/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5842262
No, the reason we're shitting on most renewables is that some of them aren't really renewables(most biomass, gas) and some are actively harmful(solar) while providing no net gain in return(solar, wind).

Another reason is that the most zealous greenies who push these refuse to see reason and make demands that simply can't be met.

And of course there are those that demand that we return to caves and huts and live off the bounty of Mother Gaia.

>>5258359
No, it's worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today's warming is rapid and anthropogenic.

The fact that the Earth will be warmer isn't the alarming thing. It's the rate of change, which, as I've said before, is a hundred times faster than any natural occurrence(possibly barring the great extinctions) we know of. This rate of change is causing a huge stress on ecosystems and species. Us included.

To add to that, since there is a certain delay in how the climate changes to what we do, even if we stopped producing CO2 right this minute, the climate would still get a lot warmer before the rate would start to drop. And since we're very obviously not about to do that, the rate of change is just going to climb, making the temperature change faster and faster.

>>4607161
>global warming is bias
Is it someone infused with republicunt propaganda, or is it someone infused with republicunt propaganda?

>>3512943

Here's a pic that's actually kind of related

Before this thread descends into another shitstorm, I'm going to point out two awful trolls that you guys should be aware of

1. The guy who insists that all scientists are incompetent, and that even prominent skeptics like Lucia Liljegren and Richard Muller, or independent "citizen science" projects like Clear Climate Code, are also incompetent when they re-analyzed the climate data and re-affirmed the science behind global warming. He believes that he is smarter, less corrupted, and better-equipped to analyze the data than the thousands of other scientists who've done that already, and therefore only his own analysis of the raw data can reveal the truth. He thinks Google, Wikipedia, and the IPCC cannot be trusted, which probably has something to do with how he seemingly can't find any raw data until /sci/ held his hand through the links.

2. The guy who insists that he's read a lot about climate change, even though he never cites a single source ever. His argument is that "we just don't know enough," which he will say about every piece of evidence presented to him. He doesn't actually make any arguments of his own, only that everyone else doesn't know enough to know anything. Sometimes he'll accuse you of being a "hippie green politicized faggot who's destroying science" or something along those lines if you criticize climate change skeptics.

It's possible that they're the same person