HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>8662247
bump

>>8662247
Slowly but surely its being exposed, theres more to come. Anyone who actually thought global warming was manmade and severe as they claimed was a psued

File: what_the_fuck_is_REALLY_going_on.jpg (118KB, 640x880px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x880px

Science doesn't have a government.
Even if this is true, it still isn't grounds for denying the anthropogenic nature of climate change and ocean acidification. One bad apple does not spoil the bunch. This whole thing stinks of an ExxonMobil False Flag.

Not so fast op,

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/

>However, the newspaper failed to adjust for the fact that the two datasets use different baselines. NOAA, and the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors, use the average for the period between 1901 and 2000, while the Met Office instead uses the average between 1961 and 1990 as its baseline.
>Dr Hausfather’s commentary shows that the differences are extremely small when the same baseline is used to compare the two datasets
>Hence the newspaper’s fake graph wholly misrepresents the differences between the analysis in the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors and the separate record compiled by the Met Office.

Also,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mail_on_Sunday

>Its sister paper, the Daily Mail, was first published in 1896
>Daily Mail

They weren't duped they did it purposely with intent to defraud.

>>8662247
pfafwhafhfahfhashahfahfahfahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha global warministas BTFO

>>8662247
Wow people who won't shut up about coal jobs and pipelines despite the fact that solar employs more people in the USA want to kill renewables for their chosen welfare method, amazing news op!

>>8662247
And you know it's true, because it comes from a committee!

>>8662247
But we've been saying climatologists are exaggerating for years you faggots.

File: 1486398674578.jpg (88KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x334px

>>8662247

>>8662247
But why break this news right now of all times, just as the president is getting ready to cut down environmental regulations?
Something smells fishy here.

>>8662558
The post-industrial societies did not rise to power on the backs of wind and solar power. And until those sources of energy are comparable to fossil fuels or nuclear, you condemn the third world to a life of poverty. Wealthy nations can afford the reduced productivity of these inconsistent forms of energy, but not the poor nations. Your comic is trash

>>8662661
Poverty is far more a manifestation of those nations poor political structures and severe health issues related to rampant over breeding and terrible farming practices. Quite a lot of the third world has no power supply of any type. Your argument is moot.

>>8662661
>>8662684
Furthermore, most of the third world is at the equator which has consistent sunshine, and an installed solar panel will just keep generating electricity until it breaks down whereas an engine has to be fuelled and maintained.

In fact, solar panels became cheaper than diesel generators in rural India a couple of years back, for instance.

>>8662684
poverty is far more a symptom of the philosophical and cultural inadequacy of those nations

>>8662817
That opinion is far more a symptom of your racism than your rationality.

>>8662684
While those are all factors that contribute to a nation's wealth, you cannot expect a nation to grow without a reliable source of energy. Can you point to a country that was not corrupt and had a poor source of energy, but still grew?

>>8662805
How are those third world countries going to produce the solar panels? I can only imagine how expensive it would cost. And I think you're understating solar panel longjevity. Do you think masses of solar panels would last long in rural Ecuador?

Got a source on that India fact? We're they subsidized?

>>8662839
*overstating

>>8662247
>The Mail on Sunday can reveal
>The Mail on Sunday today reveals

Anthropomorphistic namefagging?

>>8662839
Actually, the problem is that they're not building their own. India had a promising looking home-grown solar panel industry creating jobs, until various US-based credit companies started offering incredibly cheap finance in exchange for buying US-made solar panels. This article may be a little out of date though.
>http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/us-cheap-credit-is-ruining-indian-solar-panel-industry-cse/article3795888.ece

I can't find the exact article I read as it was a few years ago, but another study was recently published
>http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Policy-Brief-Solar-Rooftop-Replacing-Diesel-Generators-in-Residential-Societies.pdf

>>8662876
And I'd think they aren't building their own because they can't afford it or they have other more valuable things to spend their money on.
Thanks

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-920288.html
Look up "energy poverty". Granted, the German climate isn't like south America, but as a policy, this transition has not been good for the Germans

>>8662247
Fake news

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

>>8662891
Germany went full retard with phasing out of their nuclear power plants in favor of renewables. Nuclear is supposed to act as a BRIDGE into renewables, renewables cannot instantly replace nuclear.

What they should have done is kept their nuclear plants, and opened a few new ones as well, while at the same time expanding wind and solar power. Offer incentives to citizens to install solar panels on their homes to offset electricity costs, like tax breaks.

Nuclear can replace fossil fuels very quickly while lowering emissions at the same time. While the transition takes place, investment in renewable can be done without an increased cost in electricity.

