/sci/ - Science & Math

anthropomorphic climate change is pseudoscience

>>10208776
There literally is no argument left which hasn't already been answered.

None.

Denying climate change is now equivalent to standing on a hilltop screaming at the sky that the sun revolves around the Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>10208797
back to >>>/pol/

>>10208861
back to >>>/x/

>>10208792
Based and greenpilled

Reminder that global warming advocates said that NYC would be long underwater by now two decades ago
>>10208792
Change the graph to say:
Which is more likely:
An unreliable community that said NYC would be underwater by now are acting in their economy interest and exaggerating their findings in order to keep their jobs
or
Oil companies are attempting to cover up a global apocalypse that would negatively effect them by hiring people to argue on a Lesbianesee carpet munching form

>>10211227
>Reminder that global warming advocates said that NYC would be long underwater by now two decades ago
Which advocates? What exactly did they predict? Do you have a source for that?
Every AGW thread seems to have a bunch of deniers making dumb shit up and attributing it to climatologists.

>are acting in their economy interest and exaggerating their findings in order to keep their jobs
First: Climatology would still exist as a field even without AGW.
Second: There's no reason to think that if climatologists made their publications less politically uncomfortable, they would receive less money from the politicians they are criticising.

>Oil companies are attempting to cover up a global apocalypse that would negatively effect them
Large, public corporations generally don't give a shit about long-term consequences. Because of the way they're organised, they're strictly focused on short-term growth. The people who make decisions are generally planning on cashing out the moment the company starts to suffer.

>>10208776
The prediction models are not credible, but the basic science is legit. We know what direction things will generally go in with too much CO2, but precise predictions are bullshit.

>>10211405
>The prediction models are not credible
Which ones are wrong?

>>10208776
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

>>10208776
I didn't believe in climate change for the longest time, but I read or heard something somewhere that basically said you can take anything, any article, video, post, shitty infographic on /pol/ (be it uncited or cited) that stands against manmade global warming, and follow the citations back to find usually a big pile of bullshit
So that's what I did
With a little bit of looking things up I found that even a brainlet on the subject like myself could see that the 'sources' cited by anti global warming videos or articles were exaggerations or quotes of quotes that linked back to misread literal blogposts or even only TITLES of research papers

Global warming has become a politicized issue, so it was hard to kind of get over the idea that it is in truth not a political concept, but I just realized in the end that if you're arguing against it, you're often just using the same tactics as flatearthers believe

>>10211435
this was the exact same process i went through with holocaust denial and climate denial. It just became very apparent the people who were “skeptics” had an agenda, were misusing secondary sources, weren’t experts in the fields they were critiquing and were misrepresenting research and empirical data. Still think that climate change is used as a sledge hammer by liberals and that the holocaust industry is real and a potent method of guilt mining by Zionist elites but its just not at all plausibl that either of them is fake. the scale and lack of incentive to fake them is too massive, con side too filled with liars, evidence far too weighty.

>>10211435
I did the same exact thing. I was always skeptical and it got worse as I shifted more to right wing politics. I thought it was a full blown hoax. But after a while I started having doubts, especially when certain major pieces of evidence simply could not be explained by deniers. I realized I was basing my entire belief on what I read from biased news sources that genuinely had no idea what they were talking about, and were simply basing their positions from an agenda standpoint and not from what the evidence points to. The entire time I thought it was the other way around, until I actually looked at the evidence myself.

I was pretty shocked at the sheer volume of undeniable hard evidence. I couldn't believe this whole time I was denying any of it existed.

There has never been any proof for climate change and there continues to be no proof despite all the lefties screaming about it. Just roll some coal on those idiots and get on with your day

>>10211459
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>10211459
>There has never been any proof for climate change and there continues to be no proof despite all the lefties screaming about it.
>Source: The Journal of Rectal Retrieval

>>10211413
Maybe the one that there's no ice on the north pole for several years already

>>10211456
>the other side is the one politically motivated, not me.
You don't even know what side you are on, how much of a pleb can you possible be?

there's an absence of evidence regarding climate change *note that this is not evidence of absence*

>>10211535
I'm still very right wing. Disagreeing on one topic doesn't mean I have to completely change my ideology. Yes, both sides have people on them with a political agenda. However, the "other side" in this case is the one that doesn't have the science to back up their claims. Climate change is undeniably true and there are major pieces of evidence that deniers simply cannot explain away. It's on the same level of denying the Earth is round. The evidence is overwhelming.

