/sci/entist march to washington

File: 1484857134864.jpg (55KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x360px

>the "debate" is over
this is quite literally not how science works

you don't just get to say 'muh theory is unquestionable'

>>8775144
>However what do you guys think of scientists march for climate change? Should scientists really take to the street and march for a particular policy?

I hate politics with utmost vigour but this seems to be neccesary. The consequences of not making immedeate change in climate policy will be disasterous and scientists should step in.

>>8775149
>you don't just get to say 'muh theory is unquestionable'

>he doesn't understand normal/revolutionary science distinction

Get off my board pleb.

>>8775144
>However what do you guys think of scientists march for climate change?
It is a good idea, but it might make the Trump voter set convinced that scientists are all shills for the Jews/Globalists/whatever.

>>8775149
>The debate over flat earth is not over!
>The debate over aether is not over!
>The debate over evolution is not over!

>>8775149
>this is quite literally not how science works
yeah and nah

obviously there is no such thing as 'set in stone', but then again, if you were to claim that the Maxwell equations are bullshit, people would just meet you with a heavy load of skepticism.

>>8775164
> but it might make the Trump voter set convinced that scientists are all shills for the Jews/Globalists/whatever.
They already are...

>>8775172
kek

>>8775172
What about HBD bloggers? They are Real Scientists and are redpilled about the non-whites and how they are Jewish tools.

>>8775144
>for a particular policy
why do you faggots keep pushing these retarded conspiracy perspectives?
>no, they're not really marching for (((climate))) (((((((change))))))) awareness, they're marching to push carbon taxes!!!!!!

>>8775144
>>8775149
>the "debate" is over!

>ScienceDebate.org is the fiscal sponsor of the March for Science

I must admit, I'm kind of scratching my head here.

>>8775181
I don't even know what HBD stands for, translate from Retarded Redneck into English for me please.

>>8775193
"Science Debate" seems to refer to a presidential debate on science, not scientific debate.

>climate change
part of the atural cycle of the earth. you cant change it, and we are at an abnormally cold period of the earth.

can we do more for the environment? sure.
the #1 problem facing earth is the third world + india/china. america and europe arent dumpong raw sewage into the ocean and calcifying the seas. they arent deforesting or causing animals to go extint

suggesting anything but destroying africa+india+china is purely to score gudboi points, virtue signal, and get govt funding

>b-bit the science community isnt corrupt! muh 97% agree!!!
educate yourself, modern academia and research is a fucking joke, only normies give it any clout

>>8775144
I'm glad that there are public demonstrations to stand up for Science but I doubt most people there will be scientists.

>>8775282
>the #1 problem facing earth is the third world + india/china. america and europe arent dumpong raw sewage into the ocean and calcifying the seas. they arent deforesting or causing animals to go extint
Regardless of whether climate change is true or not, even assuming that it is, this is an important point.

Climate change (for all political parties) has become massively artificially inflated as _the_ issue so they can ignore issues that are both impossible to deny and would require seriously reigning back production and profit levels to fix, because 21st century (first world at least) culture can't tolerate the idea of an economy not endlessly expanding

>>8775341
>because 21st century (first world at least) culture can't tolerate the idea of an economy not endlessly expanding

not to mention a culture that's not endlessly consuming. I can't remember where I read this statistic from but the US is something like 5% of the world population and accounts for 30% of all resource consumption. Anyone who thinks we can sustain this forever is a complete moron or deep in denial. But why bother having a supported working class when you can just outsource it to child labor in a third world country so you can keep consuming as much as possible while still being able to make your biannual vacations to Hawaii? Easier to just fuel your outragism...

>>8775149
it isn't a theory lad

File: Is Anectodal Evidence Reliable.jpg (289KB, 1035x905px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1035x905px

>>8775282
>educate yourself, modern academia and research is a fucking joke, only normies give it any clout
t. /pol/tard with no actual understanding of science academia or climate research.

pic related (you)

>>8775144
>the science is SETTLED
>we KNOW whats going on

oh really? i guess chemical injections into the atmosphere are in order or some other macro engineering effort to sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

>oh.. uh.. lets not go that far

yeah.. thats how i know you guys are full of shit. if things were bad, the scientific community would be jumping at the myriad of engineering solutions to the problem of rising carbon levels (the ones we've had for almost 30 years). but no, (((climate researchers))) rub the backs of their necks and wring their hands when talking about anything other than more taxes or increased funding for their white mans welfare.

>>8775316
Nah. Undergrads and "muh science" fags. Scientists are doing science.

>>8775227
>I don't even know what HBD stands for
Then search it up yourself, rather than being as much of a retarded white kid as >>8775181

>>8775518
It's all about beneficiaries.

www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html

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

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

>>8775518
>Some solutions are considered to be bad ideas.
>Therefore the problem doesn't exist.

>>8775488
i once forwarded an email to a guy and was given credit on the paper

if you dont think contemporary research practices need fixing, you are part of the problem

>>8775144
>We all know that climate change is happening

Like ICE AGE? Like the ones before human industrial revolution?

''Men-made Global warming'' is Liberal propaganda,it's not real science and will never be as such.All of this ''marches'' are just Soros shills.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html

so now that the science is settled that race-mixing produces better offspring, will you ascend beyond any sexual preferences and create the best possible future for humanity with me, /sci/?

>>8775598
>study refers to genetically diverse population by testing for whether inbreeding has occured
>that is literally all there is to the study, race isn't mentioned
>article tacks another bit of bullshit about mixed race people on ther and adds a mixed race couple picture to pretend "diverse" was referring to mixed race

What a bunch of horseshit, but what else can you expect from the dailymail

>>8775567
>Like the ones before human industrial revolution?
Sure, except faster and driven by human activity.

>''Men-made Global warming'' is Liberal propaganda
There's a whole world outside of the US you know.

I've never been comfortable with the idea of a scientist march. To my mind, it puts an inherent air of superiority on the role of scientist - that just by being a scientist, my opinion is worth more than someone else's on some particular issue.

Science is a profession, an approach to problem solving. Scientists aren't special, they're just regular people with training in a particular skillset. When scientists march, it shouldn't be As A Scientist, it should be As People Who Happen To Be Scientists.

>>8775658
It also politicises science, which is a real cancer as it will damage the legitimacy of science and may impact funding as well

The whole climate change denate in the US is the worst thing to happen to science in a while

>>8775658
yeah that type of thinking is why big business rules the world and science is for nerds

>>8775144
A march in support of science would have been fine by me, though in general I think marching for this or that is a waste of time that could better be spent doing something useful.

Sadly, this was quickly overtaken in the planning stages by the political left and became a March for Liberal Solutions to Problems.

>>8775144
Guys... guys...those dudes have lab coats on, they must be scientists...

>>8775160
Way to call the kettle black.

We get it, you've read Kuhn. Welcome to the fucking club.

File: 2ed.png (26KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 750x750px

>>8775144

> We all know that climate change is happening.
> Which is why we have six million different climate models

File: chicken-head-png-image-chicken-head-png-image-NPaGfV-clipart.png (188KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 400x400px

> climate change
Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING caused by CARBON DIOXIDE emissions. This is your claim. Not "climate change." No weaselling your way out of your claim, shitlib.

>>8775685
There is nothing liberal about taking the little peoples hydrocarbons away with a scary future climate meme, it is technically a conservative agenda.

File: 1489012721268.jpg (57KB, 541x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 541x720px

>there is a problem
>okay, do you have a suggestion on how to fix it without putting immense pressure on the middle class by taxing them to death and promoting a corrupt structure of carbon credits
>...

>>8775756
global warming refers to the global average temperature shift

climate change refers to slightly more local effects on climate as a result of global warming

>>8775782
>okay, do you have a suggestion on how to fix it without putting immense pressure on the middle class by taxing them to death and promoting a corrupt structure of carbon credits
no unless you want to start using nuclear fission (unpopular) or renewables (libshit!)

>>8775782
That shirt fits her because she is a six tops.

>>8775791
that's at least 4 more than you can hope to get.

>>8775749
Right, because obviously the only question climatologists have ever asked is "is AGW real". No other information, such as local effects or rate of change, could possibly be found from better models.
Moron.

>>8775756
>Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING caused by CARBON DIOXIDE emissions. This is your claim. Not "climate change."
The terms are used interchangeably in casual conversation. That's not weaselling, that's just language.

>>8775782
>All proposed responses to AGW are terrible, but I won't bother justifying my claims of why
That's nice.

>>8775850
>The terms are used interchangeably in casual conversation
"No!"

the media conveniently shifted that "grobal warming" lingo to "climate change", to make it an umbrella term that can get anything behind it, hot seasons, cold seasons, more tornadoes than usual, anything.

>>8775859
>the media conveniently shifted that "grobal warming" lingo to "climate change", to make it an umbrella term that can get anything behind it, hot seasons, cold seasons, more tornadoes than usual, anything.
Do you have the slightest evidence for that?

>>8775859
Actually the current spin is climate change encompasses man made global warming but this is not a talking point for the reasons you mention. Talking about the weather has been taken to a whole new level with the meme and rarely will "the media" miss an opportunity to lambaste climate change deniers when they report on any weather anomaly, storm, tornado, flood, heavy precipitation, drought...etc.

History repeats, I am sure during the dark ages every news worthy item was cross marketed by the church and clergy with the dogma of the day. Have faith son, we pulled ourselves out of those dark ages...oh wait,,,that was mostly Black Death and the natural demand put on people to think critically and for themselves once again...

>>8775168
>>8775149
>The debate over flat earth is over, flat earth denier!
>The debate over aether is over, aether denier!
>The debate over evolution is over, creation denier!
ftfy

File: Diminishing CO2.png (48KB, 624x376px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 624x376px

>>8775170
>if you were to claim that the Maxwell equations are bullshit, people would just meet you with a heavy load of skepticism.
And yet you claim that the very weak (logarithmic) influence of adding more CO2 is bullshit.

>>8775637
>>''Men-made Global warming'' is Liberal propaganda
>There's a whole world outside of the US you know.
Thank God

>"The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers"

>a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak – inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries...

Page, Norman J. "The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers." Energy & Environment (2017): 0958305X16686488.

>>8775149
>le science is based on endless debate meme
it's not that simple, /pol/tard

>>8775949
>And yet you claim that the very weak (logarithmic) influence of adding more CO2 is bullshit.
That graph doesn't look "very weak" to me. Think about the actual scales involved, a 3% gain in greenhouse forcing is a pretty big deal.
Also, where did you find it? There's no source at all on the graph.

>>8775960
>Page, Norman J. "The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers." Energy & Environment (2017): 0958305X16686488.
You just cited E&E. Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously after that?

>>8775521
This

I really hate the stupid muh science hipster geeks but they might actually be helpful here

File: wtf.png (6KB, 51x45px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 51x45px

what the flying fuck the alternating harmonic series have to do with this

>>8775967
Is there one practical real world application of the new age climate science other than applying carbon taxes? Muh climate crystal ball doesn't count, fortune telling is not a science and neither is garbage in garbage out computing.

That is very questionable on the face of it, throw in the muh debate is over clause and we are talking a rather large red flag calling this science except for perhaps social science and social engineering. Even then it's a stretch, smells like religion.

>>8776049
>Is there one practical real world application of the new age climate science other than applying carbon taxes?

Are you retarded?

File: 15941072-man-writes-mathematical-equations-on-whiteboard-Stock-Photo-math-formula-whiteboard.jpg (171KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1300x866px

>>8776033
you know that half of the shit on that board is unnecessary and is only on their to take space and make it look like they're more knowledgeable

pic related

>>8776049
>new age climate science
Stop.

>other than applying carbon taxes?
Climatologists aren't in charge of policy, and climate taxes aren't a (direct) product of climatology. You're confusing the scientific description of a problem with a proposed political solution.

>Muh climate crystal ball doesn't count, fortune telling is not a science
Prediction is kinda a central part of science.

>throw in the muh debate is over clause and we are talking a rather large red flag calling this science
Do you think astronomers "debate" the earth orbiting the sun, or chemists "debate" whether matter is made of atoms?

>smells like religion
Thank fuck we're not relying on what things "smell like" to you then.
Why don't you dump your "pope shaking hands" folder and go home?

File: CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png (111KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1440x1080px

>>8775168
You talk as though the climate models accurately predicted trends in average global temperatures.

Climate science is on par with Social sciences when it comes to making predictions

>>8776232
What is this monstrosity of a figure? No way this got into peer review.

