/sci/ - Science & Math

There's 97% consensus. That makes it real.

>>10665286
There's a 3% consensus that it's fake

>>10665291
>trusting minorities

>>10665303

>>10665302
I think you may have nailed it anon

>>10665325
Or maybe.... Just maybe.... Jews have the highest IQ out of all human ethnicities and therefor are the most likely to end up at the top of society.

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

>>10665302
You have no proof for that, on the other hand we already know that the anthropogenic climate change scientists have lied to us (climategate), the 97% study has been debunked.
Money and the anthropogenic climate change scam:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

The goal behind the antropogenic climate change scam: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timescall.com/2018/12/18/jim-cochran-the-facts-show-that-climate-change-is-a-hoax-with-redistribution-of-wealth-as-the-goal/amp/

manipulation of data:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/barbaramckenzie.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/climate-alarmism-is-a-scam-and-a-hoax/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/climate-change-hoax-continues/%3famp=1

>>10665349
>heritage.org
>timescall.com
>investors.com
>wordpress.com
>dailyrepublic.com - opinion columnists
I think you wanted >>>/b/

>>10665426
>th-those aren't credible sources
Still waiting for a consistent, sensible criterion that you fucks will apply equally to distinguish good from bad journalists
Hint: all journos are retarded

>>10665345
>Find one thing that is an advantage for small minority of people
>Worship said thing and said people and pretend like nothing else matters but that one thing
Conspiracy tier reasoning

>>10665349
>opinion pieces from random people with little to no sources, very little scientific explanation, and a readiness to promote exactly the agenda you want to hear
I trust it

>>10665302
>muh big bad oil globalists
>>>/pol/ is that way, creep

>>10665426
>>10665450
What source did he give >>10665302?

>>10665426
>>10665450

here you go have fun reading it

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

>>10665450
>>10665426

more good stuff

97% CONSENSUS myth:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

>>10665426
This one is for you sheep

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

>>10665517
>[searches wikipedia for something saying the Telegraph isn't a very good newspaper]

>>10665502
>Testimonial from Wille soon.
Holy shit, they really do have no standards. At least they don't have any papers from...

>9 papers by Wille Soon.
HAHAHAHAHA
Take your garbage papers and fuck off. No-one should bother refuting a source that cites a literal paid shill.

>>10665345
except the distinction of 'ashkinazi jew' is pretty much completely meaningless. i'm an ethnic jew from poland which makes me "ethnically ashkinazi", supposedly, but my family literally moved out of Iran 150 years ago.

considering 'mizrahi jews' have a pretty low average IQ it's a lot more reasonable to assume an arbitrary statistical distinction for the purposes of getting a favorable end result rather than some kind of jew superpower. is it more likely that jews have some kind of superpower or that someone fudged the numbers badly to make it look better? considering the beef in the israeli community and how the distinction has only really existed post-israel its a lot more likely to be stupid politics than anything else

>>10665532
Considering the URL clearly states that it was published in 2009 and last edited in 2014, and that Willie Soon was disgraced in 2015, i think you need to take a step back and get a better understanding of chronology and how scientific peer-review works

>>10665510
>97% CONSENSUS myth:
This really doesn't demonstrate anything at all. It's a complication of quotes from deniers and random claims about different studies, without any kind of actual discussion of what was wrong with any of them.
It's actually pretty hard for me to respond to it properly, because it wanders so far away from it's own topic. What the fuck does Cristy's infamous balloon graphs have to do with Cook's consensus paper? It's nonsense.

The few claims I can find in it about Cook's paper are wrong, too. It states:
>Ironically, a detailed review of the most recent ‘consensus’ study by Cook et al (2013) found only 64 papers out of 11,958 that explicitly state that AGW caused more than 50% of recent warming. This represents only a 0.54%‘consensus.’
Which is an interpretation of "support" so dumb that Cook pre-emptively refuted it:
>Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007,p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supportedby the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

Beyond that, there's a general confusion about whether the studies were measure number of scientists or number of studies, and repeated claims that Cook's criteria are somehow "incompatible" with the IPCC's definitions.

>>10665521
>tries to deflect attention from the scandal because he is not interested in truth
>doesn't discuss the subject matter of the article
>makes insinuations

>>10665517
>This one is for you sheep
That's nothing more than unsupported allegations of misconduct. Every denier worth their paycheck can pull and opinion-piece like that out of their ass at least monthly. Looking up why a specific adjustment was made isn't difficult, so pointing at the direction the adjustment occurred in and using that alone as "proof" of a massive international conspiracy is dumb as fuck. The only non-factual claim there is talking about McIntyre's criticism of Hansen's "Hockey Stick". But It fails to mention that McIntyre's larger criticisms (proxey choice etc) haven't actually been widely accepted, and the parts that have been accepted are generally minor issues.

Maybe find a better source of science-reporting than a literal creationist.

>>10665302
>limited operating budget
>literally several government with nearly unlimited resources.

>>10665549
>a complication of quotes
>deniers
>random claims
>actual discussion
>infamous
>consensus paper
>dumb
>refuted
>confusion
>somehow "incompatible"

>>10665582
> if it doesn't support my anthropogenic global warming religion it is just an opinion piece.
>Maybe find a better source of science-reporting than a literal creationist.
Ad hominem

Taking out data because it shows extreme cooling that would result in lower temperature isn't suspiscious at all right?

''Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.''

not suspicious at all

''Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.''

anyway, since you are interested in sources here are 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

>so pointing at the direction the adjustment occurred in and using that alone as "proof" of a massive international conspiracy is dumb as fuck

There is no reason for fiddling with the data, it is not excusable, it is not honest and serious science.

