/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10594418
I say we just #rek it lol
I'm only gonna be here for like, um, what? 70 years more at max?
Lmao @ all the future people, good luck cleaning this shit up ahaha
*vroom vroom* youknowwhatimean? 15 mpg, idgaf.
I leave the lights on at my house when I'm not around and run the AC with the windows open. Shit is absolutely cash.
Brb gotta go burn some tires in the backyard to piss off the neighbors

>>10594418
There's more than one of us. We can do separate steps in parallel.

>>10594428
yes seriously fuck futurettes, i already can't stand zoomers they're so retarded i can only imagine what futurettes will be like

>>10594433
You know what we must do
It's the only way

The best part is that global heating keeps going even when step 1 is finished, and only stops a while into the reduction.

>>10594418
Not to mention that a blue arctic ocean is locked in at this point, so we're already going to be seeing significant positive feedbacks.

>>10594418

>>10594428
>gotta go burn some tires in the backyard
If you can do that, you live in a shithole country.
A proper 1st world country throws your ass in jail within an hour.

Nuclear energy is the only way to put the carbon genie back in the bottle.

We'll need massive amounts of energy to process atmospheric co2 into a stable liquid and then pump it under ground. Dial the co2 PPM back to Roman era levels.

>>10594716
>Doing something on your own land gets you arrested
This is why I can't take half of the first world countries seriously. I'd literally rather live in Africa with the freedom to do what I want than to live like a prisoner in my own home where I can't even BBQ without a charcoal lisince.

>>10594930
>i should be able to fire a gun on my own property, even if the bullets effect my neighbors

>>10594930
>Doing something on your own land gets you arrested

>Anything that happens on my imagined personal property is completely casually disconnected from the rest of the universe Hur fuckin dur libertarianism shit in my pants

>>10594716
the self-righteousness is strong with this one

>>10595005
Cringe take bro

>>10595031
What you do can affect others regardless of whether or not you're on your own property. You cannot dispute this.

>>10594418
why doesn't rain bring the carbon down to Earth?

>>10594930
>on your own land
land, not air
>retards say the darndest things

>>10594418
massive reforestation

>>10595031
Cringe.

>>10594930
Can you teach me how to fit my property into it's own pocket dimension?

>>10594705
Post the source, for fucks sake

>>10594986
Going by this analogy I guess your worried about the smoke? I keep forgetting it's normal for first world apologisers to think it's normal to live on a 10*10m square. I can in fact fire a gun on my property, and there's no way it's going to make it to my neighbours from my house.

>>10595054
Jesus Christ your government even owns the air in your country?

>>10595062
You just make sure it's big enough so that the centre of your property is causally disconnected from your neighbours by having the landing space-time between you and them be faster than light.

>>10595182
if you poison the air, you get what's coming to you

>there is a scientific consensus on climate cha-

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

>burn dead trees and vegetation as fuel to create CO2
>living trees breathe in their dead brothers in order to respire

pretty sick if ya think about it, really gets the old noodle racing

MIT:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613343/lessons-from-a-genocide-can-prepare-humanity-for-climate-apocalypse/
>our great-grandchildren may be the last generation of humans ever to live on planet Earth

>>10596223
>rate of schizophrenia in the U.S is 185 per 100,000
>There are 6.9 million scientists in the U.S
>this means there are probably about 12,765 scientists in the U.S who are schiztos
>which is 311 times larger than your list which includes scientists from all over the globe
really jogs the ol' noggin

>>10596279
i doubt most schizo have the dedication to successfully become scientists

>>10594428
and redpilled

Clearly the solution is to genocide the third worlders.

>>10596301
They emit far less CO2 per capita
Simple math says you could reduce CO2 emissions per death much more by killing first worlders.

>>10595056
I've been thinking about this. From what I could google, it seems redwoods are the fastest growing trees so maybe we should plant redwood all over the world.

>>10596312
First worlder CO2 emission per capita is stable/going down.
Third worlder CO2 emission per capita is going up.
First world population is stabilizing.
Third world population is rapidly expanding.
There are already a lot more third worlders than first worlders.
Pretty simple math.

>>10596301
This is obviously what it's gonna come down to. But our leadership is weak and won't take charge, we'd rather sit back and let the world burn down. At least our grandchildren won't be racist, or better dead than racist etc etc

>>10596321
Yeah so to be efficient you have to kill the people producing the most CO2 you have to kill like 200 Ethiopians to equal one American how is that efficient?

>>10596325
The solution would be killing the chinks, mutts and cacucks, arabs and poos, in that order

>>10596336
I'm beginning to think your motivations involve something other than slowing climate change.

>>10596338
t amerimutts
your race needs to burn

Plus feedback loops.
I genuinely believe we are going to end up in a war-like scenario where things will get so bad that martial law and food rationing will be imposed.

>>10594433
>futurettes
kek you're getting old

>>10596223
List of cranks noted

>>10596389
>being skeptical of a hypothesis
>crank

>>10596372
same, time to make some contingency plans

>>10596396
What are you skeptical of?

>>10594842
IF there was political will to spend loads of money to avoid much larger costs in the near future, then we would not have this problem in the first place, would we?
The problem is that our governments are too corrupt and our democracy unable to handle such a problem.
Climate change is like a bug report, showing a bug in our current democracy.
We cannot do anything until things get really bad in like 10-15 years.
But then it will be far more expensive to do shit about the problem.

>>10596388
unlike you :^)

>>10596301
Not going to happen, first-world "muh morality" is the elephant in the room. We would rather take in millions of climate refugees than deal with the pr disaster that a genocide would cause.

>>10596400
I'm emigrating north right now (north Germany to be exact), but I need to balance the desire to live in a safe place with the desire to have a job.
Plan to have a small plot of land in a rural area and build a greenhouse to sustain myself and my future family.
Cannot do much other than that.

>>10596402
That AGW is a threat to humanity.

>>10596421
You can be skeptical of anything, but if you try to argue with scientists you had better provide sufficient evidence to substantiate your claims as well as proof that your hypothesis provides better predictions than current theories. If you can't provide these things you get ignored.

>>10594842
Nuclear energy is NOT cheaper than solar/wind for this application.
Actually this is the perfect application for solar/wind, because you don't care about intermittent power, you don't need a grid, you don't care much about location, and you can set it up anywhere without polluting the place, you don't need to guard it heavily so you can set it up anywhere you like, it's perfect.

>>10596417
You gonna need a lot more than a small plot of land and a greenhouse to sustain yourself.