>>10211544
see
>>10211462

>>10208792
It's neither of these. This is how brainlets think.

>>10211462
What a strange article. It's missing all of the evidence I would consider "smoking gun" material: Things like stratospheric cooling, the increase of downward IR on the frequencies emitted by CO2, and the shift in atmospheric carbon isotope balance.

>>10208776
Holy fuck, it's the one and only meme image I ever made. Thank you anon for making my day.

>>10211528
I have a degree in Earth science though I'm currently working as an engineer and I've never heard a single prediction by any scientist that the polar caps would be gone by now. Can you provide a source on that?

>>10208776
Man-made climate change would mean that we would have to think about the consequences of our actions on a society-wide scale rather than just blundering alone like usual and that sounds like a huge in pain the ass.

>>10211756
Valid.

I don't know of any one source for that from a government agency but some of the 'smoking guns' that you mention are available to people who know what they're looking for. You seem to be well informed so I won't bother you but you missed one I think you may find interesting.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu
shows that O2 levels are dropping at a rate similar to the rise of CO2 showing that in fact the source of CO2 in the atmosphere is combustion not volcanic outgassing or methane released from the ocean floor, or space or some other bullshit, but combustion.

>>10211227
>>10211399
>Reminder that global warming advocates said that NYC would be long underwater by now two decades ago

I'm still waiting to see if that other anon has a source for this

>not wanting global sea levels to rise if only to destroy urbanite scum homes

>>10213321
Why should I care about society-wide issues when my government actively tries to replace the native population with 3rd worlders?

>>10213561
>I care about my country
>that is why I want to destroy it with a civil race war and climate change

>>10213556
LOL, rural folk are already getting BTFO today. All the midwest farmers are already losing a huge percentage of their potential yield every year due to flooding and torrential rain and erratic weather patterns. If you think "Urbanites" are going to suffer most you have no clue.

>>10213561
>my government actively tries to replace the native population with 3rd worlders
that is sort of also a society wide issue, and actually directly linked with the climate problem

>>10213585
did you know that nation actually means "people". so if you support your nation that actually means you support your race. i expect you are a statist white replacement fetish cuck though desu so i doubt you care. white genocide is a greater threat than global warming.

>increse CO2
>plant more trees
>trees eat CO2
>profit

its fucking PLANT FOOD YOU FUCKING BRAINLETS

>but muh deforestation

did you know that new trees ingest carbon at a much faster rate than old trees? so as long as we keep re-planting trees then the CO2 will never go out of control.

>>10213617
Imbecile.

>>10213617
>WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHY ARE YOU REPLACING DA WHITE RACE!
>proceeds to make a case for replacing his dirty white ass with literally any other breathing thing

>>10213632
you sure proved you arent a malign cuck. well done you special little goy.

>>10213634
I welcome all non-white people. Immigrants are welcome. If you want to be racist, go fuck yourself. I don't care to join your skin tone exclusive club.

>>10213639
wow so tolerant!

>>10213644
77 children
We haven't forgotten.

>>10213639
literally wow. you are so awesome to reject your biological group, like wow i just could never be so amazingly tolerant as you. im chinese so i just dont understand how to be so diverse. guess when youre race is dissolved into the rest of the planet they will always remember whites fondly and pay homage to them. sooooo coool and trendy and nice. i wish i could remove my spine aswell, but i cant because i need it to live.

>>10213655
at least he had a motive beyond nigger tier impulses. if he didnt live in a shit-topia then he would not have acted in such a way. such a behaviour is a normal bio-political imperative.

>>10213644
85 million deaths
A whole world destroyed.

We won't tolerate this sort of autism again.

>>10213639
and if you dont want to be white then kill yourself, itll finally get rid of all that guilt

>>10213666
>666
>trying to excuse the massacre of 77 innocent children

>>10213672
I'm not the tormented soul that spends their time on 4chan spreading hatred. I'm very successful in life, unlike you.

