impacts. Shocked! I'm guessing every single time the government here in Louisiana gets federal funding to build new levees and flood control systems it's a government conspiracy too, right?

$100 billion is surely a massive number though right? It's not like the fossil fuel industry worldwide isn't worth trillions upon trillions of dollars in special interest, right?

You're seriously comparing a special interest directly funding denialists with governments around the world providing financial support to uphold an international climate agreement? No wonder you're so delusional.

>>8629922
Point me to one example of how climate science is unfalsifiable. You keep relying on outdated scientific philosphies of Karl Popper for your arguments, SAD! You know Popper himself isn't infallible, right, nor are his ideas?

>>8629922
>Skeptics don't believe in an unfalsifiable dogma.
Exactly, which is why you cannot be considered a skeptic. There is no evidence you will accept, so your ideology that AGW is not happening is unfalsifiable.

>And certainly not one that has ad hominem built right into its name-calling (Denier is a reference to holocaust denial).
So would you call a holocaust denier a holocaust skeptic? Because it's the exact same distinction, regardless of whether your feelings are hurt by it. A skeptic of the holocaust would accept scientific evidence of it. A denier would not accept any evidence.

>>8629928
>denier
are you using this terminology as a play on holocaust denial? who is your intended audience by making this adhominem in every reply? I know this is outside the 'debate', but as an observer I must say it doesn't help your argument.

>>8629939
>they have nothing to learn
looking through the posts here, several well put arguments regarding temperature data collection, manipulation, "adjustments", methodology, calibration, reporting, reliability, etc. were made, yet dismissed without argument. It looks to me as though there are many facts on the side of the skeptic.
>climate change is an issue with wide-ranging economic implications
the only economic implications i see are the ones that global warming alarmists are proposing. Why does dismantling the 1st worlds economy benefit the 1st world? Does living in utter ruins like the 3rd benefit anyone? Doesn't this in fact limit the 1st worlds ability to aid the 3rd world who historically can't even manage to feed themselves?

>>8629945
>Why does dismantling the 1st worlds economy benefit the 1st world?
no one serious has ever proposed this

Saying "maybe we shouldn't be sucking oil company cock so vigorously and invest more in green energy and more efficient ways of doing things" isn't a big fucking leap.

The oil and gas industry is the most profitable business in human history. SO WHY ARE WE GIVING THEM BILLIONS IN SUBSIDIES EVERY YEAR?

>>8629927
>rounds to 1F
Yet you were just claiming it was 0.5F. Why didn't you round that?

>Implying that is grounds to dismantle the 1st worlds entire economy.
Idiotic strawman. Stop lying.

>again you dodge the point, you are basically saying there aren't any supervolcanos errupting right this second, and i agree, but won't recognize that these are not life destroying events and have happened within the time frames of mans existence.
This is hilarious. Of course supervolcano eruptions are life destroying events!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130321-triassic-mass-extinction-volcano-paleontology-science/

And no, I'm not doging the point. I already explained how the comparison is faulty, since super-eruptions actually cause more cooling from the aerosols they produce than warming from the CO2 they release. So you saying that we were OK during super-eruptions is both false and misleading, since AGW is not similar to a super-eruption. As I already explained, rapid warming in the past is linked to mass extinctions, and he rapid warming of AGW is unprecendented. so how exactly am I dodging the point? I have addressed it in several different dimensions.

>So we agree this is not science and has no basis in the real world?
Your caricature of the science is not the science. Yes, that's what I've been saying from the start. Try addressing the actual science of climatology in your next post.

>It fluctuates greatly, towering over the tiny amount you are so concerned about, yet so easily dismiss it?
Are you illiterate? Read my response again.

>easily fixable for the 1st world. literally a non-issue.
Yes, the easy fix is to mitigate future damages by emitting less GHGs and investing in cleaner energy and mitgation technology. The more expensive fix is to pay for the damages as they occur. Literally a non-issue, yet you throw a hissy fit over it.

>wew. you've yet to address these points.
I addressed them all. Read my responses.

>>8629927
>omg lol

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

—Anthony Watts

>>8629930
That's not the question I asked and you didn't answer it. Once again you are deflecting, because you are just making shit up as you go along, and you know it.

>>8629941
>are you using this terminology as a play on holocaust denial?
No. I am using it to distinguish between someone who does not accept a theory until valid evidence is found (a skeptic), and someone who does not accept a theory regardless of the evidence found (a denier). The fact that many holocaust deniers call themselves skeptics is merely a parallel phenomenon. This is not an ad hominem, nor is it meant to smear AGW deniers via association with holocaust deniers. I would much more readily compare AGW deniers to creationists, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, or anti-GMO nuts, as these are denials of science while holocaust denial is a denial of history. Nor do I care if it "helps my argument" or offends people. I will not lie to be persuasive or polite, which is what calling a denier a skeptic is. Unfortunately it seems many deniers are willing to lie in order to be persuasive.

>>8629945
>looking through the posts here, several well put arguments regarding temperature data collection, manipulation, "adjustments", methodology, calibration, reporting, reliability, etc. were made, yet dismissed without argument.
Any objective observer can see that I have addressed the various claims of data manipulation and record accuracy. It is in fact the explanation of how adjustments work, the research which shows that they work, and the research that shows the accuracy of the instrumental record which have not been addressed. They can also see that your posts are laden with misrepresentations which a rational arguer would not need to support his point.

There's nothing you can do to stop climate change, it's Earth's natural cycle, like the Ice Age; even if there's is, it's not worth to spend billions of dollars on something that won't produce any results. It's better that private industries take care of this issue.

>>8630000
AGW is not cyclical and it can be mitigated by emitting less GHGs. Doing so willresult in a net savings of many billions of dollars according to economists. If private industries would take care of the issue I would welcome it. Unfortunately they are not doing so.

>>8630000

An economy has no conscience. People need to remember this. The economy isn't working for you; you're working for it. Don't forget to ask why and what for.

>>8627629
If it's not natural how did they get there, magic?

>>8630020
The better question is why humans should care about the "natural" state of the earth rather than the state most convenient for us.

>>8627874
>Earth's natural state isn't to have humans, or complex life, that is if you look at the entire geological history of Earth. Humans evolved during a time in which ice existed at both poles, as did most life that lives under the current climate conditions. Expect mass extinctions when the climate shifts grow more severe in the future.

Naturalistic fallacy

>>8627899
If it's so unbiased and scientific, why is there no nuance in concern to the mechanics of climate change? Why is it so readily packaged as a political football for the left to use?

>>8628053
>liberal
>doesn't tolerate dissenting views

>>8628372
So autistic he made an argument map for his strawman

>>8628459
Only liberals are against nuclear power

>>8629465
scientists are people, people who need money to do their job, people who live under the publish or perish mentality, people who are beholden to those who finance them, people who are susceptible to political influence

anyone here a skeptic? or are you guys the kind that are only "skeptical" of the bible

>>8629883
reuters, SA and the guardian are all biased sources. yes also reuters.

>>8629922
I can put "denier" anywhere I want. Are you a white genocide denier? Golly don't use reactionary revisionist history on me!


y'all fools gotta do some reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

climate scientists use a limited means of measurements, tacked together with mathematical sticky-tape and interpreted under assumptions existing within an astronomically minuscule time frame to measure climate effects, and are then inferred to be related to and caused by conveniently human means whose blame is politically charged and reinforced by funding strategies that encourage these assumptions.

makes perfect sense.