>>8776245
>get BTFO
>uhhh... your graph ugly
Kill yourself

>>8776245
The climate models are the same one used by groups like IPCC to predict increases in average global temperature.

>china is destroying the oceans by overfishing them and dumping industrial waste into them
>china is destroying afria by deforesting large sections of it whilst strip mining
>china is destroying academia by rampant cheating and falsifying achievements of students to sent them overseas
>china is destroying foreign governments by lobbying for chinese interests and buying large sections of the country with mass land purchases
>africa is rapidly becoming too full of starving, developmentally disables bodies that will never do anything but get aids and have children
>afria is rapidly killing off wildlife in the name of harvesting their parts for heathen voodoo bullshit korean boner-dust
>africa is rapidly descending into further madness and tribal warfare, further destabilizing the region and leading to the proliferation of more international violence
>israel
>middle east
>south america is less harmful than other but is probably deforesting when not starving in commie shitholes/beheading one another/making cocaine in a commie shithole after beheading somebody

solution:
>carbon taxes in europe/america
>ban plastic bags
>girls in stem

why do i hate """""""""scienteists"""""""""" who argue that climate change is/isn't man made/stoppable or any combination mentioned or not? because the solution is always "white people need to do x, y, and z, also upvote me on reddit xd" and not "we need to exterminate the chinese and their third world monkey henchmen in order to preserve nature"

if you claim to love the environment, or care about climate change, but think the solution is something that white people need to do, i really hope you dont get in a car accident and die because it would really tear me up inside

>>8775144
>scientists
those are SJWs not scientists

>>8776293
Because you make your own strawmen to argue against?

>>8776326
>"scientists agree"
>graph of "CO2"
>graph of "rising temperatures"
>"science stands for climate action"
>white labcoat and the "sjw with no understanding for what they stand for" stare
>strawman

please dont try to take me on a jape and pretend that the vast majority of those vocal about "climate change" are faceberg-tier normies who have no understanding about earth

if you think the world is ending because of an alleged increase of CO2 in the air, you are borderline illiterate

>more co2 memegas created
>plants/moss/ocean goo eats memegas and produces more plants
>excess oxygen
>?????
>chinese demand of imported air plummets, third great depression begins

>>8776336
How are you going to see through all those strawmen you keep making?

>>8776293
>all these memery

Yes china is currently the largest emitter of GHG, but more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG in ocean-atmosphere system was emitted by industrialized western nation as they modernize since the preindustrial evolution. US and Western Europe are the most responsible and the ones who need to rectify the problem

>>8776345
because i deal in realms above "whore self out for publication and grant money" that pervades climate study

when i had to take climate related courses in undergrad i wanted to go crazy

>>8776350
>excess carbon leads to excess plant growth
>third world continues to calcify/overfish the oceans and clearcut forests
>this is the white mans fault+problem

protip: the earth has been far hotter and far colder than it currently is.
the ocean acts as a temperature capacitor.
glaciers contain a FUCKLOAD of GHG that everybody seems to ignore in favour of blaming white people.
climate models are updated on a continuous basis in order to stay current, as all models have constantly gone off track in their predictions over and over and over and over and over again.
volcanoes and other activity release a gigantic amount of GHG

do you really think the earth can survive catastrophic meteor collisions, ice ages, constant volcanic activity, but the thing that does it in is pajeet on a dirtbike?

what ever happened to the hole in the ozone that was going to radiation everybody to death, even though nothing non-negligible happened with conservation efforts since it was proposed? what happened to the supposed temperature drop that changed to a temperature rise?

why does all of this "research" end in intangible bullshit, yet cost untold fortunes? if it's so concrete, why is nobody able to make an accurate climate change model?

again, if you are concerned about global environmental concerns, "climate change" is at the bottom of the list. how do you think humans are able to control the temperature of an incredibly static planet with a built in temperature regulator, in only 100 years, with the expectation that they will be able to apparently reverse any damage done.

the arrogance

>>8776232
Oh hey, it's that bullshit graph again.
The alignment's fucked, and it uses the (inaccurate) old RSS data. Gavin did a pretty good job of walking through a bunch of the shit it gets wrong.

>>8776251
Calling out bullshit is a little different to calling the graph ugly.
(It is ugly to though)

>>8776254
>The climate models are the same one used by groups like IPCC to predict increases in average global temperature.
The climate model runs are each built around different scenarios (human emissions, solar activity, ENSO). kludging them together and comparing that against historical data without considering the scenarios involved says nothing interesting.

>>8776293
>I shouldn't have to clean up my mess because other people have made some too
That's retarded.

>>8776336
>if you think the world is ending because of an alleged increase of CO2 in the air, you are borderline illiterate
Maybe you should try to get a vague clue about the subject before you try to argue against it?

>white labcoat and the "sjw with no understanding for what they stand for" stare
Where the fuck are you even going with this?

>>8776375
the global temperature is (slowly) changing (at snail's crawl of a pace)

1. is it caused by man?
>no
then there is nothing we can do, natural earth cycle
>yes

2. (if yes) are we able to fix it
>no
carry on then, nothing we can do
>yes

3. (if yes) is it white people's fault and duty to once again save the dirty, poor, uneducated dark skinned beasts?
>no
carry on then
>yes

4. (if yes) why is it white peoples' fault that third worlders shit up their environment, and why should white people be punished for it
>bix nood
carry on
>oy vey
carry on

>>8776375
>>I shouldn't have to clean up my mess because other people have made some too
>That's retarded.

why should we have to clean up china's mess? why should we have to clean up what anybody else did?

if you force them to change, you violate "human rights" and "national sovereignty". if you do nothing then everything gets shittier while SJWs complain about white people doing nothing.

if "science" wasnt filled with popsci IFLS retards it would be easy, instead biology is a forbidden subject, genealogy is neutered, "climatology" exists, paying for welfare is more important than funding NASA, and not paying carbon tax is akin to anudduh shoah

i'm fucking embarrassed to say i have a degree in a field of science these days, because it's akin to saying that i'm a dumbfuck who didnt read a book, and who isnt the father of my own children

File: CMIPGisTemp.png (30KB, 983x754px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 983x754px

>>8776372
>"whore self out for publication and grant money" that pervades climate study
I can make bullshit claims too, Watch: "you fuck cats hourly." Wasn’t that fun!

>protip: the earth has been far hotter and far colder than it currently is.
Wow, it's like you have absolutely no idea what AGW is.
That the earth has been outside the temperature range of the last few thousand years in the past says nothing at all about how severe the effects of extremely rapid changes are going to be on modern civilization.

>the ocean acts as a temperature capacitor.
And the oceans surface is rapidly warming.

>glaciers contain a FUCKLOAD of GHG that everybody seems to ignore in favour of blaming white people.
Are you actually claiming that we shouldn't worry about making the problem worse, because there are feedbacks that will amplify our effects?
That's fucking stupid.

>climate models are updated on a continuous basis
No shit. Science moves on.

>all models have constantly gone off track in their predictions
Nope. See pic.

>volcanoes and other activity release a gigantic amount of GHG
Volcanoes are tiny compared to human activity.
Where are you getting this shit from?

>do you really think the earth can survive [...], but the thing that does it in is pajeet on a dirtbike?
Who said anything about the Earth not surviving?

>what ever happened to the hole in the ozone t
We put out environmental regulation that fixed it. You know, like we're trying to do with AGW now.

>what happened to the supposed temperature drop that changed to a temperature rise?
No idea. You need to be WAY more specific then that.

>why does all of this "research" end in intangible bullshit, yet cost untold fortunes?
Er, what?

>why is nobody able to make an accurate climate change model?
They have. It says we're waist-deep and sinking.

>how do you think humans are able to control the temperature of a planet
Greenhouse gasses. Read a fucking book.

>the arrogance
k

File: Fig6-01.jpg (1MB, 2383x2083px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2383x2083px

>>8776372
>all these memery and uninformed opinions

>glaciers contain a FUCKLOAD of GHG
Not even close. I'm an ice core scientist and there is no significant amount of GHG trapped in air bubbles in glacier. Please provide me with any relevant source saying otherwise. Look it up in pic related, the carbon cycle figure by IPCC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
Where does it say that glaciers contain a significant amount of CO2/Methane? Or even N2O, the 4th most important GHG. Glaciers don't contain any of these gases

>volcanoes and other activity release a gigantic amount of GHG
0.1Pg per year compared to anthropogenic emission is not relevant.

>what ever happened to the hole in the ozone that was going to radiation everybody to death, even though nothing non-negligible happened with conservation efforts since it was proposed? what happened to the supposed temperature drop that changed to a temperature rise?
Montreal protocol passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol#Chlorofluorocarbons_.28CFCs.29_Phase-out_Management_Plan
They phased out CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-112 and so on. Industries began replacing CFC which depletes carbon into HCFCs which doesn't. As a result the ozone depletion stopped, and ozone hole over antarctica has recovered.

These are just a fraction of factual, basic scientific facts error you had in your post. Please educate yourself further before start spewing uninformed opinions, and maybe find a better source than /pol/ or breitbart news

>>8776406
lets assume the doomsday scenario:
>temperatures rise significantly
>glaciers melt completely
>droughts become extreme
>etc.

you know who will be suffer the least negative effects? europe and america. you know who will cause the most negative effects? human migration from third world shitholes coupled with lack of industry+tech to adapt

so once again, i fail to see how this is a first world problem.

is it nice to have clean oceans and air? of course.
should white people be punished for the actions of the third world?
of course t. science community + libtard brainlets

>environmental regulation fixed the hole in the ozone
top kekketh, except for the whole "china started rapidly industrializing the entire time" part. i fucking swear to god, i dont know why every single time i try to talk climate change the opposition constantly avoids talking about the third world. must be a compulsive need to not seem like a racist, even after recognizing the the OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of groundwater pollution, ocean calcification, strip mining, overfishing, hunting to extinction, air pollution, and other preventable events, happen in the THIRD WORLD.

>guys im bleeding to death
>patch up my broken toes first though ignore the sucking chest wound
ecks fucking dee

>>8776389
>the global temperature is (slowly) changing (at snail's crawl of a pace)
We have no evidence that it's EVER changed this fast.

>1. is it caused by man?
isotope signatures and outgoing radiation says yes.

>2. (if yes) are we able to fix it
Depends on exactly you mean by fix it, but we can definitely control the rate it's getting worse.

>3. (if yes) is it white people's fault and duty to once again save the dirty, poor, uneducated dark skinned beasts?
What the fuck?

>4. (if yes) why is it white peoples' fault that third worlders shit up their environment, and why should white people be punished for it
The majority of cumulative emissions are from firstworld countries. This is our problem.
And no-ones talking about "punishing"; that's your own persecution fetish bleeding in.

>>8776396
>why should we have to clean up china's mess? why should we have to clean up what anybody else did?
No-one is saying that. We should clean up our mess, which is the majority of the mess. Once you make a start on that, THEN you can lecture other countries about doing their part. Until then, you're a hypocrite.

>if "science" wasnt filled with popsci IFLS retards it would be easy, instead biology is a forbidden subject, genealogy is neutered, "climatology" exists, paying for welfare is more important than funding NASA, and not paying carbon tax is akin to anudduh shoah
What the fuck is all this shit?

>i'm fucking embarrassed to say i have a degree in a field of science these days, because it's akin to saying that i'm a dumbfuck who didnt read a book, and who isnt the father of my own children
Cry harder. Reality won't change if you shout KEK really loud.

>>8776420
>Industries began replacing CFC which depletes carbon into HCFCs which doesn't.

I meant industries began replacing CFC which depletes OZONES into HCFC which doesn't

>>8775144
Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. Others are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.

The p-value for climate change is too large for the conclusion that man-made climate change is real can be taken seriously. It is not a credible study, not credible evidence. Some poorly drawn lines on a chalk board do not change that.

>>8776427
>>No-one is saying that. We should clean up our mess, which is the majority of the mess. Once you make a start on that, THEN you can lecture other countries about doing their part. Until then, you're a hypocrite.
do you think china/india cares about protecting the environment at all. do you think africa does?

what will happen when they further industrialize and you have 3 billion+ people who continue to rape everything they touch. all the crying in the world won't do anything, and no amount of enacting further regulation and constraints on the first world will solve it.

what is the solution, in your eyes? how must white people save the world once again? how much more efficient do their cars need to be, how much more efficient do their factory scrubbers need to be? also lets keep ignoring japan's reactor constantly leaking into the ocean, tell me how many electric cars will save the world.

>>8776424
>human migration from third world shitholes coupled with lack of industry+tech to adapt
Then what happens? You have humanitarian and refugee crises several orders of magnitude worse than what is currently happening in Europe. So much for 'muh white nations eh? Don't you want to keep these people off your country?

