/sci/ - Science & Math

>muh 3C temperature so high
It won't affect us severely

>>11036605
>We can't do it for planes.
Planes aren't such a big share, so it's not a big issue that we have no alternatives. Until then, we have to think about whether Instagram thots need to fly to Bali 3 times a year.

>>11036613
>Until then, we have to think about whether Instagram thots need to fly to Bali 3 times a year.
That's great, but you do know tourism still represent a lot of money for Indonesia. And it's not just poor countries, 15% of Spain GDP is tourism.

>>11036605
More CO2 --> more efficient photosynthesis (less photorespiration) --> more biomass --> problem solved

Now where is my nobel prize

We need to general public to stop being faggots about nuclear, nuclear plants charging electric cars would have a massive impact while being cost effective.

>>11036605
it was technically possible since the 70s, by using a combination of nuclear energy and synthetic fuels

>>11036605
> Is such a thing even possible?
Not without causing millions of deaths due to starvation.

The graph you have in the picture makes it seem like things will be better if it's only 2 degree increase, but the fact of the matter is that it won't make much difference. Notice how the lower end of the graph starts at 2 degrees temp increase, not at 0 or -2. It's still rising.

And even if it's only 2 degrees increase by 2100, it'll become 3.5 degrees increase by 2125 anyway (and similar), and keep rising due to the vast amount of people on the planet. The temperatures are rising, according to modern science, and there's no indications of it stopping, only rising slightly slower. The whole debate is about how quickly humanity is going to get fucked, not whether or not humanity will get fucked. See pic related from here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf the latest ipcc report showing the most optimistic outcome.

At the current estimates, the lowest possible temperature change by 2100 is about 1C. Here's a popsci video showing what happens if the temp increases by 1 and then 2 degrees C (nevermind the source, or find some other prediction with other sources, it's still backed by science):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjrS8QbHmY

>>11036620
Most of Spain's tourists don't come from overseas though. The train connections are just too shitty and expensive, so people rather fly for 1.5-2 hours than take the 16 hours train connection that costs 5 times as much or more.

>>11036625
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/06/19/616098095/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-rise-major-crops-are-losing-nutrients

>>11036605
I'm working on electric planes. We aren't too far off.

>>11036651
I know electric light planes are semi-viable ie. can last an hour or two for joy rides but can't actually travel decent distances.
I assume you talking about small planes / drones and not airliners or cargo planes.

>>11036651
What do you think about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel

>>11036629
>>11036640
But with nuclear out of the equation, is it even possible?

It's not real, don't worry.

>>11036681
Yes. There are plenty of studies for Germany about the feasibility. If you have mountains, like Switzerland, it's even better. I don't know about other regions of the earth though.

>>11036609

>>11036625
Then why is CO2 rising?

>>11036692
I live in France where nuclear is still very important and all I've heard is that Germany path with a lot of renewable energies was a complete failure. I don't know if it's true though.

>>11036656
Planes powered by the ion engine is what I'm talking about

>>11036660
Seems pretty good to me. They just need to find a good feedstock.

>>11036709
>Germany path with a lot of renewable energies was a complete failure
The failure is that they just stopped investing in them in 2011 or 2012. Renewable energies are the responsibility of our economics ministry and not of the environmental ministry. Hence, it's low priority. Since 2012, we built much less solar power stations than before and since 2017 we built virtually no wind turbines.

>>11036717
So extremely high altitude low speed?

It's not us that's the problem, it's Jewish meddling in third world countries, who are still used to their pollutive ways.

>>11036605

France got to 80% clean energy in 15 years, twenty years ago. From NUCLEAR ENERGY. It's not that fuckin hard. First, subsidize nuclear plants as much as other types of green energy. And then build two or three more reactors for each nuclear plant, which will make them as a whole more profitable and efficient.

No need for Thorium, hi-tech solar, or any of that other nonsense. The answer is obvious, normies are just too scared

>>11036865
>Just spend nine times as much for your energy, bro
>What's the problem?

>>11036868

Three Mile Island's parent company said they would be able to stay in business if they got HALF as much subsidies as green energy.

It's mostly bullshit.
How many of the "concerned" people do you see actually act as if it's a very serious situation? And how many of those faggots still take planes on vacations or do myriad other CO2 expensive things that anyone who actually believes that it's really really bad wouldn't be doing? Even saint fucking Greta had a yachting crew flown in from the US for a PR stunt. Climate change my ass.

>>11036609
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>11036625
>More CO2 --> more efficient photosynthesis (less photorespiration) --> more biomass --> problem solved
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

>>11036903
How much fucking money is that now?