>>10596430
Depends on whether or not you grow your main staple.
My father already farms 95% of our food. Only thing we don't make ourselves is flour for bread.

>>10596427
But the people arguing with the scientists are also scientists themselves. Hence the stupidity of the so called "consensus".

>>10596416
but that wouldn't stop climate change you absolute brainlet

>>10596427
>proof that your hypothesis provides better predictions than current theories
This assumes that "AGW is real and harmful" should be the default hypothesis..

>>10596421
You cannot provide sufficient evidence to topple the mountain of evidence already in favor of anthropogenic global warming

>>10596449
provide better predictions, then you get to be the default it's not hard.

One other problem that is not talked about is getting carbon neutral without carbon capture is super hard.
Sure we can electrify transport and some big energy consumption markets like heating. But you still got a lot of carbon emitting industry processes, all of which need their own substitute tech to be carbon neutral.

>>10596457
The IPCC's models are not predictive either and you are still in favor of that hypothesis being default and staying standing so what's the point? If you don't give a shit about rigor, why should anyone else?

>>10596458
If only there were devices that took in CO2 and released oxygen... we could put them all over the place. Sadly there are no such entities.

>>10596446
>he thinks geopolitics is about stopping climate change
HAHAHAHAHAH

>>10596465
I really like the plan to reclaim all the world's major desserts.

>>10596460
Well thanks you just proved you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>10596446
It's not about climate change it's about killing non whites. How is this hard to grasp.

>>10596479
Prove I'm wrong or else my hypothesis remains standing.

>>10596469
climate change thread on /sci/ is not /pol/ repeat after me

>>10596481
you have to go back

>>10596490
based

>>10596481
You’re a moron.

>>10596460
>https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk
Should be sufficient evidence to display merits of IPCC models. Now if you can provide models that have provided more accurate predictions go for it.

What if we just collected the leaves of trees every Autumn and converted them into atomic carbon, compressed it into bricks then filled up defunct mines with them. Then we did the same thing with all of our food waste/sewage.

>>10596513
This is court astrology dressed up as science. You can divine anything you want out of the randomness of the data.

>>10596558
Not an argument. You need to prove why these predictions aren't valid and then using this knowledge provide something better. Just name calling isn't productive.

Cats out of the bag for sure. In the short term <50 years we will probably need some pretty massive geoengineering to avoid runaway warming caused by feedback loops. In the longterm sequestration and lowering of emissions will be vital—and hopefully we can learn to manage the rest of the commons a little better too.

>>10596610
Govs. will probably just regulate and ration everything.
Like crops fails, so they ration out food.
Water drought, so they ration out water.
Even electricity might start getting rationed.

>>10596478
Don’t know much about agriculture etc. How do you grow shit in the sand? Sure after a few generations die the soil will be fine but is it feasible to import soil and actually grow trees quickly like this?

>>10596454
He said it's not a threat, not that it doesn't exist.

>>10596610
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
>On the Earth the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."[2]

>>10596618
Restated:


You cannot provide sufficient evidence to topple the mountain of evidence already in favor of anthropogenic global warming being a threat to human well being

>>10596513
>They looked at each 15-year period since the 1950s, and compared how accurately each model simulation had represented El Niño and La Niña conditions during those 15 years

So they're "predicting" data they already have, i.e. they're tweaking their model to give them the answer they know is correct, then they are stating their model is correct and predictive.

>>10596627
So we won'ts see 500 surface temps with showers of sulphuric acid.
Good to know, no reason to stop polluting then.

>>10596627
Well of course the oceans aren't going to boil away, that anon is talking about runaway climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system

>>10596513
>>10596558
tl;dw
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk?t=23m30s

>>10596444
The consensus is a consensus of publishers research, not simply a majority of scientists. Any scientists can disagree, what actually matters is what data and analysis they have to back it up. The data and analysis overwhelmingly supports AGW.

>>10596449
Nothing is assumed, it's overwhelmingly supported in the literature. I love it when "skeptics" try to project their utter lack of evidence on their opponents while ignoring decades of research.

>>10594418

Who cares, the earths oceans will boil of in about a billion years due to the sun heating up so nothing we do matters. We are doomed anyways.

>>10596713
This just strikes me as being similar to the argument in favor of Christianity being true 500 years ago because all the established authorities were producing large amounts of text in favor of it. What would an atheist even point to in such a world?

>>10596710
How do we know it's not due to solar activity or variations in the Earth's orbit?

>>10596726
your analogy means nothing without support. Even atheists have arguments against the existence of god. Where are yours against anthropogenic climate change being harmful?

>>10596615
I don't know either. But people who know think it is possible. It's very energy intensive though.
First you have to fertilize the sand and irrigate the shit out of it.

>>10596731
you can google any of this:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change

“If the warming at the surface was related to solar forcing, the upper atmosphere would also be warming. But it hasn’t been – it has been cooling, exactly as predicted from the effects of CO2 increases.”

>>10596318
It would be better to respect biodiversity and seed trees which are indigenous to the given region.

>>10596658
>So they're "predicting" data they already have
The point of that paper is not to predict anything, it's to separate ENSO from other factors influencing the temperature. ENSO is irrelevant to predicting the long term trend since it has no long term trend.

>i.e. they're tweaking their model to give them the answer they know is correct, then they are stating their model is correct and predictive.
Nope.

>>10596732
Because the climate is incredibly complex and dynamic and evolving and the idea that there would be a simple linear relationship between greater CO2 and increased harm for humanity seems facile and unfounded

>>10596750
My original claim was that the IPCC cannot predict anything. You are now saying they were not trying to predict anything, Okay.

>>10596681
I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

>>10596749
It's ironic how diversity means various peoples living in one city yet when it comes to nature diversity means keeping populations separate.

>>10596751
>seems unfounded
You haven't delved deep enough into the theory and evidence behind climate change.

>>10596726
Ah I see, so you also reject evolution, round Earth, vaccines, etc. (all the stuff that i get told is a religion and not science every day here) right? Instead of me telling you why this argument fails, I'll let you figure it out. Try replacing the science you reject with the science you don't and see whether you accept your own argument.

>>10596772
>one popular belief is wrong
>therefore all popular beliefs are wrong

>>10596731
Becaus both of those things indicate we should be cooling right now instead of warming. Solar activity is near a grand minimum and we are in the slow cooling phase of the Milankovich cycle. Why do you think climatologists haven't considered this?

>>10596755
Where did I say that? I said the paper your quote was describing was not trying to predict anything. If you had actually understood what you were reading you would know that that paper is not the same thing as the IPCC's entire body of work. You have a nasty habit of putting words into others mouths.