>>8775144
>using pie charts
>using a graph without axes

yeah, i'm sure they are real scientists

>>8775144

Only hipsters are going to this, fuck's sake Trump is probably the most pro-science candidate of all because he's throwing DARPA an unsolicited $54 billion in new yearly funding. What liberals don't get is that science is just a tool, it's not inherently liberating. Which means hardcore Republicans are some of the biggest science supporters, even if they're otherwise fucking stupid.

And protesting climate change itself is stupid too, considering that it won't stop it. Also liberals don't seem to realize that the free trade agreements made since the late 80s directly cause climate change by outsourcing industry to countries without any pollution regulations. Of course, they won't admit this because they cannot fathom living in a society where they can't just buy new shit every other year.

>>8776437
>if we ask nicely black people will stop dumping industrial waste into the rivers that china owns, and then retire to their domicile for US funded relief oatmeal, not before impregnating all 7 of their female children
>"whitey is the reason i need a ford fiesta and a free apartment"

>>8776437
>implying the "refugee crisis" isnt artificial
do you even read wikileaks releases or do you read the headline of CNN, feel smug, and then complain about doody-head drumpf wanting to build a wall and how much he hates science

File: smug nonon.png (250KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 720x720px

>come into thread expecting some actual discussion on the role of scientists in public debate & shaping policy
>it's another /pol/ sperger spouting wrong facts about climate and getting BTFO episode

>>8776450

The refugee crisis is real, if you actually did read wikileaks you'd know that the crisis exists because the US:

- did not anticipate the evacuation of so many people through Turkey (this was a deliberate action by Edrogan)
- did not anticipate Europe to not respond to the boats, at all
- did not anticipate Europe moving to "rescue" migrant boats off the Libyan Coast, a job the defunct Libyan Coast Guard used to do
- did not anticipate ISIS growing so out of control and fucking up the FSA

It's why Hilary's emails express a constant and low level suspicion of Muslim refugees, because her chances of getting elected would sink if any of them caused a terrorist attack.

>>8776455
scientists don't debate or shape public policy
when has this ever happened outside of the guise of pushing a political agenda
>if you don't subscribe to popular science climate change, you are from /pol/ and have autism
hmm

>>8776463
>if you don't subscribe to popular science climate change, you are from /pol/ and have autism

If you don't accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is happening, is manmade, then you're just burying your head in the sand. It doesn't necessarily mean you're a /pol/kin.

However, spewing /pol/ buzzwords like white people's guilt, etc into the conversation where it doesn't belong makes you a /pol/kin. No amount of posting KEK and trying to get arbitrary repeating digits on a post number in El Savadorian bull fighting imageboard can save you from reality and basic fundamental physics

>>8776460
>obama admin destroys libya
>obama admin destroys syria
>israel continues to get funding
>multikulti pushed hard in europe
>africa+ME gets boatloads of funding
>EU does nothing to stop invaders
>EU actively tries to punish and sabotage states that enforce their border
>EU continues to do nothing about the "crisis" even in the face of daily terrorist attacks
>leftists rally to the defence of a rapid influx of military aged males from a society violently opposed to equality, feminism, trans*ism, and democracy
>"did not anticipate"

how can you not anticipate something you were directly working towards? why didnt europe respond at all to the refugees? why didnt europe try to stop the obvious flow of refugees that were from other countries just looking for free handouts? why do they continue to give welfare to these people? why to they continue to let them in?

who stands to gain from a weak + mixed europe? who stands to gain from the west having a diminished role currently, and a weaker european people in the coming decades?

who makes these decisions? are there any particular patterns that seem odd in these peoples? how did you arrive to this conclusion?

what scheming race, what stateless race, what irredeemable race, what race that constantly meddles in affairs of others, what race that is a complete parasite that contributes nothing to host nations, what race worms it sway into elite power circles only to corrupt them, what race that has been historically hated since its inception, what curly haired, crook nosed, wart faced, pale skinned, ratty visaged, sickly demeanored, inbred race, what race that CONTINUES to fuck everything up to this VERY FUCKING DAY is responsible for all the bad in the world?

that's right, its the fucking cape verdeans.

>>8776424
>you know who will be suffer the least negative effects? europe and america
We that's all fine then. I guess killing people is a-okay so long as they're not over here.

>you know who will cause the most negative effects? human migration from third world shitholes coupled with lack of industry+tech to adapt
What? How is that going to drive CO2 emissions?

>so once again, i fail to see how this is a first world problem.
It's a problem the first world is mainly responsibly for, that's a good place to start.

>should white people be punished for the actions of the third world?
Again, I think you're confusing AGW is your own racial persecution fantasy.

>groundwater pollution, ocean calcification, strip mining, overfishing, hunting to extinction, air pollution, and other preventable events
That's all worth talking about, but none of it is AGW. Which is the topic here.

>>8776481
my stance on climate change is the same as vaccines.

are vaccines theoretically good? yeah, probably. nobody has polio anymore in the first world, pretty good thing.

however, for all the good that vaccines could do, do you really trust the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them? do you really?

same thing applies here. cleaning up the environment is a good thing, but do i really trust gigantic supranational entities that try to force states to enact legislation in an attempt to supersede the populace? probably not, i dont really trust any supranational entity. i'd rather take small steps towards improving my own country than try to force sweeping changes on everything with no way to enforce it, at the behest of industry that's outsourced to china who continues to ignore basic safety regulations regarding not adding lead to food, or venting nuclear material into the ocean.

File: 1ee7d1b73f4d3a1dc5f807edd8083e55.png (21KB, 500x203px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x203px

>>8776482
And yet your beloved dear leader Drumfkin is a total Israel shill and marry his daughter whom /pol/kin jerk off to everyday to a circumcised white Brooklyn Orthodox jewish benis

In the immortal words of Sam Harris, "who's the cuck now?"

>>8776484
>We that's all fine then. I guess killing people is a-okay so long as they're not over here.
seems to be the contemporary policy of the EU and US governments, why should mine be any different if it benefits me directly?

>What? How is that going to drive CO2 emissions?
suddenly 3 billion people all want iphones, refrigerators, cars, televisions, and factory jobs. this is completely fine, even after i just got done ranting about negative effects on the environment by first world countries xd

>It's a problem the first world is mainly responsibly for, that's a good place to start.
why doesnt the third world step up to the plate and stop destroying where they live to the point they feel entitled to free shit in other places?

>Again, I think you're confusing AGW is your own racial persecution fantasy.
"the slippery slope fallacy doesnt exist goy, now pay your carbon tax"

>That's all worth talking about, but none of it is AGW. Which is the topic here.
wew, the leftist is forced to concede a point, and then immediately ends discussion. where have i seen this before

>>8776488
>do you really trust the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them? do you really?
I trust them more than you.

>>8776434
>Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. Others are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.
>The p-value for climate change is too large for the conclusion that man-made climate change is real can be taken seriously.
Well there's a fantastic pair of statements.

>>8776441
>Trump is probably the most pro-science candidate of all
Utter nonsense.
Ignoring scientific research when it says things that you don't like makes you anti-science. Massively cutting funding to scientific research makes you anti science.

>And protesting climate change itself is stupid too, considering that it won't stop it.
What?
The whole point of the protest is to try and push politions towards doing things that WILL stop (or at least slow) it.

>>8776488
>my stance on climate change is the same as vaccines.
What, without evidence and utterly stupid?

File: facepalm.jpg (103KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1024x683px

>>8776488
>my stance on climate change is the same as vaccines.

Yeah because that's a reasonable, and fact based stance based in many peer reviewed scientific studies.

MANY SUCH CASES! indeed /pol/kin

>>8776490
trump was better than any other candidate in the past 60 years, and yet people project that actual """"right-wing"""" learned folk treat him as a sort of messiah.

he was never a messiah, but he was the choice we had. i never expect to see uncle ted running for president, so i'll choose people who will do the most good at the time.

still hoping for a one state solution, and then watching the arabs vote israel into kekking itself

>>8775144
>climate change is happening
It has been for all of history
>How much of an effect do humans have on it?
Very little, technology will soon fix the small effect we have on it
>How much can we as a country change?
Not much,and it would be economical suicide.

Day of the rope when?

>>8776497
>>8776498
>>8776499
>claim that pharmaceutical companies arent the most trustworthy of organizations
>three people comment within 16 seconds
struck a nerve, seems. i dont understand why people love to rail against the "1%" and "vested corporate interests", but turn a blind eye into one of the largest government subsidized cartels on the planet

this whole "if somebody across on the supposed political field has an opinion on something, i must have an unwavering opinion of the opposite" nonsense is really tiring.

File: Untitled.png (55KB, 658x586px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 658x586px

>>8776510
You're endangering others around you by not getting vaccinated just to protect your uninformed fact-free opinions.

The one peer reviewed study that links mercury in vaccine to autism got retracted, and the lead author lost his medical license because of that.

>>8776502
Asserting something doesn't make it true.

>>8776496
>suddenly 3 billion people all want iphones, refrigerators, cars, televisions, and factory jobs. this is completely fine, even after i just got done ranting about negative effects on the environment by first world countries xd
It's not "fine", but it could be manageable. If the first world were actually leaders in that area, they could be putting pressure on the rest of the world to not make a mess (and have the required technical knowledge). But no-one is going to listen to a hypocrite.

>why doesnt the third world step up to the plate and stop destroying where they live to the point they feel entitled to free shit in other places?
Jesus Fuck.
Step up to WHAT plate exactly? The first world is responsible for most of the mess. You can't just point your finger at random folks, and say "I'm not going to clean up my mess, when they haven't cleaned up theirs" if you're making 10x per capita more mess than they are.

Furthermore, it's not like the first world's emissions have "just disappeared" in the first place, they’ve been outsourced. Countries aren't islands any more.

>wew, the leftist is forced to concede a point, and then immediately ends discussion. where have i seen this before
What point? You've done nothing but ramble, change the topic, and try to blame others.

>>8776518
Denying doesn't make it false

The real effect of humans is unknown
However, it WOULD be economic suicide to enforce our companies and citizens to use clean energy

>dumb westerners are shutting down their countries because of memes

I have no idea what accident was that you retards came to dominate the world but I'm happy it's coming to an end.

>>8776530
>Denying doesn't make it false
Then quite pissing about and post actual evidence.

>it WOULD be economic suicide to enforce our companies and citizens to use clean energy
No, it wouldn't.

>>8776533
cape verdeans arent westerners

File: butterfly pepe.jpg (55KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 499x499px

>go outside
>tip doorman
>bit balmy, go back in and put some sunscreen on
>tip sunscreen man
>take out phone
>subscribe to phone's patreon
>"hey china, why dont you go ahead and take over out factories, good chum, also i'll cover the charge for this call"
>go fishing, tip uber driver
>net an entire colony of aquatic batteries near the pier after paying fishing fee
>take it to restaurant to cook since your oven was taken due to making too many greenhouse gasses
>server puts extra lead sauce on top
>only tip 35%
dicked him real good on that one boys, but you gotta spend money to make money, am I right?

>>8776536
The claim is humans are causing global warming. That needs evidence.

How would forcing our companies to use more expensive energy while foreign companies get freedom and are able to produce things cheaper not economic suicide?

Businesses would leave America.

>>8776553
cant you read charts what are you retarded obviously humans are causing it temperatures have risen a whole Celsius in the past few hundred years are you retarded huh are you retarded you little bitch answer me faggot are you retarded because you dont think climate change is man made hey fuck you buddy my grandpa died from global warming when he was only 7 years old

>>8776530
>The real effect of humans is unknown

Actually not true. We can precisely tell human contribution vs. natural variability.

For example

How much of the total radiative imbalance is due to anthropogenic GHG?
About 50%.
Source: https://skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html

How much extreme precipitation at the end of gaussian bell curve (of which otherwise would be just regular precipitation) occurred due to anthropogenic GHG?
About 18%

How about high temperature extremes? (heat waves)
About 75%
Source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/abs/nclimate2617.html

>>8776553
>The claim is humans are causing global warming. That needs evidence.
Start with the IPCC reports, I guess: http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

File: global_trends.jpg (79KB, 700x581px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 700x581px

>>8776553
>The claim is humans are causing global warming. That needs evidence.

1. CO2 allow visible light to pass through and absorb infrared. This is a "greenhouse" behavior and hence the name greenhouse gas. This is simple, 19th century physics and this behavior is observable experimentally.

