>Arctic ice loss driven by natural swings, not just manki

>>8749002
>can't see the article
damn

>>8749002
Well duh, environment also plays a role along with human influence. My grandma could've told you that.

>>8749019
>flat earth
reddit

>100% chance is driven by 6%, not just 94%: study

>30-50% is natural
>But in the long term the build-up of man-made greenhouse gases would become an ever more overwhelming factor, he wrote in an e-mail.

>>8749002
>natural swings
centuries
>mankind
decades

when they said CFCs were depleting the Ozone layer. Republicans did something, just in case. they weren't totally convinced but they didn't want to be wrong either.


Now the GOP is completely owned by Exxon and the Coal Mine Owners. They would see us turn into China. Apocalyptic smog clouds blocking out the sun and pollution caused cancer rates skyrocketing.

File: Recline.jpg (29KB, 432x495px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 432x495px

the deniers must be pretty desperate if the best they've got is a paper saying that part of arctic ice loss is caused by natural forcings, even though the rest is anthropogenic.
ah well, they never do know when to quit; if they did, they still wouldn't be repeating a meme that was debunked literally decades ago.

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

124KB, 612x556px

>>8749275

File: desperation.jpg (165KB, 977x1260px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 977x1260px

>>8749280
>>8749275
The definition of insanity. They never change.

File: nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png (529KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1200x900px

>>8749275
The summary is
>"Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979."

Which if referring to specifically Sept 2016 is not saying much seen as we know that last year low was partly consequence of a heat anomaly.

Also behind a paywall.

>>8749301
I found it outside a paywall if you're interested.

Usually if something is paywalled you can find it easily by just googling the paper title.
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Ding_etal_2016_submitted.pdf

>>8749280
>>8749291
>And co2 is a killer! (except for plants of course)
Oh shit, the scicucks have been exposed. /pol/ should do a mass protest where they breath from co2 tanks to prove how benign it is.

>>8749314
CO2, it's got what plant's crave!

>>8749234
but china is all about CO2 reduction remember?

the US is the sole cause of all CO2 production on the planet!

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

927KB, 1300x775px

>>8749291

File: winterstormgoes31317.jpg (119KB, 985x821px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 985x821px

>>8749291
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-noaa-satellites-see-winter-storm-madness-march-to-the-east

File: Look ma, I posted it again!.jpg (150KB, 1106x913px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1106x913px

>>8749331
You're not fooling anyone.

File: Temp change by hemisphere.gif (19KB, 625x474px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 625x474px

>>8749339
Newsflash! It snows in winter! In other news, water is wet! Ignore everything because it snowed! That's it boys, that just about wraps up this whole climate change scam, pack it up, we can all go home now, congratulations! (((Climate Scientists))) Blown the fuck out! REKT! praise kek, hahaha cucks. WARMIST BTFO! Hahaha climate priests religion!

Am I doing it right?

Just conveniently ignore all that pesky thing those (((scientists))) call evidence, it's not real! Fraud!

File: winterrockies.jpg (130KB, 1041x694px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1041x694px

>>8749340
Expedition 50 Flight Engineer Thomas Pesquet of the European Space Agency photographed the Rocky Mountains from his vantage point in low Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station. He shared the image with his social media followers on Jan. 9, 2017, writing, "the Rocky mountains are a step too high – even for the clouds to cross."

>>8749347
its fucking march dude, like its normally warm this type of year anyway yet theres a fucking blizzard and you fuckheads are still talking about global warming

File: winterbarentssea_amo_2017066_lg.jpg (220KB, 1041x810px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1041x810px

>>8749352
Gore told a German audience in 2008 that “the entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.” It’s still there, and some scientists reported the Arctic ice cap getting larger a few years later.

>>8749350
>>8749352
>>8749357
>its fucking october dude, like its normally cold this type of year anyway yet there's a fucking heatwave and you fuckheads are still talking about global cooling
>like
>dude
>this type of year
>can't type a sentence without using "fucking" as an adjective
Like totally man, you tell em! like DUDE it's FUCKING MARCH! I mean COME ON man, like seriously! Get with the program man! dude, come on man like seriously dude. We won, it snowed in march! warmist BTFO XD Al gore said something and wuz wrong XD BTFO!

Yes, wow one "abnormal" season in one year completely disproves all the scientific evidence, nice going! Yep, let's just completely forget the year after year of abnormally warm summers, year after year of glacial retreat, year after year of sea ice decline, year after year of rising ocean temperatures and acidity, record droughts. Like I said, you win, pack up your bags and go home! We know it's a hoax now timmy, there, now you can leave the thread, the adults need to get back to discussing big people things. Bye now!

>>8749360
Like, WOAH oh my ... ahaha! can you *pthhhhhh* believe it? what's happening - get this - what's happening in the real world has no... ahahahahaha... ohoho... e...effect on (whew) on the matter because *sniff* of these (((data charts))) that mr GOLDenstein told me to b...b...bel...believe!
*glomps*

>>8749367
You have to go back my friend, sorry! /sci/ is going to build a wall and >>>/pol/ is going to pay for it!

File: article-2294560-18B90BF5000005DC-894_634x338.jpg (69KB, 634x338px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 634x338px

>>8749360

>>8749375
I don't even have an opinion on this, it's just amusing triggering people

File: climate-consensus-m.gif (32KB, 681x712px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 681x712px

>>8749375
>>8749360

>>8749375
if /sci/ built a wall you SJWtards would be kicked out with your 2 digit IQs lmao

File: yawn.jpg (87KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x531px

>>8749375 (real scientists don't get triggered)
>>8749360

>>8749389
43% of the time, they agree, 95% of the time

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

134KB, 450x312px

>>8749395
There is a wall here friend. A wall of ignorance, and it wasn't built by those questioning fraudulent science.
It was built by those promoting fraudulent science. Whatever their motives might be.

File: horrifying.jpg (412KB, 960x706px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 960x706px

>>8749280
>iposteditagainlol.dll
every time you post it.
every time I tell you that CO2 isn't the limiting factor for plant growth in environments outside of greenhouses. if CO2 WERE the limiting factor, fertilizer would have negligible effects (since more nitrate and phosphate won't help if the plant is starving for carbon).
can't reason a guy out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

>>8749331
>>8749339
>still thinking that more snow = more cold
>still can't tell the difference between cloud cover and snow accumulation in satellite imagery
news flash, genius, clouds and precipitation actually DECLINE when the air is really really cold, since cold air can't hold much moisture. have you ever noticed how it only really snows when it's sorta cold? on bitterly cold days, when it's -20 F, you don't see snow at all in most cases.
increased precipitation is actually a predicted consequence of warming, since warmer tropical waters put more water into the atmosphere through evaporation. if the planet were cooling, we'd be seeing LESS snow falling during winter, but the snow that did fall would stay on the ground longer.

>>8749357
literally copied and pasted from NewsMax.
fun fact: the quote comes not from Al Gore, but from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who attributed it to Gore. the fact that "polar ice cap" is written as "polarized cap" is kind of a dead giveaway. what kind of brainlet types "polarized cap" and thinks "yup, that's an accurate term" anyway?

>>8749384
>>8749395
>triggered /pol/acks
oh dear

File: 0 out of 10.jpg (52KB, 600x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x509px

>>8749400
>Actual Climate Change Pronouncements by Scientists
literally only 1 out of the 10 has any basis in any actual climate change pronouncement by a scientist whatsoever
(care to guess which one?)

File: Capture.jpg (103KB, 1046x946px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1046x946px

>>8749380
>Global warming policy institute
Denier think tank from the UK that does no scientific research, essentially the UK's equivalent of the Heartland Institute, or the George C. Marshall.
>Judith Curry
Curry is a contrarian, but she doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change.
>Piers Forster
He also does not deny anthropogenic climate change, and the quote is again cherrypicked, he has contributed on the IPCC reports by the way.

>>8749389
False. Nice image though, ripped straight from your favorite climate denial sites. How about you link to the actual study, I can do just that:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Many of those surveyed had no peer reviewed published climate science papers, and many weren't even published or published less than two papers (17% respondents). 21.1% described their depth of climate change at 21%. 11.3% said they were engineers, 9% statistics, 8.7% geologists, 8.8% remote sensing, not climate scientists. 388 of the respondents (20% of the sample) have 0-3 published papers relating to climate change. So no, many of those surveyed aren't experts nor were they climate scientists. Surprise that the consensus increases with expertise in the subject.

Another article on the survey:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/

>>8749400
Seems you're the one that often gets "triggered" pal, with the amount of times you have sperged out and posted the same images over and over again in these threads.

>>8749454
Pictures tell more than "climate models" ever could. They tell the truth.
The thing you're most afraid of.

File: Untitled.png (720KB, 890x621px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 890x621px

>>8749275

climate change alarmists have been disregarding the natural aspect until now

it raises an important point - if the processes involved are beyond human control, then it makes little sense for humans to try to stop or mitigate the warming/change occurring

furthermore, there is no credible path to actually mitigate the warming. we've heard these alarm bells for years, and yet the warming continues; not only that, it's accelerating (pic related);

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/10/earths-oceans-are-warming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating

Finally, we're on the eve of World War 3, which will bring "climate change" on a level that dwarfs any of these current estimates

>two secret Soviet programs, "Mercury" and "Volcano", aimed at developing a "tectonic weapon" that could set off earthquakes from great distance

>US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, said..."Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_weapon#Reports

etc.

Also see below for another article by one of the author of the PBL survey in response to climate change deniers skewing the survey's results:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/responses-to-the-climate-science-survey/

>It showed that there is widespread agreement regarding a dominant influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on recent global warming. This agreement is stronger among respondents with more peer-reviewed publications.
>Results from most groups were very close to the IPCC range (1.5-4.5 °C) mentioned in the fifth assessment report (AR5) – except those tagged as ‘unconvinced’ which strongly deviated from the other groups, and to a lesser extent the group of respondents with three or less publications. For all subgroups the ‘best estimate’ was slightly lower than the ‘best estimate’ reported in AR4 (i.e. 3 °C). AR5 provided no best estimate.
>As with the attribution questions (see the ES&T article), there appears to be a trend in responses going from the group with fewest publications to those with most. The more publications about climate change respondents report to have written, the larger fraction of them agree with the IPCC position that the sun hardly played a role in recent global warming, since the solar output decreased slightly over that period.