>>10596772
>Try replacing the science you reject with the science you don't and see whether you accept your own argument.

science is a process of organizing knowledge you fuckhead, not a dictator of rules.

>so you also reject evolution
Which theory of it?

>round Earth
Which theory of it?

>vaccines
A nerfed disease that doesn't really protect you from the full blown one.

>>10596786
The link was posted saying it should be sufficient to demonstrate the predictive nature of the IPCC's models. I am glad we have now established that it does no such thing.

>>10596751
>seems facile and unfounded
But have you actually looked? The difference between a skeptic and a denier is that one is capable of rational inquiry while the other only avoids it.

>>10596777
Your argument is literally

>Christianity is wrong
>therefore AGW is wrong

>>10596808
the IPCC is the modern Vatican

>>10596792
>>>/x/

>>10596796
The paper your quote is about demonstrates the predictive nature of the IPCC's models. Dip you understand the difference between making a prediction and checking to see if the prediction is correct? None of your posts have made much coherent sense.

>>10596812
Lol, you don't even know what science is. Poor.

>>10596811
>NASA is the modern Vatican
>Evolution is a religion
>Vaccines are the new Inquisition
Gee it's fun to deny science with spurious comparisons and not have to prove anything, isn't it?

>>10596834
If you are critical of the IPCC you get called a "DENIER" and treated like a Holocaust denier. This isn't science, kiddo. It's faith.

>>10596811
you have to go back

>>10596840
>If you are critical of the IPCC you get called a "DENIER" and treated like a Holocaust denier.
That's wrong though. Only people who make dumb statements like "the IPCC is the modern Vatican" or "the IPCC is fudging the data and its all a conspiracy" and then refuse to back it up with evidence or reasoning are called deniers. They then use getting called a denier to further avoid making any substantive argument.

>>10596840
>gets told to provide evidence of beliefs
>provides no evidence
>says the most evidence backed position is based on pure faith

lmao you can't be serious

>>10596840
AGW denial is a religion.

>inb4 the denier freaks out because he has no response to his own argument being turned against him

>>10596850
>he only accepts evidence if it comes from the holy IPCC, the one mighty credentialed authority on the sacred truth of AGW

I agree, brother. Shall we say a prayer for Mother Gaia tonight? The night is black and beset by deniers and heathens a plenty!

>>10596857
How can a lack of belief in something be a religion?

>>10596859
>>he only accepts evidence if it comes from the holy IPCC, the one mighty credentialed authority on the sacred truth of AGW
How would you know when you refuse to present any? This is pathetic.

>>10596860
m'lady

>>10596860
Sip toy don't believe that the vast majority of climatologists are wildly incompetent/involved in a conspiracy? Then why do you keep ignoring their research?

the oil shills are getting smarter these days

>>10596860
So you don't believe that the vast majority of climatologists are wildly incompetent/involved in a conspiracy? Then why do you keep ignoring their research?

>>10596874
The word conspiracy is just a smear deployed to discredit a narrative you don't like. I'm not ignoring their research. I'm laughing at it.

>>10596877
So you believe they are incompetent then?

Why? Did your priest tell you this?

>>10596288
>I know the dedication level of most schizo
No you do not, John Nash.

>>10596760
>/pol/tard's first thought

>>10594428
based af

>>10596888
all his contributions came before he became a schizo, after that he was essentially a neet

>>10596881
They're competent at tricking rubes out of federal grant money, that's about it.

>>10596904

>>10596892
you can't find a fault in that logic tho

>>10596907
So it's a conspiracy then. Nice religion.

>>10596647
>threat to human well being
LOL
Same could be said about natural disasters.

>>10596908
i stand corrected

>>10596912
real scientific term you got there

>>10596916
If humans were causing natural disasters we would want to prevent them too, moron.

>>10596916
and AGW will increase the destructive power of natural disasters you dip

>>10596911
Yes I can. Several, in fact. For one, humans are the same species.

>>10596918
Ah yes because baseless conspiracy theories are so scientific. Any substantive arguments against AGW? No, that's what I thought.

>>10596923
>>10596925
Natural disasters already happen without climate change. Even if their severeness increases, it does not really cause a threat to the survival of our species. We will learn to live with it.

>>10596927
The idea that the earth is warming is a conspiracy theory.

>>10596931
HIV no longer really presents a threat to your survival, so instead of having Big Jim put on a condom before he fucks your twink ass you should just learn to live with it.

>>10596936
It's not and it's well proven in the scientific literature.

>>10596937
I'm not a homosexual, therefore I don't care about hiv and apparently neither do the majority of people.
As with climate, I'm neither a third worlder nor some retard who lives close to the ocean so I don't have to worry about it either.

>>10596881
Who deems them "competent"? Themselves? Secularized meta-physicians all of them.

>>10596912
Yes. When you make up shit in your dumb fuck group think hivemind and conspire to make it truth in order to continue getting paid, that would be a conspiracy. What isn't a "conspiracy" to be out of this groupthink and call it out for what it literally is.

>>10596927
What do you think "science" is? If you think it's about "settling" things then you're either misinformed or ill-informed.

>>10596936
>>10596940
The earth "warms" and "cools" creating a pressure mediation and therefore change. This has absolutely nothing to do with humans. It has to do with the earth and sun and a plethora of other cosmic mechanics.

>>10596940
Are you on the payroll? Getting that nice fat grant check coming in from Uncle Sam are ya?

>>10596751
>I don't like it
Ok where's your evidence?

>>10596936
Apparently basic physics is a conspiracy. No.

>>10596974
The writing is on the wall; the evidence is clear.

Just tell me which of these affirmations you disagree with:
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
>Human activity outputs more CO2 than the Earth can absorb back.
>Global median temperature rose more in the last century than in any other period in recorded history.
>This increase in temperature has negative consequences for the vast majority of human, animal and vegetal populations.

>>10596974
>The earth "warms" and "cools" creating a pressure mediation and therefore change. This has absolutely nothing to do with humans. It has to do with the earth and sun and a plethora of other cosmic mechanics.

Prove that changes in the earth’s temperature have nothing to do with humans, when we can actively change the albedo of earth among altering other local characteristics.

>>10597013
I disagree with the second one and the last one.

The weatherman still has trouble predicting tomorrows temperature, but you think that a scientist definitely knows what the temperature will be 50 years from now? Climate change will never be agreed upon because all the scientific "conclusions" are based on simulations that will never be able include every parameter that determines climate.

