Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1492909126688.png (2MB, 1536x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 1536x1024px
Let’s be clear about what Stephens actually said. Here’s his summary of the current state of climate science:
>While the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future.
Here’s the translation: Science teaches us that humans have helped cause global warming, but when we try to forecast the extent of the warming and its effects on our lives, the certainty starts to recede. In addition, the activism has gotten ahead of the science. Indeed, Stephens even quotes the New York Times’ own environmental reporter, Andrew Revkin, who has observed that he “saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.”
>>
>>8877759
Hahaha that fucking picture
>>
>>8877759
That's pretty much correct. You hear shit like "the refugee crises is bc of global warming" or people who believe Earth will become like Venus.
At best we can use simple physics principles to conclude that if the global temperature rises that dry areas will become dryer and wetter areas wetter.
Saying that "problem X is because of global warming" is just silly.
But the weather or rising sea levels is the least of my worries. The fucking ecosystem is.
>>
>>8877759
Appeal to authority all up in this post. Anybody can say anything without scrutiny, doesn't make any of it trustworthy. Instead of wasting time waching biased, unchecked and easily manipulated media you should be reading peer reviewed trusted scientific journals.
>>
>>8877803
Kek
>>
>>8877782
It's a poor quality 'shop but funny nevertheless.
>>
>>8877803
The whole consensus meme was created by a non-scientist claiming to peruse abstracts of scientific journals.
>>
>>8878075
The consensus is real but what there is consensus about is what was misrepresented. There is consensus that climate change is happening. There is consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change.
What there is less consensus about is the degree of influence human activity has on climate change. There is even less consensus over how much climate change is taking place and over what timespan. There is even less consensus on what are the consequences of climate change. Activist claim that there is 97% agreement on all of this, which is not true. There is only 97% agreement among climate scientist on the first statement. The rest have lower, sometimes significantly lower, agreement percentages.
>>
What's happened is that there's been a cult of science in which now bullshit projections have been pushed by activists. We've essentially whittled down the causes for our unnaturally rapid period of warming and nothing aside from the greenhouse effect would be reasonably responsible. We know that we are putting greenhouse gasses into the air, so its very likely we're causing the rapid increase. The activists however have gotten so obnoxious that reactionaries have started to deny the basics of "where is this temperature increase coming" from instead of debating "What's going to happen as a result". Both vocal sides which are incredibly ignorant of climate science are claiming bullshit left and right, be it denial of what we already know or claiming what we have dismissed or do not know. We could be experiencing a short burst and then have it peter out due to natural reactions to temperature increases or we could very well be in a snowball effect situation where action is needed very soon to reduce the rate. However we're stuck debating a settled part of the science.
>>
>>8877759
it's a shame that girls like that don't exist.
>>
File: UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6-550x317.jpg (46KB, 550x317px) Image search:
[Google]
46KB, 550x317px
>>8877759
>Science teaches us that humans have helped cause global warming
I thought science teaches to be skeptical of everything and it was only the government who teaches what OP said
>>
>>8878211
>activists however have gotten so obnoxious
- Don't fucking shoot yourself in the head, you idiot!
- Oooh le snowflake me just melted, you said it so hurtfully - *bang*
>>
>>8877759
>Science teaches us that humans have helped cause global warming,
The evidence shows with high certainty that man is responsible for all the warming.
>but when we try to forecast the extent of the warming and its effects on our lives, the certainty starts to recede.
The same could be said of any forecast when compared to hindcasting. The question is whether the consequences multiplied by their probability of occurring is worth acting on. We are significantly certain of the forecast and that the consequences outweigh the cost of mitigation.
>In addition, the activism has gotten ahead of the science.
Better than being *behind* the science like Mr. Stephens. It is preferable to be right for the wrong reasons than to be wrong for the wrong reasons. But this implies that the activism is somehow an important factor in determining whether we should act. It is not. Pointing at fools is a non-sequitur. I don't point at the idiocy of deniers in order to argue that AGW should be mitigated. So why are you bringing it up?
>>
>>8878173
That's incorrect. Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the IPCC's finding that the cause is primarily man's GHG emissions.
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2