>>8749462
Great, so you can't actually respond to a single thing I said, nice to know you're inept.

>>8749467
If you were more capable of conversation than a brick wall, perhaps I'd respond to you more often.

You seem to be very triggered because your insults have no effect on me. Maybe it's time to go enjoy a cup of tea, and have your mom tuck you in for the night? Just a suggestion.

>>8749464
You know pal, when your shit thread got deleted twice before, you were probably told to play nice and keep the >>>/x/ and >>>/pol/ crap where it belonged. Of course you didn't listen.

Stop changing the subject, if you want to actually discuss the scientific paper, which I'm sure you didn't lead (see link I provided above)
>>8749311

Also
>Finally, we're on the eve of World War 3
This has nothing to do with the thread topic, it's the same garbage you derailed your last two failed threads with.
>Calls others "climate change alarmists"
>Posts guardian article showing warming is accelerating and is cause for concern
>yet warming continues
You going to continue to contradict yourself?

Basically your entire argument is "We can't do anything so let's just keep on burnin' them fossil fuels like the good ol' boys said ta!"

Also, FYI, that "tectonic weapon" is equivalent to Reagan's "Star Wars" program; ie hypothetical fiction. Literally /x/-tier fanfiction.

>>8749480
blah blah, ad hom, can't respond to the debunking of your garbage images. Stop responding to me if you don't want a discussion.

>>8749327
Except China's emissions are declining thanks to renewable energy. Matter in fact global climate emissions have been flat for 3 years. Renewables, energy efficiency, and energy storage are spreading and getting cheaper.

>>8749498
I've never had a thread deleted off /sci/, not once.

Wrong again. You're skilled at being wrong again. It must be your thing. At least you're good at something.

>>8749002
climate memes belong to >>>/x/
this is a science board

>>8749519
Yes, I'm sure it's a coincidence that you posted this same thread with the same article and the same image THREE TIMES today. Of course the first time you posted it you said something on the lines of "LEFTIST BTFO!" in the OP, then the second time it was a rant against the mods deleting your original thread because you got asshurt.

Needless to say, the threads were deleted and deservedly because it literally devolved into you not talking about the article in question once, but going on a tirade defending /pol/ crossposting on /sci/

>>8749002
>Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979.

>30%-50% is natural

I fucking hate science reporting. """"""Journalist""""""" holocaust when?

>>8749520
Keep telling yourself this is a "science" board.

I'll believe that when I start seeing unprejudiced science here. I won't hold my breath. To many ulterior motives.

>>8749522
go away /x/tard. climate meme roleplaying belongs to your fumb tinfoil board >>>/x/

File: Natural-Trees-around-near-Simple-Way-and-Casual-Kids-Tree-Swings-for-Two-Side-used-Tiny-Rope-for-Hanging-on-near-Natural-Seat-Space-from-Trunk.jpg (588KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1280x960px

>>8749002
I design swings for a living and I can tell you you're wrong. Pic related

>>8749528
>>8749525
>>8749520
>Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization and polarization effect, is a phenomenon in which a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue. It is one of the effects of confirmation bias: the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes. When people encounter ambiguous evidence, this bias can potentially result in each of them interpreting it as in support of their existing attitudes, widening rather than narrowing the disagreement between them.
>The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political "hot button" issues. For most issues, new evidence does not produce a polarization effect. For those issues where polarization is found, mere thinking about the issue, without contemplating new evidence, produces the effect. Social comparison processes have also been invoked as an explanation for the effect, which is increased by settings in which people repeat and validate each other's statements. This apparent tendency is of interest not only to psychologists, but also to sociologists and philosophers.

>>8749532
That's a very nice description of yourself. At least you're aware of your shortcomings.

>>8749538
Always nice to see you incapable of responding in any meaningful way when you are presented with evidence that doesn't confirm your biases.

Projection much?

>>8749538
By the way still awaiting a response to these
>>8749467
>>8749454

Since you originally posted that pie chart, and I presented evidence from the actual study itself, as well as several articles by the author of the study, surely you will respond to them, no?

File: let me Axe (You) a question.png (390KB, 932x817px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 932x817px

>>8749462
>Pictures tell more than "climate models" ever could.
yeah, screw actually studying how a complex system works; let's just look at a picture and see how it makes us feel.
>2017
>being this retarded

>>8749464
>climate change alarmists have been disregarding the natural aspect until now
[citation fucking needed]
>there is no credible path to actually mitigate the warming
Stage 4, nice.

>>8749529
zozzle

>>8749541
Yes, you definitely project a lot. No argument with that.

>>8749547
Another non-response. You're like a little child that parrots what the person he's arguing with says over and over again until the person just gives up and leaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YClAMYTEuZ0
video related: you

That's the difference between you and me, I'm not afraid of anything climate change deniers have to say, I will research your articles, your images, whatever you post and learn the facts, you instead just shy away from them, distract and deflect instead of investigating. It's really just sad honestly to see someone this inept. Every single response is essentially a glorified "NO U!"

>>8749546
When "scientists" resort to terms like "retarded", I know I've won the argument.
Thanks.

>>8749554
No one "wins" arguments with people like you, they just give up and move on with their day because they realize it's futile arguing with a child.

File: whatafuck.png (75KB, 1031x519px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1031x519px

>>8749554
>waaah he called me a mean name
>surely this means my claims are without flaw
would you rather I call you stupid in a more contemporary technical fashion? or will you get equally triggered over that?
also, Danth's Law applies.

>>8749553
>That's the difference between you and me, I'm not afraid of anything climate change deniers have to say, I will research your articles, your images, whatever you post and learn the facts, you instead just shy away from them, distract and deflect instead of investigating. It's really just sad honestly to see someone this inept. Every single response is essentially a glorified "NO U!"

It's you or I... or is basic grade school grammar outside of your field of knowledge? Maybe if you cleared out a little bit of the false science cluttering your mind, you might be able to express yourself at a seventh grade level.

File: typo.png (32KB, 500x385px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x385px

>>8749572

File: dumb shit.jpg (17KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 256x256px

>>8749572
>basic grade school grammar
I really hope this is a troll
because "between you and me" is actually the correct usage

deniers: not just bad at science, but actually bad at everything

>>8749577
I didn't even know that, but I had to look it up:
>In standard English, it's grammatically correct to say 'between you and me' and incorrect to say 'between you and I'. The reason for this is that a preposition such as between should be followed by an objective pronoun (such as me, him, her, and us) rather than a subjective pronoun (such as I, he, she, and we).

kek, this guy keeps blowing himself the fuck out.

Well I see that the lack of response indicates the guy left the thread out of embarrassment. Goodnight lads, it was fun.

>>8749498

there's no /x/ involved in what I wrote. the climate change debate does involve political aspects, including tectonic weapons. those are a matter of public record, see the quote by American Secretary of Defense William Perry.

and it's the main point too; we hear alarmists warning of x cm rise in 50 years? get the fuck out of here, you don't have 50 months

>>8749546

>>there is no credible path to actually mitigate the warming

>Stage 4, nice.

not an argument. what I wrote is true. we've been hearing warnings from scientists and others for years; the climate continues to change, and it's accelerating

one of us is in denial all right..

You people do realize the current level of co2 in the atmosphere is 426ppm right? I do believe that over time human causes might play into "climate change". I just don't see the collective human race accomplishing anything near that within the next 500 years. Using resources at twice or even three times the current levels.
Within the next hundred we'll probably be off fossil fuels anyway, if we all don't blow each other up first.
It's a non issue that's is wasting a lot of time and effort. I'd rather we focused on preventing the asteroid that's heading straight for us eventually, than this.

File: Legend of Doubles.jpg (25KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x375px

>>8749613
holy shit this kind of autism is a little unsettling.
he's doubling down on his objectively incorrect """correction""" by citing a completely unrelated example. in "between X and Y", X and Y are objects, not subjects. therefore, you should be using object pronouns.
when in doubt, try using third-person pronouns; most people have a little better intuitive sense with those. which sounds right: "between he and she" or "between him and her"?

are you the same guy who threw a shit fit in the last thread because I don't capitalize sentences when talking to him, and because someone else wrote:
>(I capitalize.)
and put the period inside the parentheses? (that too is according to convention, by the way.)
I mean, how many people can there be on /sci/ who check all those boxes?
>climate denier
>tries to win arguments by correcting minor errors in grammar and style
>doesn't know basic rules of grammar and style

>>8749627
>not an argument.
Hitchens's Razor applies.
deniers are so dead-set against any corrective action, even once they've conceded that climate change is happening they immediately claim that there's nothing we can do about it (stage 4).
and then when they're presented with the multiple feasible approaches to mitigating climate change and ocean acidification, they move on to stage 5, which is "oh, it's too late now, we'd have had to start twenty years ago".
>what I wrote is true.
Not An Argument™

btw, literally no evidence that a working tectonic weapon was ever designed, tested, or deployed. if there's public record that they exist, cite the document. put up or shut up.
yeesh, and you call US "alarmists".

>>8749645
Here, watch me do something you're incapable of. He wasn't entirely wrong, just technically wrong. His grammar was acceptable in most circles. Sorry I was wrong. There easy.

You should try that sometime, apologizing. It's liberating. I'm not perfect, and neither are you.

You know, climate change deniers don't really think it never happens, they just think that it's a naturally ocurring process, that human interference doesn't really change the outcome, or the speed of the process.

And they're right.

