/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10070296
Seven stages of grief

>>10070296
Kek based

>>10070296
they'll say global warming is real, humans cause it, we can do something about it and trust us the same people who caused it will definitely do something about it if you put them in charge.

>>10070296

The last one after ?????? is:

>Global warming is fake

>>10070296
Global warming makes sense, but I don't know if it's real or its actual cause. I'm definitely biased to believe that man is a beast that will mindlessly destroy everything it touches until it finally destroys itself, but that can't be a substitute for actual substantiation of my idea of the underlying causative factors, of which there are many.

Data is easy to fake, I know metallic nanoparticles are being sprayed int eh upper atmosphere which can interact with ground based ELF and microwave emitters, and I know that weather control is possible. That leaves one in a bit of a conundrum as far as verification of any element in the logical framework.

I mean hell. We knew back in the 80's that high voltage powerlines altered the ionosphere and caused an "electron rain" with measurable weather changes. This was demonstrated by Andrew Marino et al after the New york 768KV line was put in, and a Canadian line. Then there's HAARP. We're throughly into a post-truth world where everything you think you know is suspect, so it's hard to say what's what and whether you should accept being corralled.

>in the past century the average temperature has gone up 0.1 degrees!
>in the past century sea levels have risen 2cm!
why is this something I should give a shit about again?

the next stage is
>Global warming is real, humans cause it, we can do something about it, but it's too late to make any difference now anyway.

>>10070324
off by more than an order of magnitude, fag
you know deniers have got nothing when they resort to just making shit up.

>cigarettes don't cause cancer
>cigarettes may cancer, but you'll probably die from old age first
>cigarettes certainly does cancer, but everything in this world causes cancer
>cigarettes are a major contributing factor to cancer, but uhhh ..... cigarettes are cool ????

>>10070353
when can we expect global warming deniers to tell us that "global warming is cool"

>>10070353
The same is happening with wireless devices.
The same happened with asbestos.
The same happened with arsenic, eg "paris green" and buckingham palace removing it, but not telling the general population.
Etc.

Again and again. Repeat until you've gone mad.

>>10070361
The same thing happened with "no collusion"
They do it this way because it works. It's the boiling frog thing being done to humans.

Gives all new meaning to frog posters

>>10070296
>Scientists can't accurately predict the weather 2 weeks from now
>They somehow can miraculously predict the weather 100 years from now

???

Not even trolling. Why should I buy into global warming? The entire field is full of confirmation bias and anyone who posts any data countering it is ostracized by the community and labeled as an anti-scientist. So anything that they predict is inherently subject to error.

>>10070317
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10070393
It's possible that you don't have enough data to accurately predict fine grained individual values, but with extensive study you can predict general trends. That's the basis of statistics and heuristics.

>>10070324
>sea levels have risen
https://youtu.be/vqmCu854rHc?t=2m13s

>>10070393
>>Scientists can't accurately predict the weather 2 weeks from now
>farmers can accurately predict weather decades in advance

predicting patterns is easier on a long term scale, this not only applies to weather patterns but also stock market patterns. For instance, nobody can 100% accurately predict if Amazon stock will go up in the next 5 minutes. But pretty much anyone with a brain knows it'll go up between now and 6 months from now.

>>10070396
This still seems shortsighted to me. Climate is an incredibly variant thing. In the 1950's-1970's, scientists looked at a very small gap of time and were convinced the world was getting colder, and everyone was concerned about the coming of the next ice age:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I'm not denying that the Earth is getting warmer as the years go on. At least that has been the trend in measurable human history. I'm just not convinced that humans are 100% responsible, and that there's any way to reverse it. I'm not against efforts to reduce our carbon footprint, but what can I specifically do to help it? I'm not willing to vote in favor of collapsing the economy, if that's what it takes. Kill this generation of humans to save the next, maybe? Seems unreasonable.

I don't think claims that we're going to all be under water in 30 years is reasonable either. Why haven't banks and high level investors pulled their resources out of California or Florida? These are intelligent people who do not take risks, yet they're investing in properties in these locations. They're investing their livelihoods in these locations that are supposedly going to be uninhabitable. It just doesn't make sense to me.

>>10070409
>But pretty much anyone with a brain knows it'll go up between now and 6 months from now.

Not even true. Anyone with a brain knows you must diversify and putting your eggs in one basket will burn you in the long run

>>10070359
they already do

>>10070393
>scientists can't predict the outcome of even a single coin flip
>how can they possibly predict the aggregate results of a million coin flips?

>>10070417
>putting your eggs in one basket
>will burn you in the long run
Soooo.... you're saying we should let the Earth burn and everyone move to Mars?

an please don't change the subject, I know I brought it up but it was only to illustrate a point.

>>10070393
climate = weather

>>10070425
Optimized.

I really cannot fathom why anybody would risk the consequences of climate change regardless of how likely it is. We have absolutely nothing to lose by acting to prevent it and everything to lose by not doing anything.

>>10070430
Optimized.

>>10070434
People have profits to lose and developing countries have development to lose.

>>10070426
I literally blogposted about my thoughts on global warming, I didn't change the subject. I don't think your analogy was valid or even made sense.