>>10665549
>This really doesn't demonstrate anything at all. It's a complication of quotes from deniers and random claims about different studies, without any kind of actual discussion of what was wrong with any of them.
>It's actually pretty hard for me to respond to it properly, because it wanders so far away from it's own topic. What the fuck does Cristy's infamous balloon graphs have to do with Cook's consensus paper? It's nonsense.

Again insinuating with false claims

but her you go
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821?
via%3Dihub

part 1

>>10665217
20 of the last 22 years have been the warmest ever measured

>>10665549
>>10665666
part2

>>Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007,p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supportedby the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

>admits there is no 97% consensus
>still says everyone agrees on it

>>10665549
anyways more sources and links:

https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

>>10665673
Fake news, globalist thermometers

>>10665291
1% are idiots
2% are shills selling t-shirts and seminars to the idiots

>>10665682
>i have no argument

>>10665685
We know

>>10665666
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821
They fucked up their calculations:
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003747
>Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol (in press) (T14) agrees that the scientific literature ‘overwhelmingly supports’ AGW, but disputes C13s methods. We show that T14s claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14s claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97±1%.

>>10665676
>admits there is no 97% consensus
Where does it say that?

If out of 10k meteorology papers I find a hundred that explicitly state that the sky is blue and one that says it's green, that doesn't mean there's 1% consensus among meteorologists on the colour of the sky. Trying to conflate papers that aren't about a claim with papers that disagree with that claim is absurd.

>>10665689
>Trying to conflate papers that aren't about a claim with papers that disagree with that claim is absurd.
Sorry ma'am but your interpretation of "support" is so dumb that Cook pre-emptively refuted it, see >>10665549:
>Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007,p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics.

>>10665547
Fruit of the poison tree.
Same reason any study that references Wakefield as a legitimate paper on vaccines should be ignored now.

>>10665688
>i don't know how greentext works

These threads don't change the fact that the Earth is going to literal hell

>>10665710
>We know

>>10665722
Cheeky cunt.

>>10665689
>Where does it say that?

''Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007,p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supportedby the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.''

''11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.''

does this look like consensus

part1

>>10665689
>>10665749
part2

>They fucked up their calculations

no but Cook et al. fucked up their methodology:

Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301247685_Comment_on_'Quantifying_the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming_in_the_scientific_literature'

>>10665434
>getting information on science from journalists
Go back

>>10665749
Yeah that looks like 99% of published material supports agw

>>10665709
Im pretty sure that 9 bad sources out of a list of 1500 is not exactly "fruit of the poison tree" when the whole point of that list is quantity over quality

>>10665785
Then I seriously question your reasoning skills and your ability to process information that doesn't jive with what pop science tells you, because it shows a flagrant disregard for scientific methodology

>>10665749
>does this look like consensus
Yes.

What do you expect consensus to look like? Do you think every climatology abstract would end with "oh and by the way, global warming is real and caused by human activity"?

>>10665808
>Then I seriously question your reasoning skills and your ability to process information that doesn't jive with what pop science tells you, because it shows a flagrant disregard for scientific methodology
Stop waffling and actually state why you believe it's unreasonable to exclude "no position" papers from a survey of the consensus position.

>>10665814
and why are you focusing all your energy on an outdated paper? Please give me your opinions on cook et al 2016
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
>We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology. This is supported by multiple independent studies despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature or of citation networks.

>>10665819
I think your quote says it best
>''Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007,p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supportedby the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.''
What percent of astronomical papers explicitly state that the earth orbits around the sun? Probably actually pretty low because we've all moved onto bigger and better things.

>>10665823
false equivalence

>>10665829
How so?

>same shit thread
>same shit bait
>same shit "arguments"

every time there's a climate denier to argue with I'm disappointed. Literally all their claims take less than a couple minutes to utterly destroy. Is this really the best /pol/ has to offer?

>>10665842
>Is this really the best /pol/ has to offer?
No, but it's more than enough. They don't need to convince you, they just need to make sure that there's a "contrary position" present in every discussion about climate change.

>Literally all their claims take less than a couple minutes to utterly destroy.
And their claims probably take seconds to write. If you need to reference peer-reviewed studies and they get to copy-and-paste from blogs, you're going to lose via attrition.

This isn't actually a debate, you've just been tricked into thinking it's one.

>>10665856
How depressing, I guess he knows he'll never actually convince anyone with critical thinking or fact checking abilities, but all he has to do is keep pretending there's something to argue over and he can convince the impressionable people too lazy to verify claims there's a debate.

>>10665842
>>10665856
>>10665899
not an argument

>>10665450
In opposition to opinion pieces from random (((scientists))) funded by (((academia))) and other (((investors))), with lots of unrelated and very questionable scientific mumbo jumbo, with the same readiness to force feed exactly the narrative you want to hear?

I love when /pol/ tries to engage with us in a climate debate only to get mocked and being called retards and some getting destroyed. Fuck off pol you brainlets.

>>10665935
>da jews
I can only imagine what kind of deranged circlejerk you would have to come from to think this is a legitimate argument.

>>10666067
Not necessarily. I just think this subject has been hijacked and overblown by political pundits who use it as a weapon and a shield to both attack anyone they don't like, or to deflect criticism of shitty political power grabbing moves, more than it's used as means of communicating concerns towards anything legitimately concerning for anyone on the planet. The same way as pedophilia is used overwhelmingly as a way to attack people, global warming has been weaponized as a political tool, and believing otherwise makes you a shill almost instantly.