2. Burning fossil fuel since the preindustrial revolution increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know this from the ratio of light C isotopes (12C) to heavy C isotopes (13C). https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html
Fossil derived CO2 is lighter in d13C, and d13C of CO2 in the atmosphere has been drifting towards lighter values. It is undeniable that the excess some 40% of CO2 since the preindustrial revolution is due to human emission from burning fossil fuel.

3. Combine point 1 & 2, we can predict how much radiative imbalance on top of the atmosphere will be caused by increasing the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/. The satellites are measuring +0.6W/m2 radiative imbalance, which means there are more energy entering the Earth than leaving the Earth. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when you have excess energy coming in, the system must be warming, and hence the Earth is warming due to manmade CO2 emission from burning fossil fuel.

brainlet here

CO2 naturally occurs in nature, along with all the other greenhouse gasses, I assume.

why havent they caused a feedback loop previously? as in why havent the greenhouse gasses fucked with the temperature, which released more, etc.? why is it suddenly humans deal, and what is the solution if there is already a bunch of shit floating around

also why do we fund welfare over nasa

File: edc_thumb.jpg (93KB, 601x484px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 601x484px

>>8776582
>why havent they caused a feedback loop previously? as in why havent the greenhouse gasses fucked with the temperature, which released more, etc.? why is it suddenly humans deal, and what is the solution if there is already a bunch of shit floating around

Each greenhouse gases except water vapor has an associated atmospheric lifetime. CO2 in the atmosphere equilibrates and dissolves into ocean as bicarbonate, then further get deposited into calcite in the bottom of the ocean through the biological pump. CH4 react with OH radical in the atmosphere fairly quickly, yielding an atmospheric lifetime of 10 years.

These greenhouse gases have fucked with Earth's temperature in the past. Ice core records have shown that Antarctic temperature actually leads rise in CO2 very slightly, and this is reasonable because past warming/cooling cycle is driven by change in Earth's insolation (total energy coming from the sun) due to combination of change in earth's axis angle, and orbit diameter. However change in energy due to these change in earth's spin axis and ellipticity of the orbit alone is not enough to drive the observed temperature changes, you need CO2 and other greenhouse gases as positive feedback to boost and amplify the temperature change.

In the past though, as soon as insolation changes and favor the Earth back into cooling method, the positive feedbacks weakens the GHG with finite atmospheric lifetime slowly got scrubbed off the atmosphere allowing the earth to enter glacial periods and the cycle repeats

How do we fix brainlets at /pol/ guys? They're dragging the whole average IQ of the site and the human species down with their lack of brain mass

Trump: Boosts NASA funding

Leftists: TRUMP IS ANTI-SCIENCE

It's probably more apt to say that liberals are anti-reality, and that they only live in their own fantasy world with a one world big brother government that controls every aspect of every human beans life.

>>8776603
You're the brainlet if you think mean (x̅) anything matters.

>>8776609
Everyone commended the $200 million increase in NASA budget for space exploration, however this doesn't mean that other agencies aren't still getting cut.

http://www.nature.com/news/us-science-agencies-face-deep-cuts-in-trump-budget-1.21652

Department of Energy ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), practically the DARPA equivalent research branch for DOE got cut

EPA who's not only responsible for regulations, but issuing research grants for toxic waste pollution & mitigation effort, environmental ecology studies, etc got cut the hardest by 31%

NOAA, which is part of Department of Interior, agency who's responsible for keeping track of temperature measurements around the earth, and measuring all the GHG concentrations and isotopes from various stations around the world also got severely cut.

NIH, National Institutes of Health which is responsible for close to 90% of non privately funded grants for medical research will get cut by 18%

Yes Trump is anti science. 1.03% budget increase on NASA, from 19.3 billion to 19.5 billion doesn't offset 15-30% budget cut on other scientific, research, and grant funding agencies, but I guess this amount of math is a bit hard for /pol/kin to grasp

>>8776609
The number doesn't add up as >>8776630 have laid out.

Maybe it's you guys who live in a safe space bubble based on cult of personality rather than doing the math for yourselves and make informed opinions based on facts on the ground

>>8775144

too many shady organizations affiliated, it's going to be a shit show.

>>8776630
It's not a zero sum game, he's cutting funding in a lot of areas in order to cut overall spending down

>>8776679
But that's not the argument. You're trying to deflect the conversation again.

The initial argument was this >>8776441 Drumftard claiming "Trump is probably the most pro-science candidate of all" because of the chump change he threw at DARPA and NASA (less than 250 million total increase combined) while cutting other scientific research and grant funding agencies by the billions.

Sorry we're not a cult of personality here at /sci/, you need numbers and facts sourced to credible material to make an argument here.

File: 1489406201633.jpg (32KB, 606x533px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 606x533px

>>8775658
> To my mind, it puts an inherent air of superiority on the role of scientist - that just by being a scientist, my opinion is worth more than someone else's on some particular issue.

>>8776696

xd upvoted

>>8776049
>Muh climate crystal ball doesn't count, fortune telling is not a science and neither is garbage in garbage out computing
We don't need hyper accurate models to know that the coral reefs are bleaching horribly, wildfires are growing larger and lasting longer each year, animals are changing their migration patterns, sea ice at both poles has hit record lows and this february was the second hottest on record, only surpassed by last year due to the el nino.
Get fucked, you stupid cunt

>>8775144
>However what do you guys think of scientists march for climate change?

I think it's virtue signaling from anti-Trump leftists. It's a bunch of bullshit "science fans" and "science supporters".

I'm trying to be an actual scientist (I say "trying" because I'm a grad student, passed quals last spring), so I can't fly to DC for a day to march. Can't afford the flight on a grad student's stipend, and we're trying to put a manuscript out so I have to do more experiments to anticipate reviewer comments. Long story short, don't have the time or money for this march nonsense.

Should scientists really take to the street and march for a particular policy?

>>8776436
>do you think china/india cares about protecting the environment at all. do you think africa does?
China currently produces the most solar energy out of any country in the world, and both china and india are investing billions into green tech and trying to reduce their ghg footprint.
Of course, you would know that if you actually cared about objectivity, and not just purporting your toxic narrative.
>Prove it
Google something along the lines of 'china/india green tech' and you can pull it up on wikipedia or literally anywhere else.
The world is moving forward, catch up

>implying science results are not biased by brainwashing ( muh climate change H24 on tv and at school )
>implying that's not why the whole of social sciences are retarded since (((Boas)))
>implying 94% of the scientists giving an opinion on whether or not human is responsible in climate change has any significance when the majority of them refrain from expressing an opinion because the models are shit.
>implying all "scientists" are climatologists
>implying the 97% is not another (((poll)))

(Continued >>8776733)
>Should scientists really take to the street and march for a particular policy?

Probably not. Write up some commentary and write to Nature or Science, they love that stuff.

If it's a scientific question, do the research. If it's a policy issue, write to your representative or write a commentary or go into policy after your PhD or whatever.

The other thing about this is that climate change has become a political issue, not a scientific issue. And, quite frankly, I don't have patience for humanities and liberal arts majors turned internet writers who lecture me on science.

>>8776741

post some real stats about china instead of just trying to emotionally manipulate by implying we're being beaten.

File: 14125565_1838559183042143_5258073802985414112_o.jpg (239KB, 1852x2048px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1852x2048px

>>8776756
Can you not read? Is your reading comprehension really that poor?
I said in my post to look it up instead of asking me, it's literally the first results on wikipedia, you can read it all there for yourself

>>8776748
Pic related, the 97% isn't actually whether they asked all the researchers their particular stance, but rather what their papers suggested with the data

>>8775149

No but you do get to say 'muh theory is workable and is supported by mountains of data, evidence and mathematical models which makes it exceedingly likely'

>"B-BUT EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY! A GEUSS"

You're this stupid.

>The flat earth debate is never over!
>The HIV debate is not over!
>The vaccine debate is not over!
>The evolution debate is not over!

MUH DENIAL

>>8776733
>Should scientists really take to the street and march for a particular policy?
If they think it's nessisary, sure.
And if politicians are systematically ignoring or downplaying issues that are directly related to a field of study, it's completely reasonable that scientists from the field would get together to protest that.

>>8776748
>Implying that greentext is a substitute for evidence.
>Implying conspiracy theories are a substitute for research

>>8776748


>>> GET OUT
>>> E
>>> T
>>> O
>>> U
>>> T

>>8776690
At the same time a democrat would likely have either reduced overall funding, like Bernie was planning to, and / or funneled even more of the existing science funding towards climate research, leaving even less for the rest. Of course Trump won't be able to compete against someone who throws out money left and right, taking on even more debt, but given his overall budget cuts the non-climate research part of science is doing fairly well

>>8775282
>almost all the politicans who deny the climate science are openly funded by oil/fossil fuel industries
>"no the misinformation is spread the the scientists! they're just trying to get funding!"

Why do you try to defend your corporate overlords when they don't give two shits about you?

File: 1451369902150.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>8776488
>climate change denier is also an anti-vaxxer
Who is really surprised.

The question of Climate Change changes nothing either way. I doubt there are even that many 'deniers' out there - it seems like a conjured scapegoat for smug leftists to act superior to. Even if there are that many climate change deniers, who cares their beliefs? Climatologists can study the climate without being appropriated as symbols for political tactic. If climate change is going to end the world, then so be it! I can't control the weather and neither can anyone else, so what's the use in questioning it?

>>8776679
>he's cutting funding in a lot of areas in order to cut overall spending down
Meanwhile increasing military spending by 50 billion. Come on son.

File: 160804_sri_graphic_earth_overshoot_earths_1.jpg (219KB, 1000x1642px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1000x1642px

>>8775282
The real problem is America. So fuck off with your bullshit

>>8776603
IQ war now

>>8775144
>We all know that climate change is happening
True
But the guys in that pic, and you yourself, are massive fags. The """debate""" is never over, as that would imply that at no point can new information be found that disproves the current understaning.
Moreover, the fact that the graph is that pic only goes back 400,000 years is a joke. That's absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of earth's history.

And no, scientists should not be going out and protesting as scientists.
The only role a scientist has in any form of poltics is to provide expert opinions, to say "this is the current understanding." They should and must not inject personal beliefs and bias, and most definitely should never say "this is what we SHOULD do," as that would no longer be a statement based in evidence, observation and reason, and as such is no longer a scientific statement, and to use one's authority in such a way is a crime against science. The most one should ever do in that regard is say "based of the evidence and our understanding, if you want to do [insert what the government is trying to """"""solve""""""] you would have to do this," and then leave the debate over what the best course of action to lawmakers.
That said, a scientist can certainly be an advocate for causes, but they should never represent themselves as scientists, but regular civilians, as they are no longer acting in the purely objective scientific world, and thus have no right to try and use their authority to force opinions on others, instead of merely stating facts.

If you call "march for science" something based solely on climate change, you are a literal sub-retard.

>>8775168
The flat earth debate has never existed outside the Internet.
The evolution debate is far from over outside popsci.

Try again, Bill Nye.

>>8776866
>The evolution debate is far from over outside popsci.
It's still a debate only in the 3rd world and the US. So good job, you're on par with the durka durkas.

File: chicken-head.jpg (44KB, 881x562px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 881x562px

>>8775850
>Right, because obviously the only question climatologists have ever asked is "is AGW real".

This is the only issue that matters, "moron," because all political ramifications of "climate change" are either to tax or to cap-and-trade carbon emissions from white people while letting Mestizo and underdeveloped Asian countries off the hook. It's an obvious scam to destroy the productivity of white people while leaving everyone else unhindered. While Saudi Arabia is pumping billions of barrels of crude out of their wells, Justin Castro is killing the Alberta Oil Sands. While Obama was killing American Coal, India is building a new coal plant each week.

Fuck off, loser. Trump cut funding for your fake science and now you're going to be hauled out to the salt mine where you'll actually have to WORK for once in your life. Ha ha ha! I win.

File: 1431204422991.jpg (27KB, 508x524px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 508x524px

>>8776896
Low quality shitpost desu.

File: chicken_head_by_88_lawstock.jpg (79KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x535px

>>8776808
The world's population isn't capable of living like white countries. Have you seen Asian people using motor vehicles? They crash them into telephone poles. Have you seen Africans trying to build structures? They can't manage more than mud huts. No, the problem isn't with Americans. The problem is with the rest of the world, which needs to fuck off and die.

File: asshole.jpg (137KB, 500x658px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x658px

>>8776896
Why are you even on /sci/?