>>10070425
This is different, though. You're telling me scientists will know the temperature range within reason 100 years from now, but they don't know what the temperature range will be 2 weeks from now. As in, scientists can't predict the next coinflip, but they know what the coinflip will be 100 flips from now for some reason.

We can't even get a decent range a month from now what the temperatures will be. Somewhere between 30 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

>>10070438
Or you could be herded into dense urban areas and systematically managed, killed and controlled as needed. Eventually society only creating someone when they have a reason to exist.

>>10070434
What can I personally do to help stop global warming, other than believe that it exists?

Are you doing those same things?

>>10070417
>Why haven't banks and high level investors pulled their resources out of California or Florida?
They are, slowly. The effects of climate change will grow over decades.
Insurance companies are also beginning to pull coverage or hike up premiums in low-lying coastal locations. This is happening in my country right now, although apparently in some places this is not legally permissible.

>>10070445
Very little we do in our personal lives will have direct impact, but we can trigger network effects (see neighorhoods suddenly turning EV + solar because that one one guy got solar panels) and elect politicians who have the power to make far-reaching policies that *do* have a substantial effect.

>>10070455
If you give me a politician who doesn't try to cripple the economy by doubling the minimum wage, or take away rights like guns or free speech, but also supports moving towards cleaner energy, I'll vote for them. The problem is democrats are fucking retarded right now yet they're the "green" party.

I'm 100% in favor of nuclear power in safe sites. I would love to see us stop using coal and natural gas in favor of newer and cleaner technologies. I also want to keep my job and standard of living, so I don't want a socialist to come in and give all my money to poor people, and send me to political correct prison camps because I don't want to watch gay weddings.

>>10070448
>The effects of climate change will grow over decades.

Have we even noticed any effects of it yet? People like to point out any anomaly as evidence of global warming but it tends to be completely baseless. Like the other day this guy at work tried to tell me that the US East Coast experiencing two hurricanes in a month is evidence of global warming, when this year's hurricane season has been pretty far below average.

>>10070470
>Like the other day this guy at work tried to tell me that the US East Coast experiencing two hurricanes in a month is evidence of global warming, when this year's hurricane season has been pretty far below average.

Not saying that the guy at work is a spokesperson for global warming, but it's just the typical stuff I hear. What are the concrete effects that we are seeing of global warming? The disastrous ones.

>>10070393
Predicting a particular black person's IQ is very hard; predicting that black people are typically stupid is easy, however.

>>10070393
in my country they teach 7 years old zoomers difference between weather and climate.

>>10070296
>global warming is real
they started calling it "climate change" for a reason, you know.

If it were possible, would you use a time machine to go back and stop industrialization that is the current cause of climate change? Would you undo all the wealth from industrialization if it meant that all the effects that resulted from the emissions were also undone?

If not, why?

>>10070409
That’s missing the point, with climate change the only thing that matters is the detail. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, but how much? And over what time period? If you can’t predict those, then you’re not saying anything important or useful.

>>10070520
yeah, let's just see what happens. we should probably increase the CO2 output so we know sooner.

>>10070532
Nice snarky reddit response you fucking homo.

If we continued our current level of CO2 emission and could reasonably predict that there’d be a .1 degree increase in temp over the next 100 years, should we alter our emission output? Why or why not? If you did alter it, there’d be less economic production, do you think that’d be worth it?

>>10070512
Yes, because a decent portion of the world's strongest nation think pic related is an argument, so you have to use kid gloves when you name things.

Is it even possible for Humans to live in an emissionless society?
All we can really do is slow global warming to give us more time to deal with it.

>>10070296
Statement 2 is the correct one. I mean youre basically measuring absolute values. There's no way to fake it. The climate has changed. But is there proof that humans had any impact on the changes? No matter how they try to say there is, there isnt any absolute proof. And climate has always been changing since the start of earth. Or are they going to blame those darned conservative dinosaurs? Climate has changed - it has changed enough to show impact on our livelihood. But how how much will it change? That's the question we need to consider, and the answer to we need to be sceptical of.

>>10070580
Nobody believes in an emissionless society unironically. The best thing we can do is to remove emissions where they aren't really needed to significantly lower our impact on warming itself.

>>10070615
if you examine carbon in the atmosphere the isotope ratio shows that approximately 33% of CO2 was produced by human activity

if you take 33% of the CO2 out of the atmosphere you dont have global warming any more

>>10070624
Cool headcanon

>>10070615
>Statement 2 is the correct one

stopped reading there.

>>10070397
when have global warming predictions ever come true? To my knowledge every single prediction from the 90's has been wrong with the exception of ocean level rise which was off but generally correct. However, for that one to be wrong we'd need a rapid lowering of global temperatures to stop ice melting and that clearly isn't going to happen for a long time, so those predictions just sort of end up being right by default.

>>10070425
Uh they are predicting the probable aggregate outcomes of both through ranges of probability. There's a 50% chance one coin flip will land one way and a x% chance the aggregate coin flips fall withing a certain range away from being split 50/50 which will follow a nice bell curve distribution. There's literally nothing different between he two except one is a bell curve of graph bars because of many trials and one is a single bar at 50% because of one trial. You made a bad analogy. Accurate weather prediction requires supercomputers not simple well defined probability concepts you can just write down on a piece of paper.