>>11036605
>Reading about climate change is quite worrying. So we basically need to stop all carbon emissions in basically 20 years.

Wrong

> Is such a thing even possible?

It’s possible to land men on Mars right now and it’s possible to make buildings over a kilometer in height. Of course it’s possible.

>We can't do it for planes.

Not true.

>As for energy, if we exclude nuclear energy, is it even possible to have a 100% renewable energy?

Sure

>From what I've seen, wind turbines barely work

Wrong

>and solar panels are unreliable.

Wrong

>>11036613
>Until then, we have to think about whether Instagram thots need to fly to Bali 3 times a year.
F**K!

>>11036950
Most of them here are vegetarians and drive to uni by bike. What do YOU do?

>>11037122
He probably wont have children, which means he's like 99% better than anyone who will

>>11036903
>Three Mile Island's parent company said they would be able to stay in business if they got HALF as much subsidies as green energy.
If that one company got half of the total renewable subsidies? Sounds about right.

Go do something useful and fight fossil fuels for the 10 billion dollars in their subsidies.

>>11036903
>one company so garbage they need 4 billion a year in subsidies just to not go bankrupt.
Wow

>>11036625
>more biomass
It's never that simple. Acidification, eutrophication, human monocultures...

>Three Mile Island
Perfectly safe. Except that one meltdown.

>>11037146
>>11037169

Half the subsidies per KwH, dumbasses

>if we exclude nuclear energy
Why would we do that?

>>11037138
>>11037122
>>11036613

>Dude just be live in a tiny apartment, use smelly buses, and never have a family

No.

>>11037122
>What do YOU do?
I see the climate "science" that is largely based on overly simplistic models and is rife with biased data interpretation and non trivial assumptions for what it is, that's what I do.

>>11037196
So you're prioritizing your own life standard over the life of not only every other living person on the planet, but every living person who will be born?

I don't care, I'm not giving up my diesel

>>11037243
yup. Most people do.
I don't give a shit about africans dying.

>>11037243
>Dude just live a shitty terrible life because it might have some infinitesimally small benefit to the other people living identical shitty terrible lives

We’re actually just all going to have enjoyable lives instead. Climate change is no obstacle to human engineering.

>>11037243

>Dude never have a family, it will make Okonkwo's 8th kid have a better standard of living

Never. Why should I regress to the living standards of a cool wine aunt with no money? Most of the people dying will be Chinese and Indians choking on the pollution THEY put into their air and waterways

>>11036605
Who told you we need to stop and withdraw? Greta?

>>11036644
>train connections are just too shitty and expensive
Are you talking about Spain? Because that's exactly the situation in the US but I thought Europe was all about muh trains

>>11037004
Now source all of that.

>>11037295
Individually, the trains are nice, but the companies rip you off when you travel multiple countries. Also, there are few trains just going across Europe, so you pretty much always have to change in Paris and then more depending where you are coming from and going to.
Also, France is expensive as hell in particular. Fuck France.

>>11036990
Funny since the water level is only dropping because boomers are settling down in Las Vegas and Henderson.

>>11036605
>So we basically need to stop all carbon emissions in basically 20 years. Is such a thing even possible?

YES. But what we're really talking about is net zero carbon on balance. Basically all that needs to happen is tax carbon, and use funds to research and develop alternatives and reverse the ecological and health negatives

>>11037338
>Individually, the trains are nice, but the companies rip you off when you travel multiple countries.

Nationalize and make free to use

>>11036605
we need a real plan who bring real solutions on the table, not just
>Dude give me X triilion $ and i will fix climate change in 10 years
you will not change anything if you throw money at something, espcially if you give more money to the World Gouvernements, you know they are a bunch of retards.
Europe could not fix the problem of the immigrant crisis of 2015-2016, USA can't fix middle east in 20 years, China don' give a fuck about climate most of the time, same with Russia and India. You're telling me those guys can fix the Earth? So you need a plan to the next problems:
>energy
you can't go full solar/wind, people are afraid of Nuclear, but also they don't coal/gas/oil anymore, so what's the solution? fusion?
>transport
how do you transport goods and products across the oceans? because the 15 biggest ships in the world produce more pollution than all the cars, you know the ships who are carrying your mom didlo, your shity phone and clothes
>plastic
plastic is too good for everything, so you need to find a cheap alternative
>meat
well, here's a catch, you can make meat in the lab who taste like meat, but is expensive right now, of course will get cheaper in the next couple of years, or if you put a lot of money into them, maybe.
>overpoulation
>pollution
etc, until I see the brightest minds in a room talking and bringing solutions to repair the Planet , the rest is a waste of time.