File: 1421061651563.png (480KB, 1200x1089px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1200x1089px

>>8776909

>>8776909
Your post is saved

File: rhode-island-red.jpg (122KB, 680x631px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 680x631px

>>8777039
>>8776927
>>8776910
As usual, the right provides arguments and the left responds with, "Wow! Just wow!"

>>8775144
you know these "science marchers" are retarded when the cure to their problems are relocation meanwhile they consume neurotoxins on a daily basis

>>8776830
>The """debate""" is never over, as that would imply that at no point can new information be found that disproves the current understaning.
The debate is over until new information is found that disproves the current understanding.

>Moreover, the fact that the graph is that pic only goes back 400,000 years is a joke. That's absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of earth's history.
Exactly how many years are required to see that current warming is extremely anomalous? Hint: less than 400,000. In the grand scheme of Earth's history, the time humans have existed is a blip. So I guess by your argument, we shouldn't care at all about the conditions humans have relied on for hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. Because... DUH ERF!

>The only role a scientist has in any form of poltics is to provide expert opinions, to say "this is the current understanding."
Then the role of the non-expert in politics should be to listen. But that's not what's happening.

>They should and must not inject personal beliefs and bias, and most definitely should never say "this is what we SHOULD do," as that would no longer be a statement based in evidence, observation and reason, and as such is no longer a scientific statement, and to use one's authority in such a way is a crime against science.
What one publishes in a scientific research paper is what is claimed to be science. What one does in the street is not claimed to be science by anyone. Scientists, like anyone else, can and should speak out about their opinions, especially when they support those opinions with scientific facts and logic. This is completely necessary in a free society. The only reason you are claiming they shouldn't is because you don't like their opinions.

>>8776830
>That said, a scientist can certainly be an advocate for causes, but they should never represent themselves as scientists, and thus have no right to try and use their authority to force opinions on others, instead of merely stating facts.
Identifying oneself as an scientist when making one's point does not imply that you are practicing science, it implies that you are qualified to accurately present the facts which support your argument. The hyperbole in claiming that this is "forcing" ones opinions onto others is despicable.

File: ha.jpg (19KB, 650x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 650x400px

>>8776804
>there aren't many deniers out there! it's all a scapegoat!
>denies that human actions can control climate

>>8777065
>murder is an argument
Yeah sure.

>>8777132
>Identifying oneself as an scientist when making one's point does not imply that you are practicing science, it implies that you are qualified to accurately present the facts which support your argument. The hyperbole in claiming that this is "forcing" ones opinions onto others is despicable.
>>8777129
>What one publishes in a scientific research paper is what is claimed to be science. What one does in the street is not claimed to be science by anyone. Scientists, like anyone else, can and should speak out about their opinions, especially when they support those opinions with scientific facts and logic. This is completely necessary in a free society. The only reason you are claiming they shouldn't is because you don't like their opinions.
So you're really OK with people like bill nye and NDT going around using the fact that they are famous """scientists""" to spout off whatever bullshit they want, and popsci fags lap it up as gospel? Because that's what I'm talking about.
I 100% agree that scientists can and should speak their mind, but I believe that it needs to be done in a manner where it's clear that it is their mind, and not science fact, as so many scientists on both sides of the poltical spectrum love to do. There is a great difference between saying "climate change exists, is at a statically significant manner man made, and certian things can be don to curtail it." That's all true as far as our current understanding goes, and it makes no statement in regards to personal belief. It's just the facts: how things are, and what the result of certian actions will be on the current situation.
However, when we have scientists saying "The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted" then we have a problem.
(1/2)

>>8777205
(2/)2)
There is a fundamental assumption in that statement, that because climate change exists, that certain "evidence based" policies must be enacted.
It is that assertion thet they MUST happen which is the issue. That the only option is to enact the desired policies. That is a claim that is based in opinion, that goverment intervention in the spefic form this group desired is scientifically the correct answer. That is a muddling of opinion and science, one does not have to deny climate change to take issue with proposed methods of negating it.
If they were to say something like "the facts show climate change is real, and as such it is our personal opinion that we must do this to stop it" then that's fine.
Instead we have here, as we see in so many cases, a treatment of science like a religion, "science tells us we must do this" or something similar occurs all to often in modern media, when science says nothing about the should. It's an appeal to authority abused by basically everyone, the idea that because you are scientifically correct that means that you are ideologically correct. If people want to debate the ideological parts, that's great, it should be debated. But right now that doesn't happen, all that needs to be said is "science supports my answer, so my opponent is anti-science."
Scientists must hold themselves higher than this, and begin a change were they make clear the distinction between science fact and idealogy in what they say, not further the issue.

>>8776896
It's hard to say what runs through Pope Justin Castro's head these days other than how to spend a lot of taxpayer money. He is supporting pipelines and looks like Cancuckistan will be a major supplier of crude heading south to make America great again. Obviously fossil fuel - carbon taxation will increase in the Americas as national debts are getting very large and require a steady income stream to pay the interest. Maybe he will pass Sharia law, turn us into his caliphate and ban usury too!

>>8777205
>we have a problem
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>8777205
>So you're really OK with people like bill nye and NDT going around using the fact that they are famous """scientists""" to spout off whatever bullshit they want
Bill Nye is not a scientist, and there is no controversy in astronomy that NDT's (limited) expertise can illuminate. We're talking about climate scientists expressing their opinion on things highly relevant to the climate. Bad analogy.

But even if it wasn't, worst case scenario is we have people talking out of their ass, which is what we have anyway when scientists are not part of the debate. The qualification of scientist doesn't seem to matter much when deniers don't listen to scientists regardless.

>However, when we have scientists saying "The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted" then we have a problem.
Why? I don't see how this statement is more controversial than the previous one which you said was OK. In fact, I would say the former is MUCH more "controversial" than the latter. When you have politicians denying the scientific evidence of AGW, this statement is proven true.

>There is a fundamental assumption in that statement, that because climate change exists, that certain "evidence based" policies must be enacted.
Clearly most deniers agree with this assumption, since they focus so much on denying the existence of AGW and not simply on the policy implications. If AGW is real, harmful, and can be mitigated in a cost effective manner, then most would agree the government should take action. So deniers attack the premises because they don't like the conclusion.

>>8775144

"scientists" can go fuck themselves. they have expended their credibility.

>>8777234
>Instead we have here, as we see in so many cases, a treatment of science like a religion, "science tells us we must do this" or something similar occurs all to often in modern media, when science says nothing about the should.
Dumb strawman. You aren't acknowledging all the parts of the argument.

>If people want to debate the ideological parts, that's great, it should be debated.
Then why are the facts being "debated?"

>But right now that doesn't happen, all that needs to be said is "science supports my answer, so my opponent is anti-science."
Because most are denying the science.

The whole premise of your argument is now that there is some great ideological divide, where even if we were to know for a fact that great harm would befall us and the government could prevent it through moderate regulation, that there is disagreement over whether the government should take action. In reality, most would agree that the government should take action, and it's the facts of the situation that are being denied. Look at this thread, look at the "debate" going on right now. It's not primarily about "we all agree AGW is a problem and can be stopped, but I don't believe the government should fix things." That is a very small minority of the denier-sphere.

>>8777272
Do you know what board you're on right now?

back to >>>/pol/, tourist

>>8777262
>We're talking about climate scientists expressing their opinion on things highly relevant to the climate. Bad analogy.
are we really though? OP's link isn't just about climate scientists marching, it's all scientists. If it were just climate scientists then you'd be correct, but it's any old scientists, people who are not necessarily experts in this field. Just like when tyson starts blabbing about anything that isn't astronomy, this is people using the fact that they are "scientists" to get change.

>But even if it wasn't, worst case scenario is we have people talking out of their ass, which is what we have anyway when scientists are not part of the debate. The qualification of scientist doesn't seem to matter much when deniers don't listen to scientists regardless.
Who gives a shit about the current situation? Just because things are bad now does not mean that scientists should just add to the problem. OP is asking about what they ought to do, not what is currently happening.
>Clearly most deniers agree with this assumption, since they focus so much on denying the existence of AGW and not simply on the policy implications. If AGW is real, harmful, and can be mitigated in a cost effective manner, then most would agree the government should take action. So deniers attack the premises because they don't like the conclusion.
And you believe only deniers disagree with current proposals to mitigate the issue? That ignores a myriad of different perspectives, not everyone who knows enough to admit climate change is in fact real agrees that stuff like energy taxes or whatever is currently being proposed is the best solution

>>8777286
This board is for science. Fake science belongs to >>>/trash/ as well as your spams

>>8775144
>The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter.
Nice, can we talk about how liberals still make policy based on tabula rasa assumptions about human psychology and completely ignore findings in behavioral genetics since they contradict their claim that everyone is born with the same talents?
Or maybe talk about liberals doing quite a bit of scaremongering when it comes to nuclear energy and GMOs?
For some reason, I doubt it.

>>8777286

big bad pol boogeyman hiding under your bed

look at me i'm against racism! that means i'm a good person! don't you think i'm a good person?
i like science! like smart people do!

File: 8Fx11uacv0ho1.jpg (75KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 540x540px

>started new office job last year
>we have a CO2 measuring device
>room should stay under 1000 ppm
>if it gets higher we need to open a window
>nice to get fresh air in
>mfw if the outside reaches 1000 ppm too
But seriously, politicians need to make some drastic changes to our way of life if we're going to save our environment.

>>8777279
You haven't actually adressed my points at all. I'm arguing a should, namely that scientists shouldn't use the fact that they are scientists as an appeal to authority to try and justify their opinions, but instead should prove their opinions logically, and only use science as a tool for providing facts to support those opinions. You aren't actually adressing my answer to OP's question of
>Should scientists really take to the street and march for a particular policy?
But instead just focusing on the issue of climate change, and not the broader arguement of scientists and their role in policy making. I don't give to shits about the issue of climate change, so I don't know whay your focusing on that, instead of discussing OP's actual question. Hell, I'm not even sure if we actually disagree.

>>8777290
>are we really though? OP's link isn't just about climate scientists marching, it's all scientists. If it were just climate scientists then you'd be correct, but it's any old scientists, people who are not necessarily experts in this field. Just like when tyson starts blabbing about anything that isn't astronomy, this is people using the fact that they are "scientists" to get change.
It's not simply about climate science either. So your point is moot. You assumed that the one picture OP posted is the totality of the "March for Science".

>Who gives a shit about the current situation? Just because things are bad now does not mean that scientists should just add to the problem.
Scientists are not adding to the problem, moron. And if we are talking about what ought to be done, then the first thing we should talk about is non-experts distorting the facts. Complaining about scientists is ass-backwards.

>And you believe only deniers disagree with current proposals to mitigate the issue?
I believe that the current "debate" is dominated by people denying the scientific evidence, such that we can't even move on to what policies if any should be enacted based on that evidence. As you claimed, we are talking about what ought to be. Isn't the first step in what ought to be done to agree on the scientific facts? It's telling that you abandoned your argument that 400,000 years is not enough to tell us about an anomalous climate and have fallen back to the last resort, which is to argue that we should do nothing. Fine, you want to argue that, go ahead! You'll lose.

>>8777300
>>8777309
You're not fooling anyone, you have to go back >>>/pol/

File: christy4.png (1MB, 2133x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2133x1600px

>>8776251
>>8776232
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-wearier.html
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/

Read the above to understand why this graph is deception, plain and simple. They're using statistical methods to skew the data in their favor, which is hilarious, because that's exactly what climate change deniers accuse climate scientists of doing. The deniers cherrypick again and again, just goes to show how shit their arguments actually are.

>>8776245
It never did, it was never published outside of Spencer's shitty blog, and then spread to all the other climate change denial blogs.

>>8775144
Climate change is a blanket word, it always existed. The current use for it however is a buzzword to push leftist political agendas.

>>8777310
Sure that's not a carbon monoxide detector?
If not the mass ignorance has begun in earnest. CO2, a harmless compound critical to life on the planet is now officially a pollutant? Only a religion could successfully propagate nonsense like that.

>>8777326
>You haven't actually adressed my points at all. I'm arguing a should, namely that scientists shouldn't use the fact that they are scientists as an appeal to authority to try and justify their opinions,
I already addressed this. It's an appeal to expertise.

OP is about a general march for science, so how is it about scientists arguing for a particular policy without expertise?

>>8777401
Denial of scientific facts belongs on >>>/pol/ and >>>/x/

>>8777401
Oh look, it's the samefag "muh religion" poster that always comes into these threads, has zero actual arguments, doesn't understand the scientific evidence, nor has any desire to, and continues his cute little anecdotal and fallacy-ridden shitposts time after time.