>>10070460
Sooner rather than later we'll get a party that advocates the first world systematically eradicating superfluous third world shithole populations to protect the environment, when that happens I'll sit up and take notice.

Until then this is all pointless lip service.

>>10070702
>I have no idea how stable isotope biogeochemistry works: the post

>>10070866
>There's literally nothing different between he two except one is a bell curve of graph bars because of many trials and one is a single bar at 50% because of one trial. You made a bad analogy.
You're so close to getting it you can almost taste it...
(the single bar is at 100% by the way, brainlet)

>when have global warming predictions ever come true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
most of the shit conservatives scream about is a strawman, predictions that were never actually made by climatologists.

>>10071240
>You're so close to getting it you can almost taste it...
So we can accurately predict both coin scenarios but can't accurately predict weather in 2 weeks but can 100 years from now? If you admit this then what the hell was the point of your analogy? It doesn't fit.

>(the single bar is at 100% by the way, brainlet)
No dipshit. If you're measuring the outcome of just one side landing up it's 50%. I didn't stipulate both scenarios are odds of landing one way or odds of deviating a certain distance form a perfect 50-50 split. And even then odds of deviating form a 50-50 split would be two bars at 50% because there's only 2 equal chance outcomes: 100%-0% spit and 0%-100% split. The only way to get a single bar at 100% is if you're calculating the odds of any value away from a 50-50 split. According to what I said only one out of 3 interpretations would have a single bar at 100% brainlet.
>most of the shit conservatives scream about is a strawman, predictions that were never actually made by climatologists.
Created a strawman via accusing others of strawmen... amazing. I'm not watching some propaganda. Which global warming temperature predictions have ever come true? The topic was being able to make accurate predictions (that's how the scientific method works in the first place) and if there has never been one then why the hell should I believe their doomsday predictions 50-100 years from now?

Why do global warming advocates never actually provide solutions to their problem? Hmmm

>>10070361
>The same is happening with wireless devices.
Nice try retard.

>>10072462
No, you.

>>10072468
>>>/x/

>>10072443
Why do deniers always resort to lying about their opponents? Why not tell the truth if you actually believe your position?

>>10072413
>So we can accurately predict both coin scenarios
No we can't.
We can easily predict the aggregate outcome of a million flips (gonna be very near to 50-50) but we do no better than chance at predicting the outcome of one flip.
>can't accurately predict weather in 2 weeks but can 100 years from now
we can't accurately predict weather in 2 weeks, but can accurately predict the AGGREGATE EFFECTS OF WEATHER (another way of saying climate) 100 years from now because of the law of large numbers.

>If you're measuring the outcome of just one side landing up it's 50%.
son, we're talking about the distribution produced from ONE flip of a coin. either it's 100% tails or 100% heads.
you can't measure an aggregate if n=1; it's literally just that one observation. do you know what a distribution is?

>I'm not watching some propaganda. Which global warming temperature predictions have ever come true? The topic was being able to make accurate predictions (that's how the scientific method works in the first place) and if there has never been one then why the hell should I believe their doomsday predictions 50-100 years from now?
The cognitive dissonance here is riveting.
>show me a prediction that's come true!
>NO NOT THAT PREDICTION
>I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT LA LA LA LA LA

deniers in a nutshell.
the only way they can preserve their delusional worldview is by ignoring all the evidence proving it wrong.

>>10070397
You sound like the CEO of Long Term Capital Management

>>10070871

Sign me the fuck up for that shit.

Let's take over some landmasses.

>>10072478
There's nothing paranormal about biophysics.

>>10072482
I believe global warming is real and is mostly instigated by humans. Whats your solution?

>>10070547
its 2-2.5 degrees Celsius you fuckwit and its already in progress now

>>10072489
I agree, >>>/x/

>>10072491
Reduce GHG emissions, duh.

>>10072506
No, you.

>>10072507
no shit dumbass, how?

>>10072508
Why me? You're the one peddling pseudoscience.

>>10072510
Optimal carbon tax, you lying piece of shit.

>>10072514
>Optimal carbon tax
oh please tell me the formula that you suggest to get that sweet sweet optimal carbon tax. Your the only one lying here, just because i dont believe that liberal pseudo intellectuals should crash the economy dosent make me a liar, it makes you an asshole.

>>10072513
Because you use words that you don't know the meaning of, meaning you might as well be in the realm of the paranormal. You're not using the scientific method or thinking rationally in the pursuit of truth, you're operating on the basis of bias, superstition, dogma, and mythology. Your behavior is closer to religious and concerns faith based systems and culturally held myths. Therefore, your interests would be better served on /x/.
>>>/x/

>>10070439
>weather varies a lot so we can't predict the average of all surface temperatures of the entire plabet will keep going up even though it consistently has for 100 years and we know the reason why
Weather is NOT climate. You feign asking probing questions, but then conclude that idiotic oversimplifications are true after already being corrected on it. I'd wager you're not actually interested in the truth in the first place.

The last time Earth's CO2 levels were similar to the present day's, the Earth looked like this.
This is likely how future Earth will look due to global warming.

>>10072535
>Camels in canada
Neat.