>>10213664
Racism is not OK. All immigrants are just people. They are no less worthy than you are. People are people.

>>10213673
im not excusing it, its abhorrent to kill people. im meerly saying that this event was an outlier event with a well defined motive, as opposed to an ingrained lack of higher motor function in a certian segment of the [race redacted to protect diverity] population

>>10213684
yeah and they can go be people somewhere else where they wont shit up my beautiful family and society. the world is huge. access to whites is not a human rights issue.

>>10213684
>Racism is not OK.
why not

>All immigrants are just people. They are no less worthy than you are.
well, "all" immigrants includes illegals, so whatever the fuck you mean by "worthy" certainly shouldnt apply to them

>People are people.
organisms are organisms, youre so intolerant for eating plants and animals, you need to let bugs infest your house. Theyre no less worthy than you are

>>10213680
>I'm very successful in life, unlike you.
pathetic, i spend like 20 minutes a day here. That was literally my first post in this thread you shit

>implying its bad to spread hatred
pic related
fucking pussy just wants "everyone to be happy" kys

>>10213689
Violent individuals are in the single digit percentages in all ethnicities. You cannot claim "ingrained behavior" just because they are a couple percentage points more likely to be criminals (which is easily explained away by their relative poverty, btw).

>>10213680
>im successful therefore im right

best fluffer in hollywood

>>10208792
OR Option 3

Rich Communists are bribing state officials to spend HUGE amounts of money over hyping climate change.

>>10213700
>couple of percentage points

somebody break it to him

>>10213695
You don't own the country. You're free to go away if you want, but you don't get to tell others what to do .

>>10213668
you trash.
Communism has killed in excess of 220 million people.

>>10213709
Communism is very bad. What is your point?

>>10213706
>You don't own the country.
>citizens dont get a say in their country apparently
>non citizens apparently have just as much say as actual citizens, bc anon is actually mentally deficient

>>10213703
>Rich Communists

>>10213700
then why isnt africa like wakanda by now, yet korea and singapore have super metropoles? you dont know what youre talking aboot. i can see you advocating to put hens and foxes in the same pen. youre a brainwashed idiot.

>>10213714
correct anon, they are capitalists posing as cummies in order to get that sweet slave labour.

>>10213713
In western liberal democracies you have a say in politics but you cannot infringe of the rights of others.

>>10213721
non citizens dont have rights to the country

>>10213706
except the overwhelming majority on both sides of the spectrum are against white replacement and mass immigration, yet here you are, being a good little cuck. for gods sakes do you really think that the rest of the world has the same bleeding heart tropes in their skulls as you. you are a fucking window licker and deserve everything coming to you and your children.

>>10213715
We were talking about your easily falsifiable claim that the vast majority of non-whites in US/Europe are criminals. The claim is false. What do you have to say for yourself.

>>10213725
You racism does not stop short of hurting citizens. You were talking of "whites" not of citizens.

>>10213735
this entire fucking time ive only been talking about citizens and non citizens you disingenuous shit, not even a fucking hint of race

>>10213728
Actually the vast majority of people are not racist.

>>10213731
i say that regardless of criminality (of which it is entirely proven that per capita the new arrivals are much more criminal than the baseline) its just a fucking stupid and cucked idea to destroy a million years of evolutionary branching just because some journalist takes a few photos of a skinny african. you fucking twit.

>>10213741
You are lying to my face on a thread where I can just read "whites" over and over again by glancing above your post.

>>10213745
and even they are against white genocide via mass immigration and fertility taxation. believe it or not, you dont have to hate other races in order to preserve your own.

>AGW deniers aren't raiding /pol/tards.
>It's a complete coincidence that every AGW thread gets flooded with /pol/ garbage the moment deniers lose the argument.

>>10213747
>(of which it is entirely proven that per capita the new arrivals are much more criminal than the baseline)
That is false. There is only a couple of percentage points difference between ethnicities and all ethnicities are in the single digit percentage points. The vast majority of any ethnicity are peaceful people, no different from me and you (I hope).