So what do people skeptical of anthropogenic effects on climate think about people who advocate research on geoengineering to help with climate?

What's their motivation?

>>8630000
Quads of truth

>>8630000
You're right. We were supposed to be entering another cold period right now.

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

41KB, 562x437px

>>8630029
>why is there no nuance in concern to the mechanics of climate change?
Why are you lying?

>scientists are people, people who need money to do their job, people who live under the publish or perish mentality, people who are beholden to those who finance them, people who are susceptible to political influence
Yes, which is why evolution/round-earth/vaccines/GMOs/whatever science I don't like is a damn lie! I don't even need to look at the evidence, all I need to do is note that scientists are fallible human beings and I can ignore whatever science I want!

>>8630000
>muh free market religion
you know what, i hope everything goes to shit so you finally learn

>>8630039
Probably some jewish conspiracy. The jews just want to kill all life on earth because of their satanic cult. Their aim is to create a permanent winter so we all die and go to hell.

>>8630029
>I don't trust scientists because they are people, and people are easily corrupted.
>But I trust Trump for some reason.
Yeah, good luck with that. Your billionaire buddy got your back.

File: carlos.png (138KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 350x350px

>>8628372
Looks like you've got these threads nailed down to a science.

Fake news.

The pages are not being removed. The Trump administration has not dictated to the EPA in any way how to run its website or social media. Any changes to the website are done by the EPA communications board.

>>8630072
What makes you say this?

File: middlefinger.gif (119KB, 320x600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 320x600px

>>8630029
>Having no experience in the science field
>not knowing that any scientist found falsifying data risk their career and reputation.
>thinking that because trump is president we are immune from the physical world.

When the worlds scientist are on one side and politicians are on the other, its an easy decision retard go back to the echo chamber that is /pol/

>>8630073
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/overnights/316200-overnight-energy-trump-team-says-epa-climate-work-is

The EPA themselves confirmed it. It was fake news.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson gave the first address to congress in which climate change was mentioned. He told congress "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." That happened 50 years ago.

In 1969 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Counselor to President Richard Nixon, wrote a memo warning that, due to changes in the climate, sea levels could rise by as much as 10 feet. “Goodbye New York, Good Bye Washington.” Moynihan wrote. That was 46 years ago.

In 1987,President Ronald Reagan signed the Global Climate Protection Act (P.L. 100-204 Act). That law directed the President of the United States " “to develop and propose to the Congress a coordinated national policy on global climate change.”" That was nearly 30 years ago.

In 1989 Secretary of State James A Baker warned President George H. W. Bush that CO2 warming of the planet posed the " “most far reaching environmental issue of our time.” " The memo urged that the United States should take a leadership role in the fight against this threat. The Washington Post reported on these recently declassified documents dating back to the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Also in 1989 another memorandum to the President stated "“If climate change within the range of current predictions (1.5 to 4.5 degrees centigrade by the middle of next century) actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound.“"

In 1992 the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and President George H. W. Bush was one of the first signatories. He called on world leaders to translate the written document into" "concrete action to protect the planet." "Three months later, the treaty was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate.

>>8630079

In 1981 Exxon Oil Company discovered, from it's own research, that continued burning of fossil fuels would cause global temperatures to rise as a result of increased levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere. In a paper by Henry Shaw (Link Here) , manager of the Environmental Area in Exxon Research & Engineering's Technology Feasibility Center, summarized the companies scientific findings." "Atmospheric CO2 will double in 100 years if fossil fuel use grows at 1.4% per year . An average global average temperature rise of 3 degrees centigrade and 10 degrees at poles will occur if CO2 levels double. The resulting temperature rise will cause major shifts in rainfall/agriculture. The Polar ice may melt""

>>8630079
So for 60 years they've been making incorrect predictions?

New York hasn't flooded and Antarctica is going strong.

>>8630103
>New York hasn't flooded
Who predicted New York would be flooded by now?

>Antarctica is going strong
Ice sheets are melting overall.

>>8630029
> I'm a grad student doing research and my data doesn't support AGW, but I'm afraid to go against my peers and also I get more money if I mess around with the data to support AGW!

this has never happened

>>8629910
>Oh noes! Dr. Soon got $60 K a year for 5 years (overhead is about 50%). Warmists get many millions from a not-disterested fedgov.
Lies on top of lies on top of lies.
He was giver $1.2 million by fossil fuel interests.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1
>He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Yet deniers still prop up Soon as a legitimate scientific expert on climate change, despite him being a literal paid shill and his research is routinely debunked: In fact they still parade him around the deniosphere circuit "conferences" spreading his bullshit despite all the revelations.

https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon
I mean I honestly don't know what you expect from a guy that supports the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a fundamentalist Christian creationism anti-environmentalist organization.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170119211552/http://cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/open-letter-supporting-scott-pruitt-for-epa-administrator/

I mean honestly, how can anyone take these denier faggots seriously? Go ahead, read through that list of signatories and fucking laugh.

This is what deniers want science to be, pay for play by special interests. It's your free market wet dream.

>>8630119
>creationist

yep! this guy is legit alright. climate change cucks BTFO

>>8630123
Look at Roy Spencer as well. He's a creationist and denies evolution.

I don't know if Soon is specifically a creationist, nor are all the people on that list, but the fact that they would be signatory to a letter from a creationist organization is really telling.

It's funny how so often the scientists with the kookiest ideas generally tend to also be kooks when it comes to climate science.

>government is bad
>republican politicians are good and scientists are bad
you sound confused

>>8630119
>>8630123
A little more info on Cornwall.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/evangelical-christian-environmentalism-green-dragon
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-battle-for-evangelical-hearts-and-minds.html

>As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting.
You cannot make this shit up. How anyone can worship these denial cucks for supporting such stupid bullshit is beyond me.

Yet they are apparently above criticism, because these are the go-to guys for climate science denial in their blogosphere. If any legitimate scientists started supporting such crazy bullshit, they would be called out left and right by the denialists.

It's so fucking crazy how much influence the fossil fuel industry has in climate change denial, yet every single time the topic is brought up deniers use mental gymnastics to shift the topic to government grants, or massive worldwide conspiracies by the "green industry," or some other such nonsense. It's insane, because there is so much physical proof of fossil fuel interests funding and spreading climate misinformation, and zero evidence of their previous global conspiracy. You would think that if the global conspiracy they hold to were true, there would be even a minor shred of evidence to prove it, right? But no, it's all muh jews or muh renewables or some other asinine argument of conjecture.

If ...... sigh ... 'warmist' motivation for claiming climate change is real is so they can make money then they obviously must switch sides to preserve their money because they just got threatened with termination for not telling the new government what they want to hear.

But they aren't. So that theory just died.

>>8627824
>science hurts my feelings
>he bravely says to a science board
You have to go back >>>/pol/ >>>/trash/

File: Chechnya.jpg (48KB, 335x584px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 335x584px

>>8627895
I too am a geologist (paleofag actually) and I concur with >>8627800

>>8628082
>bees navigate by magnetism
>plate tectonics drives magnetic field
not sure which to rage harder over
please consider suicide.

>>8628095
I kekked, have a (You)

>>8629700
>0.5F over 15 decades
literally 1.5F over 10 decades if you are capable of actually looking at the graph you posted.
this sort of shit is why people don't take deniers seriously.