>>8662901
Why do people think the renewable energies are as effective as fossil fuels? It's not a matter of just switching from coal to solar, even if it's a slow switch. They cost more and produce less and going from fossil fuel's to renewable is definitely a downgrade

File: 1484378245599.jpg (81KB, 675x666px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 675x666px

>>8662661
>children's views of the world: the post

>>8662247
You should try going into a garage with a running car and see if pollution has a real effect. Tell us how it goes.

>>8663013
Global warming is not related to pollution, though

>>8662247
>global warm
>real

>>8663030
Global warming is related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which our pollution of CO2 influences heavily.

>>8663047
Shut up, it's not called global warming anymore, fool! You'll ruin the charade!

>>8663071
Yeah it is.
Stop sniffing butts and read the papers on climate change.

>>8663071
Please send more carbon tax dollars, I'm late on renewing my Illuminati membership.

>>8662896
(((snopes)))

>>8663124
That's what snopes is, a website that investigates to confirm or debunk myths, legends, news, etc. If you have pertinent info, just email it to them so they will add it if it is found to be correct.

>>8662247
Man, deniers really love the unusually strong 1998 el nino event that climate scientists are well aware of. Funny how they claim el nino's aren't evidence of global warming like they should, but use them instead to claim that global warming isn't real. Sad to see this on a .gov website, I guess trump has gone full shill for his fossil fuel buddies.

>>8663071
I know you're baiting, but the terms global warming and climate change have both been used since the 1970s.

Here's one such example from 1975 entitled "Understanding Climate Change" by the National Academy of Sciences:
http://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt

As far as the whole John Bates thing goes, here's a brief summary of it: Bates worked at NOAA, he during his tenure made several autistic requirements to manage data. His work was slow and he was demoted by Karl, the lead author of the 2015 paper, in 2012, he was likely very butthurt due to this and held a grudge.
He claims that they rushed the 2015 paper and that it was meant to influence the Paris talks in 2015, which is blatantly false considering the paper went through the normal review process at Science, being submitted in 2014, and under review for nearly 4 months. The results of the paper have been replicated by other studies as well, such as BEST, 2017:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

Here, have it from Bates himself in his AP interview:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
>However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
>"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
>Still, after Bates' blog post, the House Science Committee , a British tabloid newspaper and others who reject mainstream climate science accused NOAA of playing "fast and loose" with land and water temperature data.

If Bates had such serious concerns though, why would he go to the Daily Mail, to David Rose, who has a long history of writing false climate science stories?

>>8663223
Trump has been full shill since before he started running. I knew this from the start, all you need to do is look at his history. As soon as he started appointing climate science deniers to his cabinet it was all over. He is controlled by them and their special interest masters.

>>8663223
>global warming
It's called climate change, goy,

>>8663397
No, for the last time, the two words have different meanings.

Global Warming - the overall trend of the average temperature of the Earth warming, looking at all the global temperature data.

Climate change = the changes in climate due to the warming trend, meaning the changes in precipitation, changes in the arctic / Antarctica, changes in the jet stream, changes in thermohaline circulation, changes in storm intensity and frequency, changes in sea ice, glaciers and in general changes in weather patterns over decades / centuries.

As for your petty conspiracies that climate change is the "new word" for "global warming" because it sounds better, how about you go do a quick search on google scholar, looking at literature from the 1970s-1990s and search for the terms climate change and global warming.

Here, I'll help you:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C19&as_ylo=1970&as_yhi=2000

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global+warming&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C19&as_ylo=1970&as_yhi=2000

See a pattern? No? That's because both terms have been used for a long time in the earth science community.

>>8662896
>snopes
lmao

>>8662247
>dailymail

>>8663442
You don't need snopes to debunk this Bates story bullshit, or Rose's TDM article. Bates himself directly contradicts that entire House Science and Technology statement. Their own fucking whistleblower destroys their case, see
>>8663256

>>8663124
>>8663442
>not an argument
kek

>>8662822
>dude shitting in a field is just as valid as building a civilization

>strawman

>>8663444
They've cited breitbart too. The house science committee has been a joke for a while. The previous head of the committee called evolution a "lie straight from the pit of hell."

>>8663457
India has developed civilisation you fucking retard, not to mention sanitation in India is a socioeconomic issue. The wealthy and educated Indians aren't dropping their pants wherever they please. You seriously need to stop letting memes define your worldview ans develop a critical thinking apparatus.

>>8663479
> The wealthy and educated Indians aren't dropping their pants wherever they please.
Of course not. They only do it in the designated shitting streets.

>>8663486
How does it feel to get btfo so hard you resort to meme posting? Go shitpost about chemtrails or something you scientifically illiterate brainlet :^)

>>8663479
Since when a dude shitting in a field = India?