I couldn't give less than a fuck about what /pol/ or /reddit/ thinks.

>>10666097
tbqh a politician not accepting climate change is a pretty good reason to attack them. It's not like we even have the option of helping the planet until the political situation is sorted out anyways. Either way, it's not going away, it poses a direct threat to us, and nobody is doing anything, I talked to multiple young people, around 19, and global warming is the number one if not only political issue they care about.

>>10666159
It's overblown and it's hysterically overplayed as a "threat" in order to push a narrative, just like rape in college, or "racism".

Basing your politics on natural disasters and apocalyptical events is what cultists do, whether you like this reality or not.

>>10666180
So you don't accept global warming as a threat to humanity, why? Obviously the temperatures have gone up in the past ten or so years, I just don't understand why you don't think it's a problem.

>>10666183
Because there's no threat to humanity.

Global warming is just a spec out of many. Stop preaching this bullshit as if it was "the doom of humanity" any more than the spread of incurable diseases or poverty.

>>10665303

Minorities are the smart ones. There's a reason people rebeled against the 1%, not the 99%.

>>10665302

Pollution is real and shit, global warming is fake.

Nuclear power plants produce almost no pollution in carbon dioxide.

>>10665349

If it is somehow related to big money you can be 95 % sure it is a scam. Same as casinos, brokers etc.

>>10665217

Freeman Dyson agrees with you.

>>10666187
It's definitely not The Doom, but it is a threat. For instance, in higher temperatures C3 based plants take a hit to their efficiency, that's our wheat yield cut by a quarter by 2050, corn will fare better though. I just don't understand why you can't accept it as a threat that needs to be dealt with. You provide nothing, no alternative, see pic related, this is global warming and climate change in my home state, notice how the temperature oscillates like that? Yet if you took all those observations and averaged them it would turn out slightly hotter.

>>10666187
>He thinks he can eat without crops
I'm pretty sure the extinction of pollinators is a little more important than making sure everyone has clean drinking water

>>10666220
He actually agrees with AGW

>Dyson's views on global warming have been criticized.[22] In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[59]
>Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists and that one of its main causes is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.[55]

>>10665538
When people on 4chan talk about "Jews" they mean Ashkenazi Jews. Not Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews.

The Jews with actual power and influence in the world (due to their high IQ)

>>10666221
>>10666224
I'm pretty sure people who have cancer, or who are homeless, couldn't give less than two shits about your doomsday bullshit. Yet, those are far easier and more practical issues to solve, yet no one seems very concerned about it.

Again, global warming is an afterthought, it's the same as being concerned about asteroid impacts, or the Yellowstone erupting. It's propaganda, it's needless hysteria intended to make imbeciles give power to preachers over nothing. This type of end of the world bullshit is what made the christian church so powerful, and you are no different than preachers bashing people with "the end is near" signs.

Fuck off with this idiocy.

>>10666271
>Imagine being this retarded
Yeah, a random homeless dude doesn't threaten my life, but do you know what will? Starving to death. Let's address that so we can have homeless people to help in the future

>>10666271
>Making an appeal to worse problems fallacy when they’re not even worse problems

Brilliant

>>10666288
He's Crazy Eddie. Broheim will probably be out directing traffic in the next hurricane

>>10666271
its not like the US alone spends 5 billion on cancer research each year or anything

>>10666281
>>10666288
>tangible real problems are not important
>fictional ones are
Brilliant.

>>10666294
>Blatent science denial
And now we get to the crux of the issue. You wanted >>>/pol/

>>10665217

>>10666297
>Everything that doesn't takes my religion seriously is >>>/pol/
You're embarrassing yourself.

>>10665291
correct.
3% are wrong, 97% are right.

>>10666301
>He thinks this is a valid argument
You are laughable

>>10665217
Climate change is elevating the average core temperature of the Earth....at a snails pace. It’s real, but it’s such a meh concern for our generation.

>>10666294
Interesting claim.
Please meet the burden of proof for it. What empirical evidence do you have that there’s no climate change?

>>10666306
........Core temperatures? I think you mean the surface. The core is heated by radioactive decay and that’s about it.

>>10666311
It's also heated by deformation stress caused by the sun's gravity.

>>10666303
Yet, you're still replying, even though you have the "97% consensus" argument supporting this idea that the world is going to end.

Why does my opinion on the matter is important to you in any way, if you're 97% sure you're right? This just doesn't make any sense. If something is 97% accurate, why is it that no action is being taken? Why is it that you're so sure the world is going to end in 2050, yet nobody seems to give two shits about any of the 97% certain predictions? Could it be that similar prediction about the end of the world have been floating around ever since the beginning of times?

Nah, this must be those pesky 3% who just won't quit, right?

Imagine having 97% consensus on something, yet being powerless to do anything to stop the end of the world?

It almost feels like a hyperbolic statements designed to herd gullible people to vote for a specific party, doesn't it?

>>10666316
Your opinion matters to me because it's disingenuous and meant to mislead idiots. The blatant and intentional denial of facts is a dangerous precedent to leave unchallenged.

Now prove your claims.or fuck off

>>10666320
Remember when the world was going to end in 1997?

I don't think you were born back then though.

2050 it is, indeed.

>>10666323
Literally nobody with any merit has ever made this claim. Now did you have an argument to present?

why is there even a debate? We already know that denialism is bullshit funded by exxon, kochs and so on.

>>10666323
What scientific paper made the prediction that the “world was going to end in 1997”?
Never heard of that climate model.