File: Thriller.png (554KB, 680x618px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 680x618px

>>8629860
>when they happen, as they regularly do
The nifty thing about supervolcanoes is that their eruptions aren't actually regular the way those of smaller volcanoes are. Because so much more pressure has to build up, and because the intervals are so long, normally slow processes can affect the accumulation of magma above the hotspot. supervolcano eruptions are far rarer than you ever imagined, and very unpredictable (on geologic timescales)

>>8629866
>any number of /sci/ participants are capable of reading and interpreting data
the trouble is most people seem to have a lot of trouble interpreting data, particularly when it relates to a technical field they're unfamiliar with. it's easy enough to look at a simple data series and eyeball the trend; it's frequently a lot harder to understand what that trend represents in the real world.

>>8629879
>skeptic advances unpopular theory
>evidence overwhelmingly supports unpopular theory
>unpopular theory gradually accepted by scientific community
>"well the skeptics have been right before, so you have to believe my idea even though it doesn't have evidence supporting it"
the reason people like Wegener and McClintock and Einstein were vindicated is because the evidence supported their ideas. until you've got that, you ain't got a pot to piss in.

>>8629910
>>8629912
>Happer revealed as big oil paid shill
>deniers immediately shit pants and try to distract from it

>>8629921
>A white paper he had already written
Except he hadn't actually already written it, you brainlet. They offered to pay him to write the report.

>>8629927
>rounds to 1F
Really? Rather than report 1.4, you're gonna round it down to 1.0? Rounding errors aren't supposed to change a value by a whole TWENTY EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT.
You got caught in a fuckstupid lie, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. Sad!

>>8629964
deniers BTFO

>>8629956
>we are sucking oil company cock
oh look, an enviro-terrorist who has an irrational view on global warming.
>>8629994
>our adjustments to non-scary data to make it scary is well justified
You have made your agenda very clear, as sad as it is, most people are able to see through your globalist agenda.

>>8630173
This. SJWtards belong to >>>/pol/

>>8630029
>Milankovitch_cycles
>Solar_cycle
>tries to attribute a ~50-100 year trend to 11-year and 20,000-100,000-year cyclicity
wew lad

>>8630070
CARLOS!

>>8629960
>Why didn't you round that
Trying to give you the benefit, I'd gladly round it to zero though because we both know that's what it is. You have artifically created a set of data that doesn't suggest what you say it suggests for purely political gain to push your globalist agenda.

>supervolcano eruption are life destroying events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano#Known_supereruptions
So why are we here? I like how you side stepped the fact that one of these would tower over by several factors of 10 the entirety of human co2 production.
>CO2 they release
you couldn't bring youself to state it, but yes these events release many time the co2 man has created and occur often. Just admit you are a scaremonger, cmon, it's anonymous here, you can admit it here.

>Try addressing the actual science of climatology
you seem to have missed the entire thread and how you keep getting btfo at every angle. You also seem to believe that ignoring every valid point and then deflecting is somehow winning. laughable.
>Are you illiterate? Read my response again.
I believe you to be, you admit these events release co2 on scales humans couldn't achieve. yet we should dismantle the 1st world economy to suit your political agenda?
>emitting less GHG
therefore destroying the 1st world economy, you literally contradict yourself openly without even realizing it.
>pay for the damages
why would the first world pay for damages to anything? At least you are plain with your agenda to rob the 1st world and empower niggers living in mud huts. I must disagree though and wonder why you have this motivation.
>I addressed them all
you dodge everytime, you are very dishonest - but i do applaud your coming out from behind the curtain with your thinly veiled anti-first world agenda.

>>8629967
>That's not the question I asked and you didn't answer it. Once again you are deflecting, because you are just making shit up as you go along, and you know it.
says the deflector

>>8630194
>>8629964
I can't believe Watts actually said that, kek, I wonder if he regrets it.

>>8630061
>i hope everything goes to shit
said like a true leftist

>>8630173
It's good to know what the laymen thinks, right? or are you simply angered that the average unscientific viewer no longer believes your deceptive song?

>>8630210
>you seem to have missed the entire thread and how you keep getting btfo at every angle.
According to your own narcissistic ramblings. You can never admit defeat, it's the standard tactic of claiming you're winning an argument while still never addressing or combating the actual scientific evidence. You just resume into your ranting and raving while never actually posting or analyzing evidence of your own, or of climatologists. Every single post you make is the same bullshit reeking of pseudo-intellectualism and inflated self worth.

>yet we should dismantle the 1st world economy to suit your political agenda?
You always deflect and change the conversation into batshit insane conspiracies and ramblings about the 1st world, nigga no one even knows wtf you're talking about because it's so goddamn stupid. You're just a completely dishonest person t.b.h f a m

I mean honestly, what the fuck are you referring to SPECIFICALLY with these sort of rambling incoherent statements, are you talking about switching from fossil fuels to nuclear + renewables? Be specific in your fucking arguments ffs. Every time you post it's vague as fuck, you never attack the actual evidence or present complex ideas.

>>8630174
>delta of 1F
>well within margin of error
>well within estimated instrumentation error
>hey go-guys we need a global panic here
when will you learn that if you are honest with your data, people will believe you?

The experts said the science is settled and we can't stop it so why bother?

>>8630226
The idea that we can't stop it is partially true, but the effects of global warming can still be reduced by severe or moderate reductions in fossil fuel usage.

>>8630233
That's not going to happen.

File: freddie mercury.png (208KB, 388x925px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 388x925px

>>8630210
>I'd gladly round it to zero though because we both know that's what it is
In other words, you'd like to change the evidence to make it fit your opinions. Care to explain how that's anything other than a fraudulent attempt to prop up your unfalsifiable dogma? :^)

>one of these would tower over by several factors of 10 the entirety of human co2 production
literally a lie.
the gassiest of magmas are maybe 0.1% CO2 by mass, and a supervolcano eruption puts out somewhere upwards of 10^12 tons of ejecta. let's be generous and say that a really really big eruption (on par with the one that created the Fish Canyon Tuff, arguably the largest eruption known) would be ten times that size. That's 10^13 metric tons of ejecta, or (again, a generous estimate) 10^10 tons of CO2, or 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Wow! Ten BILLION tons of carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere in one massive blast!
Except that human activity emits THREE TIMES THAT MUCH IN A SINGLE YEAR. You claimed that a supervolcano eruption would dwarf the entire cumulative total of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, but it's about what we produce in four months. You made shit up off the top of your head because it sounded about right, and you've just revealed that you really don't know a damn thing about what you're talking about. Go and sit in the corner and think about your miserable existence.
>http://www.d.umn.edu/~mille066/Teaching/2312/Elements%20Articles/Self%20Elements'08%20supervolcanoes.pdf
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Calvin_Miller/publication/240779372_Supervolcanoes_and_their_explosive_supereruptions/links/54412bf20cf2e6f0c0f6021d.pdf
>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

>>8627824
I understand what you are saying, they kind of treat it like some sort of religion. If you even consider that something is inaccurate with climate change, you are accused of being a heathen.