>>10072519
>oh please tell me the formula that you suggest to get that sweet sweet optimal carbon tax.
Sure here's a simple example:
https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Faculty/Tsyvinski/optimal-taxes-fuel.pdf

>Your the only one lying here, just because i dont believe that liberal pseudo intellectuals should crash the economy dosent make me a liar, it makes you an asshole.
So when you wrote "global warming advocates never actually provide solutions to their problem" what you were really saying was "I don't like the solutions they provide." Now why not just say that instead of lying?

>>10070296
>some rock can put the earth in a mini ice age
>but we cant even stop earth from heating up
why is humanity stupider than a rock?

>>10072521
>Because you use words that you don't know the meaning of
Such as?

>You're not using the scientific method or thinking rationally in the pursuit of truth, you're operating on the basis of bias, superstition, dogma, and mythology.
Such as?

>>10072519
> Your the only one lying here, just because i dont believe that liberal pseudo intellectuals should crash the economy dosent make me a liar, it makes you an asshole.
Th entire point of an optimal carbon tax is that it minimizes damage to the economy, you're the one who's doing the most harm to it by allowing global warming to go unmitigated with no economic analysis besides "I GOTTA SAY DE OPOZIT OF DEH LIBRUL"

>>10072549
>Such as?
Pseudoscience.
>Such as?
Strong faith in an incorrect position.

>>10072554
>Pseudoscience.
Wireless phobia is pseudoscience according to every scientific expert group that has studied it.

>Strong faith in an incorrect position.
I don't have faith in any position, I simply look at what the consensus of published research says. You're projecting.

Seriously, how are we supposed to know the truth in this world. There's always a statistic to prove the opinion of someone. The statistics can't all be true.

The only way to fix the climate change problem is to figure out a way to make a profit by doing so. As long as it's the environment vs. the economy, the environment will lose every time.

>>10072560
Embedded biases:
-expert groups
-the idea that every valid group agrees, and every group that doesn't is invalid
-the idea that these groups have studied anything and are more fit to comment than researchers that have actually performed the research, often over an entire career spanning 40+ years while receiving funding from the office of naval affairs, department of energy, branches of the department of defense, and various other sources. You don't build a career around nothing.

You've been convinced that you're reasonably and accurately informed, when you're not. You're in a walled garden.

>>10072566
A little googling will usually allow you to educate yourself and figure out who is abusing statistics. Failing that, consider that a conspiracy or incompetency among the vast majority of scientists is much less likely than conspiracy or incompetency among a minority of them.

1 the concentration of CO2 is undeniable, here are the evidences of the WMO
2 The tests are that the sea level rises 2 millimeters per year, so calculate
3 the melting of water sources within the continenetes are being depleted mainly the mountains of the world
4 every time there is more heat record in each summer, that you can ask your parents or grandparents
5 if you had a time machine, you think that the increase in gei would end, good to start after the steam engine the cars were created, of course with oil, but at the same time the electric cars were also built, which the great powers were repressed from that source of energy
so first those big monopoles should change the world, I'm not saying we can not do anything about it, the clearest example is to plant a tree, and plan the territory

>>10072576
>Embedded biases:
>-expert groups
Expert groups are more likely to be right than a random mentally ill anon on the internet. It would be biased to treat their claims equally.

>-the idea that every valid group agrees, and every group that doesn't is invalid
This is a strawman. Every scientific fact always has a handful of deniers and their arguments can always be shown to be deficient. Science actually works, despite your feeble protests.

>-the idea that these groups have studied anything and are more fit to comment than researchers that have actually performed the research, often over an entire career spanning 40+ years while receiving funding from the office of naval affairs, department of energy, branches of the department of defense, and various other sources. You don't build a career around nothing.
You're assuming that these groups do not include scientists that have done the research. You're also assuming that those who have not done the research but are qualified to analyze the methodology and results are somehow less qualified. You're the biased one.

>You've been convinced that you're reasonably and accurately informed, when you're not.
Your scraping the fringe from the bottom of the scientific barrel and ignoring the rest does not make you informed, it just makes you another denier, same as global warming deniers and creationists.

>>10070393
why do people like you show up every fucking time

LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF CLIMATE AND WEATHER YOU SHIT EATING RETARD

>>10072552
>>10072542
>in general equilibrium
this particular paper doesn't even engage with a solution, it just optimizes economic growth while accounting for its axiomatic assumptions that is states: (i) period utility is logarithmic in consumption;
(ii) current climate damages are proportional to output and are a function of the current
atmospheric carbon concentration with a constant elasticity (a relationship that is allowed to
vary over time/be random); (iii) the stock of carbon in the atmosphere is linear in the past
and current emissions; and (iv) the saving rate is constant. It also points out that population needs to exponentially grow, as well as technological process, which is extremely vague, both of these metrics are in fact waning though. Not to mention this would screw third world countries. Instead of actually digging into the issue, you are just googling keywords and copy and pasting. I want you to tell me why this model is superior to the Nordhaus recommendation. It is objectively better to provide taxcuts for R and D.

>So when you wrote "global warming advocates never actually provide solutions to their problem" what you were really saying was "I don't like the solutions they provide." Now why not just say that instead of lying?
Im not lying, im pointing out that most people that want to crash the economy do it for their own psychological reasons, it simply makes them feel good about themselves to scream and whine about problems while not offering a solution.