>>10666315
Wouldn’t think that’s very significant at this distance. Tidal forces are definitely a major heater for the gas giant moons

>>10666344
It's almost definitely more significant then the decay of what few radioactive isotopes exist in the mantle. I couldn't give you a figure though

>>10666335
It's just shills and morons. Usually unpaid morons from /pol/ that think they've uncovered some vast conspiracy to install solar panels, but I suspect that there's actual paid opposition as well. You'll notice their arguments and narratives change over time which could totally just be the result of the blogs they follow telling them what to think, but it smacks of coordination

>>10666355
No u fool is da Jews hoo r making up dis scam fur money so they can destroy the world wit blak peple

>>10666334
What arguments can be made against 97% consensus over anything?

Even if undeniable researches were to ever see the light of the day by a dedicated group of scientists who are not afraid of putting their careers at jeopardy by challenging the mainstream narrative, the odds of you ever tossing aside all your gospel and reconsider your position are about as low as the chances of any of these "world ending" predictions to actually result in an apocalyptic event, even though they keep constantly popping out like political zits, everywhere.

Also, the "idiots" who would be target of this "dangerous" wrong opinion, can't change the world. Isn't that the argument about why the jews control everything? Their high IQ and all? Why is it that the smartest people on the planet can't get anything done, even though they have 97% consensus that everything they do is for the best of humanity?

How come people who have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE, or interest, in the imminent apocalypse have any power to stop 97% of all "scientists", from saving the world?

Don't you think there's something missing here?

>>10666366
>What arguments can be made against 97% consensus over anything?

Consensus is changed by new evidence. Ever heard of any scientific development in the last...forever?

>>10666367
Yet... Regardless of all efforts, you still can't get anything done?

What is going on here? Isn't global warming a reality? Isn't it going to end the world in 30 years? Why is it that no one is giving you any attention, even though this is probably the most hysterical point being constantly shoehorned into every single political argument ever since the 50s?

What is going on here? Are the "ignorant majority" really THAT powerful that their absolute lack of interest is stopping you form saving the world?

What is it that you need to save the world? What do you need to make a change? What do you want ME to do for you?

Why don't you stop trying to convince me to accept your lord and savior Al Gore, and start giving me practical advice on how I'm supposed to stop the world from ending in 30 years?

>>10666370
>Yet... Regardless of all efforts, you still can't get anything done?

Plenty of countries have made significant efforts to cut emissions. Some haven’t, because they’re led by retards. There is no magical mind-control laser that can be rolled out and shot at Gronald Klump so he stops jacking off to coal. Why are you being disingenuous?

>What is going on here? Isn't global warming a reality?

Yes.

>Isn't it going to end the world in 30 years?

No, and no climate model predicts it will. Why do you continue to lie?

>Why is it that no one is giving you any attention, even though this is probably the most hysterical point being constantly shoehorned into every single political argument ever since the 50s?

They are. Why do you continue to lie?

>What is going on here? Are the "ignorant majority" really THAT powerful that their absolute lack of interest is stopping you form saving the world?

Do you think that the Republican Party is particularly interested in hurting the fossil fuel industry?

>What is it that you need to save the world

World doesn’t need to be saved.

>What do you need to make a change?

Governments willing to reduce or halt CO2 emissions in the countries that continue to fail to do so.

>What do you want ME to do for you?

Try putting your head into the garbage disposal and turning it on.

>>10666382
If you have it all figured out already then why are you debating randoms on the internet over something you're so sure it's going to happen beyond any shadow of a doubt?

What benefits do you get from pointing out whatever consensus you pulled out of your ass to people who couldn't give less than two shits about you, your opinions, or your apocalyptical predictions?

Why isn't anything changing if you have 97% scientific consensus over such catastrophic event?

Why don't leftists ever do anything to stop the end of the world, considering the 97% certainty of it? Why are you more concerned over gender politics than the literal end of the fucking world as we know it?

Why are you talking to some random science-denier™ over the internet, if the world is going to end in 30 years? Why aren't you helping save the world, instead of wasting your time with someone like me?

>>10666366
>What arguments can be made against 97% consensus over anything?
If you can demonstrate that CO2 and methane aren't a green house gas (they are), or that human emissions aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 and methane that we've seen (they are), or that there is a significant source of warming other than human emissions and land use (there's not) then you will have made an argument against climate change.

Can you do any of that?

>>10666392
you are clearly not a bot(in the most literal meaning of the word, kek), so are you a paid shill or just a boomer from /pol/?

>>10666392
>Why are you talking to some random science-denier™ over the internet, if the world is going to end in 30 years?
Because with forethought and planning it won't. Kinda hard to do either of those with morons like you screeching autistically

>>10665345
>low iq post

>>10666398
I'm not screeching autistically, you are. I couldn't give less than two shits about your world-end predictions.

>>10666403
And yet here you are, in a thread you made on /sci/, so you could screech autistically at /sci/entists

>>10666396
Yes, I am a paid shill. I'm being paid by big-oil™ -AND- >>>/pol/ at the same time. They both chose me because of my superior intellect and eloquence, obviously, in order to take down the 97%,

>>10666392
>If you have it all figured out already then why are you debating randoms on the internet over something you're so sure it's going to happen beyond any shadow of a doubt?

It’s funny to dunk on retards.

>What benefits do you get from pointing out whatever consensus you pulled out of your ass

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

That’s at least your third lie.

>to people who couldn't give less than two shits about you, your opinions

You evidently care quite a lot about them since you’re going out of your way to spew misinformation on the subject.

>or your apocalyptical predictions?

Never made any.
That’s your fourth lie, at least.

>Why isn't anything changing if you have 97% scientific consensus over such catastrophic event?

Things are changing.