Most educated people believe that we should use more renewable energy, cut down on waste, and preserve natural environments. The problem begins when the government starts putting restrictions on what kind of vehicles we can buy, how much fuel we can use, how much electricity we can consume and enabling extra taxes and fines for non-compliance. The next generation of politicians can't stop salivating over carbon taxes. Their heads almost exploded when Trump took the US out of the Paris Climate Accord.

These same politicians are the ones that decide what research projects get funded. Do you think they will fund a research project that would disprove climate change? Scientists need to eat too, that's why they only research things they know will get funding.

Meanwhile, MAJOR polluters get ignored. The 16 largest ocean freight ships produce more emissions than all the cars in world combined. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

East Asian shithole countries are destroying the Pacific ocean with litter and over fishing. Let's do something about that before they turn the whole thing into a dead zone.

>>10597025
>The weatherman still has trouble predicting tomorrows temperature, but you think that a scientist definitely knows what the temperature will be 50 years from now?

Long-term trends are actually much easier to calculate than short-term fluctuations. A weatherman may be uncertain about the temperature tomorrow but we know that December will be colder than July in the northern hemisphere, and there may be short-term rises even amidst a long-term decline. A day in October May be warmer than the day prior but over October there is nevertheless a trend towards cooling.

So basically you’re ignorant.

>>10597025
>The problem begins when the government starts putting restrictions on what kind of vehicles we can buy, how much fuel we can use, how much electricity we can consume and enabling extra taxes and fines for non-compliance.

Why is that a problem? Most people think murder is bad, but the problem starts when the government makes laws against murder and hires police to stop murder and arrest murderers.

>>10597025
I doubt we even know everything that attributes to this planet's climate. Pointless to argue with logic here though, these nuts won't have you affecting their opinion no matter how good your argument is.

>>10597013
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So is watervapor. It's worse too. Should we stop using water too?

>Human activity outputs more CO2 than the Earth can absorb back.

I don't think anyone on the planet can answer that question. The data actually leans towards temperatures rising before CO2 increases though.

>Global median temperature rose more in the last century than in any other period in recorded history.

Hmm, so did the use of digital tools and data recording points.

>This increase in temperature has negative consequences for the vast majority of human, animal and vegetal populations.
More water more heat, more movement more life. Personally I would love to stop shoveling snow and see Siberia turn into the new fertile crescent.


>Prove that changes in the earth’s temperature have nothing to do with humans, when we can actively change the albedo of earth among altering other local characteristics.
Pollution and mass construction/removal of land absolutely. Expect it to be hot and different in areas such as that since you have the empirical evidence in front of you. However, the sun is what really controls the earth and what it does as well as the moon.

>>10597025
I can't accurately predict the outcome of 5 coin flips consistently. I can however predict the outcome of 5 million coin flips quite accurately. How is this possible?

>>10597025
Meteorology and Climate Science are not the same field of study, and it's much more difficult to predict tomorrow's weather, with few reference points, than to predict climate trends over a span of years. Please, never post this pasta again.

>>10597016
Fair. So all it would take to convince you otherwise is to show you numbers on the industrial carbon output, and evidence on the consequences of a warmer Earth?

>>10597016
I disagree with you.

>>10597036
try actually posting an argument

>>10597039
>So is watervapor. It's worse too. Should we stop using water too?

Using water doesn’t make more water vapor. Burning coal does make more CO2.

>>10597043
Then you are a conspiracy theorist.
>>10597042
>Fair. So all it would take to convince you otherwise is to show you numbers on the industrial carbon output, and evidence on the consequences of a warmer Earth?
Well, no because you don't know what the Earth's potential for absorbing CO2 is, do you? I don't think we would have a problem with capturing it. And also crop yields are higher in warmer temperatures, so it would actually be beneficial.

>>10597052
>And also crop yields are higher in warmer temperatures, so it would actually be beneficial.

Lmao yeah the great fucking Saharan breadbasket all the food flows from it.

>>10597039
>The data actually leans towards temperatures rising before CO2 increases though.
During a typical glacial cycle this is true, but when increased atmospheric CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels this is absolutely not true.

>>10597046
Correlation does not imply causation. The planet has gone through more significant warming and cooling periods. Looking at climate data for the last couple hundred years and blaming the warming on humans is like standing on a plain and coming to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.

>>10597056
The Sahara is dry and has no precipitation. That's why it is not verdant. Not because of the temperature.

>>10597034
Murder infringes on victims right to live, that's why its illegal. Nobodies rights are infringed upon if I drive an F150.

>>10597050
>Using water doesn’t make more water vapor.
>moving water doesn't make it easier to move to the point what it turns to vapor.

In nature, water comes from rivers, rain, oceans etc. Not sprinkler heads, drainways, water treatment plants, hot roads, refrigeration coils, asphalt shingles and large flat farmland. It all adds up. The water vapor has increased drastically because we literally use it for everything including inane bullshit. This is overlooked because your "climatologists" are playing "blind men and an elephant" with CO2.

>>10597060
Compare the timescale those warming and cooling periods took place in, and compare that to the timescale of current change. If you have any intellectual integrity left you'll realize why this argument is stupid.
You're also ignoring basic physics. Please explain how significantly reducing the rate at which the earth radiates heat into space won't increase temperatures.

>>10597059
>During a typical glacial cycle this is true

Yeah so the temperature causes CO2 to rise.

>but when increased atmospheric CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels this is absolutely not true.

It doesn't cause the heat though.

>>10597061
>The Sahara is dry and has no precipitation. That's why it is not verdant. Not because of the temperature

Gee wonder what makes things dry...

>>10597065
>Murder infringes on victims right to live, that's why its illegal. Nobodies rights are infringed upon if I drive an F150.

Climate change kills, so you’re infringing on everyone’s rights.

>>10597076
The climate. That's why Antarctica, which is not hot, is also dry with no precipitation.

>>10597071
From what I understand, the further back you go in the ice cores the harder it is to make out the subtle changes so this is stupid argument.
Cooling the planet is just humans interfering with the climate, isn't that what you're against?

>>10597074
>Yeah so the temperature causes CO2 to rise.

>What’s positive feedback

>It doesn't cause the heat though.

https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

>>10597081
“The climate”

Temperature is part of climate. The Sahara is significantly hotter than the Amazon or Congo.