>>10072569
I love how oblivious retards like you don't realize that global warming does more harm to the economy than the solution. See >>10072542

I've already given up. Not by not bein considerate and usin as little energy as possible and so on, I recycle and all that, but I no longer have any faith that we can save ourselves. I was born in 1992, so I could be dead anywhere between 2060-2080. Hope that's before shit hits the fan. If not, well, suicide's an option, too. I don't want to die with my last memories bein hundreds of millions of people panicking.

I try to make the most of my time, but it's hard. There's a weak part of me that just wants to shut down whenever the world's crisis to end all crises enters my mind. Where I don't want to do anything and can't focus. It's not death I worry about, or even being forgotten. Even presidents are forgotten - who talks about Franklin Pierce besides historians? It's the guilt, knowing that people won't have had the same luxuries or carefree attitude as we did and the generations before ours.

>>10072601
>this particular paper doesn't even engage with a solution, it just optimizes economic growth while accounting for its axiomatic assumptions
That is the solution, retard. Minimize damage.

>It also points out that population needs to exponentially grow, as well as technological process, which is extremely vague
Not vague at all.

>Not to mention this would screw third world countries.
How?

> I want you to tell me why this model is superior to the Nordhaus recommendation.
Nordhaus's work is discussed and compared in the paper, maybe you should read it?

>Im not lying, im pointing out that most people that want to crash the economy do it for their own psychological reasons, it simply makes them feel good about themselves to scream and whine about problems while not offering a solution.
So you now disagree with the claim that global warming advocates never actually provide solutions to their problem? I'm very confused, you just seem to be moving the goalposts and changing your claim to something else. Do you actually have a coherent, fact-based position or are you just screeching at MUH LIBRULS? And can you explain to me why you want to harm the economy by allowing global warming to go unmitigated?

>>10072595
>It would be biased to treat their claims equally.
Well, fair enough. I don't agree but I guess your information gathering methods are your own deal.

>This is a strawman.
I don't think you know what this means, because you go on to be the supposed strawman.

Anyway, aside from the standard fare ditzy posturing and slew of insults, you're veritably incorrect. Which is pretty much the pattern.

>You're assuming that these groups do not include scientists that have done the research.
I'm not assuming anything, I've been at this for a while and didn't just jump in. I know what these boards, commissions, committees, are made up of. Physicists and engineers. Epidemiologists are non-existent, biophysicists without industry affiliation are rare (and probably non-existent), the sparse biologists tend to have a history that flip flops midway after they're bought, then become disillusioned or left out in the cold. As was the case for George Carlo and his gang.

>Your scraping the fringe from the bottom of the scientific barrel
There's nothing fringe about these people, or this field. It has a long and rich history.

>it just makes you another denier, same as global warming deniers and creationists.
Look at yourself. Look how hostile you are. Look how threatened you act. You might as well be pointing up at the crucifix and saying He died for my sins and that the Lord never allows evil to infiltrate his flock. It really is embarrassing and bizarre. You'd never act that way in one on one conversation, without the sense of a group.

>>10072601
>I want you to tell me why this model is superior to the Nordhaus recommendation.
“Climate change is a member of a special kind of economic activity known as global public goods.” To solve this problem, “At a minimum, all countries should agree to penalize carbon and other GHG emissions by the agreed upon minimum price.”
http://carbon-price.com/william-nordhaus/

>>10072623
and? How is it not better then the garbage you suppose. At least with his method we are solving the problem.

>>10072622
>I don't think you know what this means, because you go on to be the supposed strawman.
>Anyway, aside from the standard fare ditzy posturing and slew of insults, you're veritably incorrect. Which is pretty much the pattern.
False.

>I'm not assuming anything, I've been at this for a while and didn't just jump in.
In other words, this is pathological science.

>I know what these boards, commissions, committees, are made up of.
I'm sure you believe you do.

>There's nothing fringe about these people, or this field. It has a long and rich history.
One has nothing to do with the other. And the field is not fringe, it just has a fringe like all fields. Nothing you've said distinguishes you from every other fringe in every other field, which everyone rightly dismisses, including you.

>Look at yourself. Look how hostile you are. Look how threatened you act.
I am hostile to all fringe deniers of science who come onto the science board looking for attention. Don't believe you're special, because you're not.

>You might as well be pointing up at the crucifix and saying He died for my sins and that the Lord never allows evil to infiltrate his flock.
Again, this analogy will fail every time because I don't have any faith in my position, I'm simply espousing the consensus of published research. No matter how many times you try to equate science and religion, it will fail. Now look at yourself, how are you any different from any other fringe? You even use the "science is a religion" gambit which they all use.

>>10070417

>I don't think claims that we're going to all be under water in 30 years is reasonable either. Why haven't banks and high level investors pulled their resources out of California or Florida? These are intelligent people who do not take risks, yet they're investing in properties in these locations. They're investing their livelihoods in these locations that are supposedly going to be uninhabitable. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I like to point out that Florida is literally riddle with sink holes and reliably receives hurricanes yearly. Yet banks and investors still throw money into the state and counties constantly affected by it. You need to understand how little of an actual fuck they give and willingness to scam idiots into buying properties that is actually fucked.

