/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10087577
Arguing the wrong way. There's a book by schopenhaur about pissing off people in arguments you should read, but in general learn how to argue. Feelings don't care about your facts.

>>10087577
>I'm too dumb to support my claims, please help me

>>10087577

why do you care?
just smile and say "I see your point" and then ignore them.

>>10087597
Because he votes, the brainlet.

>>10087598
so do you

>>10087598

well, get an engineering degree and focus on emission optimization, what can I say, you can't (and shouldn't) try to change peoples ideas.

Basic facts: CO2 and other gases absorb infrared radiation. CO2 normally has its own cycle, similar to the water cycle, where it's released from and absorbed into natural reservoirs. We can measure the CO2 content of the air and estimate the flow into and out of natural reservoirs. We can measure temperature of the air at various elevations, the sea at various depths, and the total atmosphere from satellites.

What we know: humans are adding CO2 to the air from ancient sources that don't have a corresponding sink, so global CO2 levels are slowly increasing. Heat content is rising globally, although some regions have local decreases and the heat isn't evenly partitioned (oceans are getting a lot of it). Recent temperature increases do not correlate well with other known influences like short-term sunspot cycles or millenia-long orbital cycles. Out of all the potential climate-influencing gases, both naturally occurring and anthropogenic, only the increase in CO2 correlates well with increases in global temperature.

>>10087605
I'm already doing, or rather already did that.

It's mechE though so environmental stuff is over my head, and the reason why the change is OUR fault (besides the comment sense solution of assuming it is because that means we can DO something about it instead of lay down and die as the planet boils us alive) escapes me.

If you're curious, yes I am using my degree to help save the world. Yes its environmentally conscious stuff. No I can't talk about it. Government work.

>>10087612
Thank you.

>>10087618

well, great for you anon, I am happy you're doing your part, just don't bother arguing with idiots, you won't get much out of it.

>the reason why the change is our fault escapes me

well, basically is what the >>10087612 said, it is a feedback issue, we have no clear idea about how the biosphere-atmosphere system will answer to an increase of greenhouse gases, oceanic warming and water currents weakening, we can only assume that it's not in our best interest at the moment.

t. paleofag

>>10087630
It kinda makes me happy to know that the meat and potatoes of it is CO2. It's a relatively easy molecule to capture and store; if we can make sequestration practical on a large scale we can walk back the damage. Or rather walk back the CAUSE of the damage and give the planet a chance to heal.

Based on the research I've heard about I suspect the tech for that will show up within the next 5 years. Maaaybe 10 but I hope 5 because 10 is REALLY stretching the deadline.

>>10087605

Only some 20% of the population actually think and form opinions. The rest follow. So actually, you don't have to convince all those brainlets. Those are the followers. All you have to do is somehow convince one of the few of the 20% who are deniers to change their public opinion and all the brainlets will automatically follow.

>>10087577
Daily reminder that you often can't change an NPC's mind, even with extensive physical access to them.

>>10087636
>if we can make sequestration practical on a large scale
that, unfortunately, is the hardest part. we have some promising technologies but implementing them at the scale necessary to put a dent in global emissions is a big undertaking and will probably take a drastic overhaul of our energy production toward renewables

>>10087646
which isn't to say we shouldn't try sequestration, just that it's not gonna be a magic bullet that lets us live our lives as we have with little change. there's going to be big changes soon no matter what

I'm be honest what time hoping for is one of those big ol' dumps that you can just screencap and drop like a bunker bunker buster into the debate to make the deniers lose their shit.

Kinda like that one about the causes for the civil war.

>>10087577
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10087668
Dang. This is...extensive.

>>10087675
it also doesn't work against a lot of deniers. they see the url and immediately discount any argument that cites it, even in part

>>10087679
Well that's easy to fix, skeptical science actually references their shit. So instead of just potholing them you copy down the article and it's bibliography directly.

I might just as well ask on here. Does anyone know why LM is denying climate change now?
Would it be far fetched to believe that he is getting paid to shill? I mean, he did lose his job so maybe now he gets a cheque from whomever to shill.

>>10087716
who?

>>10087717
...linda Murkowski? Is that her first name? I dunn0 who you're talking about.

>>10087668
>https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Have you actually read the 'in depth' pages? This website is full of shit.