I ask again, why are you here? What compels you to come to a science board when you have no desire to actually act like an objective scientist? Leave, go back to your echo chamber please if you're not willing to engage in a rational discussion.

>>8777326
I did address the question. The answer is unequivocally yes. Talking about scientists supposedly misrepresenting their expertise is a non-sequitur.

>>8777310
>believing politicians can save us
That's what they want you to believe, to depend on them as some sort of humanity's saviour is what they want and you just took the appeal to authority bait.

The reality is that the population is responsible for pollution and we outnumbered politicians and the government. The majority of the populice are also lazy and apathetic towards cleaning. The only possible way is dictatorship that you would regret in the end.

File: ozone_hole_recovery.v2.png (956KB, 2052x1152px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 2052x1152px

>>8777432
>>believing politicians can save us

How about the historical precedent from Montreal Protocol?
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30602
All the countries got together, decided to ban CFC, and the ozone hole over Antarctica and Scandinavia recover. It is an undeniable success of sensible regulation based on scientific evidence in reducing negative anthropogenic impact on complex system like climate change.

How about the Clean Air Act banning lead in the gasoline, despite opposition from many many faux ""scientists"" from the industry? The benefit are overwhelming and nowadays it would be child abuse to paint your children's room with leaded paint.

How about phasing out DDT from pesticides, because it reduces the thickness of American Eagle? After DDT is phased out, the American Eagle population throughout the country has rebounded and some in Alaska and Montana might've turned into pest territory.

Sensible regulation has been shown to work historically.

>>8777454
You know damn well their solution for the current outcry is a taxation above all else. Regardless all those acts, explain why the carbon emission levels are still increasing according to them? Bristish Colombia has proven that carbon tax has little to no effects at all. And if you're gonna say renewable energy, do you believe it has the ability to actually replace the current tried and true forms of energies in our lifetime when all those forms also prove their own detrimental effects to the environment?

File: imrs.php.png (2MB, 1484x834px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1484x834px

>>8777432
>>8777454
Libshit cannot compute

>>8776396
>why should we have to clean up china's mess? why should we have to clean up what anybody else did?
one of my housemates is a jerk who leaves dishes in the sink. I've talked to him about it and he's improved a little bit, but he's still pulling that bullshit. now, I could just let his dishes fester...or I could load them into the dishwasher at the same time as I load my own dishes in, which is what I do. sure, it's unfair to me. but at the end of the day, I don't want my sink to be full of dishes, because I need the sink to be usable.

>>8776372
>glaciers contain a FUCKLOAD of GHG
like >>8776420 said, this is fucking gibberish. you may be thinking of seafloor methane clathrates? or possibly you're thinking of thawing permafrost? eather way you're a moron.

>>8776455
just another day in
> /sci/ - Autism and /Pol/lution

>>8776488
>>8776497
>>8776499
>>8776802
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism

>>8776830
>The only role a scientist has in any form of poltics is to provide expert opinions, to say "this is the current understanding." They should and must not inject personal beliefs and bias, and most definitely should never say "this is what we SHOULD do," as that would no longer be a statement based in evidence, observation and reason, and as such is no longer a scientific statement, and to use one's authority in such a way is a crime against science.
>what is a normative science
so Louis Pasteur shouldn't ever have said "we should try vaccinating kids so they don't die"? take your purity-test popsci bullshit elsewhere.

>>8777491
>Regardless all those acts, explain why the carbon emission levels are still increasing according to them?
Because neither the Montreal Protocol nor the Clean Air Act regulate CO2 emission you moron.

>You know damn well their solution for the current outcry is a taxation above all else
So? Cigarettes are bad for your lungs. So we tax cigarettes and allocate the money generated into anti smoking campaign. Excessive gambling is bad for you. So we tax casinos and allocate the money generated into infrastructures and gambling addiction awareness program. Alcohol, legal weed, etc there are tons of things that is sensible to tax. Fossil fuel emission is one of them.

>this thread
While I don't believe in the left/right dichotomy, it would appear that the "right" has become polluted with nonsensical political partisanship. The American "right" has become synonymous with the general right, and with anti-science sentiment. This is unfortunate.

Actual traditionalist/fascist/NS/etc. philosophers, historians, and scientists exist. An overarching theme is one of environmentalism. Look at NSDAP germany's view on animals, deforestation, etc. Look at Ted Kaczynski's views, very much in line with both environmentalism and trad thought. Evola, spengler, etc. all viewed nature as something close to the divine.

And yet we are here, where if you believe in taking steps to curtail damage to the environment, you are a kike shill faggot who should fuck right off back to r/srs. When will dumb/pol/ leave so that real/pol/ doesn't have to be a refugee in its own political sphere?

That being said, if the West is going to be industrious, environmentalism will have to find a way to live with industriousness. It's all well and good to say that to minimize our negative effects on he environment, we should all ride bikes and blow up the factories, or other such nonsensical suggestions that nobody takes seriously.

What are some ways to focus on contemporary "climate change" and environmental issues, that does not cripple the West's industry or further take power from the West and give it to the third world/asia? Moving pollution from America and relocating it to China doesn't solve the issue. Taking production FROM China, relocating it to America, and making it more efficient and cleaner, however, IS a solution.

Attacking me for my trad political beliefs and projecting anything from the aut-right or /pol/ onto me is neither beneficial nor an argument.

>>8777506
>Because neither the Montreal Protocol nor the Clean Air Act regulate CO2 emission you moron.
And you believe carbon tax will? lol

Again British Columbia is proof of its failure regardless what the liberal news outlet praise it to be, might as well use chinese medicine if you believe an economically joke like carbon tax will do more good than harm. CO2 emissions is a product of the population, taxing the population does nothing. The rates of people smoking cigarettes is the same, increasing as the population increase.

Also stop ignoring my other questions.

File: nrc2703-f5.jpg (32KB, 600x318px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x318px

>>8777536
>The rates of people smoking cigarettes is the same, increasing as the population increase.

That is factually not true. Cigarettes PER PERSON per day has been steadily decreasing. Total cigarettes sales have been decreasing despite population increase due to increase in tax and cigarettes sales.

Source of pic related
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n9/full/nrc2703.html

You're objectively W.R.O.N.G

>>8777546
>>8777536
NIGGA HAHAHA WHAT IS FACTS AND NUMBERS EVERYTIME YOU GOT BTFO JUST IGNORE THE POST AND PRETEND TO BE OTHER ANON

>>8777546
So it exactly just prevents the poor from buying too much while it remains beneficial for the rich. That's great, there's a difference however is that cigarettes is a useless luxury so I'm glad. People however need cars and other products that that emit CO2 upon creation.

Carbon tax is a failure.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_1609_carbontax_web.pdf

>>8777618
>what is differnece and non black and white thinking

>>8777623
What is spelling and writing complete sentences for a change so that people can understand you

>>8777643
>what is actually looking at the details and differences of scenarios rather than focusing on typos to disregard discussion then act like some retard yelling worldstar

>>8777620
Your source is highly misleading and partisan, just like you.

The fact that emissions have risen doesn't mean that the carbon tax hasn't reduced consumption. The carbon tax in this case is so small that no one expected it to turn emissions growth negative.

It then argues that it failed because taxed emissions rose faster than untaxed, which is not a fair comparison because the industries producing those emissions are not supposed to produce the same rates of change in the first place.

Food and Water Watch is only satisfied with "drastic" reductions in CO2, regardless of the cost benefit. It openly admits this and rejects the economic calculus. So of course it concludes that the carbon tax failed, even though it worked exactly as designed.

>>8777661
Like I said before, the Carbon Tax had little to no effect. Because it's taxing useful products that people are gonna use regardless. It's not a solution at all, it would only make it that it's gonna be hard for the poor to get those products. Even then they will because it's a priority in this modern world.
What would you exactly do if I tax your cooking stove usage because it produces CO2 every time you make a meal? It's retarded to raise taxes on in demmand products that people actually need.

>>8777658
>differences of scenarios
You mean alternative facts?

Because you just made a claim "CO2 emissions is a product of the population, taxing the population does nothing. The rates of people smoking cigarettes is the same, increasing as the population increase." that is objectively proven to be wrong.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts

>>8777670
Carbon tax isn't magic. You have a small carbon tax, you get a small effect.

>Because it's taxing useful products that people are gonna use regardless.
The point is that they use it less, not to get them to stop using it entirely.

>It's not a solution at all, it would only make it that it's gonna be hard for the poor to get those products.
Which one is it? It had no effect or it prevents people from using it? Stick to one consistent lie please.

>>8777672
I was wrong about the cigarettes sure, but are you just gonna ignore the difference that cigarettes are just luxuries you can live without meanwhile most products people need and relly on to survive in this modern world emits CO2 upon their production and usage? Big difference.

File: grief1.jpg (65KB, 751x522px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 751x522px

>>8777670
Not him, but there are a lot of luxury usage on carbon emission.

For example, if utilities are more expensive people are more inclined to put solar panel on their roof to reduce the cost, and also not have a lightbulb on/phone/computer charging indefinitely. Another example is that if gas price are sufficiently high people are more inclined to get cars with higher mileage. Finally it's not about people and taxing small business, but taxing industries. Dirty industry will get carbon taxed more, and under cap and trade cleaner industries will be able to trade away their negative offset, creating a capitalist marketplace where all the industries are racing to reduce their tax burden by becoming cleaner and reducing emission.

I see you're in the bargaining stage now. You still have a quite a bit to go

>>8776232
Source of the satellite and balloon datasets? I'm pretty sure those aren't correct.

>>8777694
It's from Roy Spencer, a climate contrarian (who also happens to be a creationist that denys evolution as well, big surprise). I think he originally posted it on his own blog, and then it spread from there to all the usual suspects in climate change denial like WUWT, Climatedepot, etc.

See
>>8777386
for a few articles on why his graphs are misleading and incorrect.

Also, the models have been pretty damn accurate in their predictions, not perfect, but far from as bad as contrarians try to make it seem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

Also see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_7q-w06B4

>>8777674
>Carbon tax isn't magic. You have a small
>The point is that they use it less, not to get them to stop using it entirely.
carbon tax, you get a small effect.
Never did I say it was magic, the thing is why would castrate the livelihood of people, especially the poor? Only the not so well off will be forced to use it less.

>Which one is it? It had no effect or it prevents people from using it? Stick to one consistent lie please.
It has little to no effect because people prioritize those products regardless, you're just gonna make it harder to get and since it's a priority most are still gonna get it with more effort spent towards gaining it. That's why the effect is shit. Increasing the tax way higher would just be ridiculous now would it?

> if utilities are more expensive people are more inclined to put solar panel on their roof to reduce the cost
Solar panel is much more expensive compared to the current ones being used. It's a luxury by definition, and only the wealthy would get fooled into buying it for their roofs with the false sense of belief that their supposedly saving the environment. What's so wrong with the original energy used for electricity? I believe more on balance than full own subversion.

http://www.usu.edu/ipe/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Reliability-Solar-Full-Report.pdf
> IPE determined that using
tax dollars to mandate and subsidize solar power is not a worthwhile investment because the high costs of overcoming
solar power's unreliability outweigh its limited environmental benefits.

>Dirty industry will get carbon taxed more, and under cap and trade cleaner industries will be able to trade away their negative offset, creating a capitalist marketplace where all the industries are racing to reduce their tax burden by becoming cleaner and reducing emission.
Industries still emit CO2 regardless if cleaned or not, almost all products emit CO2 on production due to the fact fire is required to mold them.

>>8777684
oops forgot to link you to>>8777740

(I'm on a shitty touch screen phone.)

>>8777744
>Dumb phoneposters

>>8775782
>okay, but
You're already more intellectually honest than the entire denier community.

>>8777670
This. The price of Gasoline in Canada is more than 50% tax. But people are still driving their cars just as much as they were 50 years ago.

>>8775144
"scientists", is that what they call these paid protesters now?

>>8777740
>Never did I say it was magic, the thing is why would castrate the livelihood of people, especially the poor?
It's not, stop making shit up. The carbon tax you posted about gave tax credits to poor people. They lost nothing.

>It has little to no effect because people prioritize those products regardless, you're just gonna make it harder to get and since it's a priority most are still gonna get it with more effort spent towards gaining it.
Again, you just doubled down on the contradiction. Either argue that it prevents people from buying fuel or that it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. You are delusional if you think that all fossil fuel use is necessary and people will do anything to get it. It's simply basic economics. When the price goes up, consumption will go down. Economists can calculate an optimal carbon tax rate schedule that will maximize the benefit/cost. You have no argument.