File: doggo.jpg (18KB, 552x311px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 552x311px

>>8630224
>well within margin of error
>oh look, it's the denier's latest favorite buzzword
did you actually find a published value on the margin of error for such measurements? or did you just decide "it's kinda small, I think it's within the margin of error"?

but here's a tip (and a dong behind it): compounding multiple measurements reduces total error.
suppose a thermometer is accurate to within a tenth of a degree. now suppose you measure the temperature of the same thing ten times with ten of those thermometers.
see, the margin of error of the compounded average will be significantly less than a tenth of a degree. this is because the likelihood that all the errors line up in the same direction (adding together) rather than have random sign (canceling out) is very low, on the order of one in a thousand. now, if there's some kind of instrumental bias (which would result in all the errors pointing the same way by the same amount) that's a different story. but that's not what margins of error represent.

>>8630271
>>8630287
>being this integrated into the jewish lie machine
How's it feel to be a cog in the globalist take over?

File: delet it faggot.png (228KB, 680x379px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 680x379px

>>8630292
not an argument :^)

t. Hebraic geoscientist

>>8629712
What do you mean normal?

Why is such a huge temperature range the 'normal' view?

Why the fuck are we being so filled with climate change threads lately?

Fuck, not even /pol/ is this autistic about it, keep it to a general at least, not half a dozen separate threads

>>8627895

good luck planting anything dude lmao xDD

You already have a well-defined belief system, Republicans are in control of two branches of government, with the third on the way, and Trump is implementing an anti-climate agenda. Why do you bother trying to convert /sci/entists on top of that? What do you stand to gain? Are your lives really that boring?

>>8630624
Earth is 4000 years old, adam and eve(not adam and steve) lived with dinosaurs created by g*d, climate change is fake and is satan perpetuating fear. science is the work of demons ok, g*d bless

>>8627623
He'll be dead before the effect set in, why would he worry? It's us poor schmucks that have to live through the 2050s and 2060s who are going to have a bad time.

>>8628482
>scientifical

>>8630283
>they treat [x] like some sort of religion
You can fill the blank with any proven scientific theory precisely because scientific theories are backed up by mountains of hard evidence, that being the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. You'd get the same response by saying
>hurr bdurr I don't think the electron has a mass of 9.11*10^-31 kilograms
because it, in actual fact, does. But in that case you obviously know you have no expertise in the area - however, to the scientifically illiterate (you) global warming seems simple enough that you just get to have an opinion on it. And in fairness you can do, but it's no more relevant than you having an opinion on the mass of an electron. Your entire argument could be made exactly the same, with exactly the same actual validity, by cutting out 'global warming' and pasting in 'electron mass'
>if you consider that something is inaccurate with the mass of the electron, you are accused of being a heathen
>if anyone tries to question the electron mass, they're made an academic pariah
>it's all just groupthink, no one wants to say the real mass of the electron or they'll lose their job
>clearly it's a government cash grab, by having a different electron mass they can charge more for electricity
>that research paper confirming the mass of the electron was just done by a shill
>here, why don't you find out the real mass of an electron: http://www.infowars.com/
>the church of 9.11*10^-31 just keeps on shilling

>>8630210
>You have artifically created a set of data that doesn't suggest what you say it suggests for purely political gain to push your globalist agenda.
And again you ignore the arguments and research for the temperature record. You lose, again.

>So why are we here?
Are you dense? Mass extinctions are life-destroying events, but they don't destroy all life. But that is very confurting: your argument is "supervolcanoes didn't kill everything, therefore they're fine." And again you ignore every other argument I made that shows how this analogy is faulty. You lose, again.

>emitting less GHG
>therefore destroying the 1st world economy
Yet again you've put your foot in your mouth. The United States has been reducing it's GHG emissions, including CO2 emissions for several years. Is the economy destroyed?

>why would the first world pay for damages to anything?
Because they will suffer damages you nutjob.

>you dodge everytime
Stop projecting.

I'm done with you. I've addressed every single point you've made while you ignore most of mine and your posts are full of dishonesty. Enjoy wallowing in your own intellectual filth.

>>8630211
You didn't answer the question and instead misrepresented it. That's the definition of deflection. This delusional projection is laughable.

Which correction factor and why is this relevant?

>>8630702
but anon, the electron rest mass is 8.187*10^-14

>>8630685

You can start living eco. Buy solar panels. Them solar phone chargers. All that eco-friendly stuff you can buy. Just do it man. Be eco, save the Earth, have fun.

Will this literally be the worst President and administration of all time? I can only think of a few that come close to this terrible.

>>8630833
What did he do so terible? You seem to be seeing things that nobody else in the world is seeing.
Did you take your meds today?

>>8630835
I mean in terms of knowledge and qualifications. The entire cabinet is full of laymen or sub-laymen cronies. It's a complete joke.

>>8630839
Oh you're a conspiracy theorist lol
go back to >>>/x/

>>8630833

It's a white male from the 1% with a mail order bride trophy wife, that made his administration with cronies from the 1% and got himself elected on lies and racism.
What do you expect?
America is fucking over and it better crash and burn because if these bastards succeed they'll create a monster reminiscent of the colonial empires, and we all know what that means.

>>8630855
>muh 1%
>muh racism
fuck off, nigger.

>>8630855
I really don't care if they are rich or white or not. The thing is Donald Trump is clearly not intelligent. You only have to hear him speak for a few minutes to realize this. And no, before some polturd chimes in with "le successful businessman", inheriting money and real estate don't take any exceptional intelligence.

Every one of his cabinet picks except maybe Mattis are awful. Either completely incompetent or blatant industry shills.

It's a total farce.

>>8630866
post your cv and/or accomplishments. sitting around in jizz encrusted underpants on a workday is not an accomplishment, fyi.

>>8630869
I'm not the one who ran for President moron.

>>8630857

Not that anon but he's pretty much right.

1% Billionaire
1% trophy wife (super model that knows 5 languages?)
1% cabniet (CEOs, neurosurgeon, step-daughter of a billionaire)

>>8630891
and what would you rather be lead by, the bottom 1% that can barely spell their name and survive only thanks to welfare?

you think bernie and clinton aren't filthy rich?

>>8630876
yet, apparently you're the authority on deciding intelligence.

>>8630898

Considering the position I'm in job wise I'm okay with Trump. But the idea that the people who voted for him did so with the intent of "clearing the swamp" and he instead doubles down on nepotism is interesting.

>>8627883
Reality has a liberal bias.

> there are actual trumpcucks here who unironically support someone so out of touch with science, he's an antivaxxer

>>8630926
>reality has a liberal bias
Yes I'm sure all those refugees are simultaneously all women and children AND doctors and engineers.

>>8630926
>even though all trumps kids are vaccinated
got more bullshit from your bernie hat ?

>>8630926
you do realize most antivaxxers are lefties right?
The whole thing started as a old hippie off string. There's a reason hillary didn't bring it up. A big part of her base were antivax.

>>8630953
I disagree with letting in Refugees, despise Islam (and all religion, but none as much as Islam), I advocate for greater border control (but not a wall) and in general have believe in conservative ideas of personal responsibility, but I also an not a science denier. Doesn't hurt that I have some background in, oceanography, atmospheric physics, geology, coastal geomorphology and stratigraphy. Stop injecting identity politics into scientific discussions. Ironic how much /pol/tards like yourself love identity politics so much, I thought that was a liberal disease?