>>10087810
Meant to reply to >>10087716

>>10087813
Example?

>>10087612
How much can anthropogenic CO2 increase temperature by increasing from 280ppm to 400+?

>>10087612
Where is the direct correspondence between temperature and CO2 in the ancient past? I see only a weak correlation.

>>10087612
If you look at the geological record for the past half million years you see that temperature cycles between a high point and a low point - glaciations and interglacials. This in and of itself suggests a well buffered system with strong negative feedbacks that kick in once certain criteria are met. To me, the evidence indicates that we are either near, at or just past the modern temperature peak and if the pattern seen in the geological record via Vostok, Greenland, Antarctic ice cores continues, we are due for another glaciation.

>>10087612
Another Vostok ice core chart clearly shows that CO2 concentration typically lags temperature in nature, and not the reverse.
If CO2 were as potent a greenhouse gas as the IPCC would have you believe, this in and of itself would have set the Earth on the path to runaway warming long before humanity ever emerged to worry over it - Temperature goes up -> CO2 is released -> Temperature continues to climb -> repeat ad infinitum. Clearly this has not been the case.

>IPCC is wrong
>look they read the graphs wrong
>look I can clearly read the graphs better
>look at me, I'm proving them wrong

>>10089559
>IPCC uses fake and poorly curated data.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

Main points:

>The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
>McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
>Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Colombia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
>Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
>Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
>When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/

this is like the village peasant running to the priest and asking for tips on dealing with his neighbor bewitching his chickens.

>>10089572
Gory details of the worst outliers

>For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.
>The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).
>At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.

Although it's not the first time these guys have falsified data:

https://archive.org/details/ClimategateEmails/page/n0

>>10087716
cause of pic related i guess.

This is Paris Climate Agreement. How the fuck can anyone consider this serious?

>>10089654
>we have to stop climate change!!!
>now that we are at it, we should really introduce communism too

>>10087577
maybe this is helpful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTvqIijqvTg

>>10087717
Lubos Motl.

>>10087577
Step 1: do a 360
Step 2: walk away

You sound like a major unlikeable faggot, don't make it harder on yourself. While global warming is 100% real, there's nothing we can do at this point to reverse the mass extinction that is already underway. Just accept that we're living in the twilight of Earth's biosphere and accept your death like a man, and let that idiot you're trying to argue with die in ignorance and peace.

>>10089654
Meh, as a socially conservative individual this does not sit right with me.
But then again I see how the alt-right/Trump/Jews have used this anti-PC anger to grow their fascist movement and THAT is definitely much more of a problem for me than the trannies and feminists.
And you here are just trying to do the same thing. Sorry, rather be with trannies than Trump.

>While global warming is 100% real, there's nothing we can do at this point to reverse the mass extinction that is already underway. Just accept that we're living in the twilight of Earth's biosphere and accept your death like a man, and let that idiot you're trying to argue with die in ignorance and peace.

This is the new kind of climate change denial. The frequency with which you are now switching tactics gives me hope. It shows that people are not believing your lies anymore.

>>10089742
hardly have i read a statement with so many buzzwords yet so little sense

>>10089758
Your tactics are now painfully obvious. Nobody is falling for your bullshit anymore.

>>10089559

maybe they false the data to keep the money going

>>10089911

>>10089531
>what is the sun
you fucking brainlet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTleHVkoaNQ

>>10089927
Cannot imagine what sort of twisted idea of life these people have when they believe that the Saudis are the good guys and some scientist doing climate research is evil incarnate. How can you even believe that? Makes no sense.

>>10089992
There's always a portion of people who are contrarian to the general opinion just for the sake of being contrarian. I'm not seing being contrarian is bad if there's at least some evidence, but most of these faggots just grasp at straws and parrot whatever bullshit they read on the internet or hear in a bar

nobody is going to do anything even if you would have to wear a gas mask every day when the sky is black with smog and carbon dioxide and lung cancer reaches 50% of all cases. Even then there will be companies who will just sell fresh oxygen bottles. Literally, no one cares about thing such as the environment in the long term of 2 generations lifespan.

>>10087577
Now that all these issues are based on your politics and politics are identity, when you tell people global warming is real, it's like you called them a racist, because you are saying they are a bad person and you are a good person. I don't know how you fix it, but that's the root of the problem. What doesn't help is going on 4chan and arguing with a bunch of Russians who are paid to make us angry at each other.