>>10597068
> humanity consumes aprox 3500 cubic Km of water each year (Note most of this does not evaporate.)
>434,000 cubic Km of water evaporates from the ocean every year (does not include any land based water sources.
I'll let you figure out why what you said was so fucking stupid

>>10597052
Temperature rising could disrupt the Gulf Stream and turn Europe into a frozen hellscape. You seem to think a 2 degrees rise in the median temperature means a flat 2 degrees rise everywhere, and biomes will just adapt to the new temps. That's not the case, at all. Milennia old pathogens buried in Siberian permafrost could be liberated to the atmosphere, oceans would become acidic, all coastal landmarks -where 80% of the population lives- would be flooded. Currently, the polar ice caps work as huge heatsinks that reflect UV light back to space, but once they melt, we'll lose that, and the Earth will keep on warming even after 4/5 of the population is dead. So then what?

>>10597089
>What’s positive feedback

Child birth.

>>10597098
>and biomes will just adapt to the new temps. That's not the case, at all
Yes it is actually.
>So then what?
Then the adaptation happens.

>>10597087
You can't accurately estimate year to year variations but you can accurately reconstruct temperatures over longer periods of time. if it takes 50,000 to change average temperature by 6 degrees you can compute the average rate of change quite accurately.

>>10597105
>Yes it is actually.

Sure, after extinctions take place on a scale of thousands of years.

>>10597101
You aren't that one "the earth's core is heated primarily from the sun" engineer poster are you?

>>10597105
>Yes it is actually
No. You seem to think that a tundra will become a forest if it warms up. That's absolutely not how it works and even if it did, it'd never happen in the timespan of any civilization.

>>10597115
You seem to think that the biosphere is a delicate little flower that can't handle any temperature variation without it shitting itself in fear and all life immediately going extinct.

>>10597120
>You seem to think that the biosphere is a delicate little flower that can't handle any temperature variation without it shitting itself in fear and all life immediately going extinct.

That’s literally what happens. A change of a few degrees is enough to bleach coral reefs and kill them.

>>10597127
Oh well. Down into extinction they go with the rest of the 99.99999% of all life that has ever existed.

>>10597120
You were of the mind that global warming would make Siberia arable. Most likely it would become mudflats and release whatever shit it's been encased in permafrost for hundred of thousands of years.

How can the climate be warming if it doesn't even exist? Checkmate, climate scientists.

>>10597132
Siberia is the remnants of an impossibly massive volcano crater. I'm not expecting anything to live there.

>>10597128
>Lol climate change is beneficial
>Okay it’s not but lol who cares

Shitty bait poster.

>>10594418
LoL

"anthropomorphic climate change"

We live in an open system "the rest of the universe"

>>10597141
It is beneficial. We are ridding ourselves of some pussy coral too weak to make it into the glorious new industrial future. We should thank the fossil fuel gods for revealing their cowardice to us all. Only the strong shall survive. Fossil fuel Chads rise up.

>>10597148
at least your honesty makes ecoterrorism that much easier.

>>10597148
Aaaand the troll stops trying.

>>10597151
Now the conspiracy theorist has revealed himself for a terrorist too. Disgusting. Shameful.

>>10597155
I don’t think you know what a conspiracy theory is.

>>10597153
it was fun for a while

>>10597148
Corals can be regenerated quickly with a method discovered recently by accident... it turns out if you shred corals into tiny microscopic pieces they will grow X7-10 times as fast meaning if a baby coral needs 72 years to grow into maturity, with this new technique it only takes 7-17 years...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180927145304.htm

>>10597160
Fuck. Did I say X5-10 times faster. It's actually X40 times as fast

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/fast-growing-coral-discovery-could-revitalize-oceans

>>10596926
he didn't say they weren't, you can't even keep your lies straight

>>10597155
If your coal power plants can't survive my thermite charges they were weak and needed to go.

>>10597164
And this will help coral to live in oceans that are too hot and acidic how?

>>10597168
He's comparing the term diversity used in biology and the term diversity in social sciences. Multiracial populations are not diverse in the taxonomical sense, because H. Sapiens Sapiens are the same subspecies.

>>10597177
well all taxonomy is arbitrary so it makes no difference what groups are classified as what, separation is in the eye of the beholder

>>10597179
well all social science is arbitrary so it makes no difference what groups are classified as what, diversity is in the eye of the beholder

>>10597177
here comes the hard part, what difference does it make? make an argument

>>10597182
He said
>It's ironic how diversity means various peoples living in one city yet when it comes to nature diversity means keeping populations separate.
It's not ironic at all. Ethnic diversity and biodiversity mean two different things in completely different fields of study. He's saying that separating tree populations makes an argument in favor of racial segregation. He's wrong.

>>10597190
Why is he wrong?

>>10597193
Ethnic diversity and biodiversity mean two different things in completely different fields of study.

>>10597174
Newton's Law of Cooling motherfucker...

>>10597197
So hotter oceans + hotter atmosphere = dead coral got it

>>10597193
Ironic how separation of oil and water is seen as natural but separation of Church and State is such a debated topic.
A complete non sequitur.

>>10596956
but the migrants lmao

>>10597196
No they don't.

>>10597203
But you're implying that black people are not comparable to plants...

>>10597203
dreadful analogy

>>10597212
What. I didn't mention black people, not even once.

>>10597190
>He's wrong.
he's not. it's ironic how humans are really careful about preserving diversity of redwoods on the one hand while actively trying to eradicate diversity within humans

>>10597228
In which way does humans (I'll asume biologists) trying to preserve redwoods relates to humans[who?] trying to eradicate diversity within humans?
Different species of redwood exist, whereas humans are one same subspecies.

>>10597237
Species is totally arbitrary categorization

>>10597228
>mixing together genes from different populations makes DNA less diverse

you really are stupid aren't you

>>10597237
>difference only occur between species
all humans are the same then?

>>10597251
Taxonomically speaking, yes.

>>10597248
ethnic diversity is totally arbitrary categorization

>>10597250
yes it does, instead of having separate groups you have a single one

>>10597254
so what is this diversity drive about if we're all the same?

all plant life is the same. so if we burn down all the trees and only keep this one retarded flower, we haven't really lost anything. because they are all the same.

>>10597259
Just say what's in your mind, Anon, you're dying to.

>>10597268
what?

>>10597114
poster? What are you talking about? That's literally how it works. What world do you live in?

>>10597256
You know punnet squares? Imagine AA and AA parents (same race), creates AA children. Now imagine AA and BB parents (different race). Creates a whole new person, AB type.

>>10597272
You asked me what the drive for diversity is. I don't know, but you seem to know and you've been dying to say it for quite some time now. Just say it.