>>8630967
Most ignorance about climate change stems from a lack of understanding of the evidence, or an inability to understand it due to ones stupidity and unwillingness to actually look at the evidence itself in the scientific literature, or from accredited climate scientists themselves. There's always morons from outside the field, or with no education that think they know better than the experts. Climate change denial is a lot like the anti-vaxx movement in fact, of course you can't even see this:
>Anti-vaxx is not supported by the scientific literature.
Climate change denial is not supported by the scientific literature
>Anti-vaxx is propagated by a bunch of shitty blogs with non-scientists soccer moms claiming to be experts
Climate change denial is propagated by a bunch of shitty blogs, with non-scientists like Anthony Watts claiming to be experts.
>Anti-vaxxers claim that vaccines cause autism, despite having no basis in the scientific literature or medical studies that prove this. Their feelings are based on belief of a conspiracy in the medical field.
Climate change deniers claim that climate change isn't occurring, or CO2 isn't a factor, or it's natural, or it's cooling, or it's the sun, or any other myth that they propagate with no basis in the scientific evidence, claiming that their feelings are validation for this and that there is a conspiracy among scientists to deceive them.

>>8630833
We survived Bush, we will survive Trump. He's already shown that he is more incompetent than Bush though, crazy as that is. Hopefully he doesn't get the US involved in another multi-trillion dollar war or two at least.

>>8631041
Duse we are at two minutes till midnight.

Lets all fucking pray we survive trump

>>8631019
>(but not a wall)
?
without a wall there is no border control

>>8631041
Bush is an intellectual compared to Trump. Don't underestimate the power of raw stupidity.

>>8631054
How could he have won if he was stupid. stupid people don't win things.

I can't wait until vacuums no longer exist because their can't be a place in the universe not filled with god.

>>8630902
le straw man

>>8631054
Bush was a moron, Cheney pulled all the strings for Dubya. That said, Bush is still clearly a much more intelligent person than Trump. I mean look at who Trump surrounds himself with vs. Bush. Bush's people, while deceptive and manipulative, were intelligent. Trump just surrounds himself with a bunch of literal retards who criticized the very organizations he appointed them to run, especially Rick Perry. What the fuck was he thinking with that pick?

>>8631099
>How could he have won if he was stupid. stupid people don't win things.
Took me a second to realize you were being sarcastic, I can't tell with /pol/ retardation these days. Poe's law is real.

>>8630866
Yep, Mattis is the only pick i like as well. He seems like the only person who will be remotely competent at his job.

Hopefully he'll intervene if Trump tries to do some retarded shit foreign-policy wise

>>8629928
>>8629921
>>You think Oil companies conspire to fun Climate Skeptical Research. Yet Anthony Watts doesn't get a penny from them. Neither does Steven Goddard. Neither does Dr. Happer.
>Notice how when the denier lies, he does not admit his mistake, he doubles down on it and deflects
Really, you didn't show any of them taking big bucks from oil companies, now did you? Sorry, but "hurr, durr, went to a conference which got a little funding from a company that is somehow related to oil" doesn't count. Do you know that Dana Nuttercelli (of skepticalscience infamy) works for an energy related company? By your ridiculous standards he's a fraud.

>>8629939
>>8629910
>>8629912
>case in point.
>Yep, Donor's Trust and Donor's Capital fund are completely legitimate organizations with no agenda, right? Anonymous donations to hide where they come from are perfectly fine when it supports my interests!

Wow! Just about the only organization that you can name from that paper. And you showed nothing, just imply that they have an evil agenda. As if power-hungry, money hungry governments and greenie foundations are desperately trying to get money!

>>>8629912
>Wow, I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that governments around the world recognize that climate change is an issue with wide-ranging economic implications, and thus have decided to implement policy to counteract the negative impacts. Shocked! I'm guessing every single time the government here in Louisiana gets federal funding to build new levees and flood control systems it's a government conspiracy too, right?
Politicians never conspire. Yeah right. Your level of gullibility is astonishing. No wonder you believe in Climate "Science."

>$100 billion is surely a massive number though right? It's not like the fossil fuel industry worldwide isn't worth trillions upon trillions of dollars in special interest, right?

Warmists compare getting $100,000,000,000 for complaining to making money by providing cheap, reliable fuel necessary for our modern lives. You guys really are socialists.

>>8629939
>>8629910
>>8629912
>>8629922
>Point me to one example of how climate science is unfalsifiable.
EVERYTHING SUBSTANTIVE IS UNFALSIFIABLE

We found the "hot spot" => "Climate Change is TRUE"
We didn't find the "hot spot" => hurr, durr,lets delete that prediction so its still TRUE!

CO2 Goes up and Temps go up => "Climate change is true"
CO2 goes way up from 1945 to 1975, temps go down => "hurr durr, sneaky aerosols, Climate Change is TRUE!"

Polar sea ice melts => "Climate Change is TRUE!"
Oooppps, Antarctic sea ice sets world record => "We meant to say antarctic sea ice would grow, Climate Change is TRUE!"

The list is endless.
Failed Predictions + Tampered Data = Pseudo-Science
You keep relying on outdated scientific philosphies of Karl Popper for your arguments, SAD! You know Popper himself isn't infallible, right, nor are his ideas?

Now you're flipfloping. Is falsifiability a criterion of science or not? The answer, of course, is yes.

>>8632538
>>8629940
>>8629922
>>Skeptics don't believe in an unfalsifiable dogma.
>Exactly, which is why you cannot be considered a skeptic. There is no evidence you will accept, so your ideology that AGW is not happening is unfalsifiable.
Projection much?

>>And certainly not one that has ad hominem built right into its name-calling (Denier is a reference to holocaust denial).
>So would you call a holocaust denier a holocaust skeptic? Because it's the exact same distinction, regardless of whether your feelings are hurt by it.

Because Climate Change has so much "evidence". All those failed predictions, which were rewritten (see previous post) and all that tampered data. Yeah, I'm real impressed here.

>>8632540
>>8630119
>>8629910
>>Oh noes! Dr. Soon got $60 K a year for 5 years (overhead is about 50%). Warmists get many millions from a not-disterested fedgov.
>Lies on top of lies on top of lies.
>He was giver $1.2 million by fossil fuel interests.
>https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1
Again, overhead takes 50%. leaving 0.6 million over 10 years. That's $60K a year.


>>He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
>>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Almost all grants require deliverables. The shills over at the NYTIMES are trying to imply that a deliverable must have evil skeptical conclusions.

How about debunking his work on facts and logic?? Oh, you can't. Hence the ad hominem. Because leftist NGOs and money hungry governments are such a pure form of funding, right?


>Yet deniers still prop up Soon as a legitimate scientific expert on climate change, despite him being a literal paid shill
By that definition, almost all scientists are paid to shill for governments and NGOs that will make gigantic amounts of money from $Carbon $Taxes and "green energy." Your hypocrisy is astonishing.

>>8632535
>>8632538
>>8632540
>>8632543
my god look at this samefaggot, man you are desperate.

>>8632543
--- Continued

>https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon
>I mean I honestly don't know what you expect from a guy that supports the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a fundamentalist Christian creationism anti-environmentalist organization.

The usual pathetic resort to ad hominem. Do you want to know who's truly mentally ill? Al Gore. Yeah, he lost his son to a car accident. So he wrote a book attacking automobiles and such. And then expanded it into all oil and fossil fuel. That sick puppy wants to punish the world for losing his son. Then again, he's made $200,000,000 off this scam. Damn good money.