Also did you forget that those ""intelligent"" investors and bankers put the U.S. economy down for nearly a decade? Because of lending practices they knew where questionable in terms of long-term stability? Did you forget how large the student debt and federal debt is for the U.S.?

>>10072631
>Carbon tax is stupid we should use Nordhaus's recommendation instead
>Nordhaus recommends at minimum a carbon tax
OK I can see I'm arguing with a blithering idiot who has no idea what he's talking about

>>10072483
>We can easily predict the aggregate outcome of a million flips (gonna be very near to 50-50) but we do no better than chance at predicting the outcome of one flip.
can't predict outcome but you just said the graph would be a bar at 100% for one trial..... lol this is a prediction not an observation of "distribution produced" you fucking retard stop flip flopping between the two. There is a clear and massive difference. Before I flip a coin which facet of its outcome is predicted to be 100%??? Please enlighten me because this is what you said earlier, or you just didn't understand because you're sperging. Either the absolute deviation away from a 50-50 split is 100%-0%, which is 100% GUARANTEED anyway rofl(that's a little better than chance right???), or it's the heads or tails outcome, each being 50% depending on what your graph is measuring like I said above and you disagreed. You're undeniably wrong in one of these aspects and now you have to choose which one.

I don't know why I'm still nitpicking over your misundertanding of your own bad analogy in the first place. Each trial has thousands of outcome possibilities, not two. You can't take the aggregate of that. If you could they would have made accurate predictions, or any predictions in the first place.... oh wait have they or have they not?

>deniers in a nutshell.
didn't click the video so I didn't deny shit. Spell it out which prediction was correct if there was any predictions at all, I'm still not sure because apparently it's possible to take a weather aggregate in your world from only two week repeated trials as if it were flipping coins but they didn't? It literally would have taken less than a 1/3rd of what you just angrily sperged out and wrote but you're avoiding it for some reason. Why is it so difficult for you?

If an aggregate is possible they : did,didn't make them? If an aggregate is possible and they didn't make them, why not? Try not to sperg out this time kid.

>>10072639
I think we should stay in the other thread.

>False.
True.

>In other words, this is pathological science.
I think you're going to have to start saying something soon.

>I'm sure you believe you do.
Uh, yes, since I've read their reports and investigated who occupies positions in these bodies and how a number of them are formed historically and structured over time, yes I do believe that. I just do. You're not going to go sollipsist on me, are you?

>And the field is not fringe, it just has a fringe like all fields.
And what delineates the fringe from the mainstream, in your mind? Seriously, you don't make much sense half the time and it's hard to get anything with any real content out of you. Be forward and direct, lay it out.

> I'm simply espousing the consensus of published research.
Rrrrriiiigggghhhhtttttt. Clearly. You definitely know all about consensus in research you don't read. Really, what makes you so invested again? Why do you care?

>>10070296
>>Global warming is real, humans cause it but we can't do anything about it

This one is true. At this point, the only thing we can do is slightly decrease the rate of warming. But we can't completely stop it.

>>10072654
>I think you're going to have to start saying something soon.
I already have.

>Uh, yes, since I've read their reports and investigated who occupies positions in these bodies and how a number of them are formed historically and structured over time, yes I do believe that. I just do.
Yes, that's my point, you believe there is a massive conspiracy that invalidates the science you don't like, but all you have are connect-the-dots paranoia and exaggeration of ancient history.

>And what delineates the fringe from the mainstream, in your mind?
Expert groups and metastudies. None of this is hard to understand.

>Rrrrriiiigggghhhhtttttt. Clearly. You definitely know all about consensus in research you don't read.
Rrrrriiiigggghhhhtttttt. Clearly all these committees and metastudies are just lying about the state of the field. Only you know the truth. Again, how do you distinguish yourself from the fringe? Why do you not believe the exact same arguments when they're used to deny any other scientific fact you agree with?

>Really, what makes you so invested again? Why do you care?
Because you're spouting pseudoscience on my board, retard. Again, you're not special.

>>10072656
If everyone stopped all anthropogenic GHG and black carbon emitting activities tomorrow, the warming would level out after perhaps another 0.2-0.3C of rise before stabilizing. Long term, it could go down if that cessation continued. We only "can't do much" because of economic inertia, opposition to any strong action to address it, and the tragedy of the commons continuing to play out due to lack of cooperation.

>>10072671
>Expert groups
Define.

>metastudies
You reject several solid reviews and meta-analysis, but embrace shoddy work by "experts" and demand their "work be proven wrong, which, WAIT, is impossible, because I'm not classified as an expert group.

I think it's pretty obvious you don't or cannot value the truth at this point in time, and you're set on playing keyboard warrior. This isn't a good use of my time.

>Only you know the truth.
Uh, yes. Between the two of us, only I know the truth. There are thousands of people on this planet with credentials and all that who also know what's what and have a similar view. Too bad you're not able to consider their work.

>Again, how do you distinguish yourself from the fringe?
I'm not fringe because this isn't a new perspective or a newly burgeoning field / paradigm shift. It's old news, it's well established, and the weight of the evidence is quite thoroughly against the common view. There really is no mainstream narrative at this point. Just a haze of manufactured controversy and excuses when the evidence is very clear.

