/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8456250
Yes.

>>8248171
>The argument is that humans aren't playing a large role and that change is not catastrophic.
And that runs directly against the current consensus.

>Even the IPCC, the climate vatican
For fuck's sake.

>has been forced to admit global warming does not cause extreme weather.
Do you have a reference? GW isn't the only driver of extreme weather, but AFAIK higher surface temperatures definitely have an effect.

>Since 1997 there has been no global warming.
That's simply not true.

>A massive dump of what is supposed to be a primary climate forcing (whose effect is mostly immediate, with the lag effect being reduced) causing no warming should be cause for revision, not doubling down.
What? Even if the "haitus" was a major thing (and given whether it exists at all is debated, it's not), short-term noise doesn't contradict the existence of long-term trends.

>>8248187
>Alarmist climate models don't include ocean oscillations, the wind, volcanoes, THE SUN and others.
Volcanic activity can't really be predicted, but all the other tings definitively part of most climate models. Why would you assume climatologists don't understand that the sun affects the climate? That's high-school shit.

>If our weather predictions fail within days, how can we claim to understand the climate?
Because those are two different things.

>And no, weather and climate are not separate.
Your ignorance isn't very convincing.

>>8248204
>Neither of those standards work for a situation in which the global temperature goes up along with CO2.
They were two EXAMPLES. There's no single test that can falsify AGW, because it's a massive topic of study spanning multiple fields. Instead you would need to falsify different components of it separately. Actual science is different from what gets drawn on a whiteboard in high school - very little gets thrown away due to a single experiment.

>You need to learn about the scientific method before you try to argue about these things, man.
Yes. You do.

>>8047654
I worry about people who think like this. It's the same kind of "magic bullet" bullshit you find on Moon Landing Hoaxers and other conspiracy theorists. They reject any kind of complex view of a topic where elements can be connected to each other in multiple ways, and then insist that any negative element they stumble across "will collapse the house of cards". Reality simply doesn't work that way.

Yes, rising CO2 level can under some circumstances increase plant growth. Those circumstances aren't universal however, and there are many other ways that climate change will affect crop growth that outweigh this effect.

>>8049543
>The simple fact is its a theory for which evidence can no be found, simulations of every carbon molecule on earth and their relation to climate is laughable, projecting it all out 1 year is asinine and 100 years insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
The fact that you clearly don't understand a topic doesn't mean that no-one does. Also, large-scale trends don't only exist as sums of small-scale trends. No-one is trying to predict the weather 100years out, or model every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere: We simply don't need to.

>Like I've said before, it bares all the marks of a new age religion.
Yes, except that's completely wrong. Have fun whacking strawmen though.

>>8049589
>Is it fucking significant?
>FUCK NO
That's not what the evidence shows.

>>8049643
How does any of that shit relate to AGW?

>Humans are manipulating the planet, but it's irrelevant.
Unless you redefine "irrelevant" to mean something absurd and unhelpful, no it is not irrelevant.

The lives of many people are closely coupled to the behavior of the weather, the oceans, and to other living things. AGW can, will, and is making rapid changes to those. Failing to address and prevent those changes is going to lead to famines, conflicts, and large-scale displacement. None of those things will be fun.

>>8022416
>an overwhelming majority of the world have consensus on the existence on God as well...
Scientific consensus and religious headcounts are completely different issues. To begin with, it's generally accepted that as a whole, practicing scientists are experts inside their fields. I doubt many Buddhists recognize Islamic clerics as authoritative sources.

>Even though there are zero consensus on AGW,
What? You can piss and moan about whether it's 97% or 95%, but the vast majority of climatologists believe that AGW is a real problem.

>nor any proof
There's plenty. Go read fucking anything not shat out by a blogger.

>>8022421
>We haven't seen this AGW you speak of
Here.
Good enough?

>>8022424
>Yes, and the same goes for inbred normies spouting off how they "know" man-made climate change is real because it's the current year - or because Bill "Bachelors in Engineering" Nye keeps yelling it on national television.
God forbid that non-experts might believe the conclusions of experts. Those crazy fools probably go to doctors too.

>Anyone who says man-made climate change is real because there is a consensus among scientists can be destroyed in about 2 seconds using simple first-order logic.
I think you're horribly confused about what a consensus is and why people care.

>>8022430
>I'm saying consensus doesn't automatically imply accuracy,
No-one claimed it did. What has been claimed is that consensus is a strong indicator of accuracy that's accessible to people without expert knowledge.

>>8022436
>Skeptical Science
>cheap amateur journal
If you don't even grasp the distinction between a journal and a site run to inform the public, just stop posting.