>>8749645

>multiple feasible approaches to mitigating climate change

then why is it not mitigated? why is it, in fact, accelerating?

how "feasible" is your approach if it's not working?

>literally no evidence that a working tectonic weapon was ever designed, tested, or deployed.

>what are classified programs

I trust the US Secretary of Defense was telling the truth.

>>8749681
>then why is it not mitigated? why is it, in fact, accelerating?

>Climate deniers REEEE and prevent anyone from doing anything about climate change because muh oil profits
>No serious action is taken, so nothing changes
>Climate deniers use this as "proof" that nothing can be done

Are you for real?

Hello fellow anons. Havent been here in years. Think I have related information.
Have you ever heard of William Happer? This physicist went on one of Stefan Moleneux's shows a few months ago. He changed my opinion. I'll post the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

>>8749657
And yet they fight tooth and nail to force everyone to do nothing about the biggest threat to humanity, next to nuclear war.

And we don't even need to reach a catastrophe scenario. Extreme weather and seasonal flooding will drive mass migration of the 1/3rd of the human population living near the ocean. The current migrant crisis will be a footnote compared to that.

Increased drought and unusual weather events will dramatically reduce crop yields and disrupt ecosystems we rely on for food.

This shit has the potential to cause the unraveling of human society. And all you want to do is sit back and wring your hands over "well we can't really say it's caused by humans" and no nothing.

>>8749686

it's a far greater picture than that. see industrializing nations like China and India, etc. they're not concerned with the oil lobby, but they also refuse to cap their emissions.

even to the extent you are correct that the oil lobby has blocked action, you're just explaining why I'm right. if there is no political will in the United States, for example, because the oil lobby has blocked action, and Republicans set to control both houses of congress and the Presidency until 2019, then in what world of yours do you see feasible action on climate change anytime soon?

>>8749695
Firstly the notion of China as a nation that doesn't give two shits about emissions is a 15 year old meme. They are starting cap and trade and have been investing huge amounts in noncarbon energy. They have 36 operating nuclear reactors and are building more. Surprisingly China has become the voice of reason on climate with the US spinning off into oblivion.

India and other developing countries are different because they have to balance international pressure to curb emissions with the knowledge that increasing their energy per capita can have a direct effect on the quality of life of their citizens.

Feasible action on climate will happen when the Republican party stops doing everything they can to stop it.

Look at the Paris agreement. The intent of that conference was to come out with a real commitments and verifiable action on climate change. But the Republican congress flatly refused to accept any binding agreements on climate. This torpedoed the entire conference, and what came out of it was a weak, loose agreement.

So they tried again in Marrakech, with the World Meteorological Organization presenting a current assessment of the climate. On the second day of the conference, Trump was elected. All talks basically stopped there. Trump's election raised the question of whether or not it would be possible to carry forward a global effort to deal with the problem of environmental catastrophe if the leader of the most powerful country in the world would pull out of the agreement completely. As this was his stated goal of the president-elect who believes climate change is a hoax and whose policy is to maximize the use of fossil fuels, end environmental regulations and dismantle the EPA.

Food wont be a problem for quite a while. As an American, I can comfortably state we live in excess. Tons of food is wasted a year.
My great uncle owns a rice farm in Arkansas. It's unimaginable how far that single farm stretches. That is just one persons farm. We have more politicians involved in farming than actual farmers. If we needed more, we would have more.
As for the "lack of water" argument, we just watch California "borrow" water for years. I think we could stop watering our lawn, which use more water than farming, to "lend" it to these emergency farmers.
The possibility of "Interstellar" happening are highly unlikely. You should worry about your waistline instead of food shortages,

>>8749002
The paper says roughly 30-50% are from natural shifts. That leaves the other 50-70% manmade influenced.

Either way, the change is coming and building a better infrastructure that promotes self-sufficiency of a country is better compared to simply depending on oil/coal as its hazardous to health.

>>8749717

they are investing in noncarbon energy, but they've only pledged to cap emissions by 2030. that's a long way away.

also, note that a "voice" of reason is just that. talk is cheap.

>Feasible action on climate will happen when the Republican party stops doing everything they can to stop it.

well, again, you're looking at 2021 before another Democrat is possibly in the White House. meanwhile, the earth continues to warm

>The intent of that conference was to come out with a real commitments and verifiable action on climate change.

"verifiable action" is not entirely accurate either. you're talking about nations self-reporting. figures are manipulated all the time, especially in highly centralized, controlled economies like China

you keep blaming Republicans but that is just one variable in this equation

I agree with much of your explanation, but it still gets you to the same place - no feasible action for the foreseeable future.

>>8749725
How much do you think the Earth is going to warm in 5 years?

>>8749139
Basically proves that a majority of the recent warming is manmade.

>>8749400
What is this supposed to prove?

File: total-energy-used-by-u-s-farms.jpg (75KB, 761x589px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 761x589px

>>8749718
Supermarket shelves stuffed to the rafters with assorted derivatives of high fructose corn syrup is the illusion of food security.

>>8750058
That these guys don't have any actual arguments and are just here to shitpost.

>>8750197
Not him, but I can see where they're coming from. There are people in this thread that are unironically saying that looking at a picture that shows snow is the "truth" that debunks the theory of climate change. Believe it or not, there IS a threshold to how much bullshit a scientist is willing to tolerate and respond to. If some people are simply ignoring a theory by pointing at a picture, what should the other person do? Reason with him?

>>8750197
The argument is that the story keeps changing to fit the political purpose of the time. The political purpose now is to prevent third world countries from developing the means to be self sufficient, or even prosperous.
While you sit on your high horses, millions of children in Africa lose any hope of a happier future. Many will just die. It's not just Africa. It's anywhere that doesn't have the infrastructure already in place, to be immune to the current globalist agenda.
It's inhumane. It's unnecessary. It's wrong. How will you feel when they start taxing you for breathing? That's coming in the near future as well.

>>8750240
Your "story" is a false narrative made out of thin air, starting with the global cooling meme. Please, don't make us go through this bullshit we've been through 20+ times in previous threads again.

>>8750220
Pointing at several pictures that have only recently become available. Interesting that we never have an actual satellite picture top down over the North and South Poles.
Considering the "dire" position humanity is in, you'd think pictures like that would be common for "scientific" study.

File: Global_Cooling_11.gif (91KB, 509x340px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 509x340px

>>8750245
Oh yes... that meme made out of thin air.

File: global warming survival guide.jpg (48KB, 400x538px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x538px

>>8750255
Yes, it is. By the way, that Time Magazine article is a fake, and you made yourself look really stupid by posting it. Embarrassing.
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
See, that image on the left is not from 1077, it's from a story from 2007, and the text has been edited. Nice job just believing whatever you see posted on some shitty blog though, really makes you look like a dumb plebeian.

Let's start with an actual study on the published papers in climate science at the time, and what they thought was occurring with the Earth's climate. Spoilers, the vast majority did not believe it was "cooling." When you want to find out what scientists were thinking during a certain time period, you should look at the peer-reviewed published studies, not newspaper / magazine articles.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Before you even bring up the newsweek article, here's an article by the author himself about the article being used by deniers.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong

You see, you're cute little comic is just that, a shitty comic that isn't based in reality, and clearly uses the term "scientist" very loosely. If you want to know what scientists were thinking at a given time, I again suggest you take a look into the literature, not newspaper or magazine articles.

Oh, and finally, if you're the same sperg who always posts that "notrickzone" link with "278 papers" that aren't actually scientific papers, don't bother, because I'm not going to go through how wrong that garbage blog post is again.

>>8750240
Wow you are an optimistic one.
People in the third world are not paying the carbon taxes because they can't. The middle class of the first world is the target of carbon taxation, a weird sort of new age hybrid luxury-sin tax, because fossil fuels are evil and first world living is a luxury granted by the state not a right.

If I wanted to rule the world driving the entire population of earth into energy poverty would be the first step, starting with that annoying privileged middle class.

File: duwang.jpg (48KB, 383x750px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 383x750px

>>8749655
>He wasn't entirely wrong, just technically wrong. His grammar was acceptable in most circles.
And I wouldn't have cared except he was """"correcting"""" someone else's grammar. If you're gonna call out picayune errors, they better actually be errors or you're just looking like a moron.
>You should try that sometime, apologizing.
niBBa I'll apologize when I'm actually wrong about something, not when I hurt some anon's feelings on a Jivaroan head-shrinking imageboard.

>>8749681
>hurr if something can be done about it why isn't anything being done about it?
because deniers have enough political clout to stop shit from getting done, like >>8749686 said.
there have been some advances made recently (Paris etc) but they haven't had time yet to really take effect

>>8749691
>William Happer
literally offered to write a pro-CO2 piece in exchange for money, fake a peer-review process, and conceal the source of the funding.
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
actual corporate whore

>>8749695
>conflating technical feasibility with political feasibility

>>8750240
>hey, let's claim that climate scientists said a bunch of different shit that they never actually said
>therefore the story keeps changing!
you can """"prove"""" ANYTHING if you're willing to just make shit up!

>>8750297
holy shit, absolutely BTFO
is there anything more gullible than a climate change denier?

>>8750112
Dude....its fucking rice... there's no corn in rice...
If you look at a map of population density in America, then you would see that we have plenty of room to expand our feudal style rice farms...
Yes, it isnt ideal, but we are apparently on the brink of growing meat.

>>8750605
Paris France? They wont get anything done for quite some time. They have a terror attack every day. They are too busy with their own issues to try and fix the world. I know when I have a problem, I look to France to fix it :p

>>8749693
Do you want to reverse the natural course of weather around the epochs in our planet?

If it's not manmade, it's just the natural process the Earth takes and we don't know the dangers or consecuences of altering it.