>>8632548
>>8630194
>>>8629879
>>skeptic advances unpopular theory
>>evidence overwhelmingly supports unpopular theory
Exactly. No hot spot, troposphere warms less than the earth's surface. Antarctic Sea Ice grows, Global Sea Ice has only shrunk by about 5-10%, untampered data shows temps at about the same level as 1945 and the medieval warm period.
And yet you believe in Warmist, because "muh only a conspiracy could disprove it!"

>>"well the skeptics have been right before, so you have to believe my idea even though it doesn't have evidence supporting it"
>the reason people like Wegener and McClintock and Einstein were vindicated is because the evidence supported their ideas. until you've got that, you ain't got a pot to piss in.
In the past, people didn't tamper, er, I mean "correct" their data to get the right answer.

Read above. I'm pissing into a gold plated toilet.

>>8629910 (You)
>>8629912 (You)
>>Happer revealed as big oil paid shill
Getting a massive $60K a year (after 50% overhead, which is standard in academia)
>>>8629921
>>A white paper he had already written
>Except he hadn't actually already written it, you brainlet. They offered to pay him to write the report.
It was in preparation. He finished it. Douche-bag.

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

43KB, 810x583px

>>8632534
>went to a conference which got a little funding from a company that is somehow related to oil
I think you mean Anthony Watts is a perennial paid speaker at a conference which is organized and sponsored by the Heartland Institute. they've been paying him to make appearances there since 2008. Steven Goddard (or Tony Heller, to unmask him) is a paid speaker there as well. and William Happer? he literally agreed to write a pro-CO2 opinion piece in exchange for oil money, and offered to help obscure the origin of the money.
but go ahead, keep pretending none of that ever happened.

Dana Nuccitelli USED to work for Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech hasn't been involved in the fossil fuel business since the 1980s. these days they mostly do water processing and environmental remediation type stuff. nice attempt at making shit up...as usual.

>>8632538
>autistic focus on the hot spot
you know, it's actually been observed now, right?
>https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html
>aerosols are fake!
yeah, because CO2 is the ONLY thing that affects temperature, and a sudden uptick in industry (coupled with a pulse of volcanism) couldn't POSSIBLY have a short-term effect on temps.
>comparing arctic and antarctic sea ice
>one's derived from a continental icecap, the other's formed by the freezing of ocean surface
>thinking they're the same
>being this retarded
Arctic sea ice continues to plunge. Antarctic sea ice is slowly increasing...at the expense of the continental icecap, which is flowing off the landmass at an increasing rate
>stern of ship rises => Titanic is SINKING!
>stern of ship falls => hurr durr, the ship broke so everything's different now, Titanic is SINKING!
pic related

>>8627629
Naturalistic fallacy. Nice choice.

File: Not Science.png (26KB, 565x546px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 565x546px

>>8632543
you can't even make up your mind whether he got the money over 5 or 10 years. either you were lying before or you're lying now. and whether or not he spent any of the money on "overhead", he still received that money. he'd have had to pay those costs even if he hadn't been sponsored; how does half of the money simply not count (according to you)?
by your dubious """logic""", if someone gives me a cool $1000 and I use half of it to pay rent and utilities, they only really gave me $500. that's some denier math in action.

>Almost all grants require deliverables.
making shit up for 300, Alex.

>>8632548
>complains about ad hominem
>accuses Al Gore of being mentally ill
clue meter reads zero

>>8632552
>No hot spot, troposphere warms less than the earth's surface
literally a lie
>https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html
>Global Sea Ice has only shrunk by about 5-10%
oh, well if it's only 10% then SURELY there's no actual warming! do you have any idea how much ice that is?
>untampered data
in other words, if you throw out all the data that shows that the Earth is warming, it no longer looks like the Earth is warming
>medieval warm period
this is just a reminder that the MWP was a European feature, not a global one.
>In the past, people didn't tamper, er, I mean "correct" their data to get the right answer.
data corrections are nothing new. in 1904, statistician Charles Spearman put together a method for correcting for instrumental error. it's called correction for attenuation, and it was an accepted practice before Wegener, McClintock, or Einstein published their great ideas.

you're literally insisting that all evidence that goes against your opinions MUST be fraudulent because you don't understand how corrections work. ironically, you have no evidence that the corrections are fraudulent, incorrect, or unjustified. again, you lack EVIDENCE. all you've got is OPINIONS.

File: sum.jpg (30KB, 544x471px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 544x471px

>>8632552
>It was in preparation. He finished it. Douche-bag.
Are you ACTUALLY this retarded?
In Happer's correspondence with the Greenpeace agents, he attached a copy of a paper he had already written as a sample of his work. He then offered to write an entirely different paper tailored to the requests of the fictitious company.

>I hope I understand what you mean by "project." What I thought you meant was writing something like the white paper or the regulatory testimony, copies of which I attach again for clarity....Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more of less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course.

>>you are totally correct in your understanding of the project - we are looking for a short paper that makes the case for the benefits of CO2 from fossil fuels in my client’s region.

>I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client.

>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html

As usual, the denier is eager to make shit up if he thinks it will help his argument. Just like when >>8630210 (was that you, or just your buddy?) decided that human CO2 emissions must be negligible compared to what a supervolcano would put out...and was wrong from bottom to top. This sort of shit is why it's important to stick to the facts and not just lie like a rug; eventually, you're found out.

>>8632534
You prove yet again how you use the standard tactics of climate change deniers, the same tactics the tobacco industry used in the 1950s-1990s to combat claims that cigarettes caused heart disease, cancer and other smoking related illnesses. Spread manufacture doubt.

Your hand waving and changing the subject does not change the donations entities like Heartland take in, it doesn't change how they hold their conferences each year and spread misinformation for the fossil fuel industry, same goes for the countless other organizations that do the same.

If you think that Exxonmobil and other petroleum companies don't have a vested interest in sowing doubt, just like the tobacco companies did, you are delusional. It was such a similar, parallel argument. The industry uses fake experts to spread denial and deception, they attack the experts, often with vicious personal attacks (look at how deniers attacked Hansen). When the actual scientific evidence is published, they cherrypick the data to find a confirmation bias to fit their narrative.

>>8632535
>complaining to making money by providing cheap, reliable fuel necessary for our modern lives. You guys really are socialists.
You realize you are a walking, talking parody of a typical denier who has completely bought into their propaganda, right? You have no rationality left, you have no skepticism left in you, only lies and deception.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

File: co2_data_mlo.png (114KB, 694x543px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 694x543px

>>8632538
You treat science like everything is supposed to have a clear and simple answer, and you're idea of climate is that it's simple and straightforward, not an incredibly complex system.

So you fall into the same fallacies of thinking that your simple-minded view of climate science ideas is the only way to look at the ideas themselves.

As for the hot spot:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1025.html
>Controversy has surrounded projections of tropical temperatures aloft in a changing climate. An analysis of sea surface temperatures and rainfall over the past decades suggests amplified warming in the upper atmosphere, consistent with theory and models.

Oh, it's the CO2 lag again. My god how many times has this shit been debunked and you retards keep bringing it up as a "GOTCHYA!"
Literally look at the Mauna Loa data you stupid cunt:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

Oh wait, NOAA is not valid to you because muh gubmint conspiracy

As for polar ice, see the other thread where you're autistic screeching is debunked time and time again.
>>8629085

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
> Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html

>Failed Predictions + Tampered Data
PROVE IT. BE SPECIFIC. Show the proof that data is willfully tampered. Show proof that the predictions have failed, because it's so easy to spread conjecture with no evidence. You have no evidence though, none.

