/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11001820
>Name 1 thing that wasn't true.
Sure.

>>11001800
>Every single prediction since the 1930's from your infallible scientific consensus has been completely wrong.

>>10736037
>If climate change is science then why are the theoretical predictions so inaccurate?
Specific events are basically impossible to predict, climatology is about studying long-term trends.

>>10736669
>Models are all bad and wobbly.
Over decent time scales (rather than single events), models do fairly well.

>That's exactly what they [China] want, the right to buy all the "pollution credits"
How the fuck is that supposed to work? They're a low-cost manufacturer with an ageing population.

>>10643639
>We aren't going to get any global warming.
>Every alarmist sky falling prediction in history has resulted in either no change or the complete opposite.

>>10479884
>the climate hysteria is fucking awesome. it's literally the exact same as some "prophet" nutbag claimed the end of the world is near in the olden days.
Yes, science is exactly like doomsday cults. After all they both can predict bad things, and that's all that really matters when you're trying to gauge models of the world, right?

>our so called "climate model" are so fucking horrible bad that slapping your dick on a chart would be more accurate and people make politics based on this
No.

>>10383232
>Is man made climate change real bros?
Yes.

>Its so politicized/exploited by govts
Ignore what politicians and journalists have to say. Actual scientists overwhelmingly believe that AGW is real and serious.

>all the models they seem to shill are innaccurate
They actually do pretty well. See pic.

>anyone denying is surely a tinfoil conspiracy hick
It's the other way around. There are a (very) small number of actual climatologists who disagree, and they're treated fine. But conspiracy theorists and PR groups are incredibly fond of AGW denial, and so the make up the vast majority of "skeptics". And because they're rarely interested in arguing in good faith, people who repeat their regularly-debunked claims tend to get shouted at.

>Do we know for sure man is causing it? If so, how much?
IIRC, 80-130% of the observed warming is due to human activity.

>>10261761

>>10250823
Meant to attach this.

>>10238630
If he doesn't to be called wrong he could always stop spouting dumb opinions in public.

>>10239074
>"climate scientists" have failed to make projections with even a sliver of accuracy at a 1, 5, 10 or 15 year time-scale.
Stop regurgitating talking points off blogs. Climatologists have fairly solid surface temperature predictions.

>>10187670
Not this crappy thing again. How many times has it been posted now?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

>>10187687
>The models and projections have been wrong so far.
No they haven't. See pic.

>>10184089
>Freaking the issue as "consensus" is not the question.
Consensus is a perfectly reasonable tool for non-experts to collect the conclusions of a group of experts.

>It should be about evidence, but all data points to poor modeling around correlated datasets
Modelling isn't even nessisary to identify and measure AGW. The models are to try and make accurate predictions about the future.
Also, what "data" points to poor modelling? The existing models have done very well at predicting surface temperature trends.

>doesn't have a good model for causality.
That's the greenhouse effect. You might want to read about it.

>Sure, they can point to co2 but why do they stop there?
Because it's by far the largest human impact.

>We have also been increasing our electrical potential since then as well. How do they know it's not the EMF causing climate instability?
Because there's neither a proposed mechanism nor any evidence they're connected.

>On top of that why do they keep getting predictions wrong on the impact?
What predictions have they made that have turned out to be wrong?