There's a great read about this whole situation from Science Magazine:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
Quote from Bates:
>"That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.
Well great job man, you "knew people would misuse this," well no fucking shit, look at OP's picture. Despite the study being solid, you've now just given more misinformation and doubt to the denier folk, who will consistently use this as a talking point for years, despite it being nothing. Great Job.

Think about it like this, no one will remember Bates saying that the study was valid, or that there was no manipulation of data or anything, all people, the policy-makers that is, will remember is the initial quotes and lies from articles like those on TDM and Breitbart. That's what will stick with them, not the facts of the situation.

>It's another Engineers ruin everything with their autism episode
Now it all makes sense.

>The new furor underscores a long-running tension within NCEI, one that has generally pitted research scientists trying to publish new advances against engineers seeking to ensure everything follows standard protocols, say several scientists who have worked at the center.
>Thomas Peterson, a principal scientist at NCEI who was involved in developing the new surface temperature estimates before retiring in 2015, says he spent several years pressing the agency to let its scientists publish parts of the new data analysis. But he says he met resistance from some who argued that even though the older approach was less accurate, it had gone through the quality control checks for operational data. The new study “wasn’t rushed. It was delayed for a long time. It would have been out years ago except for all this processing that John [Bates] pushed.”

>>8663767
Denier folk would have just used some other blatantly false bullshit. They've done it countless times before and will continue to do so.

>>8663793
The fact that some of them were referring to this as "climategate 2" is insane, it's almost as if they read a headline and made a bunch of assumptions without waiting to understand the facts. It just goes to show you how desperate these people are. Go look at WUWT's articles on it for example, they're hilarious reads, and then scroll down to the comments. People there are full on delusional, especially Watts himself.

>>8662288
OP blown out wholesale.

Potholer54 just uploaded a video on it if you guys are interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs

>>8663825
Awesome, he didn't really need to though, it's just more David Rose bullshit.

File: smirking engineer.jpg (15KB, 301x450px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 301x450px

>>8662283
prove to me that investing my tax dollars in stricter regulation or more research will have a measurable effect on climate change.

particularly when there are more pressing environmental issues in the US that the EPA and academia could be spending its finite resources on.

>>8663829
>>8663829
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
Cutting global emissions by 17% is well within the notable range for preventing climate change.

>>8662822
namecalling is not a substitute for evidence or reason

>>8662247

Yes, a government run by Donald Trump, a well known anti-science politician. And he put other anti-science people in his cabinet as well.

>>8663136
That's nice, except that snopes has been caught pushing partisan (left) political positions in opposition to the facts, and its founder has been caught involved in other kinds of fraud.

Snopes started out as a couple, of no particular qualifications, who just decided to make a website about internet rumors and whether they were true or not, generally based on some very basic checking, like going to a library to look something up or calling a relevant official. Then they'd make a definitive statement on the matter as if they were the world experts on the subject.

It was pretty good when the internet was small, and they rarely tried to tackle anything controversial, they just did the hour or two of footwork most people didn't have the time or inclination for. But even in the early days, they'd occasionally do something like push a preponderant opinion among historians on a matter that just couldn't be checked.

It got worse as they made money, hired people, and expanded their operation. In their hunger for clicks, they lost focus on things that were easy to check and uncontroversial, and in their hunger for cheap labor and other benefits, they lost integrity.

Now Snopes has little to no value.

>>8663883
>Donald Trump, a well known anti-science politician
Yeah man. He is totally out there denying quantum mechanics and universal gravitation.

>>8663897
>implying Trump even knows what any of that is
Trump is not a scientist, but you can tell a lot about him by the people he surrounds himself with, the people that he put in trusted positions of power.
How are you so oblivious to the fact that he is surrounded by anti-evolution creationists and climate change deniers?

>>8663897
>I may believe in witches but I'm not gullible enough to believe in werewolves

>>8663897

https://www.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/449525268529815552

File: a07022eb06daf2e9dba4a75b80ac522e.gif (211KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 500x377px

>>8662247
Arguing with deniers is an exhausting process. It's somehow worse than flat-earthers.

>>8663945
poor baby :^(
i understand what it's like being worthless and having nothing better to do than to argue online with people who might not even hold teh opinions they espouse

>>8662558
>they_lie_because_they_believe_this.jpg
All of these goals are actually at odds with reducing net carbon emissions, but in the utopian mindset, all of their dreams just go together magically like in their imaginations. They just picture it all happening together, and then they talk and act like getting any part of it brings the rest of it closer.