>>8750605
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

OH NO HE WANTED TO MAKE MONEY! SUCH A BAD MAN! It says he stands behind his statements. He believes what he wrote. Maybe he wanted to make money doing what he believes??? Just a thought.
If you read any of his papers, or preferably watch any of his videos on youtube, because the papers are a little boring, then you might know why he believes what he believes.

nice, nvm the clean energy stuff guys

>>8750720
Im all about that nuclear

>>8750715
Believes? Is he a denial priest? Typical denier cult follower priest, nothing but a religion!

People like yourself are nothing more than massive hypocrites. Could you imagine what narrative you would be pushing if a legitimate climate scientist had emails leaked showing him willing to accept a monetary payment to write a paper for a renewable energy corporation? People like yourself would never, EVER let it go, it would validate your shitty denialism and confirm your biases.

You are nothing more than a pathetic wretch that will never admit he has made a mistake, or has been wrong. So fucking sad.

Happer is also a paid shill for the George C. Marshall Institute by the way, an organization that has received millions in funding from companies like Exxonmobil in the past and other fossil fuel interests. He's also a member at the british GWPF, another "think tank" that does no scientific research and spreads propaganda and misinformation.

https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
>William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. In a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide, Peabody Energy paid him $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition.
>In a 2015 undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the funding sources could be similarly concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition.

You will defend this because YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE, accept it and move on, stop making double standards for yourself.

By the way, Happer is not a climatologist / climate scientist by training, he's an atomic physicist, and sadly that field doesn't really have any overlap with the earth sciences / climatology. It's just sad that all the "experts" that are cited so widely by denialists are almost always not experts in climatology itself.
He's simply a contrarian that like many of the other contrarians has links to the fossil fuel industry.

Here's also a rebuttal to Happer's "The Truth About Greenhouse Gases," in which Happer basically summarized his views. An actual climate scientist (Michael MacCracken) reviewed his summary point by point and responded to every claim that Happer made:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf

Stop going through mental gymnastics to defend anything retarded your denier pals say, maybe if you actually opened yourself to valid criticism of their "ideas" you would gain some respect here.

>>8750734
I can do that too ya know
"Classic libtard. Cant make a legitimate argument so they just make false accusations and attack someones character. Next you are going to call me a racist and a biggot. You are just some SJW autistic fuck." See? Its stupid and pointless. Doesnt change the way you think about climate change.

Im sure we agree on many things, like I am pro green energy. Gas will run out eventually, and battery technology is currently moving at a snails pace. I just dont think climate change is as big a deal as you.

Look, im new to /pol/, but im assuming most people act in a similar fashion to you. This has made you defensive, but before attacking someones character for no reason, in a place where nobody cares, try opening your mind to others opinions and logic.
Logic such as:
A man devoted his life to some research. We live in a day and age where people treat climate change as a religion. This man's research goes against what most people accept. This man needs currency to exchange for goods. He is getting paid decent money to talk about his research. He talks about said research.

>>8750750
Oh, you're the guy that got blown out earlier in the thread when you tried to correct my grammar, and still hasn't responded to a single thing I posted earlier in the thread. Funny how you also deleted your post once you realized how wrong you were, so fucking sad.
>but before attacking someones character for no reason
>no reason
>try opening your mind to others opinions and logic.
Hmmm. Sounds like you're a "priest" for a religion trying to tell me to "open my mind" to a religious belief. Guess what pal, your "logic" is garbage, it makes no sense to defend Happer in this situation. Real, true skeptics would be criticizing Happer and telling him to change his behavior and that it's not acceptable because it is a massive conflict of interest. Good science needs to be objective and based in evidence, Happer writing a paper for a fossil fuel company is NOT objective and is not science.

>A man devoted his life to some research. We live in a day and age where people treat climate change as a religion. This man's research goes against what most people accept. This man needs currency to exchange for goods. He is getting paid decent money to talk about his research. He talks about said research.

Ironic considering your previous statements. You treat climate change denial as a religion in which you won't ever criticize the "good old boys" on your side when they are wrong. It's clearly a belief system to yourself because despite all the evidence presented, you ignore it in favor of people like Happer, who aren't experts and aren't credible sources on the subject.

I say again, stop making double standards for the people you like, hold everyone to the same degree of accountability. If you have a fossil fuel corporation willing to provide monetary funding to a climate change denier to write them a statement on climate change, that is a conflict of interest, you cannot defend this, but of course you manage to wind up the mental gymnastics to do just that.

>>8750776
can you read? I said im new. This means I wasn't here before.

>>8749267
Oh vey You're killing the planet. Goy.
Change your life stile goy, take more refuges.

>>8750776
Who am I setting a double standard for? Happer? He's not an idiot, thus its a double standard. I havent insulted anyone on the opposing side. They have viable information, but a lot of the data has been falsified and skewed to show what they want to show. If Happer is guilty, then so is... idk John Cook, Peter Doran, etc. The only difference is they are taking money from big government. There are more politicians involved than scientists.
Is the government really all knowing and malevolent? Do you trust them with your life? Do you accept everything the governemt says with blind faith? If not, then its okay to be a little skeptical, which is what I am, a LITTLE skeptical.
So quit flipping shit, put on your big boy pants, and debate like a man. You are sounding like an angry feminist.

>>8750750
>This man's research goes against what most people accept
Happer has published next to nothing on climate science, and the only things he's ever published on the subject have no citations (because they are irrelevant) and have been rebutted by actual climate scientists, such as this paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068837/full
He is not a climate scientist, rather an atomic physicist as I already said above. His matters / views on the issue are about as worthless as anyone else who doesn't specialize in the field.

Stop treating it as if his opinion on a topic in which he is not an expert matters in the slightest. He has contributed nothing at all to our understanding of the dynamics of climate, nothing.

As I said, if you want to actually understand why Happer is wrong, read the response by an actual climatologist, Michael MacCracken, that I posted above. He goes through Happer's arguments point by point, stating what happer said and then responding.

>Do you accept everything the governemt says with blind faith?
Everything you write is nothing more than vague conspiracy crap. Do you really consider researchers that work for NOAA, NASA, Scripps, NICDC, or GISS to be the "government?" They are scientists and researchers too. Let me guess, you're trying to take the old tired, lolbertarian stance that because they are technically employed by the gubmint that it's a conflict of interest too?

>If not, then its okay to be a little skeptical, which is what I am, a LITTLE skeptical.
People that cite Happer as a credible source aren't "a LITTLE skeptical," they are full blown denialists. Happer's views have been discredited time and time again by legitimate climate scientists.

>>8750801
>If Happer is guilty, then so is... idk John Cook, Peter Doran, etc.
John Cook is not a climate scientist, neither is Peter Doran, and again, their views on the matter don't really mean much, but Cook at least cites scientific literature on his website to back up his arguments.
>The only difference is they are taking money from big government.
>only difference
Delusion, plain and simple. This is a complete false equivalency. Taking money to write a paper from a certain viewpoint from a fossil fuel company is completely different from working for a governmental organization that pays you a paycheck for publishing research. NOAA doesn't say "hehehe, here (((climate scientists))) good goys, publish research that us (((globalists))) want you to do push our agenda!"

If you honestly believe that's how it goes down, maybe you should do a little more research on how government grants work, and how employees of organizations like the EPA / NOAA / NASA do research. Hell, you can contact most climate scientists themselves and they would be more than happy to explain what their jobs are and how they publish. Stop with your evidence-less big gubmint conspiracy angle, it's not credible.

>There are more politicians involved than scientists.
Politicians don't publish research. Politicians don't collect and interpret the data, the fact that you're bringing politicians into a discussion about actual scientists shows you're just talking out your ass. What a politician thinks and says about climate change is worthless, the only thing that matters is the EVIDENCE.

>Is the government really all knowing and malevolent? Do you trust them with your life? Do you accept everything the governemt says with blind faith?
Red herring.

>So quit flipping shit, put on your big boy pants, and debate like a man. You are sounding like an angry feminist.
Ad hom.

How many of you get paid to post by George Soros, or are receiving money from other sources for the things you post? Be honest.

I couldn't imagine someone wasting this much time in their life for free.
>I'm talking to you green text guy.

>>8750879
I'm going to let you in on a secret. That was never really a thing. /pol/ just imagined it in their desperate search of a dragon to slay to make them feel like they are relevant. It's like Don Quixote jousting with windmills that he imagines are giants. People aren't paid to post stuff, they're just doing it because they have an emotional investment in the subject. Take /pol/ for example. They're not paid, they just shitpost because they're emotionally invested in their particular political ideology, and that informs everything that they do. Climate change? They deny it, because their politics demands that they deny it. On /sci/, the subject matter is science, and that is what people who come here tend to be passionate about. So when /pol/ leaks and spawns their daily climate change denial thread, there are people here who are emotionally invested enough to be annoyed by the fact that some dumbass from /pol/ is spewing garbage. Doubly so considering that /pol/'s beliefs on climate change are not rooted in science and indeed have nothing to do with science, instead /pol/ denies climate change because their politics demand it, not because of any actual facts.

>>8750879
i lol'd

>>8750852
I've been keeping it short and simple because I wanted to make it easy for you to understand. I can give grossly oversimplified examples if you would like. "The world was warmer at one point in time. There used to be way more carbon dioxide in the air. Plants use carbon dioxide." Do my oversimplified and unspecific statements upset you? Will you put them in green text? You have put more words in my mouth than I have said. This message board is supposed to be full of people discussing science, not petty children insulting others.

All joking aside, I do agree that humans have had an impact on the climate. We aren't going to die though. We are trying to fix our problem while also keeping our standard of living. If we immediately stopped burning fossil fuels what do you think would happen to our infrastructure?

People tend to do their own research. Being self taught is a lot cheaper than getting a degree, and you can get just about as much out of it. If someone is a doctor, and has a degree in some high level science, then im sure they know more than the average person. They probably know more than you or me on this kind of thing.
That being said, you are being hypocritical giving Cook a pass, but not Happer. Why are Cook and Doran publishing a "consensus on human-caused global warming," if they have no credible knowledge? Why are they held with such high regards?