>>8630891
there isn't a single politician that isn't 1%

>>8627874
>Earth's natural state isn't to have humans, or complex life, that is if you look at the entire geological history of Earth. Humans evolved during a time in which ice existed at both poles, as did most life that lives under the current climate conditions. Expect mass extinctions when the climate shifts grow more severe in the future.
Fuck it let's just wipe out all life, including plankton, and ACTUALLY return Earth to it's "Natural State"
>Unironically believing the nature meme

>mfw antarctica is really atlantis that was swallowed by the sea and froze

>>8634527
tfw Trump is the last Atlantan and wants to be reunited with his people

>>8627617
Methane pollution is at it's highest but it's not the human's fault. It's those damn cows that are to blame. Someone should arrest those cows!!!

File: 08 Sherwood trys to find a hot spot.gif (71KB, 1017x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1017x400px

>>8632627
>>>8632534 (You)
>>went to a conference which got a little funding from a company that is somehow related to oil
>I think you mean Anthony Watts is a perennial paid speaker at a conference which is organized and sponsored by the Heartland Institute. they've been paying him to make appearances there since 2008. Steven Goddard (or Tony Heller, to unmask him) is a paid speaker there as well. and William Happer? he literally agreed to write a pro-CO2 opinion piece in exchange for oil money, and offered to help obscure the origin of the money.
Conferences speakers are generally paid nothing or a token honorarium. Its certainly not a way to make a living.

>but go ahead, keep pretending none of that ever happened.
>Dana Nuccitelli USED to work for Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech hasn't been involved in the fossil fuel business since the 1980s. these days they mostly do water processing and environmental remediation type stuff. nice attempt at making shit up...as usual.
Huh? You just admitted that they were in the fossil fuel business! Pathetic.

>>>8632538 (You)
>>autistic focus on the hot spot
>you know, it's actually been observed now, right?
>>https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html
You mean that tiny piece of slight warming published by Sherwood? That didn't come from temperature measurements, but wind correlates? That only appears after they added data from years where there was no torpospheric warming? That was obtained by playing the statistical game of Kriging? That's not a hot spot. But glad you admit its an important prediction. Pic related. Not the distorted temp scale of Sherwood where he makes dark red equal to about 0.2 C instead of the usual much higher value. What an honest guy!

PS How come actual temperature data shows nothing?

>>8634976
>>8632680
>>>8632543
>by your dubious """logic""", if someone gives me a cool $1000 and I use half of it to pay rent and
Never worked in academia, have you? YOU NEVER SEE THE MONEY. The facility you already have, which is normally funded by the university is very conveniently suddenly funded by taking 50% of your grant!

>>Almost all grants require deliverables.
Again, you've never worked in academia. You have to produce. Or there's a good chance you'll lose the grant.

>making shit up for 300, Alex.
>oh, well if it's only 10% then SURELY there's no actual warming! do you have any idea how much ice that is?
More Strawman crap. I never said it hadn't warmed. But the sky sure isn't falling.

>>untampered data
>in other words, if you throw out all the data that shows that the Earth is warming, it no longer looks like the Earth is warming
>>medieval warm period
>this is just a reminder that the MWP was a European feature, not a global one.
Bull Shit.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
All those graphs are from different, peer-reviewed papers.


>>In the past, people didn't tamper, er, I mean "correct" their data to get the right answer.
>data corrections are nothing new. in 1904, statistician Charles Spearman put together a method for correcting for instrumental error. it's called correction for attenuation, and it was an accepted practice before Wegener, McClintock, or Einstein published their great ideas.

Spearman certainly didn't put together the "massive temperature re-writing" method. That would be establishment warmists trying to play statistical games to keep their funding.

>>8634977

>>8632700
>>>8632552
>>It was in preparation. He finished it. Douche-bag.
>Are you ACTUALLY this retarded?
>>>you are totally correct in your understanding of the project - we are looking for a short paper that makes the case for the benefits of CO2 from fossil fuels in my client’s region.
>>I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client.
>>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html

OhMyFuckingGod! Happer believes that CO2 is not dangerous; therefore if he writes a white paper on it, and gets paid, he's an evil shill. Yes, scientists can't write papers on something they believe in and get money for it, unless its lots of government/greenie NGOs $$$. Pure hypocrisy.

>>8634980
>>8632711
>>>8632534
>You prove yet again how you use the standard tactics of climate change deniers, the same tactics the tobacco industry used in the 1950s-1990s to combat claims that cigarettes caused heart disease, cancer and other smoking related illnesses. Spread manufacture doubt.
>Your hand waving and changing the subject does not change the donations entities like Heartland take in, it doesn't change how they hold their conferences each year and spread misinformation
>spread anti-warmist facts.
ftfy


>If you think that Exxonmobil and other petroleum companies don't have a vested interest in sowing doubt
Never said they had no interest. I said that the paper which "proves" the evil dark funding is nothing more than speculation. Never mind that ExxonMobil is nothing compared to the power of FedGov. How convenient of you to never acknowledge that inconvenient truth.

Says the man who pretends that the $100s of $Billions sought after to "fight" climates change are pure and noble goals. Gullible much?

>>8634981
>>8632767
>>>8632538
>You treat science like everything is supposed to have a clear and simple answer, and you're idea of climate is that it's simple and straightforward, not an incredibly complex system.
>So you fall into the same fallacies of thinking that your simple-minded view of climate science ideas is the only way to look at the ideas themselves.
>As for the hot spot:
>http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1025.html
>>Controversy has surrounded projections of tropical temperatures aloft in a changing climate. An analysis of sea surface temperatures and rainfall over the past decades suggests amplified warming in the upper atmosphere, consistent with theory and models.

Except the actual upper troposphere temperatures haven't gone up. Funny that.

>Oh, it's the CO2 lag again. My god how many times has this shit been debunked and you retards keep bringing it up as a "GOTCHYA!"
Boy that lag really hurts. No, a partially correlated graph doesn't do it. Temperature rise has to clearly lag CO2 rise. Unfortunately, the opposite is what happens.

Both arctic and Antarctic sea ice were predicted to melt:
Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

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

One of these papers says right in the abstract that there's supposed to be polar warming! You guys so badly want to rewrite history. Didn't happen in the Antarctic. And Antarctic mass? Even NASA says that total mass is growing. Sorry buddy.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

>>8634976
>>8634977
>>8634980
>>8634981
>>8634982
Holy shit this shill is in every single climate thread in the catalog samefagging like crazy with his pre-typed responses, like 15 replies all within 10 minutes of each other, kek. Who you shilling for buddy?

File: goalposts.jpg (160KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x400px

>>8634976
>Anthony Watts never got any oil money!
>>here's documentation that he did indeed get oil money
>well, he didn't get that MUCH money!
pic related.

>You just admitted that they were in the fossil fuel business!
Tetra Tech did some seismic analysis well before Nuccitelli worked for them. (They were never a petroleum company per se, they just did some consulting for some that were.) Does it make sense to accuse anyone who's ever worked for Volkwagen to be a Nazi sympathizer? After all, VW used to make troop transports for Nazi Germany!