Watch how many of these same people also wrap together acceptance of Islam and LGBTQ rights, ethnic diversity and high-trust communities, diversity quotas and competence. That's utopian thinking: imagine how nice it would be if you didn't have to choose between two things in conflict, picture them together, and just start to believe that picture. It's rubbish.

>>8662684
>Quite a lot of the third world has no power supply of any type.
Yeah, they don't feed themselves or manufacture for themselves. The well-organized, mechanized farms, the fertilizer factories, the antibiotic factories, vaccine labs, etc. that supply them with what they need to survive at their modern population levels are elsewhere.

They'll be the first to suffer when our most basic and inexpensive commodity products are made more expensive by rushing to deploy energy technologies before they're competitive.

File: wintergoes_16_and_goes_13_comparison_from_the_same_day_Jan_15_2017.jpg (2MB, 4572x2252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4572x2252px

here's the truth

File: winter-north_america_med_res_jan_15_2017_0.jpg (927KB, 1300x775px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1300x775px

and this

>>8663951
the earth was in black and white 4 years ago ?!

>>8663956
Here brainlet read. You can read right?

http://www.noaa.gov/stories/noaa-s-goes-16-satellite-sends-first-images-of-earth

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/goes-16-image-gallery

>>8663964
>read
>images
>gallery
t brainlet

>>8663969
The words next to the pictures. Wow, I have to explain that to you too?

>brainlet

>>8663973
>>brainlet
t. brainlet

They are suing the Daily Mail for 150 million
And also using them as a source for global warming fraud

its def 2017

>>8663951
>>8663955
What are you trying to say here? Both the right and left are the same image, but the image is demonstrating that GOES-16 is higher resolution, and full color while GOES-13 is lower and B&W.

>>8663982
Who is suing who?

>>8663999
>suing who
it's whom, prole

>>8663994
I'm not trying to say anything. I'm just using the NOAA/NASA images to show, that 1/3 of the Northern hemisphere is covered in ice right now.

File: inhofe-snowball.png (357KB, 515x449px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 515x449px

>>8664004
Wow, so it gets cold in winter, in other news, water is wet. Let's just continually ignore the temperature anomaly in the arctic, as well as the fact that winters are still getting warmer globally on average.
Might as well bring in a snowball to the senate floor like Inhofe did a few years ago as "proof" that global warming isn't happening.

>>8664012
The same old response, sad. No not the same. It's been a very cold winter all over. Britain is rationing produce right now because everything is fucking freezing. Normal...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38851097

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38666752

>>8664020
global waming == climate change == sometimes it's colder than it is warm

File: BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png (120KB, 1303x997px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1303x997px

>>8664020
Same old response, sad. No not the same. It's been a very warm summer all over. Britain is rationing water right now because everything is fucking boiling. Normal...

Yep, nothing to see here guys, it's completely normal!

>>8664026
==manipulated and fraudulent "science"

...whose days are numbered. Do you really be on the wrong side of this when the truth is finally allowed to be spoken? That day is coming, quickly.

>>8664036
Yeah, totally manipulated, just like everything John Bates said about manipulation right? Did you even read the thread?

Do I need to spell shit out for you?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
Read the links:

>However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
>"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Still, after Bates' blog post, the House Science Committee , a British tabloid newspaper and others who reject mainstream climate science accused NOAA of playing "fast and loose" with land and water temperature data.
>Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change.
>“That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.

If this is the best evidence that you deniers have of fraud, it's fucking pathetic. Even the "whistleblower" himself says that it's not the case, hilarious. Notice how all the denier blogs jumped all over this though, they won't retract any of the bullshit that was spewed off about it though.

>>8664045
"Science" magazine isn't worth to call itself toilet paper. Keep reading that crap and buying it. That's a big part of where all this "climate change" bullshit comes from.
Whatever though, the truth will be allowed to be presented soon, and you can all choke on it.

File: 14c.jpg (7KB, 207x253px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 207x253px

>>8663946
I was unaware shitposting about climate change required such an vast expenditure of time. Is typing such a strenuous process for you brainlets?

>>8662247
My take on warming and the climate is there are factors outside of anthropogenic effects that can't be controlled which often get neglected when presenting the subject to the common people.

Go and accurately model me 5 years of natural core fluctuations with current data points. Let me know how that turns out.

>>8664052
Keep on dreaming, that's all you can do. You have no integrity on your side, you have no evidence, all you have is a bunch of cute little blogs and "experts," many of which aren't scientists or scientifically trained. Hilarious how you discredit Science as well, what kind of scientist are you?

Let me ask you, what scientific journals do you consider credible? According to your retarded standards, one of the top journals that most researchers would dream to get published in "isn't worth to call itself toilet paper." How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say shit like this?