Briefly touching on what I said about the government research...just google stupid government research. Here are some of the first examples:

Being homeless is bad for your health

$331,000 To Study Whether “Hangry” Spouses Are More Likely To Stab Voodoo Dolls

Scientists Discover a Difference Between the Sexes. I wonder how much this one costs...

Get up and stretch a bit. Take some deep breaths. Post some links too. I'm not this close minded douche you think I am. I will read them if they arent too long :p

>>8750968
>All joking aside, I do agree that humans have had an impact on the climate. We aren't going to die though. We are trying to fix our problem while also keeping our standard of living. If we immediately stopped burning fossil fuels what do you think would happen to our infrastructure?
Who the hell has been arguing that, especially on this board. You're attacking a strawman.
>People tend to do their own research. Being self taught is a lot cheaper than getting a degree, and you can get just about as much out of it. If someone is a doctor, and has a degree in some high level science, then im sure they know more than the average person. They probably know more than you or me on this kind of thing.
You are contradicting yourself. You claim that being self taught is just as good but then say that the doctor with a degree in a high level science knows more than the rest.
>That being said, you are being hypocritical giving Cook a pass, but not Happer. Why are Cook and Doran publishing a "consensus on human-caused global warming," if they have no credible knowledge? Why are they held with such high regards?
The post did not give John Cook a pass, it said that he is not a climate scientist and said that his views do not mean much. The only thing it did say is that Cook cites scientific literature so that means that he is far easier to fact check.
>Being homeless is bad for your health
The links google gave me didn't give any links to actual scientific papers.
>$331,000 To Study Whether “Hangry” Spouses Are More Likely To Stab Voodoo Dolls
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/17/6254.abstract
They used whether someone stabbed an effigy to measure their aggression. Far from 'stupid'.
>Scientists Discover a Difference Between the Sexes.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/32/11252.short
Examining the molecular signaling of inhibitory synapses in the hippocampus is far from 'stupid government research'.

You glanced at some headlines and did not bother to check sources.

>>8751012
> Who the hell has been arguing that, especially on this board. You're attacking a strawman.
That's what alarmists have been saying the whole time. It's pretty much just "Repent or else! Abandon your sinful first world middle class standard of living and live like poor and virtuous third worlders! Mother nature demands it!"

The fact is that giving up fossil fuels just because of climate change hysteria is unnecessary. You aren't thinking rationally about this. In reality, CO2 is not particularly harmful overall and in the few instances where it is, geoengineering can solve that. Rushing to throw away fossil fuels and the technological progress that comes from having a modern civilization is a knee jerk reaction. Grow up already, the world isn't going to be destroyed. If you can't talk about this calmly and reasonably, what are you doing on a science board?

File: Dr House gets lost.jpg (184KB, 966x620px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 966x620px

>>8750750
>>8750780
>im new to /pol/
>im new
>/pol/

File: papaya.jpg (80KB, 680x554px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 680x554px

>>8750879
who are you quoting?

>>8750801
>The only difference is they are taking money from big government.
>"here, we're gonna give you some emone to study the circulation of the atmosphere"
>"here, we're gonna give you some emone to write a paper supporting our opinions"
totally the same exact thing!

>>8751079
>That's what alarmists have been saying the whole time. It's pretty much just "Repent or else! Abandon your sinful first world middle class standard of living and live like poor and virtuous third worlders! Mother nature demands it!"
>no, it's not a strawman! you guys are TOTALLY ACTUALLY SAYING THAT!
literally the only ones saying that on /sci/ are /pol/esmokers allegedly quoting """"""""alarmists""""""""

>CO2 is not particularly harmful overall and in the few instances where it is, geoengineering can solve that.
>t. guy who has no actual background whatsoever in geoscience
I'd love to hear your plan to mitigate ocean acidification, since you think you know so much :^)

>>8751079
>That's what alarmists have been saying the whole time.
No it isn't. It's what deniers have been accusing everyone else of saying.

>It's pretty much just "Repent or else! Abandon your sinful first world middle class standard of living and live like poor and virtuous third worlders! Mother nature demands it!"
You're just making shit up now.

>The fact is that giving up fossil fuels just because of climate change hysteria is unnecessary.
You saying it doesn't make it a fact. Basically every credible scientific organisation has said that massive reductions (not "giving up") in fossil fuel consumption are nessisary to avoid catastrophic warming.

>You aren't thinking rationally about this.
You're a fuckface.

>In reality, CO2 is not particularly harmful overall
The research says otherwise.

>in the few instances where it is, geoengineering can solve that
The research says otherwise.

> Rushing to throw away fossil fuels and the technological progress that comes from having a modern civilization is a knee jerk reaction
No-one is advocating that. Stop making shit up,

>Grow up already
You're still a fuckface.

>the world isn't going to be destroyed
No-one is saying that either. PLEASE stop making shit up,

>If you can't talk about this calmly and reasonably, what are you doing on a science board?
Fuckface.

>>8751079. except we cant solve it with geo engineering. and as said before the migration crisis from anyne living within two feet of sea level would actually cause wars. and climate change is increasing exponentially, so when it affects us ts gona be too late. people are rushing to replace the technological process and fossil fuels rather than throw them away

Lol the posts were getting to long for me to read but from what I could tell this thread went from a normal conversation about the relationship between carbon dioxide and the atmosphere, chemicals, physics, math, data, hard science, HARD SCIENCE to the regular ""CLIMATE CHANGE IS FALSE""

""You illiterate imbecile I am very educated I am good at math""

""NO U""

""NO U""

I'm sick of these threads, we know climate change is real, whats the extent? what are the consequences? we are not sure, BUT I AM SURE WE SHOULD NOT REACH CONCLUSIONS, and obviously everyone on this thread has, I encourage everyone to take a step back, read some published papers, not Reuters, anyway just venting but whatever just read more and become informed thats what I did and even I havent reach conclusions yet

File: welcome to Reddit.png (224KB, 2078x1614px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 2078x1614px

why is the mod deleting so many posts?

why is the mod only deleting posts from one side of the debate?

really makes you think

are you that insecure?

>>8750297
>>8750605

there's a ton of evidence that the scientific establishment was pushing global cooling alarmism in the 70s

>Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9906E2DC1239E63BBC4951DFB366838E669EDE

>Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age

>That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/147902052.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=&type=historic&date=washingtonpost+%2C+&author=Washington+Post+Staff+Writer%3B+By+David+R.+Boldt&pub=The+Washington+Post%2C+Times+Herald+%281959-1973%29&desc=Colder+Winters+Held+Dawn+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=top_retrieves

>Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself?

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/doc/156307805.html

>Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/367059183.html

>Ice Age Around the Corner

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/doc/169112390.html

etc

there are dozens of articles along the same thing, all prompted by the scientific establishment;

>The Coming Ice Age

http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation

>>8751346
>>8751346
>>8751346

THIS

why is the /sci/ mod such a fucking pussy??

>>8750605

political feasibility is technical feasibility

technique is not done if the will is not there, as we see now

you're just wrong

ww3 is coming far sooner than some mythical time when the political and economic forces align to actually do something substantive about climate change

you're in denial

>>8751354
>>8751357
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
A myth made by sensationalist media rather than being based on anything that climatologists said.

>>8751354
>NYT
>Washingtonpost
>LAtimes
>BostonGlobe
>Chicagotribune

None of these things are scientific journals.

>>8751346
> user on /pol/
> shits all over themself
> watches everyone else shit all over themself
> thinks this is normal
> /pol/tard comes into /sci/
> shits all over himself
> suddenly banned
> wonders why
cuz offtopic shit posts get banned.
None of those posts deleted have anything to do with science.

Post some journal articles, get banned and complain and you'll have a leg to stand on.

>>8751429
>>8751431

wrong, those articles all quoted university and other professional scientists, scientific studies, etc., just like the alarmist articles do today

you clearly didn't click on any of them

#DENIAL

>>8751433

#1, some of those posts were 100% on topic. the mod and the pussy redditors didn't like that their feewings got hurt, they had no counter-argument, so they resort to what pussies resort to. stick your heads in the sand

meanwhile, this thread is full of political posts by climate change alarmists, but those don't get deleted, fucking hypocrite

and this board currently has a thread on "does god exist" nearing 100 posts, nothing whatsoever to do with science or math

fucking hypocrite

>>8751437
>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9906E2DC1239E63BBC4951DFB366838E669EDE
>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/147902052.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=&type=historic&date=washingtonpost+%2C+&author=Washington+Post+Staff+Writer%3B+By+David+R.+Boldt&pub=The+Washington+Post%2C+Times+Herald+%281959-1973%29&desc=Colder+Winters+Held+Dawn+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=top_retrieves
>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/doc/156307805.html
>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/367059183.html
>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/doc/169112390.html
All of these are behind a paywall so I don't know which ones they cite, but even so, they would still be citing a minority of papers as demonstrated by my American Meteorological Society source.
>http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/
>http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation
And these sources don't even link to scientific papers.

File: Myth of 1970s Global Cooling Consensus.png (243KB, 802x1176px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 802x1176px

>>8751437
All locked behind paywalls, I'd read them if I could, but it's pointless. Even if there was a few scientists espousing global cooling, the majority of scientists working / publishing during that time frame in the climate sciences were not, see this:
>>8750297

Literally the first line from your NYT article, the only line I can read because of paywall:
>The world's climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.
>subjects of deepening debate.


>>8751357
>citing WUWT
Was waiting for you guys to start doing this, hilarious.

>>8751442
>No.8749019
>No.8749053
>No.8749057
>No.8749067
Shitposts promoting a flat Earth.
>No.8749613
Pedantic nitpicking involving someones grammar.
>No.8749705
Doesn't stop /pol/tards from accusing people of being shills.
>No.8749726
This one isn't even from your side. Fucks with your narrative doesn't it?
>No.8749726
Shilling accusations.
>No.8749735
>No.8749740
Completely off-topic.