>>10597095
>humanity consumes aprox 3500 cubic Km of water each year (Note most of this does not evaporate.)
Where do you think it goes you moron? Does it just disappear into nothing? What do you mean by "consume"? I'm talking about moving it from where it is to where it isn't. Places such as California which should by rights be a fucking arid desert devoid of palm trees and grass were it not for water being brought to it.

>434,000 cubic Km of water evaporates from the ocean every year (does not include any land based water sources.

Well tell me the land based sources since that's what we're looking for.

>>10597065
No, that's what we call an externality, an unintended consequence of an exchange which negatively affects people not directly involved in the exchange. However, you're in luck, our government doesn't actually deem externalities illegal, since it will only affect some third-world shithole and nobody actually in the US.

>>10597279
instead of 2 you have 1 exactly just like i said>>10597256

>>10597283
you're dumb. you can't keep your lies straight. if there's no human diversity then what does all this talk about diversity mean?

>>10597296
Bro I can't explain it to you

>>10594428
he cute

How can intelligent people argue you don't lose anything by smudging all the colors on your palette?

>>10596750
>ENSO is irrelevant to predicting the long term trend since it has no long term trend.
>huuuh lets make a model of the most dynamic and complex system in modern science and make assumptions while doing it because they are irrelevant LMAO

>>10597298
From society. It has nothing to do with science.

>>10597366
there's no genetic diversity? all diversity is purely cultural?

>>10596956
>doesn't understand how an analogy works
Wow you're dumb.

>>10596974
>pressure mediation
Oh it's this schizo again
>>>/x/

>>10597371
Both. There is genetic diversity, i.e. a population that has lived in sunny climate for generations would develop mechanisms to protect itself from it, like a dark pigment in their skin. However, the distinction we make between different races or ethnicities is purely socio-cultural and has no basis on science. The fact that two people from different "races" can have fertile offspring is evidence that all humans belong to the same subspecies.

>>10597287
Your statement is that human activity has significantly increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and that this water vapor is responsible for climate change not CO2. Consumption refers to anything mentioned here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_footprint
Most of these activities don't actually result in increased evaporation compared to the normal water cycle. Even if we were directly evaporating all this water the total amount of water we interact with is less than .7% of the water that evaporates from the ocean naturally, even if this was more significant water vapor doesn't doesn't stay in the atmosphere like CO2. Basically scientists know exactly how this works because it's been studied and you're ignorant.

>>10597060
>Correlation does not imply causation.
CO2 causing warning is not based on correlation, it's completely causative (the greenhouse effect) and directly observed (radiative spectroscopy).

>The planet has gone through more significant warming and cooling periods.
Over what time frame and what was its effect on humans?

>Looking at climate data for the last couple hundred years and blaming the warming on humans is like standing on a plain and coming to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.
That's because you are completely ignorant of how scientists came to that conclusion. Tell me what you think the argument is and I'll show you where you failed.

>>10597068
>Using water doesn’t make more water vapor.
>moving water doesn't make it easier to move to the point what it turns to vapor.
Both of these are true. You can dump as much water vapor into the atmosphere as you want, if the temperature doesn't change this will just cause the same amount of water vapor to precipitate out. The temperature determines how much water vapor is in the atmosphere, not emissions. This is why water vapor is part of climate sensitivity and not a radiative forcing.

>>10597365
>assumptions
You can look at the ENSO index directly and tell me if has a trend. I'll wait.

Basically the entire thread is just a retarded denier substituting how climate science works (which is publicly available information) with his own idiotic and completely baseless assumptions of how it works and then getting BTFO over and over again.

>>10597440
that doesn't change the fact that climate scientists are basically trying to do a half-arse simulation of a very dynamic and complex system without even fully understanding how it works or what variables are involved then concluding we are all going to die in hellfire

>>10597087
Ice core data cadence is yearly or better. More than good enough to spot a "natural" temperature change as fast as the one occurring now. But we don't see any.

>>10597454
>maybe human emissions of CO2 are causing a rapid long term warming trend
>this is known from fundamental thermodynamics and chemistry and confirmed by direct observation of incoming infrared heat via radiative spectroscopy
>this understanding allows us to predict the effect of CO2 emissions and various other radiative forcings on the global temperature since the chaotic turbulent flow of heat that dominates local short term weather tends to cancel out when averaging over the entire globe and over larger timescales
>in essence, the global temperature is determined by how much energy enters Earth's atmosphere vs. how much leaves it, and not how that energy is distributed around local areas.
>all of this took many decades of painstaking research and data from all the different subfields studying Earth's climate
>ah but I guess we must ignore all this because we can't predict ENSO, a large scale turbulent flow that has no effect on the long term trend because it's irregularly periodic and only dominates annual temperature variation

>>10597490

Can you at least admit scientists don't fully understand how Earth's climate works?

>>10597500
Absolutely, can you at least admit they sure have a better idea than you do?

>>10597500
I never said they did. Can you at least admit that climatologists understand enough about the climate to make the conclusions they have? You remind me of a creationist arguing that evolution is unproven because we haven't found every missing link, even though that would be impossible and unnecessary to conclude evolution is true.

>>10597542
Sure, but it's not good enough.

>>10597578
How do you determine this and what evidence backs up this claim?

>>10597578
How do you know?

>>10597580
The Butterfly effect.

Unless climatologists simulate every little facet of the Earths climate down to a butterfly's wings (including what variables they haven't discovered that influences it) then making these projections is useless, and i'd even go as far to say on such a complex and large scale, biases and errors can be unintentionally influencing the results of these models, if we can't predict the weather 7 days ahead and seasonal outlooks are hit or miss then why do we even attempt to say we know enough about the climate to simulate it and then conclude we will all burn in fire and brimstone?

>>10597595
Congratulations, using this logic you've invalidated every possible field of science. I guess we should all give up and go back to the stone age because we can't perfectly simulate everything.

And fuck off with the short term forecast argument only a 5 year old wouldn't be able to tell the difference between accurately predicting 5 coin flips and 5 million coin flips.

>>10597606
>Congratulations, using this logic you've invalidated every possible field of science. I guess we should all give up and go back to the stone age because we can't perfectly simulate everything.

Thanks for this wonderful example of a strawman anon, really appreciate your input.

>>10597595
>The Butterfly effect
That would be applicable if the long term temperature trend was chaotic, but climatologists have already determined that it isn't. There's a reason the butterfly's wings create a hurricane, a local weather phenomenon caused by the chaotic turbulent flow of heat, and not a global temperature change.