That’s your fifth lie, at least.

>Why don't leftists ever do anything to stop the end of the world, considering the 97% certainty of it?

There’s no “end of the world”, but they are making significant efforts to reduce emissions.

That’s your sixth lie, at least. Seven if you count the lie about the nonexistent “end of the world”.

>Why are you more concerned over gender politics

Never mentioned gender politics.

That’s your seventh or eighth lie so far.
What a mess.

>than the literal end of the fucking world as we know it?

Lie #8-9

>Why are you talking to some random science-denier™ over the internet

I think it’s funny to dunk on retards like yourself, so I do.

>if the world is going to end in 30 years?

It isn’t. No climate model claimed it would, and neither did I.
That’s lie number 9-10.

>Why aren't you helping save the world, instead of wasting your time with someone like me?

I am, by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and general pollution caused by my continued existence. You could really help us out by performing that maneuver with the garbage disposal.

>>10666406
I didn't make this thread. I joined expecting seeing some healthy skepticism and actual eye opening discussions, but all I see is propaganda and autism from both sides.

>>10666407
giving boomers access to the internet was a fucking mistake.

>>10666410
>healthy skepticism
Wew, lad. Baseless skepticism is never healthy. Did you have any argument to rectify that?

>>10666421
>Baseless skepticism is never healthy
Only on the things you don't like, am I rite?

>>10666416
Thanks for your reply, that added 0.0005 cents to my big-oil™ account.

>>10666299
>muh glarciers
water will just freeze again overtime

>>10665217
Humans use 5 500 000 000 000 liters of oil a year.

It is burned and it turns into gases. It is CONSUMED, vanishes into the air.

Are you saying there is unlimited amount of oil somewhere? It's never going to end?

>>10666437
It won’t, actually, at least not to it’s prior extent. The maximum and minimum extent of sea ice has been declining for a while.

>>10666422
I don't think you know what "baseless" means

>>10666441
These people actually believe in magic. There is no point. Some time soon they will come for us. The best we can hope for is to die well.

>>10666457
It's only baseless when it's your opposition doing it, right?

Talking to political activists is like talking to a brick wall. It's a waste of time.

>>10666347
Actually incorrect tidal heating is not significant on earth

>>10666299
You're literally showing ice reforming at the exact same rate it's lost.

climate change denial is fake

>>10666514
>WHY ARE YOU ROUND EARTHS SO CRITICAL OF FLAT EARTH SKEPTICS LIKE MYSELF IF THE EARTH BEING ROUND WAD A FACT YOU WOULDNT HAVE TO SUPPRESS SKEPTICS LIKE MYSELF

>>10666558
>reforming at the exact same rate
>ignoring new ice being much thinner
>not the exact same
>not even close

>>10666558
Did you....not notice how it’s smaller now?

>>10666561
I wonder if you're this inclined to rely on scientific evidence when it comes to gender and sexuality.

>>10666582
Here we go this dumb shit again give me your scientific evidence that gender and sex are the same thing because you need a red herring to distract from your obvious lies about climate.

>>10666582
Why are you bringing up irrelevant topics?

>>10666596
He's resorting to red herrings, best to point and laugh at this point.

>>10666540
You're confusing moons with the sun. That's where the core gets most of its energy

>>10666602
Look it up dude, it's referred to as tidal forces regardless of source. And tidal forces from the moon are stronger than tidal forces from the sun.

>>10666596
It seemed fitting, given how nobody here is interested in coming to terms with anything, and are opting to do the political equivalent to pic related. Might as well just throw in some more worthless shit on top if this steaming pile you all created.

>>10666600
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, it's the other way around. You're the preacher here.

>>10666620
Fair enough. I must have been misremembering or conflating something

>>10666629
All you have to do is provide evidence of your claims. The fact that you can't should tell you that you are wrong. That's science

>>10666629
What do you think we should “come to terms” with?

>>10666641
I've come to term with the fact that deniers of climate change are liars incapable of backing up their arguments with evidence.

>>10666593
>give me your scientific evidence that gender and sex are the same thing

LOL everyones favourite abrasive carbon tax shill is so amusing. Please Dan Bailey/Ken Gread, never stop. I love how your truly awe-inspiring level of cuntiness basically got the liberals over labour elected in a landslide lol.

>>10666638
>>10666641
Yep, I'm not joining your cult, folks. Sorry.

Have fun, and try not to join any mass suicide pact, no matter what your current leader tells you. I'm going to cash in my massive payment from big-oil™, /pol/, republicans, trump, the incel association, or whatever you call the current boogeyman who lives rent-free inside your heads, since there's so much empty real estate inside there.

>>10666662
That's cool, we didn't want you.

Can you fuck off now?

>>10666662
Not an argument. Thanks for playing.

>>10666662
Not all people who believe humans are wrecking the planet are as disgusting as Ken Gread/Dan Bailey (who btw actually don't believe humans are wrecking the planet, and are in fact just working for people who see climate change as a marketing opportunity).

>>10666675
Love the schizo conspiracy rambling.

>>10666676
Try not to discourage your son from getting his dick chopped off too hard, you fucking psycho cultist.

>>10666593
>give me your scientific evidence

>>10666675
That's the most sane and compelling sentence I heard in almost 150 replies in this thread.

This is what makes me willing to listen to what you have to say, because here we have some ground to work, where we both agree on something.

You might be the first intelligent person to post in this whole thread, and I agree 100% with you. I understand not everyone pushing this narrative has a baseball bat shoved up their ass, but enough people do to make any discussion over the matter completely unbearable and alienating.

>>10666687
I find the two of them absolutely revolting.