>>8751462
>>8751463

they link to scientists at major universities; you can find their studies if you were intellectually curious

>DURR NO THE MEDIA WAS ALL LYING IN THE 1970s BUT THEY'RE TELLING THE TRUTH NOW

this is how you sound

#DENIAL

>>8751499
Neither of the posts said that the media is telling the truth now. And I gave a source that compiled scientific publications to show that the source of the global cooling myth isn't from climatologists.

>>8751492

>Completely off-topic.

no they weren't. ww3 will bring massive climate change. it is absolutely relevant, you just don't like the conclusions because it btfo's your narrative

>This one isn't even from your side.

the mod was hiding his work. he deleted posts responding to deleted posts so people wouldn't notice that all these posts were being deleted

that mod is a coward fucking pussy on multiple levels

>Doesn't stop /pol/tards from accusing people of being shills.

and yet, this thread is full of political attacks on the other side, and they stay up. currently there is an entire post, nearing 100 replies, attacking Americans and deniers, and it stays up

>>8748082

it's not the politics. it's not accusing people of being shills. it's political opportunism and hypocrisy

just a bunch of pussy hypocrites

back to ribbit, you don't belong on this site

>>8751492
>Pedantic nitpicking involving someones grammar.

wow it's fucking nothing

and note that semantic posts attacking deniers were left up

>>8749577
>>8749580

more hypocrisy

you're disproving your own points; there's a record of posts in this thread; you should actually read it first to save yourself further embarrassment

>>8751499
Again, the media is not the scientific establishment. I don't know if you're autistic or you have some kind of cognitive disorder, but we require you post working links to full text if you want us to read the articles and find the sources / scientists that they are citing. Otherwise, your posts are meaningless. Post working links not behind a paywall or leave.

Again, I suggest you actually read the study that examined the scientific literature published by climate scientists at the time, showing that discussion of a global cooling trend in the literature was marginal at best, with the predominant focus being on global warming. Look at the chart I posted, from 1965 to 1979 there were 7 cooling papers, 20 that made no opinion on the trend, and 44 promoting a warming trend. Warming papers received 2043 citations, while cooling only received 325, neutral papers received 424. That seems like most scientists reading other's work at the time were definitely more interested in global warming, not cooling.

Let's say one of those authors publishes a paper on global cooling, and the media picks it up. Much like the media is known to do, they will publish a story exacerbating it claiming a "new ice age" is coming or something like that, citing a single scientist as evidence that all scientists think this way. That's likely what occurred, but again, we require you post working links so that I can examine the full article and see who they are citing / what study they are citing to know.

You're clearly not here for a rational discussion, so what is your purpose in these threads? Are you just here to argue, or are you willing to have a rational, evidence-based discussion in which you examine your opponents argument and actually respond / critique it?

File: CENA.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>8751416
>political feasibility is technical feasibility
this is simply not true, you fucking imbecile.
ever heard of Operation Plowshare? perfect example there of something that's technically feasible, just not politically feasible. the science was there, but public concerns stymied any application of the technology (beyond early tests).
>MUH WWIII BOOGEYMAN
fucking millennialists like you have been predicting the end of the world for literally centuries (there was a big pulse of it in Asia ~400 years ago because of 1000 AH) and you have been wrong every single time. off to >>>/x/ you go.

>>8751433
does anyone have the greentext story talking about people on /pol/ shitting in bathtubs, repeating the behavior when they come to /sci/, and being perplexed by how people here don't believe them when they say they're not from /pol/?

>>8751499
>they link to scientists at major universities; you can find their studies if you were intellectually curious
that you still think we care more about a soundbite than a peer-reviewed paper demonstrates just how little you understand about how science works.

File: pol crossposting.png (73KB, 1056x869px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1056x869px

>>8751540
Was it this one?

>>8751499
>DURR NO THE MEDIA WAS ALL LYING IN THE 1970s BUT THEY'RE TELLING THE TRUTH NOW
The media is not a source of information about evidence for climate change, the scientific literature is. I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you, but the media's opinions on climate change / climate science don't really amount to anything when it comes to our understanding on the phenomenon. Only the evidence published in the scientific literature matters, the research, the observations, all the data collected points to a continuing warming trend well into the next few centuries.
If you're relying on the media as your primary source of information on climate change, you should consider changing your sources. Read scientific literature, read sources of information that aren't biased and are relevant to the research.

File: darling.png (270KB, 440x395px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 440x395px

>>8751505
>ww3 will bring massive climate change. it is absolutely relevant
except that your /x/-tier yammering about MUH WWIII and MUH TECTONIC WEAPONS isn't based in reality. an invasion of ayylmaos would also have big implications for climate policy, but that doesn't make it relevant for you to tell us about how you think they probed you.
get back in your >>>/x/-wing and get out of here.

>the mod was hiding his work. he deleted posts responding to deleted posts so people wouldn't notice that all these posts were being deleted
my post >>8749645 replied to the deleted post sperging out (incorrectly) about grammar, and it's still up.

also, please refer to Rule 9 of the Internet before you get your panties in a twist again.

File: three little boards.png (132KB, 1229x581px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1229x581px

>>8751547
nah, it was a screencap of an actual greentext story...fuck, wish I'd saved it.
thanks though, saving that one for future use.

File: why we hate pol.png (78KB, 1306x354px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1306x354px

>>8751547
>>8751570
Why be stingy? Take another!

File: 1476559568693.jpg (108KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x600px

>>8751570
>>8751578
In that case, I'll dump what I have.

File: pol leaves containment.png (115KB, 356x438px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 356x438px

>>8751586

File: Removing polack.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>8751591
And this is the last one.

File: Hey stormfront.jpg (154KB, 500x678px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 500x678px

>>8751586
ooh nice

>>8751529

the media is citing them. you can verify that for yourself. do you expect us to believe the media lying? lying then but not now? kek, be honest

>>8751540
>this is simply not true, you fucking imbecile.

yes it is. the thing speaks for itself. you can't just do something because you want it done. governments must be involved and the governments won't. economies must be involved, and what you're suggesting isn't viable

stay mad

stay retarded

>>8751550

again, the media cites the sources, just like they do in the OP of this post. it's easily verifiable. quit playing dumb

>>8751565

it's not /x/ tier. those warnings are coming from US government and other official sources, and credible media reports from orgs like the AP;

>>>/pol/116341555
>>>/pol/116341579
>>>/pol/116341600
>>>/pol/116341622
>>>/pol/116341637
>>>/pol/116341660

educate yourselves before it's too late

ummmmmmmmm... triggered?

True colours shining through. Btw, I'm not the Anon you've been battling all night. Also, I think you need to switch to decaf.

File: pol needs lebensraum.png (143KB, 1906x308px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1906x308px

>>8751597

>>8751607

I gotta run /sci/, it's been fun

protip, don't be a hypocrite. don't be a pussy

>truth is a woman who only loves warriors

goodnight!

>>8751613
Aka, you're losing the argument so you come up with an excuse for your embarrassment yet again. Good riddance.

>>8751612
When you have cancer, the treatment in not to remove all the cells surrounding the cancer and give it room to grow. If /pol/luters are complaining about threads dying too quickly then they should try to get extra pages in their board rather than shitpost the rest of the boards.

In other news, countries update their military. What a fucking retard.

>>8751624
> they should try to get extra pages in their board rather than shitpost the rest of the boards
If the secondary boards are slow and don't get much done, what's the difference between these? /sci/ only needs a few pages, so that's at least five more pages that /pol/ can use.

>>8751646
Because it'll never stop at 5 pages, that's already half the threads which is a lot to demand but unless /pol/ is willing to institute a quota for their threads and rigorously enforce it, the on-topic threads will quickly be crowded out by /pol/lution.

File: [citation needed].jpg (416KB, 2259x2822px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 2259x2822px

>>8751607
>do you expect us to believe the media lying? lying then but not now?
science """reporting""" has never accurately depicted the results of research. case in point:
>"Farts can fight strokes, heart attacks and dementia, scientists claim"
>http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/farts-can-fight-strokes-heart-6793616
what did scientists actually claim? that stressed cells use hydrogen sulfide to signal their mitochondria.
so it's kinda telling that you're focusing on media reports from the 1970s rather than the actual published scientific literature from the time.

>the thing speaks for itself. you can't just do something because you want it done. governments must be involved and the governments won't.
that is political feasibility, which is entirely different from technical feasibility. BOTH are required for governments to take some course of action.
if they were the same thing, we'd already have fusion reactors. who doesn't want cheap energy? in that case, it's a purely technical roadblock.
holy fuck you're dense.

>those warnings are coming from US government and other official sources, and credible media reports from orgs like the AP
>posts a bunch of /pol/ links
ISHYGDDT
this is just a reminder that there is nothing in the cited articles that suggests WWIII is imminent, and also that there is no evidence of any stripe that tectonic weapons exist, or even that they are in active development.
turns out that when Sec'y Cohen referenced them, he was only talking about futuristic hypotheticals, and how even the false scare of such a weapon could be used to intimidate people or cause panic.
>https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-others-are-engaging-even-in-an-eco-type-of-terrorism.t159/
you'd do well to actually read your primary documents instead of accepting as gospel other people's interpretations of them.

File: Shrextra large.png (161KB, 282x290px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 282x290px

>>8751612
>>8751624
>>8751646
>>8751651
/pol/ should stay in /pol/. it's not their place to decide whether we "need" our entire board; it's ours and they have no claim to it.
if they want to come here and talk about climate change, they're welcome to so long as they follow /sci/ rules: i.e. support arguments with evidence, not uncited memegraphs and delusional conjectures.

honestly, this whole idea that we have more board than we need and we should just have to give them our extra? sounds like some pinko commie shit to me.
are you /pol/acks actually /commie/s?