>Why do you not believe the exact same arguments when they're used to deny any other scientific fact you agree with?
I listen, I store, I hold onto things, I look into it. If I feel the need to say I -don't- believe something, there's always something substantial to go with it and discuss. You've not really provided any discussion or primary literature, just "they say" and you won't move from it one bit.

>Again, you're not special.
What does this even mean?

>>10072691
>Define.
I'm sure you can find the relevant charter definition in whatever country you prefer.

>You reject several solid reviews and meta-analysis
Like what? The Bioinitiative report is a fucking joke and you know it.

>but embrace shoddy work by "experts" and demand their "work be proven wrong, which, WAIT, is impossible, because I'm not classified as an expert group.
The least shoddy work finds no effects. You're projecting. Nice try, but even you know you're in the fringe.

>I'm not fringe because this isn't a new perspective or a newly burgeoning field / paradigm shift.
The thing about paradigm shifts is that they actually happen. So fuck off and come back when it happens. You're counting your chickens before they hatch, like every other fringe quack.

> It's old news, it's well established, and the weight of the evidence is quite thoroughly against the common view.
It's quite clearly for the common view.

>There really is no mainstream narrative at this point.
LOL

>I listen, I store, I hold onto things, I look into it. If I feel the need to say I -don't- believe something, there's always something substantial to go with it and discuss. You've not really provided any discussion or primary literature, just "they say" and you won't move from it one bit.
Why would I move from it when it's clear as day that every major committee supports my position? Their findings are there for anyone to read. You keep switching between "it's all a big conspiracy and all the research is bought" and "I read everything and it supports me." Choose one.

>What does this even mean?
It means that you're just another fringe quack who gets shit on. Now fuck off.

>>10072709
Like what?
>>10065303
All throughout. Starting here. >>10065716

>The thing about paradigm shifts is that they actually happen.
It already happened. Integration is just non-uniform.

>Why would I move from it when it's clear as day that every major committee supports my position?
Historical amnesia and illiteracy. No idea how the world works.

Anyway, moving on. Have a nice night. And good luck.

>Global warming is real, humans cause it, we can do something about it, we should, but it won't be good for us

>>10072723
Grown up here.
Yeah. You got the base of it.

>>10072646
>can't predict outcome but you just said the graph would be a bar at 100% for one trial
exactly. there's no way of predicting WHERE on the axis that bar will be.
>Before I flip a coin which facet of its outcome is predicted to be 100%??? Please enlighten me because this is what you said earlier, or you just didn't understand because you're sperging.
just like before, you're so damn close to getting it.
>Each trial has thousands of outcome possibilities, not two.
nibba do you know what a coin flip is?

nice word salad though. unfortunately I have an actual background in statistics and am not impressed with your incoherent rant no matter how much jargon you throw in.

>didn't click the video so I didn't deny shit.
>I can't be accused of rejecting evidence if I refuse to even look at it!
>NO DON'T SHOW IT TO ME
>MY EYES ARE TOO PURE FOR THIS FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE
pathetic

>I'm still not sure because apparently it's possible to take a weather aggregate in your world from only two week repeated trials as if it were flipping coins but they didn't?
>If an aggregate is possible they : did,didn't make them? If an aggregate is possible and they didn't make them, why not?
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>>10070438
I think preserving ecosystems and wildlife diversity is more important than the "well-being" of niggers ( A boom after a famine is a great strategy for preventing future famines) and the fat-cat cosmopolitans.

The entire world doesn't exist past the now ( or the quarter) for those "people" and maybe one day they will be right.

>>10070296
imo
global warming is real and caused by humans and we need to abolish state to stop niggers breeding and to stop overpopulation in this way

>>10072957
No we need the state to get rid of the overpopulation problem by using their Monopoly on violence to impose a tyrannical "solution." But unironically.

>>10070871
How are these third-world shitholes again ?
It's also pretty convenient to use per capita rate when the US population is 10 times greater than than the sum of all the above.

>>10072887
>exactly. there's no way of predicting WHERE on the axis that bar will be.
ffs you're just an impossible moron. It's predictions, not observations. I explicitly said this but you just can't understand something so simple. A 100% bar is guaranteed to be at 100-0 deviation away from 50-50 on the graph on the first trial if we're talking about predicions of events that haven't taken place. I don't want to talk about this anymore becuase you're such a complete dumbass. I honestly think I'd have to draw a picture using crayons to show where you're confusing yourself and even then you still probably couldn't grasp this.

>unfortunately I have an actual background in statistics
LOL this would be unfortunate if it weren't for the fact you're lying. At best you've taken a class that was tacked on to a bio major or something useless, which doesn't count as "a background".. not surprised you went to an argument from authority fallacy, it's on par for what I've seen so far.
>the rest of yoru BS
so they can make aggregate predictions of the weather but never have, not even once? Such science. I totally have every reason to believe their "aggregate" doomsday predictions which will come true long after we're dead

You could have spelled it out after I asked and made me look like a fool but you didn't. Instead you wrote 6 childish greentext lines implying I'm not asking. That's all I needed to know. You've got nothing but propaganda videos and I know for certain I made the right call in not wasting my time. There has never been an accurate prediction from the global warming alarmist industry because their belief system is not based on science or verified theories. I'm not going to follow you down your rabbit hole pretending your youtube conspiracy videos mean anything. If they had anything valid you would have said so. It's hilarious you think they can make 100 year aggregate predictions but not 25 year aggregate predictions. You are a clueless sheep.