The rest are quotes from someone else.

>>8777823
They ARE wearing lab coats, though...

>>8777808
>The price of Gasoline in Canada is more than 50% tax.
It's actually 35% on average:

http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/gas-taxes-canada.aspx

Why can't deniers stop lying?

>>8777824
lolno http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/22/trudeau-carbon-tax-takes-from-the-poor-gives-to-the-rich

>Either argue that it prevents people from buying fuel or that it doesn't.
>yes/no?
Black and white thinking. It makes it hard for them, not prevent, however if raising it more then of course they will get effected more.

>You are delusional if you think that all fossil fuel use is necessary and people will do anything to get it.
The only delusional ones are those in denial to its uses evidently shown with vehicles and other technologies.

> When the price goes up, consumption will go down.
Again that's why it's gonna affect the not so well off. Why is that hard for you to understand?

>>8777840
He's probably referring to British Columbia, the area that got carbon taxed.

>>8777902
>lolno http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/22/trudeau-carbon-tax-takes-from-the-poor-gives-to-the-rich
This says nothing about the BC carbon tax. Try again.

>Black and white thinking.
You're the one who said it has no effect and it castrates people. Those are your words.

>The only delusional ones are those in denial to its uses evidently shown with vehicles and other technologies.
What are you talking about moron? Who denied its uses?

>Again that's why it's gonna affect the not so well off. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Consumption going down doesn't mean the poor will be affected.

>He's probably referring to British Columbia, the area that got carbon taxed.
He said "the price of gasoline in Canada" so I don't know why you would think he's "probably" referring to BC. Not to mention that even with the carbon tax, the percentage of the gasoline cost that is tax in BC is below 35%. He just lied.

File: 16291168453474653612.jpg (65KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x800px

oh cool, the popsci march
have fun, I guess. It's not like it's getting hijacked by ideologues and rubbing hands SocJus

pic related

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

75KB, 1031x519px

>>8777740
>Industries still emit CO2 regardless if cleaned or not, almost all products emit CO2 on production due to the fact fire is required to mold them.
is this kid srs

File: Oskar_Dirlewanger.jpg (50KB, 472x785px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 472x785px

>solution to climate change is to go to war with India and China

you aren't new, you aren't special, you aren't different

File: 20160219_Road_Death_Fo.png (159KB, 960x684px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 960x684px

>>8776909
>Have you seen Asian people using motor vehicles? They crash them into telephone poles.
M-muh racist /pol/ anecdotal evidence

>I believe in man made climate change

>>8778228
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

when you factor this in, china rises to the top
japan is still low on the list though

>>8777620
People only NEED cars in cities with really poor public transport systems or in the country. So, they are not so much a Need, except in US

>>8778254
>>8778228
USA = 102.5 death/million / (795,000 cars/million people) x 100% = 0.0128% fatal crash rate per vehicle

China = 43 death/million / (202,000 cars/million people) x 100% = 0.0213% fatal crash rate per vehicle

Japan = 40.5 death/million / (591,000 cars/million people) x 100% = 0.0068% fatal crash rate per vehicle

India = 110 death/million / (32,000 cars/million people) x 100% = 0.343% fatal crash rate per vehicle

Pajeets confirmed as worst drivers on Earth

>>8775149
I agree with anon

regardless of the theory, no matter how "obvious" it is, it is never absolutely true.

Absolutely anything and everything may be disputed, investigated, or improved upon.
It's absolutely disgusting to restrict the pursuit of knowledge like this.

To you faggots; Let people have opinions, use scientific method to investigate the results. Do NOT flaunt previous results as a holy truth.

To all the climate change deniers out there; look at the data, state your problems with it, and maybe conduct your own research. But do not lie to yourself, and do not bias the results.

The truth is in the universe, one way or the other. And everyone has the right to pursue it.

>>8778288
I bet you're also a moral relativist. Some truth are more true than others.

You can test the theory of gravity all you want in your lab out of curiosity, but it is the closest version of truth that we have and building a bridge without taking gravity and weights into account will turn into obvious disaster.

Same with climate change. How much human influence over climate change gonna keep getting tested, with the latest paper saying that 50% of sea ice decline is due to natural variability and the remaining 50% due to anthropogenic forcing. In my field, science has steadily moves away from alarmist view on clathrate gun hypothesis into a mellow not doomsday scenario. There are some aspect that is open for debate, tiny aspects here and there that needs to be ironed out but in term of informing public and enforcing policies the basic framework of manmade AGW hypothesis is robust

>>8778315
>science has steadily moves away from alarmist view on clathrate gun hypothesis into a mellow not doomsday scenario.

thats literally not what the public at large hears. they see sensationalist pictures of starving polar bears and Al Gore preaching the apocalypse. whats more, is the scientists that are doing the research turn a blind eye to the fearmongering because it nets them more funding.

>>8777454
If the ozone hole is bigger than ever today... Then how can banning CFC's be claimed to be a success?

Based on the fantasy that it will just fix itself in the past?

File: table-12.4-v2.gif (47KB, 713x437px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 713x437px

>>8778329
It's on the IPCC AR5 report that came out in 2013 saying that clathrate dissociation is extremely unlikely, pic related from Chapter 12.

Ice core record shows that this suspected clathrate derived CH4 was not detectable during previous collapse of the Laurentide/North American Ice sheet and the Earth coming out of Last Glacial maximum
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/506.short

There's a report coming from USGS last month that really put the nail into the coffin
https://www.usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release

I don't know what you want me and other people in the field to do. Bill Nye hasn't talk about the clathrate gun hypothesis in 3 years since the IPCC report came out.

>>8778349
future*

>>8778329
Again with this truly naive belief that scientists have some variety of conspiracy to get funding.

Scientists give opinions when asked, the entire point of this fucking thread is to address whether or not they should be more vocal in their opinions by protesting/marching.

You're the type that believe there's a magic-silver-bullet cure-all for every cancer but they wont release it because its too profitable for scientists to keep it in some vault away from peer review since theyd stop getting funding.

Academia relies on funding, yes, but the scientific community is full of those types of autists that will spend months playing tit-for-tat nitpicking the smallest details of their peers papers.

You think they wouldnt scream bloody murder if brought on a show for an opinion when someone's presenting a hyperbolic statement?

If someone who's finished diff wanted money that badly they'd just go into finance.

>>8778349
Each gas species has an atmospheric lifetime. 55 years for CFC11 and 140 years for CFC12, so there's a significant lag between the time you stop emitting CFC11 & CFC12 and the time where the substance was scrubbed out of the atmosphere.

What you see here >>8777454 is that the degradation of ozone hole has actually plateau'd and slowed down significantly since the the early 2000's. Without the Montreal protocol the ozone hole would've dipped further into oblivion on the chart.

According to the montreal protocol CFC are to be phased in 10 years, starting from 1987 to complete phase out in 1997. The size of ozone hole fits model prediction really well, since it takes 55 years for the atmosphere to scrub CFC11 and 140 years for the atmosphere to scrub off CFC12 it's gonna take a while before the ozone hole recover fully.

This also highlight the problem with climate change mitigation. Even if everyone stops emitting CO2 now, the earth still gonna warm because lifetime of CO2 in the is about 100 years and there will be this lag effect in show

>>8778351
>I don't know what you want me and other people in the field to do.

if people in the field don't have agency over how their/your findings are presented, then skepticism (and even flat out denial) is not an unreasonable response.

there needs to be more vocal opinion from the researchers side of the fence. lets hear an eminent climatologist chastising a news outlet for alarmist behavior. lets see a group of researchers turn down money (lol yeah right) that was acquired through sensationalist tactics.

man the fuck up and own your shit. the days of hiding in your lab while the media and politicians do your talking for you are over.

>>8778353
>Again with this truly naive belief that scientists have some variety of conspiracy to get funding

after working several years for the government, both in the military and civilians side. i can say with absolute certainty that "white mans welfare" and scientific boondoggles exist.

furthermore, i didn't claim there was a conspiracy. i pointed out that climate researchers are getting more funding because the media is sensationalising what they do. which is absolutely true. while they are not actively pursuing this money, its coming to them all the same. i criticized their inaction in the matter.

>>8778371
>ets hear an eminent climatologist chastising a news outlet for alarmist behavior.
alarmist is the behavior you need to have when the president is a denier

this will have consequences if nothing is done

File: Untitled.png (46KB, 733x541px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 733x541px

>>8778371
When Natasha Shakhova from University of Alaska Fairbanks reporting tons and tons of potential clathrate dissociation in the East Siberian Arctic shelf, she got a pretty harsh repudiation letter almost instantly
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1146.2.short

When the idiot economists without good understanding further take her number, and came out with a comical cost of $60 trillion on global economy, both Nature and the New York Times who cover the study got blasted instantaneously by everyone else in the field.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/arctic-methane-hydrate-catastrophe

Carolyn Ruppel who's the leader of Methane Hydrate project from USGS went on NBC News to shoot down the estimate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/claims-arctic-methane-disaster-stir-controversy-6C10786434

Ed Dlugokencky the big boss who run the NOAA lab that measures CH4 all over the world also releases a press statement saying that the study was a crockpot of malarkey

Even the usual pro AGW climate blog like skeptical science called this shit out
https://skepticalscience.com/toward-improved-discussions-methane.html

So what do these people do? They got some asshole non scientist Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development to write an alarmist article on the Guardian saying that all these experts who spent their lives studying these very things are wrong
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb
>All this proves that the $60 trillion price-tag for Arctic warming estimated by the latest Nature commentary should be taken seriously, prompting further urgent research and action on mitigation - rather than denounced on the basis of outdated, ostrich-like objections based on literature unacquainted with the ESAS.

And at that point there's not much else you can do. There are extremists on both sides for sure.

>>8778371
>>8778409
Just to add, despite the degree of alarmism real science wins out.

IPCC which guides most of summary decisions decided to put "extremely unlikely" on methane clathrate dissociation in near future, and all the batshit alarmists got was a consolation prize with a guardian article written by a hack non-scientist from think tank institute.

These skirmishes happen all the time, and most of the time true science wins out in relevant documents like the IPCC report while the losers on each side ends up in social media being a loudmouth minority.

>>8777674

there is no proof that carbon tax will change the economic elasticity of it

Another example of clusterfuck of a study that got immediately rebuked is this study coming out last year

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19798.html

Basically the author tried to come up with new "climate sensitivity" parameter and came up with this outrageous 7-9C per doubling CO2 which is about 2-3x higher than IPCC estimates. All of her co-authors pulled out of the study, and she's forced to YOLO the manuscript as single author into Nature.

Unfortunately the double blind peer review system let us down, and her manuscript passed peer review probably due to weak sets of reviewers who happen to be on duty. Even Gavin Schmidt from NASA GISS, one of the loudest loudspeaker for AGW called the study out here
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/climate-study-under-fire/7881740

She kinda didn't give a fuck really, despite her other authors pulling out she knew that the paper would generate a lot of citation. Needless to say, she's no longer working in academia/research nowadays

>>8778441
Change the elasticity? Why would a carbon tax need to change the elasticity of gasoline? All you need is for that elasticity to be negative, which literally every study has found. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

>>8778353
>Again with this truly naive belief that scientists have some variety of conspiracy to get funding.
I mean... he's not *completely* off-base.

I know every time our PI goes to present a funding proposal for our space plasma research we fill the slides with renderings of big spooky CME's coming towards the Earth and scary factoids about the potential damage of geomagnetic storms and shit.

Everybody fearmongers a little - the space guys, the fusion guys, the AMO guys, everybody. It's a bit underhanded but it gets shit funded.

from what I can tell, climate change is occurring, much like it has in the past, human are contributing enough to change it in a noticeable degree, but we are not going to destroy the earth at our current rate. It doesn't appear to be such as dire matter that a march would be necessary, awareness, done very calmly through advertisement or speeches, with clear evidence should be fine. The march should not occur, it seems rather unneeded, besides, taking legal action, filing paper and making debate has been proven to work better. Usually when a large demonstration like this takes place, there is the initial thought that these people don't know anything, they are dumb rebels that need to be stopped. Look at the reactions to marches during the civil rights era and those of today, none were initially taken with positive growing emotions. It would be far more effective to go thorough systems of debate and legal systems to get your point out there and get it to do something.

I don't know, you can march if you want, it just doesn't seem to be very effective, necessary, and seems to make you seem more emotional than anything.

>>8778284
>Pajeets confirmed as worst drivers on Earth
I think it was somewhere near Kathmandu American engineers upgraded a winding mountain road from Indian standards to American highway standards and fatalities drastically increased. The Pajeets took their road retardation and went into top gear, passing on blind double yellows, ignoring posted limits, tailgating at highway speeds and what not. Needless to say that sort of project was forever dropped.