>>10213706
this is why deomcracy is a bad idea. people like this with no brain, cock, balls or spine just placate every aggressive crybully that forces themselves upon them.

>>10213758
They are useful idiots, but versatile to disrupt all kinds of genuine online discourse.

>>10213759
if they were so nice then they wouldnt be dancing on the grave of our civillization and denying it the whole way through.

>>10213672
>>10213698
>>10213713
>>10213725
me
>>10213750
my first post was an insult against a white person, i am also white so its not racist
my second post asked why racism was wrong without ever mentioning any race, also not racist
third and fourth never even fucking mentioned race

>You are lying to my face on a thread where I can just read "whites" over and over again by glancing above your post.
no, youre the one fucking lying. my arguments are totally abstracted from race, they are entirely nationalist

>>10208792
Option 3: Global elite
>Using vast financial resources to shill global warming
>Government passes carbon tax
>Every time you take a breath, you owe the state money. Every business owes the state additional money
>How is the money spent on saving the planet?
>Don’t worry too much about that goy, just pay us for every activity that emits carbon

>>10213759
>There is only a couple of percentage points difference between ethnicities and all ethnicities are in the single digit percentage points.
>its small enough so its all equal
.1 is still a fucking lot bigger than .00000000000000000001

>>10213759
>blacks are around 10 percent of a population
>commits over half of all violent crime

something doesnt add up here. i think you are a disingenious little cuck, or a lying little brownie trying to deny that your people are parisites.

>>10213766
I proved you wrong and you can do nothing to counter that, because you were lying.
So now you are here again talking in gross hyperbole about a made up reality to demonize completely normal peaceful people.
Why are you doing this? What is wrong with you?

>>10213770
this.
>see france in flames as we speak

>>10213770
Those global elite own the businesses that would be taxed you retard.

>>10213777
>>10213776
already beat you to it u cuckboi ahahahahah

>>10213779
>thinks that it isnt a consumer tax

>>10213775
>.1 is still a fucking lot bigger than .00000000000000000001
And a lot smaller than 100%. Are you pulling my leg?

>>10213777
>check out this totally normal and peaceful thing which slowly absorbs all your resources and chokes your entire species to death while crying about how awful you are for trying to prevent its logical end point. totally normal and not weaponised at all against you!

totally not a cuck!

wow such tolerant.

>>10213776
You post a graph about a completely unrelated statistic. Do you think these sort of childish diversion tactics are going to work with me?

>>10213794
Mentally deranged imbecile.

>>10213789
>ignoring my fucking point and just screaming "theyre both small" again
if you had a one in fifty chance of being shot in russian roulette or a one in 100 chance, which would you prefer you fucking tist
yeah, theyre both pretty small, but one is twice as big as the other, and the comparison is the important bit

How does human related CO2 compare to the natural CO2 that’s emitted every year?

>>10213783
>>thinks that it isnt a consumer tax
Everything is a "consumer tax" when a rich faggot is going to get squeeze.

>>10213797
>>10213802
i will concede that most people in the world are not violent (though its proven that the other races in white countries are more predisposed to violence, parially because of cucks like you desu, who mollycoddle them and prevent punitive measures against them for their crimes) yet as i already said it is completely irrelevant to my reasoning, as i believe it is much more importanat to look at the wider vision of protecting human biodiversity.
so what do you propose? to carry on in this sleepwalk into oblivion. smiling and holding hands with the people biding their time before they descend upon your civillization like locust? what do you propose the white countries do to mitigate the obvious conclusion of diversity(white extinction)?

>>10213805
You claim that blacks are inherently prone to criminality.
The relevant statistic for that is the percentage of blacks that are actual criminals.
The number is 5%
This is to be compared with white people for which the number is 1%.

So how can you claim that blacks are all criminals if 95% of blacks are not? The same is true for all ethnicities.

>>10213816
>So how can you claim that blacks are all criminals
I NEVER FUCKING DID

here you are mr cuckold(s)

you obviously failed high school biology so have a wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraspecific_competition

>>10213819
You very much implied it. That is the contrast underlying implication behind all the /pol/ posting that was ever done on this god forsaken website.

