/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14537602]

What is the most /lit/ position on anthropogenic global warming?

[Anonymous No.14537625]

/lit/ is a fourierist board: anthropogenic global warming is real, but it's also a good thing
>It goes without saying that these improvements will not affect high mountains and areas close to the sea to the same extent, particularly the three continental extremities near the south pole, which will not have a crown and will always be shrouded in ice and fog. This however will not prevent areas close to that pole sharing in different ways in the crown’s influence, which among other benefits will change the taste of the sea and disperse or precipitate bituminous particles by spreading a boreal citric acid. In combination with salt, this liquid will give the sea a flavour of pink lemonade. It will thus be easy to remove the saline and citric particles from the water and render it drinkable, which will make it unnecessary for ships to be provisioned with barrels of water. This breaking down of sea water by the boreal liquid is a necessary preliminary to the development of new sea creatures, which will provide a host of amphibious servants to pull ships and help in fisheries, replacing the ghastly legions of sea-monsters which will be annihilated by the admixture of boreal fluid and the consequent changes in the the sea’s structure. The sudden death of all of them will rid the Ocean of these vile creatures, images of the intensity of our passions which are represented by the bloodthirsty battles of so many monsters. Death will strike them all at the same moment, just as we shall see the hateful customs of civilized man, barbarians and savages disappear in an instant, to give way to the virtues which will be honoured triumphantly in the combined order because they will become the way to wealth and pleasure.

[Anonymous No.14537626]

The case for anthropogenic climate science rests entirely on "soft" evidence, i.e. statistical voo doo. This is conjecture predicated on mostly bad data. Proxies used are notoriously unreliable, and are tree-ring samples for instance are influenced by any number of weather elements, pathogens, insects, surrounding foliage, etc. Soil samples are an even bigger joke for temperature analysis. These pseudoscientists point to the sheer quantity of shit-tier proxies making up for their inherent deficits of +/-50c variations in temperature. While it indeed improves their statistical strength, this does not make the data more reliable, only their statistical models. The only concrete evidence we have that the planet is warming is predicated on instrumentation data, e.g. thermometers. This leaves us with an n=150, which is absolutely insignificant in ascertaining whatever serves as a "normal" climate.

[Anonymous No.14537634]

>>14537625
>anthropogenic global warming is real
>stating hypothesis as absolute fact
NGMI

[Anonymous No.14538338]

>>14537602
quick rundown
>global warming is real
>climate change is caused by humans
>sunspots heat up the earth
>the sun is psychically connected to humanity
>discord and unrest cause uneven burning
>earth heats up

[Anonymous No.14538555]

[Anonymous No.14538571]

>>14537634
Pulling the hypothesis != fact card is unhelpful and unconstructive, especially when the hypothesis is heavily supported
Pulling that card to deny climate change is just ignorance with an agenda

[Anonymous No.14538797]

>>14538338

[Anonymous No.14539531]

>>14538571
>especially when the hypothesis is heavily supported
Heavily supported by inaccurate, speculative evidence that's terribly inaccurate by as much as fifty degrees, such: as tree ring analysis, soil samples and other dowsing-tier pseudoscience used as proxies. Instrumentation has only existed for the past few hundred years, and records of the most the world over from them for temperature alone scarcely two centuries, with atmospheric carbon dioxide instrumentation measurements being around for less than that. The only defense I've seen when confronted that these proxies are inaccurate, is that simply "voilà, we just use MORE of them!", which the brainlet does not understand only improves the statistical significance in their model. More bad evidence does not solve the fact that it's terribly bad evidence in the first place. Some will concede, and then say surely we have observed an increase in our lifetime and since we began measuring. Lastly, and reserved only for the the irate PhD climate scientist, is their assertion that ice-core samples are accurate and prove even with our limited window that CO2 plays a role. I usually embarrass them if in person, and ask about solvent properties of water, it's lattice structure, and so on which they do not understand. Then, I will go on to tell them that it is a fact that carbon dioxide remains static, totally static, among ice core samples for thousands upon thousands of years, which would be impossible, then I remind them again of water's chemical properties and how it enables capture carbon dioxide to diffuse even in solid ice so as to reach an equilibrium after x period of time. Nobody has EVER has any arguments against me. At best, people offer convoluted copes for these things, but usually people are pissed and can only retort with ad hominems YOU SHILL..... YOU DENIALIST.... WHOSE PAY ROLLL ARE YOU ON REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.14539541]

>>14539531
>Some will concede, and then say surely we have observed an increase in our lifetime and since we began measuring * but these are hopeless cases, too stupid to understand the perils of extrapolating from an n=250

[Anonymous No.14539560]

>>14537602

Privately acknowledging that it exists but not caring and not doing anything about it. Call it Climate Change apathetism/nihilism/accelerationism, or somesuch phrase.

[Anonymous No.14539651]

>>14538571
> especially when the hypothesis is heavily supported
Anyone who reasons like that is a disgrace to all human science. Criticism, not agreement, is the root of science.

Try guessing why most articles on Wikipedia consist of descriptions of some thing, but global warming ones consist mostly of lists of organizations that support it.

[Anonymous No.14540174]

>>14539651
This simply isnt true
Nothing in science can be concretely proven, and the only way hypotheses get taken seriously is by being supported with evidence
The conclusions we take as fact are simply super-heavily supported hypotheses
>>14539531
If paleoclimatology is flawed and contrives supporting results (while somehow also being innacurate), then you should explain why
As far as your rambling about ice cores being the devil, i just searched for "ice cores debunked", and only found two sources raising some of the same concerns you had. The first lamented that inaccurate data was, wrongly, being cited by climate change skeptics. The other does wholly dismiss the usefulness of ice core proxy data, but was written 13 years ago and only cites sources from 20 years ago. On top of that all its objections are addressed by comments
I would never pretend to be any kind of expert in this, as ive never studied it, but if you regularly embarrass phd climatologists with these incredible objections, then perhaps you should consider publishing
Until then, though, sorry to say ill just consider it a gotcha question, and cherrypicking a subset of climate science that you dont like

[Anonymous No.14540375]

>>14537602

CRASH COURSE:

>climate change itself in the "objective" sense is as tenuous as it is irrelevant
>it makes people hysteric because it excites otherwise taboo ideas including but not limited to
>the inversion of the demiurgic master-slave relation between "the earth" or "nature" and man wherein the latter now torments the former
>a "night of the living externalities" if you will wherein one's winning not only offends an other rationally but immanently as well
>a realization of the implicit hostility of "the earth" that we already put up with relative to which the dangers of climate change are merely quantitative and the possibility of already being in a kind of "apocalypse" that we have introjected for no reason

The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

[Anonymous No.14540529]

>>14537602
meaningless in comparison to inorganic pollution
solve global warming by forcing all trawlers to dump iron dust into the ocean instead

[Anonymous No.14541139]

>>14537625
Based

[Anonymous No.14541163]

>>14540174
Conclusions which are incompatible with man-made climate climate are heavily supported by more evidence than all those which suggest man-made climate change. Try to wrap your head around that.

[Anonymous No.14541591]

>>14541163
Give examples
>>14540375
>climate change is irrelevant
Give sources
>man vs earth
That way of thinking is part of the problem that helps create climate problems
>ones winning offends another
Your going to have to clarify, but it seems like youre concerned with the extra profits of oil billionaires
>implicit hostility of the earth
again, this is a bad mindset