>>8751692
>who doesn't want cheap energy?
The warmists, but they have been duped. A large scary scenario is presented and there is no shortage of those today or all through time. A promise is made to save the marks from this scenario, action is taken that does nothing but line the pockets of the propagators of fear who through a process of steady enrichment have nothing better to spend that wealth on other than reinforce the structure of control.

History repeats.

File: I've seen through your tricks.jpg (33KB, 746x691px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 746x691px

>>8752000
>muh cunspuracee
>>>/x/

>>8749002
no shit Just a short 30k years ago there was a one mile high glacier where my house is now. Cave man camp fires didn't melt that shit.

>>8749002
absolutely deplorable

>>8751463
m8 have you never heard of sci-hub?

>>8753192
Yes, and it's for peer-reviewed published literature, not newspaper articles like the guy was posting.

File: obamasmugphone-e1487892439788.jpg (68KB, 995x609px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 995x609px

Climate denialists started a thread on /sci/

Get BTFO everytiem

>>8751354
The NYT article is focused primarily on Milankovitch cycles and solar forcings, both things that weren't as well understood in 1975 as they are now, here are some quotes from the article. Note that their main source for most of what is being espoused is Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr., a climatologist who studied the role that aerosols played in climate, particularly in the arctic. As the knowledge about the role of CO2 increased,
Here’s another article on Murray right after he died, and his role in climate science:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/08/obituaries/j-murray-mitchell-climatologist-who-foresaw-warming-peril-62.html

>J. Murray Mitchell Jr., a leading government climatologist who warned for years of increasing evidence of global warming and other human influences on the climate
>Dr. Mitchell in recent years cited growing evidence that the world's gradually warming climate - an average of 1 degree over the last century, and 3 to 5 degrees in polar regions -was a result of a greenhouse effect in which the burning of fossil fuels in industrialized nations produces carbon dioxide and other gases that prevent the earth's heat from escaping into space

Keep in mind, that the original article you linked was from 1975, a time in which there was a lot of actual debate going on between climatologists, but the predominant theory was that Earth was indeed warming due to anthropogenic activity, with the minority of scientists espousing a cooling theory, mainly due to evidence of aerosols from volcanoes cooling the Earth in recorded history. They thought that human's pollution and aerosol emissions would have the same effect, combine this with the fact that they knew about Milankovitch cycles that that the Earth could potentially head into another ice age over thousands of years as the position of the Earth changes / tilt of the axis changes / distance from the sun and solar intensity changes.

>>8751354
>>8753353
To get back to the original 1975 NYT article, here are some more quotes from it:

>There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way--the inevitable consequence of NATURAL CYCLIC PROCESS, or as a result of man made pollution of the atmosphere.
Their primary concern here is not greenhouse gasses, it's Milankovitch forces which were well known at the time to be the reasons for the interglaciations / ice ages during the holocene.
They're also talking about aerosols blocking TSI reducing global temps, something that has been shown to play a minor role with CO2 warming being a much stronger forcing. Basically, our knowledge on the issue is much greater today than it was in 1975.

>Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable...
Again, not sure who the article is quoting, the NAS report does not conclude this, and I doubt many climatologists of the time would have made such absolutist statements when their understanding was still developing.

>>The first half of this century has apparently been the warmest period since the "hot spell" between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago immediately following the last ice age. That the climate, at least in the Northern Hemisphere has been getting cooler since about 1950, is well established
The cooling phase they are referring to is but a blip in the overall warming trend since the 1880s, of course if this paper was written a decade later, with the warming 1980s-1990s decades, they would likely have not said this.

>There is general agreement that introducing large amounts of smoke particles or carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can alter climate. The same would be true of generating industrial heat comparable to a substantial fraction of solar energy falling on the Earth. The debate centers on the precise roles of these effects and the levels of pollution that would cause serious changes
So this article is a lot less absolutist than you are trying to portray.

>>8753377
>Dr. Mitchell has pointed out that a variety of factors determine the role of carbon dioxide on Earth. For example, the extent to which that gas, introduced into the atmosphere by smokestacks and exhaust pipes, is absorbed by the oceans depends on the temperature of surface waters

>If worldwide energy consumption continues to increase at its present rates, catastrophic climate changes have been projected by M.I. Budyko... he has written, will lead to "a complete destruction" of polar ice covers." Not only would sea levels rise but, with the arctic ocean free of ice, the entire weather system of the northern hemisphere would be altered
So basically what we know is happening today was still known back in the 1970s, only they had less data to support their hypotheses. nearly 50 years of data later and surprise, we know a lot more.

>However, Dr. Mitchell (the main scientists this article quotes) has suggested warming of the climate due to pollution might be enough to head off an ice age "quite inadvertently."
Dr. Mitchell is saying that global warming can occur due to human activity and emissions.

>The Academy of Sciences report notes that any assessment of climate trends is crippled by a lack of knowledge: "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
So basically, this is a far cry from your "GLOBAL COOLING WILL OCCUR SAYS ALL SCIENTISTS IN THE 1970S!"

FLY, the report this article is referring to is a 1975 report that I've linked to in these threads in the past, titled "Understanding Climate Change" from the NAS.
http://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt

Shall I go over all the other newspaper articles you posted too?

File: Fig.A2.gif (15KB, 664x474px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 664x474px

>>8751354
Lastly, as for your narrative about global cooling being widely pushed in the 1970s, I already brought up a study (which you conveniently ignored) showing that the majority of scientists publishing at the time did not adhere to global cooling, but instead viewed the direction of the Earth's climate as warming, with a sizable minority also stating that it was unknown. Let's start with a quote from that NAS report I posted above:

>The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to C0 2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3 °C per 10 percent change of C0 2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5 °C between now and the end of the century.

Care to make a guess as to how much warming occurred at the end of the last century? This 1975 report was pretty damn accurate, the actual amount from 1975 to 2000 was ~0.44 ± 0.06 °C Note the GISS graph, the anomaly change between ~1975 and 2000 is nearly 0.5°C, meaning a temperature anomaly that increased by that much relative to the baseline.

I'll leave you with a great webpage with many links to important historical papers in climatology and our understanding of global warming, many of which were game-changers in increasing our understanding of the climate and greenhouse gasses in the past. Many of these papers are even from before your supposed 1970s global cooling "consensus."

http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

>>8751354
>Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age
I found this link that discusses that very article and how it's also being misused by people such as yourself. It mainly focuses on the Newsweek article, but also mention's TWP's own article from 1970.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/25/huckabees-claim-that-global-freezing-theories-from-the-1970s-shows-the-science-is-not-as-settled-on-climate-change/

I'm having no luck tracking down the actual article this time, and I'm not paying to access it.


>Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself?

Same as above, I cannot find a working link to this article or .pdf that isn't locked behind a paywall.

>Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century

Same as above, and I see where this trend is going. I could literally only find a .pdf through google of the NYT article luckily, all the others I'm having no luck, so if I can't read the article itself, I can't analyze it myself.

>>8749234
>when they said CFCs were depleting the Ozone layer. Republicans did something
Because one can easily prove that CFCs can easily deplete the ozone layer unlike the whole climate change BS, there's no easy substitutes fossil fuel as happened with aerosols.

File: Capture.jpg (269KB, 1248x1021px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1248x1021px

>>8753469
>Because one can easily prove that CFCs can easily deplete the ozone layer unlike the whole climate change BS
Lies and conjecture, don't know what else I expect from a denier though. There's more evidence for the role of CO2 in climate change than there ever was for CFCs and Ozone depletion, yet that didn't stop action from being taken. Then again, the two problems are on much different scales, stalling / phasing out CFC production was something that was much easier to do.

We have already proved that CO2 is driving the current trend and is a major driver of climate change in the past and present. You only need to actually look at the evidence:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Do yourself a favor and read through the IPCC reports, or are you afraid to read something that doesn't confirm your biases? Why are you so scared?

File: CO2 forcing.jpg (126KB, 1259x823px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1259x823px

>>8753469
Again, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are the primary forcing on the Earth's climate, whether your feelings like that or not, the evidence stands for itself.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/fig_tab/nclimate2876_F1.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

>>8749389
>43% of scientists are 95% sure climate change is real
>57% of scientists are 94% sure climate change is real

Great. Also, not all of the guys in the study are actually climate scientists. There's was another study done that as scientists become more specialized in a field related to climate science, or climate science itself. The level of consensus increases. So, the more you know about it, the less you deny it.

File: visa.png (60KB, 2000x1302px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 2000x1302px

Climate models for the layman. March 15 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjFjSZjv6w

I would ask those who argue against the consensus what kind of research they did to come to their conclusions? Chances are, if it involved a lot of Google, it's not even remotely close to research. Googling is asking a machine a question. It's not really different from asking a person a question, except Google allows you to indulge in your biases and search for the conclusion you want while ignoring those troubling realities that undermine the belief you've come to validate. Google is, at best, a woeful attempt to approximate real research. No expert became an expert from pounding enough terms into a search bar.

>>8753555
>GWPF
>Curry

Amazing to see how far off the wagon Curry has fallen. Once a somewhat "respectable" contrarian, she has clearly fallen off the deep end after retirement into full blown denial. How anyone that considers themselves rational could associate with the GWPF is a complete oxymoron. For those of you that don't know what the GWPF, it's essentially a British "think tank" that much like its American counterparts doesn't disclose the sources of its funding and spreads climate change misinformation.

File: Groosesome.png (170KB, 462x464px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 462x464px

deniers absolutely rekt again
gg

>>8753615
Denial is a political ideology, it's one that is rooted in emotion. As such, factual information is utterly useless as a method of rooting out denial. It's just another species of that conspiratorial genus.

>>8753620
Evidence shows that the more you expose someone to ideas that conflict with their biases, the more they retreat into their biased way of thinking.
This is why it's practically pointless to engage or argue with climate change deniers, especially presenting actual data and evidence, as it will not change their opinions.