>didn't come from temperature measurements, but wind correlates?
yeah, [citation needed] on that, buddy
>playing the statistical game of Kriging
>waah, statistical methods are fake if they yield results I don't like!
if Kriging wasn't a reliable way to interpolate sparse data, petroleum exploration wouldn't use it to actually find oil. it's a case of "science: it works, bitches"
>That's not a hot spot.
The data beg to differ. You're doing that pic related thing again.
>glad you admit its an important prediction
Never did. It's a comparatively minor part of current theories of climate change, but it's still nice to confirm the little ones along with the big ones.

>distorted temp scale of Sherwood where he makes dark red equal to about 0.2 C instead of the usual much higher value
Okay, here's where you demonstrate just how much of a brainlet you are. Why is this? Because you've just reminded us that you don't READ figures; you just LOOK AT them.
The units in the Sherwood et al. (2015) figure are in degrees C PER DECADE. The units on the predicted trends are in degrees C TOTAL OVER A 41 YEAR TIME SPAN. A change of 1 on the predicted figure is equivalent to .24 on the Sherwood figure. Hmm, those look to be similar colors to me!
READ THE GODDAMN SCALES NEXT TIME, YOU MORONIC DISGRACE TO THE GENUS HOMO.

File: (You).gif (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>8634977
>YOU NEVER SEE THE MONEY
>implying that researchers don't derive tangible benefits from their employers due to bringing in grant money

>You have to produce. Or there's a good chance you'll lose the grant.
You have to actually produce publishable work based on the research being funded. That's different from producing a paper in direct exchange for money.
see, the direct quid pro quo is the problem. consider the difference between "I give you this campaign donation in exchange for you representing my interests" and "I give you this campaign donation in exchange for you voting a certain way on this particular bill".

>I never said it hadn't warmed.
You literally did, you retard:
>>8630210
>I'd gladly round it [total warming since ~1900] to zero though because we both know that's what it is
Do you realize we can all just scroll up and read what you posted?

>All those graphs are from different, peer-reviewed papers.
Almost none of those graphs are actually sourced, and none whatsoever have any statistical support for the MWP. Just drawing on a graph isn't sufficient; you need to actually show that the apparent peak is statistically significant.

>>8627609

At least the astronauts stuck on the space station will be able to record data when we all FUCKING DIEEEEEEEEEEEE LMAO

biologist here, still unable to keep food down now that all insurances are banned from covering abortions
>fetus is dead? too bad, hope it doesn't rot you from the inside out before you manage to push it out "naturally"
>ectopic pregnancy? the thing is attached to the fallopian tube and will grow until it bursts through, killing you and the fetus? well, too bad
>eight years old? shouldn't have been such a whore in front of your stepdad, younger bitches have given birth to their father's kid, it's fine

I can only give a rough estimate but the total number of deaths that I personally expect to occur as a result of /pol/ taking over the government is around 10,000 and climbing.

let's not forget that 80% of all of the dams in this country will go past their expiration dates during this memelord's first term in office. perfect time to spend billions on building a fucking wall, which will save, approximately, zero people from the billions of tons of death water

fuck it, guys. just fuck it. kill /pol/ on sight.

File: Bees.gif (685KB, 400x227px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 400x227px

>>8634980
dude, you claimed that he didn't write a paper in exchange for a generous donation to his favorite money laundering fund. and when I showed unequivocally that he did, your response was "yeah well so what?"
nice attempt to distract from how you got caught in a lie. again.

>>8634982
>actual upper troposphere temperatures haven't gone up
oops
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007

>Both arctic and Antarctic sea ice were predicted to melt
that's not in EITHER paper.

>One of these papers says right in the abstract that there's supposed to be polar warming!
What both papers say is that warming is supposed to be STRONGER at the poles than at the tropics (as would be expected of warming caused by an intensified greenhouse effect rather than by increased insolation or lowered albedo). that doesn't mean that the ice caps will necessarily melt; it just means that they'll warm more than the earth as a whole does. and this is indeed the case:
>https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

(hey, I notice you ran away from your bullshit claims about supervolcanoes pretty quickly once I got after you about it >>8630271. any comeback to THAT?)

>>8635246
>let's not forget that 80% of all of the dams in this country will go past their expiration dates during this memelord's first term in office

[Citation needed]

I don't like the orangutan president either but you're implying 64,000 dams will be unsafe by 2020, I don't believe that.

>>8635257

I thought it was all the bridges that were falling apart.

My man Bernie would have invested in infrastructure instead of some racist meme wall.

I fucking hate people.

>>8635257
google it yourself you stupid son of a bitch

while I'm at it, are any of you retarded motherfuckers aware that the EPA had all of its grants and funding frozen? are any of you aware of the fact that orange tantrum baby signed an executive order declaring all of the national parks in the country up for sale to whatever corporation wants to develop them? do literally all of you get your news from /pol/? I hate every single one of you. A retarded kennedy who doesn't believe in vaccines is the head of the vaccine commission.

I hope measles comes back, because measles wipes all of your immune system's stored information for a huge number of other diseases and it'll be really, really fucking funny to watch you all die of preventable diseases.

>>8635265
>google it yourself you stupid son of a bitch
Aka 'I don't have anything to back up my spurious claim so I expect you to do all the legwork for me'

>>8635261

THOSE TOO, COMRADE.

I'm just counting down the days until the civil war starts, to be quite honest.

>thanks demcucks
>thanks libcucks
>thanks for shillary
>you fucking cucks

>>8635265

Take a deep breath. Move to a different country.

I am going to try to get out of tbe US if I can. Trump is going to cause a small brain drain.

>>8635257
>>8635265
>>8635269
I'm seeing claims that 70% of our dams will be 50+ years old by 2020, but hard to find a technical primary source on that.
>http://www.geoengineers.com/blog/fingers-dam-managing-risk-crumbling-dam-network

>>8635265
don't be a cunt, burden of proof is on you

>>8635269

you could have typed a six keyword string into your search bar and yet, you wrote a post

as though I have any interest in speaking to you

as if you were my equal, and as if the torrent of sewage that froths perpetually from the drain trap of your mind had value, or merit in any way

as if you deserve to be spoken to like a human being

consider doing humanity a favor and donate your living body to an unscrupulous doctor in iran. at least you can be recycled for parts. you can provide some material benefit to the world that way.

>>8635273
>don't be a cunt, burden of proof is on you

Different anon. Kind of hard to be patient when a bunch of hate mongering, anti-intellectual dodo birds took over 4chan, the country, and all these /sci/ threads.

Being patient for ignorance to scteam in your ear and spit in your face is beta af.

>>8635278
yikes this guy is mad as fuck and I'm on his side, lel

>>8635273

I'm afraid I'm going to be a massive, massive cunt about literally everything for the forseeable future

I no longer have any investment in civil discourse. I want these people to die.

>>8627609
its genius really, wish I had thought of it. Laissez fair attitude seems to work for everything else not just economics

File: experience tranquility.gif (1MB, 230x216px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 230x216px

>>8635278
>>8635279
>>8635281
not to get too Jedi on you, but we have to be better than them. we can't let ourselves be ruled by fear of unseen cabals or rage against the vanity of the ignorant.
keep your mind level. focus your rage. uphold the principles of empiricism and objectivity.

>>8635273
>Entire thread has piles of proof in it, full of links and infographics
>Don't be a cunt, give us proof"
wew senpai

>>8635739
it was in reference to a specific claim about dam obsolescence that hadn't been sourced in the thread. chill out, famalam