>>10213825
THATS NOT ME YOU FUCKING RETARD

>>10213838
Don't play disingenuous tricks with me. You tried to use a dishonest statistic to play with me. That kind of shit, I don't tolerate. Go fuck yourself.

>>10213806
Natural CO2 emissions are net-negative.
Humans are responsible for >100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
https :// sci-hub . tw/https :// pubs . acs . org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u

>>10213852
>You tried to use a dishonest statistic to play with me
I NEVER DID WHAT THE FUCK, i used a fucking example with 2 numbers, neither of which was associated to anything in the real world. STOP LYING ABOUT ME

>>10213854
>more that 100% of the rise

you mean exactly 100% of the rise right(even that is too strong)? how can you have more that 100% in this case? because the earth is sucking carbon in? it still doesnt make sense. retard.

>>10213860
bro, he has completely ignored my statements and is choosing to troll you as a low hanging fruit. fuck him he is a retard and just trying to defend his social standing in fear of reprisals from his POC overlords.

>>10213867
>you mean exactly 100% of the rise right(even that is too strong)?
No, I mean more than 100% of the rise.

>how can you have more that 100% in this case? because the earth is sucking carbon in?
Correct.

>it still doesnt make sense. retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_number

>>10213316
The arctic ice in the summer was predicted to disappear around this period of time, and that’s actually happening and going to get worse in the next few summers. Its all sophistry designed to prey on people who don’t understand the specifics of what climatologists are predicting and don’t see that they never speak with absolute certainty and when they do they tend to admit they were wrong or are immediately criticized by other scientists unlike stormfags who believe whatever they want indefinitely until the propaganda isn’t worth their time anymore.

>Human induced climate change is real
>It just doesn't fucking matter in the slightest compared to climate change induced by the Planet itself and the motherfucking sun
Also
>Start a thread about climate change
>turns into blame the /pol/tard finger pointing
Every fucking time.

>>10213886
Here, have a graph that doesn't use retarded shit like atmospheric temperature readings and that it goes back further than the 1850's

>>10213874
>No, I mean more than 100% of the rise.

i have 5 apples

john takes one apple

mary gives two apples

now we have 6 apples

mary is responsible for 100% of the increase in apples

gayfaggotqueerdonkeydong

>>10213750
nice job ignoring my reply for a whole hour you shit kys

>>10213874
what you really mean is that human emissions are more than 100% of the recorded rise in co2 levels. ill forgive you for being a brainlet climatologist. how could you grasp such things?

>>10213886
>Human induced climate change is real
>It just doesn't fucking matter in the slightest compared to climate change induced by the Planet itself and the motherfucking sun
Natural forcings take tens of thousands to millions of years to cause major climate changes. We're seeing significant changes in decades. This is like blaming a speeding ticket on continental drift. Also, the evidence connecting human activity to climate change isn't merely correlative - It's possible to determine how much of the change is due to each source.

>>10213888
>Here, have a graph that doesn't use retarded shit like atmospheric temperature readings and that it goes back further than the 1850's
You might want to look a bit more closely at the image.
First, Greenland isn't the whole planet. If you look at any of the proper reconstructions (eg Marcott) they'll use data collected for several different locations.
Second, that graph ends in 1855. All of the warming we're concerned about has happened off the right edge of that graph.

>>10213948
The net increase is one apple.
Mary gave two apples.
Mary is responsible for 2 / 1 = 200% of the increase.

>>10213955
>what you really mean is that human emissions are more than 100% of the recorded rise in co2 levels
That's effectively what I said:
>Humans are responsible for >100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

>>10213886
>It just doesn't fucking matter in the slightest compared to climate change induced by the Planet itself and the motherfucking sun
Even if it wasn't, uncontrolled CO2 emissions are causing other issues too. There's no reason to not push for a reduction.