>>8778378
If the science is settled and the debate is over, wtf are they even doing? There is a conspiracy, it is a blatant energy grab through fear mongering to control, or at least get a slice of a resource pie critical to modern life, fossil fuels. This like many suspected conspiracies it becomes obvious in hindsight. Cap and trade and carbon taxation schemes do not correlate to the dogma, do not address the line of fear mongering, are lining the parasite class pocket while fixing nothing. AGW is a religion not a science.

>>8778540
>AGW is a religion not a science.
Buzzwords doesn't mean anything here in /sci/
Come up with your own sources, citations, data and peer reviewed studies to support your claim

>>8778528
>from what I can tell, climate change is occurring, much like it has in the past
The current changes in the climate are very different to historical changes.

>human are contributing enough to change it in a noticeable degree
We're contributing 80%-100%.

>but we are not going to destroy the earth at our current rate.
No-one but deniers has said anything about "destroying the Earth".

>awareness, done very calmly through advertisement or speeches, with clear evidence should be fine.
They've been trying that for twenty years now. It doesn't work, people just ignore the climatologists, and now we've run out of time to deal with the problem calmly.

>It doesn't appear to be such as dire matter that a march would be necessary,
>The march should not occur, it seems rather unneeded
It definitely is that dire by now. And they're marching because nothing else is working.

>taking legal action, filing paper and making debate has been proven to work better.
What legal action can be taken? CO2 isn't legally regulated to any significant degree in the USA. Do you think Trump is going to expand the powers of the EPA?

>I don't know, you can march if you want, it just doesn't seem to be very effective, necessary, and seems to make you seem more emotional than anything.
Apathy might make you look calm, but it's far from a rational response to real problems.

>>8778587
>We're contributing 80%-100%.
I'm on your side anon, but that number is not true. We can quantify each aspect and human contribution to each of the aspects as I laid out >>8776558

Another example, the Arctic sea ice which is the poster boy for AGW we can quantify and 30-50% of decline is due to natural variability rather than anthropogenic forcing
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nclimate3241.html

File: WGI_AR5_Fig10-5.jpg (343KB, 2069x1430px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 2069x1430px

>>8778604
That number is true. Approximately 100% of the warming observed since 1950 is caused by man according to the IPCC. The contribution could be greater than 100% due to natural sources of cooling counteracting man's warming. The "about 50%" number you cited appears to be the 40% increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution, which is not the same thing as the amount of warming.

>>8777969
Tf does w/t mean

File: seriously4.png (12KB, 396x427px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 396x427px

>>8778637
>Approximately 100% of the warming observed since 1950 is caused by man according to the IPCC. The contribution could be greater than 100% due to natural sources of cooling counteracting man's warming.

File: YJYNTno[1].jpg (8KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 320x320px

>>8778705
oh look, it's THIS post again
>humans contribute 120 units of warming
>natural sources contribute 20 units of cooling
>total warming is 100 units
>humans contribute 120% of observed warming

Give me the truth, do we really have 60 years of agriculture left?

>>8775144
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that our short time as the apex predator and world conqueror will have drastic effects on the world. No other significantly advanced species in all their entire collective lifetime has accomplished what we have in little less than 50,000 years. To think our actions, collectively, have no effects on our planet is basically dismantling everything we've learned to do.(like thinking rationally and critically)

I can only hope that humanity dies and that the planet spawns a new Super species.

>>8778556
>Buzzwords doesn't mean anything here in /sci/
>Brainlet

>>8777162
>Artillery: The last argument of Kings
You're God-damn right it is

>>8775878
The term "climate change" as it is politically used today curiously came about within the last decade. During the time of Al Gore's shitty documentary (inb4 "Al Gore isn't taken seriously. His documentary is representative of the thought-processes of AGW believers of the time) "climate change" was never brought up, only always global warming.

>>8778857
We are at or very near peak energy with oil and gas, the last half will be expensive and difficult to recover and process. There will be much demand for it as is already apparent and we pretty much eat oil. Demand is rising quickly, resource wars are almost guaranteed from here on out be it nation states fighting each other or a militarized world government beating down problematic (consumer) populations at large.

In 60 years the modern world as we know it will be gone along with most of the people unless a full scale nuclear war breaks out and annihilates a lot of urban centers, then we might have a couple hundred years of oil and gas left. There is also the incurable plague card mother nature might play with similar results reducing demand drastically.

Agriculture will always be around but you could also say we have reached peak agricultural production for the same reason. It was never sustainable and deep down everyone with a basic awareness of the world around them knows that.

>>8777505
>one of my housemates is a jerk who leaves dishes in the sink. I've talked to him about it and he's improved a little bit, but he's still pulling that bullshit.
So you're a weak little bitch who is always going to be doing the laundry for your roommate because you're too timid to tell him to fix his shit or move out immediately. And your roommate is NEVER going to change his ways because he KNOWS that you are cleaning his shit for him, retard. So in the end, you are going to eternally be picking up after your shitty roommate because you have no spine

Also
>Anecdotal evidence

>>8778983
Dishes I mean
You're still a faggot

>>8776773
>Scientific studies (written by scientists) all say the same shit
>Somehow this is different than the scientists themselves saying the same shit
That's a bad picture senpai

why are /poltards so in love with climate change denial? It's going to result in a literal flood into europe and northern america of millions of browns that they hate. If they think shit is bad now, wait 40 years.

>>8776806
The US military has done more for "science" than any of these ((agencies)) put together.
Prove me wrong, I dare you

>>8777129
>What one publishes in a scientific research paper is what is claimed to be science. What one does in the street is not claimed to be science by anyone.
>Implying your actions in your free time can't affect your actions in your career

>Me in street
NIGGER
>Me at work
P-please don't fire me sir. All because I yelled nigger in the street doesn't mean that my personal biases will affect my work or my interactions with my colleagues!

If personal bias can affect a racist, it should affect a "scientist"

>>8775549
>gives an anecdote again.
anon...

>>8777407
/pol/ is a board for politics, stop treating it like a boogeyman
If you don't like the ""racists"" on /pol/ then you are welcome to try to change the political climate of the board with your "enlightened liberal values"

>>8775797
0 plus 4 does not equal 6 anon

>>8777520
You're a good man, my man
It's a shame these leftist fuckers have avoided your post

>>8778676
wattage over time silly :^)

>>8778135
Who said going to war with China meant we need to rape China?

>>8779014
>Prove me wrong, I dare you
Name one state of the art AOGCM (atmosphere-ocean general circulation model) climate models/weather prediction model that is run by US military

>>8779038
>these leftist fuckers have avoided your TL;DR post

>>8779031
There is literally nothing that could possibly convince them. No matter how true what we say is, there are a hundred more convincing lies that they can choose from. They don't care about truth, they care about basically anything but truth. If being black really made you less intelligent genetically, I would accept it. If Jews really ran the world, I'd accept it. But nothing they say even approaches truth. They just don't care.

I'd really love to know what side made environmental issues a political ideology first?

>>8778983
don't worry, I've already set in motion a devious plot to force him out in a couple months (as soon as the lease is up) and already have a better housemate to replace him with.
there's more going on behind the scenes than either you or he knows.

>>8778993
it's the difference between someone saying "it's hot out" and them telling you what the thermometer says. it's the same guy making the statement, but there's the crucial element of objectivity from the actual data (rather than just opinions).

>>8775144
>Le debate is over maymay

That's not how science works faggot. Love how these McScientists have to wear lab coats outside to signal the symbolism they want to propagate.

File: 1445790236114.png (537KB, 692x577px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 692x577px

>>8778979
we're dead men walking essentially?

>>8775155

i bet the people here in lab coats will be hipsters and Marxists , the science behind this is just a cover up.

the reason why you know this. is that their solutions are always "more government control, less capitalism" its not science, its politics.

a scientific solution would be to stay in the lab and figure out how to terra-form the earth or invent sustainable energy soruces

>>8775658

yea and its funny how no scientist have marched for any other potential catastrophes. like nuclear weapon, AI, gene modifications, bioweapons, pandemic , asteroids prevention, volcanoes, traveling to other planets(not having all eggs in one basked)

all of these scientific issues has not made any scientist take into the streets. This particular topic is heavily politicized and there is many people that have seen this as an opportunity to camouflage their ideology and get it into power

>>8779736
Because none of those issues are ignored or denied. Climate Change does get ignored and denied.

>>8775144
back to >>>/x/ with your libtard ""science"""

>>8779736
>asteroids prevention

Are you an idiot?

File: laugh even harder.jpg (31KB, 363x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 363x310px

>>8780162
>none of those issues are ignored or denied

Stopping laughing long enough to ask if you seriously believe that anything on that list is not being ignored to a WAY larger extent than AGW.

Now back to laughing.

>>8775149
>IMPLYING ANY OF YOU ARE DOING RESEARCH TO TRY AND DISPROVE AGW

shitposting on 4chan is not scientific research


BBUBBUBUBUBUBUUTUT MUH JEWISH CONSSSPIRRACCCCYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

go back to /pol/

>>8780168
He phrased it poorly; you know exactly what he means, unless you are also an idiot.

>>8780173
>nuclear proliferation
>ignored

2/10 you got bites

>>8780181

No I don't. How the fuck can you march to prevent asteroid collisions? What asteroids even?

>>8780201
>I-I was just pretending to be retarded guys I d-don't have any arguments

that's nice /pol/luter ;)

>>8779736
>>8779736
Because most world leaders understand the risks of things like nuclear weapons, AI, gene modifications, pandemics, and asteroids, and don't pretend they're a Sino-Jewish conspiracy to enact global communism and muddy the Aryan gene pool. Even fucking Dolan understands that nuclear weapons are, in fact, dangerous.

>>8780204
ssshhh, you'll burn your 40 IQ brain here because of the global warming and the ebil white repubs. Go to your safe space bunker away from the burning sun
>>>/x/

>>8780201
>>8780163
But you guys never presented the reason why AGW is not happening, with backed up studies and citation.

Our side have presented our data and arguments time and time again, for example >>8776574 which is based purely in observations and 1st principle physics, not relying on any model conjecture.

Even then, the climate models, especially NASA GISS and NCAR's CCSM3 are completely open source, well commented, so any /g/entooman and /sci/ are open to download the code and point out if there's a problem with it.

File: kang.png (62KB, 140x207px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 140x207px

>>8780214
>I-I was just pretending to be retarded guys I d-don't have any arguments

>>8780215
because they're trolls

nobody on 4chan has enough climatology expertise to field any argument doubles advocate or no against AGW. they regurgitate what the blogspot tells them.

why is AGW seen as such a threat to and by /pol/

>>8780226
Why is AGW ridiculed in every board including /sci/?

>>8780229
why do you waste your life shitposting on an anonymous imageboard devoted to anime

>>8780231
/sci/ makes fun of you cultist retards on a daily basis. Don't blame me for your own autism. Get a job or something.

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

168KB, 792x633px

>>8780229
actually /sci/ is where people defend it the most, and best
people show links, sources, citations, figures
people debunk your sources and figures, over and over again

but i am trying to understand why /pol/ fears AGW, its implications, so they choose to minimize it, divert attention from it

just trying to understand

>>8780237
why do you waste your life shitposting on an anonymous imageboard devoted to anime

>>8780226
>why is AGW seen as such a threat to and by /pol/
most people generally update their beliefs based on tribal affiliation. since the American conservative tribe has chosen to reject AGW science as either false, a liberal conspiracy, a sino-jewish conspiracy, overblown, or whatever, /pol/ aligns their beliefs accordingly.

>>8780244
That makes sense

but let me rephrase, why has this politically engaged conservative tribe decided it's a sino-jewish conspiracy?

>>8780249
why do you waste your life shitposting on an anonymous imageboard devoted to anime

>>8780266
>it's the JEW's fault after all

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-26 at 12.54.27 PM.png (1MB, 2821x1863px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2821x1863px

>>8780225
>nobody on 4chan has enough climatology expertise to field any argument doubles advocate or no against AGW. they regurgitate what the blogspot tells them.

Some of us are qualified to comment on things we worked on. There's nothing wrong with being a climate scientist and shitposting on Namibian antelope hunting imageboard. A climate scientist can also like Kobayashi's Dragon Maid.

However, I'm not really inclined to put on a tripcode because the appeal to authority argument is correct. Everyone should be judged based on the merit of his/her arguments, rather than his/her background.