Are you claiming that the Bates quotes themselves are fraudulent as well? Get your head out of your ass please and come back to reality.

>>8662558
Yeah at least don't lie to me about the reasons behind it.

When I don't get the raw scoop I assume people in-the-know are doing it for their greed.

>>8662558
this is a very good picture.
We can only violate our lifeground so much. It will bite us in the ass if we don't start repairing the damage.

>>8664054
Finally, real intelligence arrives...

Cheers Anon, perfect example. I'm sure you'll be attacked in a minute or two...

>>8664045
>If this is the best evidence that you deniers have of fraud
Oh, it isn't. There's heaps. The most damning is the "hide the decline" email. The highest profile is the scissorlift scene in "An Inconvenient Truth" (where he points at a graph of data which in reality shows CO2 levels following well behind temperature changes, and explains it as smoking-gun proof that CO2 level changes control temperature), and all the climatologists who recommended the movie for laymen despite this blatant central lie.

>Even the "whistleblower" himself says that it's not the case, hilarious.
Actually, he's pretty much contradicting himself now trying to show his loyalty to a field that has realized would ride him out on a rail for having integrity.

Next time don't alter the data.

>>8662896
>Fake News
>proceeds to post Fake authority
hue

>>8663857
>preventing
Delaying until other less regulated countries catch up to industrialization

Output could be 20% of today's for 50 years and the trend will still create a warm era in centuries.
The truth is we've been past the tipping point for a while now.

>>8662247
Global warming is only satire at this point. We all know it's /x/ tinfoiler material.

File: goalposts.jpg (81KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x375px

>>8664073
Oh yes, the "hide the decline." Do we need to break it down for you?
To you even know what the "decline" refers to? It refers to the decline in tree ring divergence, it doesn't refer to a decline in global temperatures like all the denier blogs espoused. It refers to proxy temperatures that are derived from tree rings.
Here is a study that actually discusses the "decline" or divergence problem in question, how about you go ahead and read through it, at least the abstract?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf
By the way, the divergence problem is nothing new, it's been a known phenomenon for decades in tree ring proxy reconstructions, and specifically refers to tree rings in high latitudes that don't correlate as well with temperature records, while tree rings in other parts of the globe do correlate well. Tree rings in these latitudes aren't reliable because they do not correlate well like other tree rings. There are many reasons for this phenomenon, one of which is thought to be linked to droughts, air pollution, ozone and increased UV radiation, as well as global dimming.

By the way, Mike's trick and hide the decline are in fact referring to two separate things.

I see you're also moving those goalposts with Bates once again, when you get contradicted just claim that he's a fraud too! That will work! Even though I distinctly remember a poster, probably you, a few days ago claiming that Bates was the epitome of a scientist! How dare anyone discredit anything he has to say! Fucking warmists! Your hypocrisy has no bounds.

You could listen to Michael E. Mann explain hide the decline as well here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3riDY_a9vVc
Here's another article explaining "Mike's Trick"
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

>>8664087
>>8664086
>>8664094
Maybe, I don't know, read the thread and you will find a litany of other sources explaining why this is all bullshit? Too hard for your average /pol/ brainlet to do though, right?
https://twitter.com/RozPidcock/status/828611257771184128
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/major-global-warming-study-questioned-defended-45328903
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
http://mashable.com/2017/02/05/noaa-global-warming-hiatus-story/
http://climatefeedback.org/sensational-claims-of-manipulated-data-in-the-mail-on-sunday-are-overblown/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/serving-up-a-noaa-thing-burger/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.ie/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html

Do I need to post more links? Reading too hard for you? Maybe retreat back to >>>/pol/ where it's unnecessary to question the echo chamber of doubt.

That said, it's nice to see the same old generic shitpost comments have made a return, just like they do in every climate change thread.

>>8664104
>b-back to pol
You forfeit already?

>>8664087
Feel free to respond to the substance of the article any time, until then you lost.

>>8663895
Not a single sentence showing anything in the snopes article I posted was incorrect. You are pathetic.

Pseudo/sci/ in full damage control. Regards old school /sci/ and /pol/.

>>8664104
Why did you post links to liberal media? Cant find anything scientificial. Face it, you did badly by altering the data and people are more sceptical regarding to climate science. You should take notice from your master acoence ie physics. Never alter the data.