>>10213962
>It's possible to determine how much of the change is due to each source
It depends to what we compare our data to and to what standard we hold them to.
>1855
One of the big reasons why people think that Humans are causing devastating change in a short amount of time is due to how much change has come about since the 1850's. What people either don't know because they are uninformed, or worse. They are misinformed, is that the 1850's was special in that that was the time we finally got out of the "little Ice Age" which lasted during the middle ages. When looking at Ice core data from Greenland, and others, like the Vladivostok. We see a consistent downward trend that has been going on since the Early years of Ancient Egypt, which in technical terms means, "A long ass fucking time ago." We already hit our inter glacial epoch during that time, where both temperature AND CO2 levels were higher.

What we are experiencing right now is not a cataclysmic rise in CO2 emissions, but rather. A small bump in an otherwise downward decent towards the next Glacial period. All that really changes, is ones perception of our current situation which is dependent on how far back you pull the curtains. Comparing us now to where we were back just before the second industrial revolution, yes, we are much higher. Comparing us to the Ancient Egyptians? We are not even close. Also,
>Graph from the IPCC
The IPCC making a graph about global warming is like an oil company telling people oil spills are healthy for the environment. They exist merely to maintain there positions in the U.N. and have done so with a horrible track record.

>>10213962
>>10213962
it may have been what you meant, but you didnt say that, you said a retarded thing which doesnt make any sense.

john took away one apple

mary gave two

mary contributed 200% of what john took away

additionally, mary contributed 100% of the increase in apples

>>10214093
fucking retard, humans are raping the environment to death and that will be our legacy, a bunch of know-nothing dipshits like you saying it's all fine while biological resources are devastated and lost irreversibly so Goldstein could get an extra 5% and Joe Dumbass could slave away for 50 years before getting ass cancer from his processed meat diet, fuck you you goddamn moron

bad times ahead, the only solution is eco-fascism NOW

>/pol/ starts a thread about climate change
>immediately turns into a discussion of racism
never change, /pol/ shitgibbons. never change.

>>10214149
>Be in argument with shit flinging from both sides
>Must be /pol/
What a penis response

>>10214160
>muh both sides

>>10214169
>muh if x then
>{ Y, Z
>};

>>10214149
its too easy to get (you)'s by polposting on sci. sci brainlets need to stop feeding the polls. its kind of funny because pol always comes out looking smarter and more well rounded too. sci feels guys absolutely refuse to entertain the opposite point of view, like good little goys, and make ti their personal mission to epic own le ebil raysist.

coudn't care less fuck posterity...but you niggas denying this are fuckin stupid.

>>10214093
>It depends to what we compare our data to and to what standard we hold them to.
What is that supposed to mean? We compare out data to data we collected in the past, that's how you measure the size of a change.

>One of the big reasons why people think that Humans are causing devastating change in a short amount of time is due to how much change has come about since the 1850's
Maybe, but the actual concern is the RATE of change. The 1850's is just how far our temperature instrument records go back.

>the 1850's was special in that that was the time we finally got out of the "little Ice Age" which lasted during the middle ages.
The LIA was mainly a local event, not a global one. If you look at global reconstructions, such as Marcott's, then it becomes much less significant:
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

>When looking at Ice core data from Greenland, and others, like the Vladivostok. We see a consistent downward trend that has been going on since the Early years of Ancient Egypt
Sure. The fact that trend has been so stable for so long is what makes the recent sudden and violent reversal so alarming.

>What we are experiencing right now is not a cataclysmic rise in CO2 emissions, but rather. A small bump in an otherwise downward decent towards the next Glacial period.
What?
Global surface temperatures have gone from some of the coldest seen in the Holocene to among the warmest, and they've done it in about hundred years. We've undone 5k years of natural cooling trend in under a century. How is that a "small bump"?

>>10214120
>additionally, mary contributed 100% of the increase in apples
Mary contributed two apples. The net gain is one apple. Mary contributed 200% of the net gain.

>>10214300
Here’s your dilemma. Using temperature readings are meaningless. They are local, inaccurate, and susceptible to so many variables. And on top of all of that. The IIPC has been caught skewing the numbers as well.

Yes, when you put a temperature station in a somewhat rural area, and then through the decades, becomes urbanized. Yes, the temperature is going to rise.

>>10213556
What is it with paleocons and wanting to gouge out the most successful parts of their country? Are they that stupid evil?