>>10072989
>when the US population is 10 times greater than than the sum of all the above
It's not even 10 times the Saudi population

>>10072545
sure we can
if we don't mind losing our crops
because a worldwide syria is just great

>>10073058
Are you diagnosed with a mental disorder, cause I can't believe a relatively normal human being would be this stupid and boneheaded.

>>10073064
Okay sure, still my point stands. It is 10 times greater than that of the top 5 of that list for example, or all of the above aside from Saudi Arabia, the point being that the actual total emissions of the US are order of magnitudes greater than those of any of the "shitholes" above it. That is not to excuse the behavior of anyone (I know coming from a "shithole" that living in country with no environmental regulation sucks ass), but if anyone had to be eradicated in priority in order to protect the environment, it would probably have to be China then the US

>>10072656
>dat reading comprehension

american, right?

What about nuclear war? It would depopulate the world a little and also dropping a lot of nukes, i heard, lowers the temperature.

>>10070317
This is what they want. They know they just need to confuse you enough so you’re uncertain. Then you don’t vote against their interests and keep burning coal and oil.

Meanwhile they admit it themselves on their websites so when the problem gets so bad people are dying and they can’t deny it anymore so when you try to sue them they get to say ‘well, it was on our website for years. Your fault for not seeing it.’

>...
>2030
>Right-wingers were pro-climate change all along
>It was leftists who caused climate change

>>10073335
I don't want nukes to devastate the environment

>>10073385
one step back two steps forward

>>10070296
>Global warming may or may not be real, humans may or may not have been responsible, we may or may not be able to do anything about it, it will be good or bad for us -- but it is DEFINITELY getting to be a tired troll for starting threads on /sci/.

DO NOT FEED.

>>10070303
>The last one after ?????? is:

Traditionally, the last one after ????? is "PROFIT!"

>>10070361
>The same is happening with wireless devices.

Back to /x/, re-re.

>>10070296
I'm inclined to believe it doesn't exist at all because shitlibs went on a political march for it. If something's real, it doesn't matter how many people believe in it. The IPCC themselves said they can't predict long term climate change after being proven wrong over and over again.

But I actually do think it's real, I just don't care.

>>10073519
>science I don't like is trolling
>>10073545
>I am a huge faggot please rape my face
>muh libruls

>>10070296
We could literally cool the air.

>>10070296
Until you're ready to gas the chinks and indians en masse sweet fuck all will be done about global warming.

>>10072535
start building that wall i dont want any fucking americans in europe

>>10073774
Building a wall emits CO2.

Plant a forest they would get lost in.

>>10073773
their transition into more developed countries might be less damaging if done properly. Technology is more developed so they could leap frog some of the steps and put more impact on green energy

>>10073747
Literally this, it's technically possible, why don't we do that?

Meh, these shills think they are winning people over but in reality they are doing the opposite. You are just driving people to hate you. I would have described myself as "conservative" a few years ago. Now I cannot stand the thought of you people.

>>10073802
>>10073808

Some idiot started a thread on it.

These are the worst threads on the board and should be banned tbqh

>>10070417
>collapsing the economy
But that doesn't have to happen anon
Besides we can see what your capitalists did for all their economic wisdom
Time to stop being an NPC m8 there's more than one way out of this

>>10074277
That chart is misleading. A dollar in 1913 could buy more than in 2013 because inflation had not occurred and any economist will tell you that steady inflation is beneficial to an economy.

>>10073058
>I don't want to talk about this anymore becuase you're such a complete dumbass.
read as:
>I have no idea what I'm talking about and it's starting to show

>At best you've taken a class that was tacked on to a bio major or something useless, which doesn't count as "a background"..
I took a full year of college stats and (more importantly) did my MS thesis on geometric morphometric ontogeny. a journal paper version of it is currently in final revisions.
>argument from authority fallacy
you're really reaching now. all I said was that my background in stats allowed me to see through your bullshit and not be fooled by the use of technical language.

>so they can make aggregate predictions of the weather but never have, not even once?
you literally just admitted that you refused to watch the 1-minute video laying out some simple predictions made by climatologists and how they compared to measurements.

>You could have spelled it out after I asked and made me look like a fool but you didn't
you don't need my help for that.
>implying I'm not asking
worse. you're asking and then ignoring the answers given because you suspect you won't like them.
>You've got nothing but propaganda videos and I know for certain I made the right call in not wasting my time.
turns out evidence you don't like no longer counts if you just call it propaganda!
none so blind, etc. etc.
>There has never been an accurate prediction from the global warming alarmist industry
there are 7 accurate predictions from mainstream climatologists illustrated just in that little video you're too scared to watch.
>If they had anything valid you would have said so.
and so I did. ignoring the evidence won't make it go away, you sniveling child.
>It's hilarious you think they can make 100 year aggregate predictions but not 25 year aggregate predictions.
Law of Large Numbers, nibba.

>>10070866
>when have global warming predictions ever come true? To my knowledge every single prediction from the 90's has been wrong
If you're not even going to TRY to look into a subject, why bother posting about it?