>>8664054
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3500.1

"Earth’s rotation rate [i.e., length of day (LOD)], the angular momentum of the core (CAM), and surface air temperature (SAT) all have decadal variability. Previous investigators have found that the LOD fluctuations are largely attributed to core–mantle interactions and that the SAT is strongly anticorrelated with the decadal LOD. It is shown here that 1) the correlation among these three quantities exists until 1930, at which time anthropogenic forcing becomes highly significant; 2) correcting for anthropogenic effects, the correlation is present for the full span with a broadband variability centered at 78 yr; and 3) this result underscores the reality of anthropogenic temperature change, its size, and its temporal growth. The cause of this common variability needs to be further investigated and studied. Since temperature cannot affect the CAM or LOD to a sufficient extent, the results favor either a direct effect of Earth’s core-generated magnetic field (e.g., through the modulation of charged-particle fluxes, which may impact cloud formation) or a more indirect effect of some other core process on the climate—or yet another process that affects both. In all three cases, their signals would be much smaller than the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect on Earth’s radiation budget during the coming century."

>>8664086
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

File: shakun et al. 2012.png (225KB, 723x1086px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 723x1086px

>>8664073
As for your claim of the "CO2 lags behind temperature change" this is another thing climate change deniers love to espouse that, again, has no credibility or robust evidence to back it up, especially when looking at the current climate trend which is overwhelmingly due to anthropogenic climate forcings.
First off, you have to understand that temperature changes in the past, especially during the pleistocene and holocene, were caused by milankovitch cycles, that is the changes to the tilt of the Earth's axis, its wobble, and its distance from the sun in its elliptical orbit. These cycles can warm or cool the Earth. When Earth is positioned closer to the sun, it causes the oceans to warm, releasing CO2 from the oceans which gives a positive feedback of increasing the warming, so you see that during these cycles, the temperature changes begin before large amounts of CO2 enter the atmosphere from oceans.
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
>These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

>>8664133
>Post literally 10 different sources
>/pol/cuck literally won't read any of them because they won't confirm his biases
>Cant find anything scientificial.
I need to just step back and accept that you people MUST be baiting at this point. My fucking god what has happened, I am incapable of distinguishing from satire from genuine retardation anymore.

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

41KB, 562x437px

>>8664133
7/10 troll, almost fell for it.

>>8662247
Climategate already showed that it was a hoax based on manipulated date. We've known that for years, governments just don't care that it's been outed as fake. They want an excuse to impose more regulations and taxes, and the media is more than happy to go along with it.

>>8664096
wow you just rekt him so fucking hard. nice one

>>8664279
Educate yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP6N9nbmS54

File: Capture.png (333KB, 1874x943px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1874x943px

>>8664073
By the way, found the posts where you claim went from this:
>Too late buddy, the cat's out of the bag. The eminent Climate Scientist Dr. Bates has blown the whistle. Of course, at this, point, you will do everything to destroy his reputation. So lets have a look at it

To this:
>Actually, he's pretty much contradicting himself now trying to show his loyalty to a field that has realized would ride him out on a rail for having integrity.

Hilarious how quickly you yourself turned on Bates in order to "destroy his reputation," kek. It's amazing to see the mental gymnastics at work.

>>8662247
The GOP is anti-science, it's no surprise they'd jump on this. The worst part is, they believe this tabloid vs. their own scientific establishment and the establishments of other developed nations. Lamar Smith, by the way, was the mind behind SOPA and constantly tries to ban pornography.

>>8664998
Oh, and he's also received $600,000 from the oil and gas industry. Clearly, this is an unbiased party.

File: lamar smith campaign finance.png (79KB, 653x1175px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 653x1175px

>>8664998
It's amazing to me that the head of a committee on science, tech and space is headed by a bunch of retarded creationists / science deniers. It's so absurd.

This whole Trump administration is like living in a weird alternate reality, I just can't wrap my head around all the hypocrisy and stupidity coming out of this administration. It's like they're doing the exact opposite of what would be the rational thing to do.

>>8664999
nice trips, but year, look at who donates to him and you see who pays for the shit he says:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811&cycle=Career

Amazing how people will pretend like these politicians have their best interest at heart, or that they're "noble" fighters of the scientific establishment.

>>8662247
How strange that a website is now pushing a pro-Trump point of view.
Wait ?
Do you think perhaps the government is lying to it's people ?

No way, Trump's a god. Why would we doubt ?

>>8664982
>Hilarious how quickly you yourself turned on Bates in order to "destroy his reputation,"
So you figure you have the magic goggles that let you identify anonymous posters on 4chan? What other things do you believe when you go off your meds?

Anyway, I only pointed out the truth: that he tried to take a stand for integrity, then backpeddled when he saw that even his position wasn't secure enough to protect his career from the political pressures that dominate his field.

He has basically said, "This major climate paper was an obviously-politically-motivated fraud. We can't have this shit, we need to clean our act up."