>>10213634
Except those Asian and Black countries are always benefiting from welcoming foreign investment and trade.

>>10213709
Since communists are pragmatic evil instead of the stupid evil of fascists, they were able to last seven times as long and had influence on nearly every continent. With that timeframe, you would think that communists would get 7 times as many kills but instead got 2.5. This ratio shrinks when you consider that Nazi Germany wasn't the only fascist state, with Fascist Japan causing even more killing.
>tl;dr Because fascist states prioritize hurting people over their own success, they cause far more death with the same amount of time and influence than communist regimes.

>>10215127
>communism
>fascism
>implying communist nations didn’t require hardline fascist rule to remain in power
>implying communist states never ultimately became fascist states who sent anyone they didn’t like or were rivals to the work camps or just shot
>implying there’s even a difference between a communist state and a fascist state
U silly m8

>>10215078
Temperature readings aren't local when you average them together over sufficient surface coverage to construct the mean surface temperature. Some of the readings are "inaccurate," but most are not. They are inherently imprecise, because all measurements are. The instrumental record is still vastly more precise than proxy reconstructions, which denialtards seem to have no problem with as long as a large mean temperature anomaly variation is the final result.
>fudging the numbers
Your misunderstanding of systematic error correction (done to address your previous complaint of inaccurate measurements), an empirically valid methodology, is not evidence of data fraud.

>>10215326
>aren't local when you average them together over sufficient surface coverage
Most are located in the US and Europe, literally nowhere else, also, you are only getting "surface temp", what about the temperature at 10,000 ft? 20,000, etc? To say that you can have the mean surface temperature of planet Earth is one of the biggest memes in the scientific community.
>Your misunderstanding of systematic error correction (done to address your previous complaint of inaccurate measurements), an empirically valid methodology, is not evidence of data fraud.
lol, we are talking about the IIPC here, there purpose for existing ISN'T to find evidence of climate change or global warming, but to find HUMAN CAUSED reasons fro climate change. It's a bureaucracy that gets its funding and therefore paychecks to try to find why Humans R bad. It is one of the most laughably corrupt portions of the U.N. with a god awful track record, and yes. The fudging of number, is not a misunderstanding of systematic error, they have been caught repeatedly skewing numbers and data to receive further funding for their stupidity.

>>10215346
Surface temperature is the most relevant to ecological and biological factors, since we live at the surface and so do countless other organisms.
>blah blah blah it's a hoax
The IPCC is not the only source of temperature data and analysis, and in fact they just compile it from other sources. The instrumental record itself shows warming on both land and sea, and other lines of evidence show the anthropogenic origin, notably C-14 fraction of atmospheric carbon. We'd have seen much more warming if the oceans weren't acting as massive heat sinks.

Our entire way of life is an unsustainable and steadily approaching catastrophe. One degree C of warming at our historical rate of development means 5C+ is no more than a couple of centuries away unless drastic changes are made. And warming is only one aspect of an array of factors devastating the natural world, causing population losses, extinctions, and topsoil erosion that typically cannot be reversed except by natural processes over many thousands or millions of years.

>>10215397
>blah blah blah it's a hoax
But it is. You think it is just some Alex Jones level there turning the freaking frogs gay conspiracy? How about having "science" give politicians the ability to institute carbon tax i.e. spaceballs tier taxing you for the fucking air? It's a meme. Surface temperature means dick for the reasons I have listed but you continue to use them anyways because it supports your side. There is a lot of fucking money to be made which is why governments advocate it, it is a whole new revenue stream via taxes. Wan't to know why the sea is heating?
>The sun goes through cycles
>The planet goes through cycles
>Hadley cell
>All things that actually contribute to the natural progression of climate change
>Human caused climate change<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<The Sun and the Planet caused climate change

>>10215127
>>10213709
>>10213668
>>10213644
You are all implying that more people on the Earth = Better.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.overshootday.org/
"We are using 1.7 Earths. [by August each year]
We use more ecological resources and services than nature can regenerate through overfishing, overharvesting forests, and emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ecosystems can absorb."

>>10215435

>>10215429
Lol. Why are you even here? I doubt you even finished middle school.