>>10091081
It doesn't help that certain politicians are using climate change as an excuse to increase taxes. That alone destroyed any hope of ever tackling the problem.

>>10089527
>How much can anthropogenic CO2 increase temperature by increasing from 280ppm to 400+?
1+ degree C.

>>10089531
>Where is the direct correspondence between temperature and CO2 in the ancient past?
The direct correspondence is the greenhouse effect. Ever heard of it?

>>10089536
>If you look at the geological record for the past half million years you see that temperature cycles between a high point and a low point - glaciations and interglacials. This in and of itself suggests a well buffered system with strong negative feedbacks that kick in once certain criteria are met.
False, it's a cyclical system because the cause is cyclical. Milankovich cycles, ever heard of them?

>To me, the evidence indicates that we are either near, at or just past the modern temperature peak
There's no need to guess, Milankovich cycles are predictable and observable. Interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. We should be slowly cooling right now over the next tens of thousands of years. Instead we are warming an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. Current global warming is completely against the natural cycle, because the cause is not natural.

>>10089541
>If CO2 were as potent a greenhouse gas as the IPCC would have you believe, this in and of itself would have set the Earth on the path to runaway warming long before humanity ever emerged to worry over it
Runaway warming is not simply determined by the strength of the greenhouse gas, it's also determined by the feedback loops and mechanisms that determine the proportions of gasses in the atmosphere. So your argument is nonsense.

>Temperature goes up -> CO2 is released -> Temperature continues to climb -> repeat ad infinitum.
Even if you ignore the rest of the atmosphere, this still doesn't follow since you assume that the effect is linear and not logarithmic. Ironic, considering you posted >>10089527

The temperature has risen higher in the past, without the CO2 having been nearly as high. The CO2 concentration has also been higher in the past without corresponding temperature increases. If a hotter temperature were going to drive more GHG emissions in a feedback mechanism, it would have happened in the past. Likewise, if higher CO2 concentrations were going to drive temperatures higher, there would be evidence for it in the geological record. CO2 and temperature, as far as the evidence conclusively demonstrates, are only weakly correlated. There is something much more powerful at play driving the climate. CO2 is not a climate "control knob." It's more like a busted gain knob that only goes up to 1. The actual control knob (underwater volcanic activity powering ocean currents and evaporating water vapor into the atmosphere) completely overpowers it.

>>10091292
>The temperature has risen higher in the past, without the CO2 having been nearly as high. The CO2 concentration has also been higher in the past without corresponding temperature increases.
Wow, wow, I'm shocked. Just shocked. Climatologists had no knowledge of this until now. This changes everything.

Or wait, maybe this is obvious and CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. Retard.

> If a hotter temperature were going to drive more GHG emissions in a feedback mechanism, it would have happened in the past.
It did. See >>10089536

>Likewise, if higher CO2 concentrations were going to drive temperatures higher, there would be evidence for it in the geological record.
The entire geological record is evidence for it. You can't explain it without including the greenhouse effect.

>CO2 and temperature, as far as the evidence conclusively demonstrates, are only weakly correlated.
They are strongly correlated over timeframes in which the greenhouse effect is the dominant factor in temperature. Again, you cannot explain how the temperature is not a giant ice ball without the greenhouse effect. If you can, I suggest you publish your theory and collect your Nobel.

I find it funny that you think you can disprove a directly observed causation by appealing to a lack of correlation caused by your ignorance of the data and other causative factors.

>The actual control knob (underwater volcanic activity powering ocean currents and evaporating water vapor into the atmosphere) completely overpowers it.
Oh so now the greenhouse effect is real? What a hypocrite.

>>10087577
https://www.skepticalscience.com/

have fun

>>10089742
>tfw on so many levels of irony I now shill for trump while pretending I'm a tranny pretending to shill for trump even though I don't care about SJWs at all

some dudes like dick and some dudes pretend they're women that also like dick. congrats to them. how does this interfere with my life? I test water turbidity for a living so you can have potable water to drink. if a nigga wants to suck some dick as long as he does it on his own time who gives a fuck?