Then he came out later and said, "Uh, of course that's not to say we have any kind of integrity problem in climate science. No fraud here, nope. The denialists are the only bad guys. Go Team Warming! (I'mloyaldon'truinmylife)"

>>8665055
>So you figure you have the magic goggles that let you identify anonymous posters on 4chan?
Hmmm. Maybe the fact that for the past few years it's been the exact same person making the exact same posts using the same images in every climate science thread? You're not fooling anyone.

>"This major climate paper was an obviously-politically-motivated fraud. We can't have this shit, we need to clean our act up."
He never once said this, maybe you should go read through the original post on Curry's blog?
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
>"Uh, of course that's not to say we have any kind of integrity problem in climate science. No fraud here, nope. The denialists are the only bad guys. Go Team Warming! (I'mloyaldon'truinmylife)"
No, he basically said he was asshurt that they didn't follow the overly complex series of procedures he set up for data processing at NOAA. Because they were citing new research instead of just using old data that was already processed and analyzed fully, read the damn interview. Basically, it boils down to an engineers vs. scientists debate, the engineer team wants their autistic protocols to be followed every single time, even if there is new research that would take a long time to process. Meanwhile, the scientists want to publish the new research.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

>>8664096
>To you even know what the "decline" refers to?
Yes.

>It refers to the decline in tree ring divergence, it doesn't refer to a decline in global temperatures like all the denier blogs espoused. It refers to proxy temperatures that are derived from tree rings.
It refers to the decline in proxy temperatures derived from tree rings.

In other words, the tree ring proxy was considered reliable up until the moment it stopped showing warming. Then they cut it off. They didn't stop using tree ring data, they just cut off the part that showed cooling rather than warming.

It demonstrates that they were cherry-picking their data to fit a predetermined conclusion, and using willful, conscious deception.

There are many other cases of suspicious behavior (concluding instrumental records are not just unreliable, but reliably "biased" in a certain direction, which always just happens to be the direction that leads to a conclusion of more warming, so they don't need to be thrown away, but they do need to be "adjusted" and then are totally reliable data even though now they're just the guesswork of people with a clear ideological bias), but few where their motives were revealed by leaked internal discussion.

You have to be a complete chimp to believe the excuses they give after they're caught. This is stuff, remember, that they would not have revealed willingly. They were never going to write up in a published paper about how they "hid the decline". The creative excuses for it were invented as a defense when they needed one.

This isn't science.

>>8665071
>Maybe the fact that for the past few years it's been the exact same person making the exact same posts using the same images in every climate science thread? You're not fooling anyone.
Take your meds.

I'm not going to bother talking with someone who's obviously suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

>>8665087
You're better than that lazy ad hominem. Come on now!

Uhm no sweetie you are very wrong dear. 97% of scientists can't be wrong, darling.

>>8665095
>>>Hah! You're being inconsistent! Look at this anonymous post I screen-captured at some time in the past, and where it differs from what you're saying now!
>>I'm not going to waste time responding to schizophrenic ramblings.
>Ad hominem!
Meds. Take them.

>>8665085
The mental gymnastics and refusal to evolve your argument continues. Evidence is presented that contradicts your claims, and you ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, so typical.
Maybe, just maybe if you actually educated yourself on the reasons WHY the tree ring data doesn't correlate from one specific region of the world, while it does for the rest of the tree ring data that is used to construct temperature proxies. Again, it only refers to tree rings in northern latitudes that are effected by the causes I listed above, ozone, UV radiation, global dimming, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem\
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/65.short
http://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/1#ix
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GB004143/abstract

Also see a video here, since apparently you are shit at reading comprehension.
>>8664664


>>8665087
You really can't make it any clearer that you're the same person, the same old "schizo" shitposts you've made in the past. It's funny seeing you backpeddle once you get called out though. Hate to tell you that's "not an argument." At least you know to withdraw from an argument when you realize you've clearly lost it, can only boil down to your same ass copy pasted memes.
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=Take+your+meds.
I guarantee at least 50% of these posts are from you, there's a pattern here.

>>8665101
Man, look at all these useless shitposts, most of them likely by you:
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=take+your+meds

That is just sad and pathetic man, same old copy pasted "arguments" telling your opponent to "take your meds" or calling them a schizo, hilarious. When you are losing you just repeat the same phrases like an autist because you have no argument.

>>8665114
>You really can't make it any clearer that you're the same person, the same old "schizo" shitposts you've made in the past.
>Man, look at all these useless shitposts, most of them likely by you:
>https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=take+your+meds
>same old copy pasted "arguments" telling your opponent to "take your meds" or calling them a schizo, hilarious
This isn't shitposting. You really need to get help.