>>10215461
(+1) Upvote
>NiCe MeMe FrIeNd GoT hIm!

>>10208776

>>10211435
Obviously we have 'changed' habitats and various parts of the earth's ecology. Whether or not it is happening is obvious.


The real questions are:
>what we should do about it.
This is 100% a political question. If the magnitude is small enough, we should just ignore it. The modern economy isn't built on fossil fuels because they are Restructuring the economy to avoid fossil fuels will be incredibly painful.

>What is the magnitude.
I don't think there is a good answer out there. Tbh, I don't think we know. I think that earth scientists do not have a handle on cause and effect in complicated systems like the earth. Feel free to correct me with citations/explaining how climate scientists think about omitted variable bias and simultaneity in their models. Researchers are encouraged to get statistically significant results instead of being skeptical of correlations. It reminds me a little of social psychology which just had a huge replication crisis.

>>10215487
No but seriously why are you here? You're dumb as shit.

>>10215575
>I don't agree with you so you are stupid
Aight. But yeah, Human induced climate change is for fags and for governments to make more money from you. In order to get a true grasp on climate change, you need to pull the curtains back, not by thousands of years, but by millions of years. PPM levels were laughably high compared to where they are now yet glacial and inter glacial periods still happened, Planet Earth was more Tropical with fewer Deserts, and life flourished like it still does today.

Forever fuck off with your climate change bullshit. Go bitch to China or something.

>>10215429
>muh politics I have no scientific argument
I accept your admission of defeat.
>>10215596
>proxy reconstruction
see >>10215326 since apparently you didn't read it the first time

>>10215078
>Using temperature readings are meaningless. They are local, inaccurate, and susceptible to so many variables.
Right, which is why I posted a global temperature dataset, rather than a single station's recording.

>The IIPC has been caught skewing the numbers as well.
No they haven't. You're making shit up.

>when you put a temperature station in a somewhat rural area, and then through the decades, becomes urbanized. Yes, the temperature is going to rise.
That's called the "urban heat island" effect, and every decent dataset includes adjustments to remove it.

>>10215346
>Most are located in the US and Europe, literally nowhere else
That's adjusted for as well. You should read about how these datasets are actually built.

>To say that you can have the mean surface temperature of planet Earth is one of the biggest memes in the scientific community.
Technically, the datasets are of mean surface anomaly, not mean surface temperature. But the Earth definitely has a mean temperature.

>>10215429
>You think it is just some Alex Jones level there turning the freaking frogs gay conspiracy?
No, it's actually even less credible than that. You're proposing nearly every climatologist on Earth is conspiring together, for the sake of benefiting politicians by saying things they don't want to hear. That makes no sense.

>How about having "science" give politicians the ability to institute carbon tax i.e. spaceballs tier taxing you for the fucking air?
Science doesn't give politicians the ability to collect taxes. They can already do that.

>Surface temperature means dick for the reasons I have listed
Your reasons have almost nothing to do with actual temperature records. You've arguing against a misunderstanding of how they work.

>There is a lot of fucking money to be made which is why governments advocate it
Governments DON'T advocate it. They've spent the last twenty years doing everything possible to sweep it under the rug and ignore it.

>it is a whole new revenue stream via taxes.
They don't need AGW to raise taxes.

>Wan't to know why the sea is heating?
>The sun goes through cycles
We can measure the amount of energy coming from the sun. It's not increasing.

>The planet goes through cycles
Very slow cycles, and we're currently in the cooling half.

>Hadley cell
That's not a forcing.

>Human caused climate change<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<The Sun and the Planet caused climate change
No.

>>10215596
>In order to get a true grasp on climate change, you need to pull the curtains back, not by thousands of years, but by millions of years.
Why? Different processes work on different timescales. The forcings that drive major climate changes over millions of years are irrelevant over centuries, and vice versa.

>PPM levels were laughably high compared to where they are now yet glacial and inter glacial periods still happened
CO2 isn't the only forcing that can impact temperatures. In particular, the sun was significantly cooler back then.

>>10213369
/pol/ doesn't need a source. it is the source.

>>10211227
reminder that astronomers said the sun was going around the earth