>if we can't predict the weather 7 days ahead and seasonal outlooks are hit or miss then why do we even attempt to say we know enough about the climate to simulate it and then conclude we will all burn in fire and brimstone?
Because of the above and also because we've already done so successfully.

>>10597618

>Unless physicists simulate every little facet of the motion down to quantum particles (including what variables they haven't discovered that influences it) then making these projections is useless, and i'd even go as far to say on such a complex and large scale, biases and errors can be unintentionally influencing the results of these models, if we can't predict whether light behaves as a particle or a wave how can we predict that a jet won't fall out of the sky?

>>10597618
>spends entire thread strawmanning climatology
>cries strawman when his own argument gets applied to science he doesn't deny
Even if you were accusing him of a strawman accurately, this would still be hypocritical.

>>10597618

Unless evolutionary biologists simulate every little facet of the natural selection down to exactly how a butterflies wings evolved (including what variables they haven't discovered that influences it) then making these projections is useless, and I'd even go as far to say on such a complex and large scale, biases and errors can be unintentionally influencing the results of these models, if we can't predict what a species will look like in 5 generations then why do we even attempt to say we know enough about the evolution to simulate it and then conclude it even happened?

>>10597629
>if we can't predict whether light behaves as a particle or a wave how can we predict that a jet won't fall out of the sky?
>>10597637
lmao keep them coming

>>10597634
you are mistaking me for someone else

>>10597624

How far ahead do these models project?

>>10597637

>Unless astronomers simulate every little facet of the solar systems formation down to the exact mass of the initial nebula (including what variables they haven't discovered that influences it) then making these projections is useless, and i'd even go as far to say on such a complex and large scale, biases and errors can be unintentionally influencing the results of these models, if we can't predict exact number of objects in the Kuiper belt or how often a comet will enter the inner solar system are hit or miss then why do we even attempt to say we know enough about the solar system to simulate it and then conclude the sun won't disappear tomorrow?

I can think of like 10 more of these but I think I've illustrated how fucking retarded this argument is.

>>10597645
>How far ahead do these models project?
What do you mean? They can project as far as you want, the uncertainty range would just be huge.

>>10597657
>They can project as far as you want, the uncertainty range would just be huge.

How far ahead do they think is an acceptable range of uncertainty?

>>10597663
>https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
Why not get it straight from the horses mouth?
You'd learn a ton if you actually read the whole thing. Wouldn't it be better to understand what you've been arguing against?

Reminder

>>10597399
This whole is pure semantics. I never talked about races or anything. Human genetic differences get lost and its quite ironic

>>10594433
>i can only imagine what futurettes will be like

>>10598163

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNyQ7bHbVQQ

Alarmists continue to get BTFO by Tony

REDUCE THE POPULATION

>>10594705
>bro look at all this carbon in he varbon cycle theres SOOO MUCH
>let me just...yeaa *dumps more carbon in* there we go
>Its ok guys look how much trees make

>>10595182
Nobody owns the air, and fat retarded fucks like you aren't allowed to shit on it for the rest of us, just like if you defecated upstream from the village water source you'd get the shit kicked out of you.

>>10596223
Looks pretty cut and dry to me, conspiracy fag

>>10596288
Schizophrenia often develops later in life

>>10596410
Yikers

>>10594428
Well yee fuckin haw little buddy

>>10596483
No it doesn't. You just outted yourself as a moron

>>10598459
Except that the "scientist" true believers have been caught manipulating their data for decades. WOOPS! See >>10598336

>>10596916
This is what we're dealing with gentlemen. Take a good, hard look at it.

>>10596904
He had his first episode just nine years after getting his Ph.D. There's no way he retired that early.

>>10596279
The incidence Schizophrenia in a group of functioning professionals is likely much lower than in the general population.

Muh

Rare
A
R
E

Schizo

>>10596918
Cringing at defeated braiet

>>10598502
Conspiracy theorist detected.

>>10598495
why are you arguing about facts?

>>10594418
People who want zero CO2 emissions are stupid. They should kill themselves because every breath spews CO2. And if they don't kill themselves they should be killed for being stupid hypocritical fucks.

Climate change is an insignificant issue and keeps becoming less important as technology advances.

>>10598508
What reason do I have to believe it's a fact?

>>10598512
you can look it up yourself

>>10598519
Okay, now I have negative reasons. Liar.

>>10594705
I'll take "numbers I pulled out of my ass" for 200 Alex

>>10597399
>humans are genetically different but only when its arbitrary or positive to minorities

Kill yourself

>>10597595
Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahah

>>10597685
You scared him away

>>10598483
Yeah I don't think I'm going to watch that. Go die in a hole somewhere fatass

>>10598532
Way to go big guy. Make up your own definitions instead of using the ones society had generally agreed upon and then be perpetually angry because people say things that are true everyone except you and your lunatic friends.

>>10598499
>functioning professionals
[Citation needed]

>>10598504
*Sigh* No, retard. A consipracy challenges the status quo, whereas I support it.

>>10598556
The climate alarmist refuses to look at evidence against his own religious faith based climate position. What a surprise.

>>10598511
You're going to have to adapt to our new world or rot in a prison cell. Start sorting your shit out.

>>10598563
>A consipracy challenges the status quo
That is false and frankly bizarre pilpul.

>>10598557
Cringe. Nobody wants to live in a "diverse neighbourhood". Those who do quickly change their tune. I'm not even arguing with you at this point, its an irrefutable fact

>>10598567
Hey, I mean, im the guy with all the scientists on my side. I feel like I'm trying to discipline a small dog

>>10598571
You're the guy with the people manipulating decades worth of data to create trends that aren't there. That's not science. It's fraud. It's criminality.

The worst part of it is that none of us will be alive to point the finger and say "hah, see? I was right". The deniers will probably die in a typhoon or from some waterborn pathogen brought on my flooding and they'll still be saying we didn't cause it.
Well we are capable of reversing it regardless of who caused it, and it would save the globe trillions in disasters.

I'd intern every denier if I had the power.

>>10598576
The climate alarmists are the actual deniers. They are the ones denying the real data which shows no warming and pushing their own fake trends to keep up the funding bonanza.

>>10598574
Climate readings are public information. You are a certified retard if you deny any of that data.

>>10598580
So now its not changing at all? I thought it just wasn't our fault? Yikes

>>10598581
That's why it's easy to verify their acts of scientific fraud and deception.