>>10666686
Confusing not spoonfeeding and actually having evidence to back up your claims, hilarious.

>>10666682
What are you even talking about?

>>10666686
>Lul I don’t have to provide any evidence to substantiate my claims look at me

>>10666692
>Imagine being this retarded
The evidence for was presented, nobody refuted it, and you have not provided evidence against. Can you at least try?

>>10666702
>I wonder if you're this inclined to rely on scientific evidence when it comes to gender and sexuality.
I don't see any evidence

>>10666705
So did you have an argument?

few more steps and people have to pay for breathing. we are getting there.
Mankind works best when there is a common enemy to destroy / common goal to work towards, clima change makes mankind itself this enemy, from a political standpoint it is a genius move. You can not be a highly respected scientist and "denier" of man made climate change, maybe that has something to do with the consensus.

>>10666707
you're the one who brought it up are you going to actually say something or just drop it like everything else?

>>10666705
>I don't see any evidence

What's the best way to personally cover one's ass when the inevitable climate change crisis hits hard?
I've already done the big step: moved to a country that is supposed to be one of the least to suffer.
I also have a job that directly aligns with climate change mitigation (power grid related) so I'm likely to be well employed in the future.
What else can I do?

>>10666702
>rejects anything that challenges his claims by saying it's either wrong, is conspiratorial, or it has questionable sources
>demands evidence to disprove his own wrong, conspiratorial, and very questionable sources
Sounds like we're making a lot of progress here.

>>10666714
>big government boogeyman

>>10666718
You brought up sex and gender, moron. That's not evidence against climate change or humans as the cause of it.

Would you like to try again?

>>10666719
You haven't even posted an argument, at this point you might be think sex and gender don't exist and I wouldn't even know.

>>10666721
>demands evidence to disprove his own wrong, conspiratorial, and very questionable sources
Wew, lad. Alright, what do you think happens to fuel when we burn it? This should be pretty good

>>10666720
Shitpost on the internet constantly at any opportunity you get, and be as obnoxious as possible about the subject, while constantly insulting anyone who doesn't immediately fall on their knees and agrees with everything you have to say. Also, try to ignore any signs that might indicate that you're part of a cult.

The earth as a whole has warmed to 1 degree celsius or 1.8 degrees F from what it was recorded one hundred years ago, so regardless if its a natural cycle of the earth or mankind's fault the climate has changed either way.

>>10666720
>What else can I do?
Buy a gun. Learn to use it.
Buy long shelf life canned food.
Dig a water well, if possible.

>>10666744
You're wrong, it's all cow farts and republicans.

DAMN YOU REPUBLICANS!!

>>10666753
I love the autistic screeching phase of every climate thread on /sci/ It's honestly why I keep posting in them.

>>10666753
Isn't it weird that the Republicans are the only party denying climate change? It's like they have some kind of financial incentive or something

Imagine stacking your credibly on a conspiracy theory that is scientifically false.
Thank fuck you are anonymous.

>>10666760
Gee I wonder

>>10666751
Anything else? Like... Voting for democrats, perhaps? Raise my onions intake? Buy a nintendo wii? Have sex with children? Marry a black transgender woman? Graduate in gender studies? Smash the patriarchy?

Any other wonderful advice, mr. know it all?

>>10666760
Only Americans too.

>>10666767
>>10666760
I already told you I'm being paid by big-oil™ to specifically bring down the 97%. Aren't you paying attention to the thread?

>>10666768
>Voting for democrats, perhaps?
Only for Bernie. He's not really a Democrat though.
>Raise my onions intake?
Onions and potatoes are basically the easiest crops to farm if you're a newbie. Good idea.
>Buy a nintendo wii?
Consumerist shit that is destroying the planet.
>Have sex with children
Not a priest.

>>10666772
Whew for a second there I was worried you were actually doing this for free.

>>10666759
It's more logical than the "calm denial" phase when the tards try to pass themselves as legitimate skeptics.

>>10666720
A second passport, a second home, so if SHTF in your region you can just GTFO. That's what the rich are doing, anyway.

>>10666760
>>10666767
Global warming, science, onions, gender. /pol/, jews, climate, atmosphere, you, democrats, basedboy, cry-baby, fossil fuel, denier, trump, consensus, evidence, claim, conspiracy, white supremacist, racism, blacks, republicans, deniers, financial, paid, bankers, the rich, socialism, communism, capitalism, social engineering, hateful, bigoted.

I wonder if I hit enough key words there to trigger more bot replies.

>>10666768
Why do you try to go on irrelevant ad hominem tangents when you fail to provide any evidence?

>>10666759
I'm positive at least half of these are bots.

>>10666768
>onions
found the newfag

>>10666802
(You)
Happy now?

>>10666800
>onions
>basedboy
found another newfag

>>10666804
The alternative is there being that many people that stupid, either way it's depressing.

>>10666768
If you want actual advice then put solar on your roof and get some energy storage.

>>10666812
Aw, still no argument.

>>10666805
>>10666814
The boomer posting, I legit believe are paid shills. They are very active on /news/ and they totally don't fit in at all. They just appeared as soon as the Democratic primary campaigns were being announced and started trying to shill for some of the candidates (both from the D and R side).
They are not /pol/sters because they don't really understand chan culture at all.

We could have a legit nice climate change thread if you just hide all the denier fags and ignore them.
I know they bombard these threads but you can just hide and ignore.

>>10666570
>>10666571
So we're losing less ice? Got it!

>>10666843
It is not enough to merely ignore stubborn denialist stupidity;
it must be actively opposed, and denounced for what it is.

