/sci/ - Science & Math

>Is there really a "scientific consensus" on global warming?
There can't be a "scientific consensus" on pseudoscience.

>>10180778
No, there is a lot of speculation and hypothesis, nothing more. Here's the thing, the weather has always changed (i.e. Ice Age). It has nothing to do with man, as much as it has to do with the earth going through natural phases of influx of heating and cooling.

Now, with that being said, to say that this won't affect us greatly would be to ignore common sense. With that being said, there are probably too many people on this earth anyways, and our consumption culture is only aiding in our demise. At the very least, it certainly isn't sustainable.

There is a very clear consensus on global warming. Like any good hypothesis, global warming is backed by 1) empirical proof (data that shows the mean global temperature increasing over the last hundred years, post industrial revolution 2) a proven mechanism to explain the phenomenon (greenhouse effect) and 3) scientific experiments to match the mechanism with the data. The scientific community has broadly accepted that humans are the root cause of climate change due to our carbon emissions. Anybody who says otherwise is incorrect. Its really not hard to find this stuff out.

>>10180778
>>Peter Ferrara
>>Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute
L0Lno

>>10180920
>the weather has always changed
On geological timescales, not in the space of 80 years you dumbcunt.

Nice shill thread

>>10182036
We only have a sample period dating back to the past 200 years; that's it. n=80 is NOTHING. Beyond that, all you have are proxies such as tree ring and soil samples, which are shit-tier and vary as much as +/-15°c, and influenced by other things weather, pathogens, sunshine hours. Essentially the temperature data beyond instrumentation began is what the 'researchers' want it to be and is entirely unverifiable. You're a low IQ moron.

>>10180920
Dumb burger

>>10182045
Dunning Kruger, the post

>>10182047
Seems more intelligent than your lack of a counter-argument and ad hominem attack.

>>10182051
Counter arguments have been posted countless times. Now it's time for ad hominem you retarded piece of shit

>>10182050
>y-you must be stupid b-because only stupid people refuse to accept the validity of man-made climate change! ha, Dunning–Kruger effect morty, I win!
Cringe

>>10180920
with that being said, you have to do more for your 50 cent

>>10180778
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Your ideology is stupid and dangerous. Faggot.

>>10182058
>Shill is a dumb frogposter
You can't make this shit up

>>10182045
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

>>10180920
Yes, totally natural! Just ignore that the natural circle says we should be slowly cooling over the next 10000 years, not warming, and that current warming is an order of magnitude faster than those natural warming phases you mentioned.

HAHAHAHAHA IT NEVER GETS OLD

>>10182090
How do I buy TemperatureAnomoly coins?

>>10182103
it will crash hard, the price is clearly being manipulated

>>10182090
pamp it

>a blog from an American financial newsletter website
I mean, come on.

>>10182090
>>10182083
>>>>>>10182045

>>10180778
>>10180778
I clicked on the author's name:
>Peter Ferrara
>Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute
>Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation
>Worked in the white house under presidents Raegan and Bush

Gee, do you think this guy might be a little bit biased?

>>10180920
Yes, totally natural! Just ignore that we have directly measured the amount of heat being radiated back to Earth by CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore we know the warming is being caused by man.

>>10182146
See >>10182045

>>10182124
>>>>>10182083
>>>>>10182090

>>10182136
No, they're only biased if I don't like their opinions

>>10182149
See >>10182153

the science is very solid on this topic. there is little meaningful ambiguity. anthropogenic climate change is real and probably one of the biggest issues of our time.

>>10182164
>the science is settled!
>it's real and is the biggest issue of our time!

>>10182168
Glad you agree.

>>10182168
>>>/trash/

Look at this graph

>>10182189
Wait till you see the

>>10182191
Oh no no no...

>>10182193
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10182194

The retardation in this thread is off the charts.
>>>/pol/
You all need to go back

>>10182208

>>10182212

>>10182189
>>10182193
>>10182194
Ice core data ends in mid 1800s. See >>10182090 for the temperature spike.

>>10180792
this angers the climate shill

Newspaper lied. Pretty obvious. You can watch Potholer54 videos if you want to understand the subject better.

>>10181011
>a proven mechanism to explain the phenomenon
Anyone else see the problem here?

>>10182050
Reddit the post.

Freaking the issue as "consensus" is not the question. There was once a "consensus" that the Earth was the center of the universe. It should be about evidence, but all data points to poor modeling around correlated datasets but doesn't have a good model for causality.
Sure, they can point to co2 but why do they stop there? We have also been increasing our electrical potential since then as well. How do they know it's not the EMF causing climate instability? On top of that why do they keep getting predictions wrong on the impact?
The point of science is to make models of prediction for duplication.

>>10180792
/thread

wow, did they open a new budget for climate shitposting? how much can you make?

>>10180778
>Is there really a "scientific consensus" on global warming?
Yes. The vast majority of peer-reviewed publications the discuss the issue conclude that the current warming trend is both real and caused by human activity.

>And how does it relate to this?
That's complete garbage.

>Forbes
>Heartland
>"The Hiatus"
Do you really expect anyone on /sci/ to buy that kind of bullshit propaganda? The entire article is a sequence of of lies and heavily distorted claims. It covers the whole spectrum from using uncorrected RSS data to lying about "global cooling" claims.

Here's what RSS data actually looks like:

>>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?

>>10184089
You are a retard.

>>10182076
>y-you're a shill! Dumb ad hominem. Can't make this up MORTY, I win

>>10185032
You forgot the frog

>>10182209
It's an invasion of paid shills. /pol/ doesn't care enough to come here to troll about climate change.

>>10183136
no

>>10181011
Is there consensus on how much is due to human activity versus how much is due to natural processes? Also, is there a consensus on the consequences of the expected degree of climate change? Is there even a consensus as to the degree of climate change that will happen? Or is the consensus on nothing more than "the climate is changing to some degree and some percentage that we can't determine is caused by humans"?

>>10185447
All of those things were debated decades ago.

>>10180920
>with that being said
A bunch of people in America, especially in the grain growing Midwest, actually benefit from the minor climate shifts they've experienced. Longer growing seasons, milder winters with more precipitation, help the corn grow.
This effects all sorts of policy decisions and research.

>>10180778
Sure there is a scientific consensus on global warming, goy.
Anyone who says otherwise is drummed out of academia and regarded as a pariah.
Perfectly legitimate consensus, goy!
Just like there is a scientific consensus that all races are totally equal.
Just like there will soon be a near-unanimous scientific consensus that gender is nothing more than a social construct that can be changed at will.

>>10180920

>>overpopulation meme

You could feed the entire population of Earth for 20,142 years at current food production levels on a dietary budget of 1,500 to 2,000 calories a day.

The problem is one of economics, brainlet. You've fallen for the embarrassed millionaire trap.

>>10185447
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html

>>10185447
>Is there consensus on how much is due to human activity versus how much is due to natural processes?
>>10184377

>>10185962
Dead link.

>>10182045
Source on every available proxy being shit-tier?

>>10188020
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
Look at 10.5.