>>10598511
>They should kill themselves because every breath spews CO2.
Which is the same CO2 that a plant absorbed recently. Breathing is carbon neutral, unlike fossil fuels that accumulated over millions of years but are being released over a few hundred. Fucking moronic deniers can't get the simplest concepts right.

>>10598585
Just watch the video and try and justify it to me. It is so obvious what is happening.

>>10598564
Ah so then you should have no problem looking at the AR5 report and debunking the entire thing right?

>>10598601
I don't understand why you aren't concerned that your entire hypothesis is based on fraudulent manipulation of data by invested rent seekers trying to maximize grant money.

>>10598598
No my girlfriend is sleeping next to me and I'm afraid she'll wake up and call me a faggot-tier brainlet.

Listen, I know it's empowering to feel like you know better than the world, but sometimes facts are just facts. Fortunately in the nesr future people like you won't have a choice but to adjust their lifestyles to be carbon neutral

>>10598607
You cannot continue this discussion unless you actually watch the thing which presenting evidence of fraud and manipulation and give me your assessment of it.

>>10598598
Let's watch!

>if climate scientists were actually worried about global warming, they would be happy about a pause
This sets up the strawman that what Phil Jones was referring to being "worried" about is global warming when it's clear that he would be worried about a result that contradicts basic climatology. You can tell we're off to a great start when Tony is already putting words into people's mouths for his own agenda!

>graph of RSS temperatures starting at 1996 and ending 2014 showing no trend
Tony makes this way too easy. You claim climatologists are fudging the data? Here is Tony fudging the data. Did Tony do a linear regression to find the trend? No, of course not. Tony put a graph in the video WITH A HORIZONTAL LINE DRAWN OVER IT and he calls that no trend. What does the data actually show? Pic related, an upward trend.

Even other deniers know Tony is fucking retarded and can't be trusted with the simplest tasks. Even if we ignore that he cherrypicked the flawed RSS dataset that is known to have an uncorrected orbital bias in it, and even if we ignore that he cherrypicked the start of the data so that the large 1997 El Nino reduces the trendline, we are still left with either Tony's utter fucking incompetence or willful manipulation of the data. Need I go on to destroy the rest of this garbage video? You tell me whether you want to be further BTFO by association to this nutjob.

>>10598605
The only one fraudulently manipulating data is Tony.

>>10598645
I'm talking about how when the lack of a satellite warming trend persisted and became politically salient, the gremlins immediately set to work to quickly falsify the data in service of the continuation of the political narrative and got it pushed through by being reviewed by other alarmists and ignoring Spencer and Christy. Can you not see that this damages the credibility of the entire field?

>>10598656
I'm afraid I can't see that, I'm sorry.

>>10598656
Based schizo

>>10598656
Spencer and Christy... you mean those guys who used to have data that showed a cooling trend but kept correcting it until it showed a warning trend? Well that must mean they are lying and fraudulently manipulated the data! They can't be trusted, sorry.

Now please tell me why you very too ignore the error found in the data and its justified correction (see: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1)) and instead immediately cry that it's fraud.

>>10598686
This is the exact thing that Tony addresses at the end of the video that you didn't even watch. The "error" you refer to is him editing the error bars in order to make it as close to the alarmist political position as possible. It's fraud. This isn't science.

>>10598693
I did watch it, the error is the diurnal bias described in the paper I posted which of course you didn't read. Tony purposefully ignored that paper because otherwise he would have to make a substantive argument against it instead of just assuming the correction is fraudulent. But thank you for admitting that Spencer and Christy are alarmist liars who fraudulently manipulated their data. Of course we don't have to look at why they corrected their data, we can just assume it's fraud. So scientific!

>>10598727
How is the correction not fraudulent? Are you really so far gone that you cannot see that they magically discover something which exactly serves the political purposes of the people funding them? Why doesn't this concern you?

>>10598336
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs
Based tony never fails to deliver comedy
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>>10598805
>Hmmm, there's some data here which doesn't fit our hypothesis...
>Guess it's just wrong, we can safely throw all that bad icky data away. Hey presto! Our theory is left standing! Go Science!

>>10598819
>hey there's data that doesn't match every other temperature measurement station in the world.
>should we leave it as is or try to figure out why these anomalies keep occurring?
>Hey we figured out there are systematic measurement errors! should we fix them to improve the accuracy of the data or leave them in because tony heller will make a youtube video about it?
>nah leave the errors alone some retard on /sci/ thinks fixing measurement errors is somehow heretical.

hmmm

>>10598827
I can't believe you're actually defending this.

>>10598833
I can't believe you can't even understand what you're arguing against and are purposefully ignoring all evidence.
Oh wait I can because you're already some kind of religious fanatic who's faith is based around ignoring science.

>>10598836
It's only *evidence* when it confirms your beliefs! When it's not, it's considered a systematic error and gets removed!

>>10598838
I've posted evidence as to why those measurements were in error and you've ignored them like some kind of creationist. Thanks for proving you're incapable of arguing against reality and instead choose to ignore it.

and if you leave those errors in it doesn't change anything about climate science the earth clearly shows a warming trend.

>>10598842
No, you've posted rationalizations for your pre-existing beliefs for which you refuse to allow evidence to falsify.

>>10598849
either attack the argument or stop posting I've already addressed why your argument is stupid you've done nothing but have a meltdown.

>>10598851
You're not accepting that your evidence is informed by what you and the rest of the fraudulent huckster community want to see.

>>10598857
Prove it

>>10598857
>everything in authority is trying to trick me!!

>>10594428
This would sound nice with some dope beats........

>>10599477
This... sentence... would... be...dope... with... more... ellipsis............

>>10598748
>How is the correction not fraudulent?
Read the paper and find out, you illiterate troglodyte.

>Are you really so far gone that you cannot see that they magically discover something which exactly serves the political purposes of the people funding them?
That was always foregone since the satellite record diverged from the temperature record. So a flaw existed in one or the other. Just because a coin toss did not go in your favor does not mean the coin was rigged. Only in the conspiracy-addled substance-free mind of the denier does this illogic work. Somehow when Spencer and Christy correct their temperature data to make it warmer they are still heroes but when someone else does it it must be fake. How many times are you going to fail to justify this massive hypocrisy? Hope many times are you going to fail to make a substantive argument against the correction? Infinite times, because you are a pathetic fraud.

>>10598748
How are Christy and Spencer's corrections not fraudulent? Are you really so far gone that you cannot see that they magically discover something which exactly serves the political purposes of the people funding them? Why doesn't this concern you?

>>10598748
>>10598819
>>10598833
>>10598838
>>10598849
>>10598857
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection