/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4344553

We should also believe people like this

>>4062549

>OPs main point is that human carbon contributions to greenhouse gasses are negligible compared to other greenhouse gasses.

Couple of problems with this:

1. OP's graph is created by the Heartland Institute and, ad hominem aside, it is actually wrong if you would care to take a trip to Wikipedia or look through any basic atmospheric science textbook. It is irrelevant how much oxygen or nitrogen is in the atmosphere because THEY ARE NOT GREENHOUSE GASES. i.e., N and O do not affect the Earth's surface temperature one way or the other.

2. We actually know that the different greenhouse gases have different physical properties (surprise!) and thus different forcing power. Water vapour is the most abundant, and the most powerful of GHGs, but it has disproportionately low forcing compared to its concentration.

2. If you eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere, the Earth turns into a frozen iceball. A difference between 100 ppm of CO2 is the difference between New York City as it is now, and New York City under a mile of ice. So yes, increasing CO2 by 30% in a hundred years is very significant.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

>I hate how both sides are slinging propaganda now, especially the AGW supporters.

>especially the AGW supporters.

Are you shitting me? Pic related

Also see the following:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378010000300

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/1/41.short

>>3935980

>implying the SPPI, Heartland, CATO, Marshall, and all the other think tanks didn't politicize the issue first

It's a brilliant strategy actually. First politicize the issue. Then claim that your political opponents politicized the issue. Everyone else loses, but you win!

Everyone should read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/B005MWK2H2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&a
mp;qid=1319250258&sr=8-1

>>3888446

Moar fraud, again not from the 98%

Or hell, just look up Willie Soon (made $1 million over 10 years by taking money from fossil fuel interest groups to publish hack papers); Ian Plimer (richest professor in his faculty, and it's not because his salary is lucrative); or Christopher Monckton.

>>3888416

First link is a message board thread on the internet and thus completely disreputable as a source of accurate information. Second link talks about Inhofe's witch-hunt efforts which unfortunately didn't bear fruit. the NSF investigation concluded that Mann's work was solid.

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

Third link is Alex Jones. Disreputable in the extreme. Fourth link is a random news clipping, and we all know the mass media is often inaccurate. Benny Peiser is a suspect character who is strongly associated with fossil fuel interests. His training is in anthropology, and even in his own field he publishes extremely rarely. It appears he stakes his livelihood outside of academia.

Fifth link is, oddly enough, from a left-wing blog. It is also outdated. Multiple investigations have cleared the CRU and the other scientists of wrongdoing. In b4 all the investigations are also fraudulent

Links six and seven are an Alex Jones-like website and a wordpress blog. They both espouse the same tired, endlessly rebutted denial meme. Updating data to reflect new findings and better analysis is not fraud.

>>3611423

I haven't samefagged once in this thread. Not that you'd believe me.

>>3499174

/new/ is that way -------------------------->

>>3302841

Nah, I wasn't the OP of that thread

I'm just sick of the shit that climate change skeptics keep pushing, and I would like /sci/ to share my consternation