>>11036605
>falling for the climate change meme

>>11037185
>He doesn't know what hyperbole is
So? Go take it from fossil fuels. Being salty that renewable energy is cheaper and more heavily subsidized is retarded.

>>11036609
/thread
only retards fall for the climate change meme

>>11037290
Pretty much every scientist working on this field. Retard.

>>11036732
gemany is killing the earth with their coal plants

>>11037418
They are pretty much nationalised, but not internationalised. A train from Lisbon to Moscow would be neat. And other long connections.

>>11036605
that graph is still very optimistic, no action would end up with 8° or more and unhealthy amounts of CO2 in atmosphere

But we can stop carbon emissions for planes easily. renewable jet fuel exists. It just needs to be used more.

There are nations with 100 % renewable energy. Works like a charm. No worries

>>11036605
Normally I would have been worried but batteries and solar panels have become dirty cheap, sometimes cheaper than any power source even without the help from subsidies. I'm pretty sure that in less than 10 years we'll hit peak CO2 emissions and the problem will eventually solve itself.

>>11036605
we just need to kill 90% of niggers and 80% of chinks and shitskins

>>11036646
>only tested with rice
>worst case projected CO2 by end of century
>FACE being representative of a real atmosphere
Its more complicated than it reads in that article.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaaq1012

>>11039098
>There are nations with 100 % renewable energy.
Yes, but using Hydropower (construction projects are 10+ years and produce an impact on sorrounding areas). There are currently no countries which use an electric grid with 100% solar-wind.

>>11039104
>Normally I would have been worried but batteries and solar panels have become dirty cheap, sometimes cheaper than any power source even without the help from subsidies.
Cheap for whom? Clearly not for the thrid World countries who are currently the biggest part of CO2 emittions.

>>11039163
Lolno

>>11039163
Literally every part of what you wrote is wrong.
>Cheap for whom?
Price generally doesn't depend on the buyer. Exept
>Clearly not for the thrid World countries
Especially in third world countries, solar cells are more productive, assuming you mean third world countries close to the equator.
>who are currently the biggest part of CO2 emittions.
First of all, the word you're looking for is emissions. Also, lolno. The per capita output is virtually zero. The per capita emission of the US is over 28 times the one of Senegal. Overall, the US emits over 600 times as much CO2 as Senegal, which is obviously also due to the difference in population.

>>11039163
China and India are the largest emitters by far, and it's getting cheaper there too. Other third world countries are so poor that their electricity requirements can be met with way less generators and therefore way less CO2 emissions. Also this >>11039180.

>>11039190
>China and India are the largest emitters by far
Why are you lying? India emits half as much as the US at 4 times the population.
Chyna only emits twice as much at more than 4 times the population. Every single American emits more than 2 Chongs together. And Chong's emissions include the chink shit they produce for Americans.

>>11039215
He's not lying. He never said per capita

>>11039180
>Price generally doesn't depend on the buyer. Exept
You lack a total understanding of basic economics
>Especially in third world countries, solar cells are more productive, assuming you mean third world countries close to the equator.
Not all third world country lay at the equator and their distribution and capability for solar and wind is unequal
>First of all, the word you're looking for is emissions. Also, lolno. The per capita output is virtually zero. The per capita emission of the US is over 28 times the one of Senegal. Overall, the US emits over 600 times as much CO2 as Senegal, which is obviously also due to the difference in population.
US is 600 times the emissions of 1 african country, it is not comparable, compare first world to third world emissions, then come back later.

>>11039190
>China and India are the largest emitters by far, and it's getting cheaper there too. Other third world countries are so poor that their electricity requirements can be met with way less generators and therefore way less CO2 emissions
African countries are an expanding demographic which cannot buy expensive imports like clean energy, therefore will fall in carbon generation.
At the same time, china and india (already big demographics and growing) are planning their growth in carbon fuel generation plants.

>>11039229
Still false if you look at India. If he meant: both of them together emit more, it's just a stupid statement. They have 8 times the people, what do you expect?

>>11039230
You know that China and India are not third world countries, right? Why don't you make the comparison if you want to make a point just like I looked up my numbers myself.

>>11039237
Since China is now 2nd world but refuses to give up emerging country status and India is still 3rd world I think what you said is at least debatable.

>>11039215
I wasn't talking about per capita emissions. But you're right about India. I mentioned India mainly because they're rapidly ramping up their emissions just like China did in the 00s and now they are #1 emitter. USA despite being the worst polluter per capita and #2 in total emissions seems to have hit peak emissions and they're currently closing down coal factories.

