/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10335415
>>>/x/

>>10335418
Not an argument

>>10335424
Why would I respond to a non-argument with an argument?

>>10335430
Did you open the pic of the OP ?

>>10335415
The findings of that study can't be reproduced. Since you're a man of science like all climate change deniers, I think you know what that means

>>10335432
Yes, what about it?

>>10335415
For some people, it obviously is. Think of it as a denomination of the Church of Environmentalism.

That's not to argue there aren't science and facts supporting it -- but for most people who fervently believe in it, they neither know nor understand the science, and some subset of that group would not accept contrary data if it were presented to them.

>HHAHAH LOOK AT ME I'M GOING TO HAVE SO MUCH FUN SHITPOSTING A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL THREAD ON /sci/
>OMFG THIS IS GOING TO BE SO HILARIOUS
>OH I'M BEING SUCH A NAUGHTY BOY, ME
>SO DEVILISH
>HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10335449
Are you having a stroke or are you just retarded ?

>>10335415
Source:
>https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>10335415
Is denial of basic facts a religion? Or just the result of the large amount of braindead scuentific illiterates who like being contrarian more than being right?

>>10335447
High IQ post

>>10335457
>>10335454
>implying /pol/tards read past the deadline
>implying /pol/tards will accept anything that comes from any sort of authority that isn't Donald Trump

I'm a climate change denier denier.
I don't actually believe that climate change deniers exist.
Prove me wrong.

>>10335457
>Oriented models of an infinitely complex highly non-linear system that extrapolate events to over a century are now considered "basic facts"
okay buddy

>>10335461
*headline

>>10335461
>implying everyone on 4chan is american

>>10335464

>>10335468
>implying climate change is even a controversy outside of America

>>10335464

>>10335415
I should also add, if you even bothered to read the article, it doesn't refute climate change. It just says the oceans wont rise quite as much.
What really matters is surface area, the more surface area you have with a higher albedo the more heat you reflect. The smaller, the lesser.
The ice sheet is surface area, the snow is just what piles up ontop of that surface area. Thus, not changing the surface area, or the albedo of a place that already has a high albedo.
As for localized temperate, that can be explained through things like weather, and also the fact that the polar regions are still cool enough (for now) for water to enter its solid state.
In other words, you're fucking dumb as fuck, you fucking idiot.

>>10335452
Prove that you are a climate change denier.
Otherwise I'm just going to assume that you are a troll.

>>10335463

>>10335464
>averages of a lot of measurements are too complicated for me
But yes, highly complex and nonlinear. We should be so lucky to have you here, explaining these aspects of the problem.

>>10335475
Not him, but I am curious as to what you would accept as proof of that?

>>10335475
never said i was a denier, what I deny is that it is caused by man and that it will have measurable impacts on our quality of life (air pollution and material waste is still a problem, but this has nothing to do with climate change)

>>10335486

>>10335480
>reasoning on averages for non-linear dynamical systems where you don't have all the variables
spotted the retard

>>10335486
You're a scientifically illiterate denier, probably American

>>10335490
>t.

>>10335492

>>10335497

>>10335492
There's only two variables needed to construct the mean temperature anomaly: temperature and time. Your assertion that there are spooooooky hidden factors that make it impossible to understand is a lie and you're too fucking dumb to even understand averages.

Okay guys. Imagine a system with a few trillion free moving parts and we only know a few variables like in and outgoing energy and some general properties of the system.
I mean, how do we even attempt predict what this system does? It's highly complex and nonlinear. It's impossible. We can't preditct anything.

Oh wait, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

>>10335514
>>10335497
>>>/pol/

>>10335514
>We can't preditct anything.
And yet, meteorology is accurate enough to predict rain, and other such phenomena with a fair degree of accuracy.
Funny that.

>>10335510
Okay so with time and temperature of the past you can deduce than climate change is totally caused by man and you can also make accurate predictions for the next century ? Why don't you go buy some options on the stock market, since you seem to have divine predictive powers, Mr Nostradamus.

>>10335518
>>10335519
Did you even read my post to the end you fucking retards?

>>10335522
>It's highly complex and nonlinear. It's impossible. We can't preditct anything.
Uuuuh, yeah?
Because the existence of meteorology as a successful branch of climate science tells you to shut the fuck up, and get back into your retarded board.

>>10335531
Is that the end of my post?

>>10335531
>>10335522
lmao the absolute state of heaters

>>10335533
Oh fugg...
I missed the:
>Oh wait...
Gah, I use that technique too. Fugg.

>>10335536
Lmao, you can't read any better than me, nibba.
He isn't pro your faggotry, he's against it.

>climate skeptics tend to be pro-nuclear power
>majority of those believe in climate change hate nuclear power because they've swallowed all the oil company "green" propaganda

Why is this such a common occurrence? Like the democrat's Trump, AOC, fucking obsessed with climate change but won't say shit about nuclear, the best solution to the problem.

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/201351184