/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9128497
>Proof?
>Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'?
Burden of proof is on you.

>Well that's because the Earth isn't heating up.
It is. See pic.

>Remember when 'scientists' wouldn't shut up about the 'ozone layer'? Well that's because it was a hoax.
Burden of proof is on you.

>Global warming/cooling is natural. (See pic)
That doesn't respond to what I said. This August in the UK is warmer than average, when you said it's the coldest you've ever experienced.

Your pic is fraudulent since it doesn't even show temperatures over the last 100 years yet it claims to show current global warming. You're really proving how dishonest and incompetent deniers are. It also fails to mention that the temperature in Greenland is not necessarily representative of global temperature, which is what we're talking about.

>Yes, who cares about Earth's well-being. Moron.
Can you explain what that even means? The earth is not alive you utter buffoon. Try to focus your little pea brain, the well-being of humanity is what we are concerned with.

>Not an argument.
False, and not an argument.

>Proof?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

>And you are blithely following the consensus of your government.
Not an argument.

>Like I said, its all because oil will run out, not because they care about the environment.
Proof?

You are a proven liar, and you have no counterargument.

>>9110440
>Climate people can only make the data fit their narrative after applying adjustments to them. We have seen that they are willing to fiddle any data in the climategate emails.
Ah at last I truly see! Yes! The "climate people" have conspired to adjust the data in order to make the warming trend... COOLER! Those bastards!

See pic and >>9106879

>In order to prevent poor baselining or cherrypicking, one needs to take millions of years of reliable and accurate data to obtain a truthful and honest plot.
False, one simply needs to baseline on the average of a few decades in order to avoid divergence of a single year being propagated.

>Any temperature plot can be accused of cherrypicking or weak baseline.
As we have seen, you accuse climatologists of a lot of things which have turned out to be false.

>"No LIA, no 40s cooling, you left out MWP, El Nino!"
LIA, 40s cooling, and MWP are usually things that deniers whine about when they expect global temperatures to look exactly like US or Northern Hemisphere temperatures. It has nothing to do with baselining or cherrypicking, just deniers being stupid. El Nino on the other hand, is ripe for cherrypicking by deniers.

>And then comes a link littered with pathetic excuses to exonerate a couple of heinous charlatans.
Surely you could at least argue against even one? Oh, you still can't?Well, continue having a tantrum and when you want to actually prove your point, I'm all ears.

>For one peer review is pal review in climate world. For another it is outright lying to claim that adjustments do not consistently cool the past and warm the present.
And you once again refuse to argue against the analysis. Why are you wasting time posting nothing?