/sci/ - Science & Math

become? it's been one since the oil corporations decided to obfuscate and hide their own research about CO2 emissions contributing to global warming way back in the 70s and 80s. Since then, hundreds of millions of dollars have been pumped into climate change denial by special interest groups and hydrocarbon extraction and refining corporations. Their campaign of disinformation has paid in spades, as no real action has been taken yet, even though we've known about this issue for nearly half a century, and the basic concepts of CO2 's role in the atmosphere for centuries.

The ironic thing is that climate change deniers themselves believe all the models are inaccurate, all of the data is corrupt, some of them even think they can "audit" temperature data stations for bias, as if that's not something that people that create the data take into account in the first place. But of course to these people, a vast conspiracy among tens of thousands of individual scientists and governmental organizations across the world to create a "climate alarmist crisis" is definitely plausible, but corporations with net worth in the trillions definitely have had zero influence over this """debate""" and are just protecting their own financial interest because oil, gas and coal have zero negative side effects, and CO2 is plant food you fucking watermelon commie socialists!

It amazes me how these nuts are completely blind to this, you would think conspiracy theorists would be infatuated with the actual evidence that exists of fossil fuel organizations pumping millions upon millions of dollars into disinfo campaigns around climate science, but they don't even bat an eye. It's all the evil leftist librul environmentalist scientists controlling a vast conspiracy, but oh wait they don't even think climate science is a real area of science either because it uses a lot of "models," completely ignoring the fact that all fields of science use models to understand and interpret the data.

>>8748325
>the current scientific/lefty
Everything is politics to you people, everything is "liberals" or "leftists." You've clearly spend too much time in your echo chamber that you've lost all semblance of rational thought.

Climate change is not a "liberal" or "leftist" issue, it's a scientific issue that has scientific evidence supporting it.

I don't expect someone from the most reactionary / irrational place on all of 4chan to understand this, you've effectively been brainwashed into a delusional conspiracy mindset. It's amazing to see how people such as yourself have such a high level of cognitive dissonance that you believe "liberals" or "leftists" have politicized climate change, while doing the exactly just that yourself with your identity-political driven agenda. You clearly don't care for the scientific process or a rational evidence-based method for understanding climate, you want an emotion-driven argument in which climate change is "disproved" when it snows outside in winter.

By the way, stage 5 is (you).

>>8735296
Your rambling incoherent resonses that say nothing aren't even worth responding to, but the fact that you "believe" that humans have a negligible effect on the environment and climate shows how astronomically ignorant you are. The better question is, what is someone as dumb and gullible as you doing posting on /sci/, especially when you apparently have no respect for scientific evidence?
By the way, the topic at hand is directly related to /sci/ since it's about the administrator of the fucking EPA denying the most basic of climate science; the effect that anthropogenic CO2 has on climate.

>you convieniently dont rebuttle the fact that the more we alter our environment the less climate deaths occur, nice one
What the fuck are you even talking about, what does this have anything to do with climate change, and once again, it's baseless CONJECTURE. Maybe go read a dictionary and understand what that word means before you spew bullshit. Also, learn to use spellcheck, embarrassing.

>>8735283
>that is exactly how the noaa came up with there "record temperatures" so you cant say anything about accuracy when they consider random wind "a major shift in trend"
Explain what the fuck you are referring to and be specific, because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
>no shit all natural climates change
Stage 2. See pic related.
>no and there is no evidence of that
Absolutely wrong, a simple understanding of paleoclimatology and geochronology will show you otherwise. Rapid climate change leads to mass extinction, we're already living in an anthropogenic extinction. Our agriculture is going to be effected by climate, our coastal cities, our civilization, fisheries, mass migrations, water supplies, etc.

>despite the fact that climate related deaths have been decreasing dramatically since 1900's
Again, what does this have to do with any of the severe impacts of climate change that are bound to occur in the coming decades?

>>8729136
it's a well-known effect