>>10666862
This. Personally I like to see them flail for an argument

>>10666862
Basically If you don't call these retards out on their bullshit they'll think they're actually welcome on /sci/ and then this shitty board will be completely worthless.

>>10666843
There’s a desire most people have to reply to idiots and ‘BTFO” them.

>>10666843
Honestly this:>>10666871 /sci/ was never a place for retards and just simply ignoring them wont stop them from spamming threads

>>10665303
back to /pol/ u racist

a lot of scroller threads up right now, search the catalog
or maybe it's just a /pol/ raid

>>10665217
Checkout potholer54 on youtube

>>10666271
It's not a doomsday theory, it's a "highly reduced standards of living with great negative consequences for humanity". Shit will suck compared how things are now

>>10665217
climate is not fixed, it changes over time. check out melancholic cycles.

>>10665303
kek

>>10667984
Do you brainlets understand that change over 40,000 years and change over 50 are very very different things?

>>10665217
>>10665217
im no big science guy anon but think of it this way
the last thing i want to do is to give my hard earned cash to buy smelly oil offa some goat-fucking dirty little sand nigger
i feel we could do with a little less pollution and more clean fresh air

Why doesnt Lubos Motl believe in climate change? He seems like an intelligent guy...

>>10665217
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
LIES
WITH
(OP)

>>10668017
Too much theoretical physics damages the brain and you stop understanding regular physics spend any time in academia and you'll see this

>>10665345
This confuses and enrages the Stormfaggot.

>>10666183
temperatures haven't gone up in the past ten years

>>10668536
>This boomer myth

https://skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

>>10666221
wrong, the wheat yeald is being cut because of the grand solar minimum and reduced solar activity, the weakening of earths magnetic field is causing arctic cold air to move out of the arctic circle.

https://electroverse.net/the-great-arctic-outbreak-of-february-1899-polar-vortex-and-low-solar-activity-to-blame/

https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_Prediction_of_Solar_Activity_from_Solar_Background_Magnetic_Field_Variations_in_Cycles_21-23

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316921302_Reinforcing_a_Double_Dynamo_Model_with_Solar-Terrestrial_Activity_in_the_Past_Three_Millennia

https://iowaclimate.org/2018/10/16/science-understanding-the-jet-stream/

>>10668536
No.

>>10668568
>Citing pseudoscience

Whew

>>10668568

>>10668544

''Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.''

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fo4997gv

>>10668585
>''Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Non sequitor.

>And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.''

He’s wrong, so why did you cite him?

>Linking a tabloid

>>10666395
green house effect theory has benn proven wrong.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-refutation-of-the-climate-greenhouse-theory-and-a-proposal-for-ahopeful-alternative.php?aid=88698

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/#Y8jEG9dpF40wg43i.99

https://principia-scientific.org/scientific-proof-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-wrong/

>>10668536
-------------------------------------------------------------------
old RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s


Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

>>10668572
pseudoscience, lol.. need to do some data science friendo

>>10668544
Argument from false premises

>>10668599
“DescriptionOMICS Publishing Group is a predatory publisher of open access academic journals. It started publishing its first journal in 2008. By 2015, it claimed over 700 journals, although about half of them were defunct. Its subsidiaries include iMedPub LTD and Conference Series LLC LTD. ”

Nice trash paper factory.

>>10668591
jones was the scientist involved in climategate, climategate proves no warming in past 10/15 years (which they tried to hide), if that isn't a smoking gun then you aren't interested in truth.

>>10668629
“OMICS Publishing Group
OMICS Publishing Group.png
Parent company
OMICS Group Inc
Status
Active
Founded
2007
Founder
Srinubabu Gedela
Country of origin
India
Headquarters location
Hyderabad
Distribution
Worldwide
Publication types
Open access journals
Nonfiction topics
Science, technology, and medicine
Revenue
US$11.6 million (2016)[1]
No. of employees
1500[2]
Official website
www.omicsonline.org
OMICS has come under attack by numerous academics and the United States government over the validity of the peer review by OMICS journals, the appropriateness of its fees and marketing, and the apparent advertising of the names of scientists as journal editors or conference speakers without their knowledge or permission. The U.S. National Institutes of Health sent a cease-and-desist letter to OMICS in 2013, demanding it to discontinue with false claims of affiliation with U.S. government entities or employees. In August 2016 OMICS became the first academic publisher to be sued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for deceptive practices; nearly three years later, the FTC was awarded a summary judgement of over US$50 million

WHEEZE

>>10668633
>jones was the scientist involved in climategate, climategate proves no warming in past 10/15 years

Nope.
https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

>>10668624
Nope. You said the earth hasn’t warmed. It has.
You should really come up with different shilling ideas, because the old ones are easy to kill.

>>10668570
is that data from NASA? that same NASA that has been found fiddling with data?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

https://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

http://www.thegwpf.com/world-leaders-duped-over-manipulated-global-warming-data/

>>10668648
not an argument

>>10668660
Not an argument. Try again.

>>10668656
>Citing every kind of fake news source

Peak boomer

>>10668663
ad hominem
makes false insinuations

>>10668673
>ad hominem

Thanks! I do indeed insult boomers that cite fake news.

>makes false insinuations

Oh, you a millennial or Gen Z that cites fake news outlets and not a boomer? My mistake if so.

>>10665217
BAAAAAAAAIT

>>10668676
I can't be a boomer and a millennial, logic doesn't seem your strength.
Anyways you just admitted that you have no arguments.

>>10668682
>I can't be a boomer and a millennial

Correct, and I said exactly that.
“Oh, you a millennial or Gen Z that cites fake news outlets and NOT A BOOMER?”