>deniers say climate scientists are paid to fabricate data
>climate scientists say deniers are paid to fabricate data
Hmm looks like there's a common social illness going on here. Maybe abolishing capitalism is in the interest of both sides?

>>8753655
>deniers say climate scientists are paid to fabricate data
Conspiracy without evidence, deniers will bring up "climategate" as evidence despite numerous independent and internal reviews of the incident clearing all those involved in the emails. The most "damning" think to come out of it "hide the decline," which refers to the tree ring divergence issue.
http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3riDY_a9vVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP6N9nbmS54

>climate scientists say deniers are paid to fabricate data
Supported by evidence such as financial records of fossil fuel corporations including charitable donations to climate change denial organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/08/exxonmobil-new-disclosures-show-oil-giant-still-funding-climate-science-denial-groups
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/01/12/trump-kingmaker-billionaires-robert-rebekah-mercer-pouring-millions-climate-science-denial
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html
http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial

I already posted many of these links earlier in the thread, you would know that if you actually read it.

Also, individual donations to scientists conducting research to cast doubt on anthropogenic forcings on climate change; ie Willie Soon.
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667906-soon-emails.html#document/p32

The key difference here being there is evidence for one, but not for the other.

>>8749314
fuck off back to /utg/, you cuck

>>8753555
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

>current year
>not knowing that climate models by deniers are complete failures compared to mainstream models

Why has /sci/ become completely overrun by braindead libero-millennial homo cucks since 2016?
Why?

>>8753717
>Why has /sci/ become completely overrun by buzzword-spewing, overly-emotional, argument-lacking, underage manchild /pol/ crossposters since 2016?
>Why?

Fixed.

>>8753729
Not an argument.

>>8753733
not an argument

>>8753734
You have no right to steal our memes.

>>8753742
>our
So basically you out yourself as from /pol/. Thanks for clarifying it to everyone that you're just another crossposter.

Also, not an argument.

>>8753742
>our
Thanks for validating the argument.

>>8753742
Memes are collectivized. Thank you for your opinion.

>>8753733
>>8753742
Neither was your post /pol/luter. It's kinda pathetic that /pol/luters believe that the highest demonstration of wit and intelligence is spaming obnoxious memes.

>30-50% might be due to natural variation
SEE GUYS WE CAN JUST IGNORE HUMAN IMPACT!

File: 1488650396316.jpg (42KB, 500x436px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x436px

I always knew the left was lying about climate change. Nice seeing the truth coming out.

>>8753765
Hi Peter :3

>>8753734
>>8753748
>>8753749
>>8753755
>>8753758
Not an argument. Kill yourself, you samefagging guinea homo gay anal millennial judeo-communist marxo-cuckoldian neo-globalist /utg/ shill cuck kike. Kill yourself.

File: (you).jpg (27KB, 1077x149px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1077x149px

>>8753779
cool buzzwords pal

>>8753779
What's wrong with being a guinea homo gay anal millennial judeo-communist marxo-cuckoldian neo-globalist /utg/ shill cuck kike?

>>8753785
not an argument

>>8753779
nice falseflag, jewish cuck

>>8753779
I'm pretty sure this guy is just trying to derail the discussion because he doesn't have any rebuttals to the other, longer posts above him.

>>8753790
Haven't you heard? The time for arguments is over.
https://youtu.be/I44H7PofKNE

>>8753809
those guys should just fuck already

>>8753781
>everyone who disagrees with me is buzzwords, because I said so
Not an argument. Kill yourself and then fuck off back to /utg/.

>>8753794
Not an argument. Fuck off, cuck. Die in a bus fire. Go back to /utg/.

>>8753799
Not an argument. Die in a river, you degenerate, derelict, irrelevant wastoid homo-millennialoid cuck. Go back to /utg/.

>climate change deniers bash climate scientists
>until one (marginally) agrees with them

How dumb can you be?

>>8753857
"scientists"

Fuck off, cuck. REAL, non-Jewish science has already proven that """"""climate change"""""" does not exist. It is literally a spook that only lives in the Judeo-Satanist media apparatus and the minds of permacucked gay anal millennial Jew-puppets. Go back to your degenerate /utg/ IRC.

>>8753857
This.

I remember some guy a few years back saying climate change is a hoax and that NASA is nothing but lies, but once NASA released a report on how Antarctica is getting colder, he kept shoving it in my face how scientists agree with him now (even though he didn't even read the article). This is OP's thread right now.

How can some people be so fucking retarded is beyond me.

>>8753882
The article likely wasn't the one on ANtarctica getting colder, it was a paper suggesting from a small amount of research from I think 2003-2008 that the East Antarctica ice sheet was growing slightly. It was used by deniers to claim that sea ice was increasing globally, despite them not even reading the paper showing that it was over a short period in the past, and that sea ice overall has declined globally since 1979.

Trump MORE LIKE DRUMPF! Am I right ladies?

>>8754282
>>8751597

File: itcame.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>8754294

>>8754294
>>8753869

the ecumenical point of this article is that it goes against the fear mongering narrative that we're all going to die in ten years unless we do something drastic (read: fund more boondoggles).

File: 1488851149807.jpg (79KB, 777x656px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 777x656px

I can't believe these threads keep happening. It's like you science deniers actually believe the things you say.

We need to give Israel lots of foreign aid money, to stop climate change.
We also need to have lots of unprotected gay anal guinea homo sex and destroy Western civilization. It's the only way not to be racist.

File: Mad.gif (588KB, 317x218px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 317x218px

>>8753779
>>8753856
not an argument™

This triggers the denier
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-bias-climate.html

>Here, we used meta-analysis to test for biases in the statistical results of climate change articles, including 1154 experimental results from a sample of 120 articles. Funnel plots revealed no evidence of publication bias given no pattern of non-significant results being under-reported, even at low sample sizes. However, we discovered three other types of systematic bias relating to writing style, the relative prestige of journals, and the apparent rise in popularity of this field: First, the magnitude of statistical effects was significantly larger in the abstract than the main body of articles. Second, the difference in effect sizes in abstracts versus main body of articles was especially pronounced in journals with high impact factors. Finally, the number of published articles about climate change and the magnitude of effect sizes therein both increased within 2 years of the seminal report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007.

>>8749234
CFC causing the depletion of the ozone layer created a far more detrimental situation with a far more rapid, noticeable and obviously detrimental effect, than CO2 based warming. That and as another anon said CFC replacements are have proven far easier to find than an energy source which can even come close to equaling the value derived from Oil. You literally drill a hole in the ground, and energy comes bursting out.

>>8754502
What does is this word salad even trying to imply? After reading that my mind is full of fuck, that's almost as bad as reading some Hegel.

Man made climate change "theory" hatched from a think tank of politicians, priests and social engineers is an echo chamber not a science. It was invented for one purpose, to apply carbon taxation (life taxation) eventually on a global scale and through this taxation system will eventually control who gets fossil fuels and at what taxation level, and who doesn't get them at all perhaps? The mechanism to implement this machinery is fear mongering through computer generated prophecies of climate doom.

>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007
Between these clowns and NASA-NOAA you have the source of 90% of this useless doom propaganda. I think the East Anglia climate propaganda department has toned down it's rhetoric after their malfeasance and corruption was made public. NASA-NOAA better watch its step as it has already been caught pushing highly questionable climate bullshit and the UN....well, after 1000 wars and 0 victories is just looking for some other justification for its existence but what it seeks, absolute power, we know corrupts absolutely, will just need to run its course now until enough people demand its dismantlement.

Step out of the echo chamber son and look at the big picture objectively.

>>8749234
>>8754680

Didn't look like they were on board at all.

> Republican from California, said that research implicating CFCs in the destruction of ozone is “very much open to debate”, and there is “no established consensus” on the role of CFCs. “We need science, not pseudoscience,” he said.

>said Congressman Tom DeLay, the Republicans’ whip in the House of Representatives. He shrugged off a challenge to produce some peer-reviewed studies supporting this view. “I’m not going to get involved in mumbo jumbo,” he said.

>Other supporters of the ban stressed that the scientific dissenters were few in number and had scant track records in the relevant fields of research. The opponents responded that scientists who disagree with the establishment line are denied research funds and opportunities to speak out, though they didn't offer evidence to support their claim of a blackout on dissent.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719971-200-leave-ozone-hole-to-nature-say-republicans/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-16/news/1995289080_1_ozone-depletion-cfcs

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

305KB, 1500x1100px

>>8754717
>What does is this word salad even trying to imply?
ironic!
I understand that you are too ignorant to parse that and too lazy to google the difficult terms, so let me explain.

>Here, we used meta-analysis to test for biases in the statistical results of climate change articles, including 1154 experimental results from a sample of 120 articles.
they took a bunch of articles and analyzed them
>Funnel plots revealed no evidence of publication bias given no pattern of non-significant results being under-reported, even at low sample sizes.
they performed a statistical test, plotting measured effect against precision. if there's no publication bias, the distribution will look like an inverted funnel (hence the name) with the most precise tests producing results towards the middle of the range. if there IS publication bias, the most precise tests tend to be further to one edge due to low-precision results on that side of the distribution not getting published.
>However, we discovered three other types of systematic bias relating to writing style, the relative prestige of journals, and the apparent rise in popularity of this field: First, the magnitude of statistical effects was significantly larger in the abstract than the main body of articles.
in other words, researchers talked about the biggest effects in the abstracts and left the less impressive stuff buried in the results section.
>Second, the difference in effect sizes in abstracts versus main body of articles was especially pronounced in journals with high impact factors.
articles in more prestigious journals had a stronger tendency to put the cool results up front.
>Finally, the number of published articles about climate change and the magnitude of effect sizes therein both increased within 2 years of the seminal report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007.
people started doing more research on climate change, and finding bigger effects, after the IPCC 2007 report.

it's not that hard.

>>8749234
>Republicans did something
... they stonewalled, shrugged off, ignored.
As usual.