>>10089527 >>10089522
>>10089531 >>10089518
>>10089536 >>10089516
>>10089541 >>10089550
>>10089572 >>10089677
>>10091292 >>10091276
Spamming the exact same dumb arguments (almost word-for-word!) in a new thread after they get refuted in the previous one doesn't exactly scream "intellectual honesty".
Fuck off.

>>10087583
I don't have feelings, how do I argue against feelings?

>>10091684
No data was provided in any of the refutations, just a bunch of rhetorical droning.

>>10091743
Fuck off.

>>10091753
Nigger

>>10092332
>climate change
>anti biotic resistant bacteria
>over fishing, over hunting
How fucked are we?

>>10087577
>Walk me through it like I'm a complete idiot.
So you have no idea if you're right or not but you're annoying an acquaintance?

None of you convince me after reading all this junk. I guess you have to be smart enough to make me less dumb. It would help if there was not so much politics. Because I know that all those guys are pulling my leg. Making electric cars and new lightbulbs is an industry. There would be less pollution if you just kept your first car. In the 80's it was a smaller version of the same shot but they warned of the next ice age. Whatever is right or wrong, it is done for money. Everybody mostly agrees that we shouldn't trash the planet. That is the common ground. You agree more than you think you do. Just puppetry

>>10093545
>some people have agendas
>you have presented arguments, but probably not in the best way possible
>therefore let me reject empirical facts on those bases
so much for being so intelligent and above it all

>>10093545
>make me less dumb
this is /sci/ not ma/g/ic

>>10093668
Helping his opponent make his point.

>>10093743
What point? "Agendas exist so these facts aren't real"? That's a logical fallacy.

>>10093545
>In the 80's it was a smaller version of the same shot but they warned of the next ice age.
You've clearly done zero research, but feel confident to ignore scientists who have been studying this for most of their life?

>>10093314
Thank God we saved the West from Hitler.

>>10087577
When I meet retards I usually don,'t even bother proving them wrong. I actually do the opposite and feed them more bullshit, one less oponent

>>10087577
When you fuckers finally admit that you can pump that heat to a fucking generator and power stuff by heat in atmosphere/oceans having actually problems that it gets cold not warmer?

>>10094438

Fuck global warming. This is/sci/ go to politics. Science isn't going to do a damn thing but fuck shit up.

>>10094559
>Fuck global warming. This is/sci/ go to politics.
Despite how some people feel about it, climatology is still firmly in the realm of science.

>>10094569
It's about as scientific as statistics.
Which is to say it's 99% smoke and mirrors, and 1% relevant information.

>>10094776
>I don't trust that spooky math and science
Your ignorance of what's being discussed is not evidence of its falsehood.

>>10094811

>>10096061
Did you notice how both graphs show an upward trend in temperature?

>>10096107
The unaltered graph shows that the 1930s were the warmest period in recent history, and the 1940s to the 70s experienced a cooling trend.

>>10096319
>The unaltered graph
Do you have a specific issue with the alterations, or are you just upset because you don't like the outcome?

>the 1930s were the warmest period in recent history
Only with out-of-date data, only in the USA, only if you stop the graph at 2000.
So what?

>the 1940s to the 70s experienced a cooling trend.
Aerosol forcing from sulfates and soot.

>>10091292
>If a hotter temperature were going to drive more GHG emissions in a feedback mechanism, it would have happened in the past. Likewise, if higher CO2 concentrations were going to drive temperatures higher, there would be evidence for it in the geological record. CO2 and temperature, as far as the evidence conclusively demonstrates, are only weakly correlated.
what is the Permo-Triassic Extinction?
>underwater volcanic activity powering ocean currents and evaporating water vapor into the atmosphere
imagine being this retarded

>>10093758
Funny. This post is three logical fallacies. This warmer makes you all look bad. This is politics as swell as science. You won't win favor by being a dick.>>10096679 I've seen points on both sides. You have to get it through to voter/ retards.

>>10087577
Does anybody really believe that climate scientists who have spent the last twenty years of their life passionately crusading to save the planet would tell the truth if they discovered that the climate was in negative feedback in stead of the predicted positive feedback?

" False alarm guys ! No need to renew that multi million dollar government grant to finance our climate studies next year. We have enough data to see that a run away positive feed back warming is not going to happen and in fact we can see the earths climate is much more stable than we all thought. Sorry but all the fuss!