Reading doesn’t seem to be your strength.

>Anyways you just admitted that you have no arguments.

Nope. Welcome to quote me, or you lied.

>>10668697
still no argumnets.

>>10668713
“an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.”

“a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.”

No, both of those are present.

Why do you continually lie about climate change and about what others have said on a Korean weaving image board?

>>10668619
>implying average global temp has changed by 24C in the last 150k years
topkek, what a load of bullshit

>>10668656
>is that data from NASA?
Yes.

>that same NASA that has been found fiddling with data?
No.

>shitty link spam
I don't care.

>>10668730
It’s some German whoever that thinks he discovered data manipulation by NASA and decides to yell about it instead of submitting a paper on it to Nature so it can pass the peer review process and people could write rebuttal papers. Wonder why.

>>10668720
''a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory''

what are we discussing here if blue is the best color?
we are discussing a scientific subject, i don't care if you don't like boomers or millennials, i posted facts and all you had as an 'argument' were ad hominems, red herrings and false insinuations.

>>10668740
>i posted facts

Cite the peer-reviewed paper, then. Please no publishing farms this time. Something that actually has an impact factor in the first place.

>>10668741
>Cite the peer-reviewed paper
already did
>Please no publishing farms this time
Appeal to emotion
>Something that actually has an impact factor in the first place.
Is–ought fallacy
insinuating i haven't already done so

see no arguments just manipulation.

>>10668757
>already did

No, you didn’t cite a peer-reviewed paper for your claim that NASA has been manipulating data. The “””peer-Reviewed””” paper from the publishing farm trash science factory you cited earlier actually accepts the existence of a current warming trend, and only disputes the cause, so those claims aren’t even related.

Please cite a peer-reviewed paper for your claim that NASA has manipulated data.

>Appeal to emotion

That’s not an appeal to emotion. Nothing else to really say to that. It’s just wrong and a bit confusing that you’d claim that.

>Is–ought fallacy

See above.

>insinuating i haven't already done so

What’s the impact factor of the journal named “Environmental Pollution and Climate Change” and where did you find it?
It doesn’t exist according to Scimagojr.

>>10668792
>What’s the impact factor of the journal named “Environmental Pollution and Climate Change” and where did you find it?
basically a version of appeal to authority
red herring
false assumptions

Again I don't care about the parameters you set for acceptable studies and sources.

>That’s not an appeal to emotion. Nothing else to really say to that. It’s just wrong and a bit confusing that you’d claim that.

'Please' (in the context of your phrase) is not an appeal to emotion with the intent to imply, that the collection of peer reviewed studies that i posted aren't legitimate? (it's a rhetorical question by the way)

>No, you didn’t cite a peer-reviewed paper for your claim that NASA has been manipulating data. The “””peer-Reviewed””” paper from the publishing farm trash science factory you cited earlier actually accepts the existence of a current warming trend, and only disputes the cause, so those claims aren’t even related.

again false insinuations
ad hominem
red herring

here you go

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/ef-gast-data-research-report-062817.pdf
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf

>>10668853
>Again I don't care about the parameters you set for acceptable studies and sources.

K bye.

for those who are interested:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

>>10668867
>Citing blogs and newspapers

This is why no one will ever take you seriously on this board.

>>10668874
>not arguing about the subject of the article

>>10668568
>magnetic field moves air
hurrrrr durrrr

>>10668897
puerto c. =/= global

>>10665547
>Fraud is okay as long as you don't get caught

>>10665217
fake. There you go. You will say any supporting evidence is faked by a conspiracy.

this guy is really strange

he's like a frat guy trying really hard at the pretense of having something interesting to say

>>10667973
Elaborate how things will be much worse than they are now? Not him just curious as I have had the impression that the standard of living will increase even with global warming.

>>10666311
No, I mean the core.
https://grist.org/article/global-warming-comes-from-within/

>>10665303
true logic that defeats /pol/

>>10665980
/pol/ is like that Leonardo DiCaprio brother from what's eating gilbert grape.

>>10666416
It truly was
They fucked everything and now they fucked the internet

>>10670108
>grist.org
L0Lno fgt pls

Seriously though global warming is a death cult. It's unfalsifiable, it requires you to give your resources to superiors to be saved, it can only be understood by a white-robed priest class, and anyone who questions it just hasn't seen the light of the gospel.
Have any of you killed for this yet? Would you, if mighty Climate said that you had to to avoid His wrath?

>>10671253
>Seriously though global warming is a death cult.
Define "death cult". Because I'm pretty sure it's nowhere close.

>It's unfalsifiable
No it isn't. If the planet wasn't warming then it would be falsified. If CO2 turns out to not be a greenhouse gas it would be falsified. If there are other forcings which dominate humanity's contribution then it would be falsified.

>it requires you to give your resources to superiors to be saved
It requires taking resources AWAY form our "superiors". What do you think the impact of tax-and-dividend policies would be?

>it can only be understood by a white-robed priest class
Nonsense. It can be understood by anyone with a decent level of education, who is willing to put a moderate level of effort in. There's mountains of data and detailed explanations available on websites. The basics are accessible to high-school students.
If you don't understand AGW then that's on you.

>anyone who questions it just hasn't seen the light of the gospel.
You're in a thread full of people making obviously bad-faith arguments against AGW, you're personally in the middle of comparing it to a cult, and yet you can't understand why people won't accept criticism of it with a simile?

>Have any of you killed for this yet? Would you, if mighty Climate said that you had to to avoid His wrath?
Is this really the best you can do?