Seriously, this is disturbed.

>>8665126
Butthurt that you get called out for your samefaggotry? Nice projection by the way.

Reminder that in the past 5 years the rockefellers have gotten out of oil and invested heavily in green.

>>8665156
what does that have to do with anything in this thread?

File: USGS.png (12KB, 1153x113px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1153x113px

https://www.usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release

whoops

>>8665227
>whoops
This has been widely known since the mid-2000s

>>8665163
One thing about green energy is that it's expensive. Another thing about it is that it's largely based on new technology under patent.

There are tremendous private profit opportunities if the market can be driven to buy green before the patents expire and the costs come down. This is a big part of why some very rich people are driving hard for any sort of law that will force people to use green energy tech, even if the actual effect on global CO2 emissions will be negligible, or it will even increase CO2 emissions by driving industry to less regulated countries.

Never stop asking "Who benefits?"

Personally, I'm a lukewarmist/skeptic/geoengineerist. I think the evidence only supports a very small, largely beneficial warming effect of CO2, but we just don't know either way, and we can be more confident of controlling the future climate than predicting its chaotic behavior in the absence of any system of active control. So I don't see a need for green energy tech on AGW grounds.

However, in good locations solar's already cheaper, joule for joule, than coal. And with advancing tech, that cost is going to keep coming down until nothing can compete with it. The power available is staggering: more energy from sunlight falls on the Earth every day than all that released by burning fossil fuels in all of history. This will take over on its own with no pressure from environmentalism or climate alarmism.

>>8665248
What do you think is causing deniers to make up so many blatantly false lies then? If the fossil fuel industry has more to gain from green energy than fossil fuels why all the lying?

>>8665280
>What do you think is causing deniers to make up so many blatantly false lies then?
What do you think is causing alarmists to make up so many blatantly false lies? There are good and bad arguments on both sides, and most of what gets presented to the public is bad arguments, designed to be persuasive rather than fair and complete. If you think one side is all bad faith and deception, and the other side is pure and perfect, that's just your own bias.

>If the fossil fuel industry has more to gain from green energy than fossil fuels
Not all big business is "the fossil fuel industry". Selling oil is one area of business, selling green energy is another. Even within the fossil fuel industry, there are different areas: people who are invested in big conventional oilfields don't want to compete with fracking, tar sands, new exploration, or synthetic fuels, but people with refineries want abundant, cheap raw materials and lots of regulations to prevent other people building new refineries (there's nothing established industry loves like a grandfather clause).

Different people have different market positions, and stand to lose or gain under different circumstances.

In green energy vs. fossil fuels, you'll notice that green energy is pushing more expensive and patent-encumbered options, and a ban on the competition, or other forms of mandatory consumption.

Monied interests overall would be able to extract more from the public for providing the same service, can have more power and wealth, if fossil fuels are banned in favor of these more costly, more thoroughly owned technologies.

>>8665344
The opposite of a denier is someone who accepts the scientific facts, not an alarmist.

>>8665443
don't bother

>>8665443
Give it a rest.

Are you old enough to remember all the predictions that there would be some climate catastrophe by the year 2000, or by 2010, or whenever if we didn't act right away? We've done nothing about emissions and the climate has stayed basically the same for twenty years.

Then there are all the clowns who try to blame every hurricane, drought, and flood on global warming.

Don't try and tell me there hasn't been a chorus of shrieking climate alarmists pouring bullshit in everyone's ears for the last few decades.

When you look at what the real scientists are saying, it's like, "Well, there's a fair possibility that fifty to a hundred years from now, something noticeably inconvenient will have happened... but maybe not..." then the bureaucrats charged with summarizing their findings say, "The world is absolutely doomed unless we take drastic action immediately!" then the data comes in after a decade or two, and the real world has warmed even less than the most conservative models predicted.

Twenty or thirty years ago, they didn't know what was coming in the next two or three decades, and now they don't know what the world will be like in 2037 or 2050. Those are the most important scientific facts for a rational person to accept.

>>8665545
All you do is lie about the science and then try to distract from it by making up strawmen. Your pathetic.

This is disgusting. Republicans are bad people.

>>8665555
>>Are you old enough to remember all the predictions that there would be some climate catastrophe by the year 2000, or by 2010, or whenever if we didn't act right away?
>All you do is lie about the science and then try to distract from it by making up strawmen.
Is that a no?

>Your pathetic.
My pathetic what?

>>8665555
Stop feeding the troll.

Of course they know it's real and the denial is just pretends.
It fits their narrow political agenda to deny the truth so they do it.
At least the deniers on here.

>amerilards hate muslims but live paying for their petrol
makes u think