Because I don't believe they would say that.

>>10096107
>b-b-ut a-a-atleast we get the direction of the t-t-trend right

If this is how you want to play it can all burn for all I care.

>does anyone really believe that scientists would publish ground breaking results that would win them loads of prizes and set them apart from the rest of their colleagues and put their names in the history books

>>10094438
> I usually don,'t even bother proving them wrong. I actually do the opposite and feed them more bullshit, one less oponent

This is the winning strategy. Feed them even crazier conspiracy theories.

>>10096994
>Does anybody really believe that climate scientists who have spent the last twenty years of their life passionately crusading to save the planet would tell the truth if they discovered that the climate was in negative feedback in stead of the predicted positive feedback?
I don't think you understand what "feedback" means. And any climatologist that disproved AGW would be incredibly famous.

>" False alarm guys ! No need to renew that multi million dollar government grant to finance our climate studies next year. We have enough data to see that a run away positive feed back warming is not going to happen and in fact we can see the earths climate is much more stable than we all thought. Sorry but all the fuss!
We already know that runaway warming is incredibly unlikely, because climatologists studied that. Your "climatologists would never" scenario happened years ago.

>>10097081
The trend is the part that actually matters. Warm and cold years show up all the time, but it's understanding what effects contribute to long-term trends which produces meaningful predictions.

>>10097192
My issue is with the accuracy of the models and them failing to be able to model actual observations from data obtained in the past, if it fails to simulate actual data how can it hope to predict the future?

>>10097298
Which models have failed?

>>10096319
both graphs show that local cooling trend after 1940
>>10096748
>this one guy did a thing, AGW dun was faked
Another logical fallacy. For being so much more intelligent than "warmers," you sure do have some fucking idiotic reasoning.
>>10097081
the trend is the important part, not the individual measurements

>>10089992
Because people tend to think too highly of the field they work in.
Also they need funding.
If they go 'yeah, yeah, our research(tm) suggests that we will all die in roughly 10-1000 years' it sells better than 'that shits complicated, come back in 10 years'

>>10097535
All I see when I read your type of crap is:
>exponential growth forever!
>89 trillion humans colonizing the galaxy!!
>science is BULLSHIT!!!
>SCIENTISTS ARE ALL FRAUDS!!!!!

>>10097192
Something I can understand if I pretend to be completely retarded:

Let's say scientists had a multi-million dollar contract for a study. Okay, if they 100% got their way, they get millions, let's say 10 million dollars. Sounds like a lot.

There's plenty of articles like https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/oil-and-gas-industry-a-decade-of-record-breaking-profits/

In 2008, Exxon posted the largest annual corporate profit in U.S. history at $45.2 billion; a 155% increase in profit from the decade’s start. In the same year, international oil giants Shell and BP raked in $31 billion, and $25 billion respectively, and Chevron became the second most profitable company in the U.S. with $24 billion in profits; a 360% increase from 2000. Overall, the top five oil companies recorded cumulative profits of nearly $560 billion from 2005 to 2009. (See table below)

Billions in profit. Billions in profit are at stake for a company, and supposedly the millions the scientists need is an unholy amount.

I can understand humans being so retarded to the point that favored authority is 100% right all the time, but dear god, how much of the brain has to not be capable of thinking to allow this.

>>10097584
You can't talk sense into an addict. These people will rationalize anything to justify their consumption. The same way a whore avidly defends their pimp.

>>10097565
My point is you wouldn't publish papers that cut your funding in half if people believed it.
I'm not saying they are frauds, just that the financial dependence makes me suspicious

You'e making no sense, suggesting you have no idea what you are talking about (although it is possible your interlocutor is in a similar position, if he/she has not corrected you).

You say you want to persuade someone that AGW exists, but that is not really in serious debate. I don't know of anyone who doubts that human activity (CO2 and land use, primarily) are increasing temperatures more than reducing them (I'll try and avoid the idea of mean global temperature, as I teach meteorology and this is such an obviously nonsensical concept) but likewise even the alarmist IPCC does not make any claim beyond human activity accounting for half the warming from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Note that the alarming scenarios you have seen in the news media assume that 90%+ (occasionally 80%) of that warming was man-made.

If your friend is taking his views from those prominent on the sceptical side of the climate debate, then the issue is almost certainly not the existence of human influence on climate but its magnitude and effect. All those I know of think warming will be benevolent, benign or less harmful than even the current measures being used to address it. The IPCC position is in line with the last of these three.

Then there is the news media/politician/hockey team "CAGW" point of view, that human influence will cause serious harm. The news media massively exaggerate this, but some scientists do seem to believe it.

Of course you cannot honestly persuade him of this, as it is the subject of honest debate. Even the IPCC position, which has not changed significantly in decades despite advances in science and despite reduced estimates of temperature effects of CO2 from empirical studies (the IPCC work is dominated to a worrying degree by linear models with problems of physics and maths in their (common) core), is equivocal if you actually read the ARs.

>>10087583
>schopenhaur
whats the book?

You do realise that the oil companies support the CAGW propaganda because there is no choice but to use fossil fuel at the moment and governments are rapidly phasing out coal in favour of oil and gas, right? Also because they get government-guaranteed profits ... oops, I mean funding for their "green energy" projects. Along with the greenwashung of course.

The climate panic is a $1.5T a year business. That is almost all government or NGO backed. Oil companies have to make profit for shareholders, the climate business has the money stream guaranteed as long as the panic lasts.

It is interesting that you don't talk about actual money going to CAGW sceptics (there are reports of the odd trivial amount, like $100k from Exxon, here or there), when there are known billions in research finds from governments and NGOs each year controlled entirely by climate alarmists whose funding, prestige,influence and free travel to tropical islands relies on the climate panic continuing. if money is corrupting a scientist, he would be an idiot to support the sceptical view, and be sidelined, lose university positions (yes, it has happened) be hounded out of his job (yep, that too) and generally hated and threatened - all for less money that is harder to come by.

>>10097119
>>Does anybody really believe that climate scientists who have spent the last twenty years of their life passionately crusading to save the planet would tell the truth if they discovered that the climate was in negative feedback in stead of the predicted positive feedback?
>I don't think you understand what "feedback" means. And any climatologist that disproved AGW would be incredibly famous.

I think he understands exactly what feedback means. It may be that you don't. If you think that anyone disproving CAGW (that you think the debate is over AGW just shows your ignorance) would be famous then you are sadly lacking in history of science, which is littered with people who were right but, when it went against the scientific establishment, were laughed at, humiliated and lost their positions.

It doesn't happen in well-functioning science but if there is anything we know from history is that science does not always function well, and if there is anything we know about climate "science" is that it is not normal science, and it is laced with dishonesty from simple hiding of unwanted results (common across science) through scientific fraud to federal crimes (not so common). Most relevant, we know that it has been utterly politicised and people who disagree have been attacked in every way possible, most of them contrary to the theoretical practices of science.

>>10097744
Got sources for those claims?

>>10097298
>>10097336
>crickets chirping...

GLOBAL HOAXING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgKJpJyDXQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbAgl7w_Vws

>>10097584
He's either a shill, or he supports a worldview/ideology that is incompatible with climate change. You won't teach him better. He is not open to change. He just wants to force his views onto us.

>>10097726
>>10097744
>>10097754
>CAGW
You out yourself very easily. What an amateur. I sure hope they aren't paying for such a shit job.

>>10097754
its actually the clash of science vs. economics. economists/politicians are currently destroying any science/scientist (no matter how legitimate or important) that threatens its supremacy.

>>10097928
Nice ad-hominem, nigger faggot.

>>10087577
so man, you just gotta do what you do to train dogs. Grab them and then take them to some melting permafrost and push their face into it and then yell at them that they did that.

>>10094569
>climatology is still firmly in the realm of science

Some parts of it. The part being argued here is taking data points from the last 40 years and extrapolating them hundreds of years into the future in a system no one really understands. That is about as scientific as a shaman dancing around the fire screaming 'there be rain of fire from the skies'

>>10097634
>financial dependence makes me suspicious

me too
>>10089927

>>10098544
>The part being argued here is taking data points from the last 40 years and extrapolating them hundreds of years into the future in a system no one really understands.
We have decent quality proxy data going back hundreds of thousands of years. And while making detailed predictions is still in it's infancy, pretending we can't conclude anything at all about future trends is just dumb.