>>11039245
Surely China and India are going to realise that also their countries will suffer from global heating. Why do we let China become the world market leader in solar panels instead of investing now and selling them solar panels tomorrow?

>>11039104
Solar energy is a joke, it produces way too little and its intermittency is a huge liability.

>>11036605
Boomers sold our assholes to China and other shit countries so hard that even if we cared we wouldn't be able to take things in our hands.
China gives 0 fucks about the environment and never will, so whatever your plan is, it's a lost cause. And it's not like Westerners give a fuck because as soon as you tell them about the carbon footprint of meat they go insane. Only an iron-fisted government action can change shit and governments don't matter for shit in a corporate world.
So all the environmentalist shit I do, I keep doing just out of ethics and I stopped arguing with people about the future of their kids. I will probably die before the world completely goes to shit, and I won't have children to worry about.

>>11037243
Why can't envirotards get it through their heads that they cannot reduce standards of living to meet their targets? You will be shot. Look at France. Look at Hong Kong. You either solve climate change at current standards of living, or you don't. There's no third option.

>>11038045
>he thinks "hyperbole" is an argument
>literally just spout lies and expect people to accept them
>backpedal and call it hyperbole when called out

>>11039960
Are you high or just stupid? My argument was hyperbolic, but accurate: nuclear is expensive as fuck. Furthermore, you have no argument except whining that the cheaper energy sources get the lion's share of the tax dollars. Tough titties, that's how capitalism works.

If you don't like it then find a way make nuclear cheaper or aquire more subsidies. Fossil fuels receive 10 billion dollars in subsidies, surely you can find SOME fossil fuel that nuclear outperforms well enough to justify claiming their subsidies.

>>11039750 It's usually more than enough for all the electricity I need minus heating.
And there are some interesting innovations than can help heating and solar more efficient.
Solar panels aren't as good as they could be. For example there recently was some news on some AI-designed metamaterial that can help harvest energy from infrared.
And for the unreliability there's also smart grid innovations and you could time consumption to be during daytime - such as recharging at daytime.
It's not a joke and can produce a lot of energy - in theory it could cover all energy needs even though that's unlikely.
People always forget that we can also reduce power consumption.

>>11039791
>China gives 0 fucks about the environment and never will
Is that why they are investing so hard into alternatives? You got that backwards. It's the mutts who don't want to surrender their oil-power.

>>11040129

>The "new leader of green energy" has more coal plants under construction or in planning than all of the ones operating in India or the US

You're lying, zheng

>>11039956
This

>>11040347
US
>annual 12MWh per person
>Coal and gas: 60%

China
>annual 4.5 MWh per person
>coal and gas: 60%

Keep whining you filthy mutt.

>>11040347
The absolute state of media

>>11036605
the greenhouse gas effect doesn't make mathematical sense

>>11039956
Well, you could start by providing people with sufficient public transport infrastructure and tax the upper strata instead of the lower strata. French protests were started by envirotards and King Kongers are angry that they can´t jew the mainland anymore. Besides waste production doesn´t always correlate with living standard, Americans pollute at least twice as much as western and northern yuros and yet they don´t have the standard of living.

>>11036609
>>11038052
>sweats his ass off if his house temperature increases just 1°C
>the whole fucking world increasing 3°C isnt a big deal, i swear, i promise, just think is 3 even a big number come on
You people have absolutely no business voicing your opinion about climate change. Just because you have the right to spout whatever stupid shit jumps into your head doesn't mean you should.

>>11040385
Try learning about system dynamics and maybe then you'll understand the concept of steady-state equilibrium.

>>11036681
Anyone who says yes is an idiot. Every other form of renewable energy relies on non-renewable means of initial production, and then take massive heat energy to properly recycle them. What are you supposed to do with the billions of solar panels that go dead every 20 or so years? Even if you expand the time frame to a century of usability, you'd have an ecological crisis every 100 years just from the solar panels needing to be recycled or destroyed.

The ONLY solution that maintains our current level of energy consumption that reduces the threat of atmospheric carbon, without creating severe ecological impact simply by existing even when working as intended, is nuclear. And even with nuclear, if we don't adopt some new method (such as thorium fission, or nuclear fusion), then the environmental threat from leaks, meltdowns, and storage of spent fuel is just as severe as the threat caused by other """"renewable""" energy.

That's literally it. We've got to make some sort of new nuclear power that doesn't create as much or as dangerous spent fuel, or accept that we can't continue our civilization as the rate we're moving now while also cutting the population. There is nothing else that we can do about it.

>>11040385
You have no idea what "mathematical sense" even means.

>>11040378
US
>closing coal-fire plants around the country

China
>building 226 gigawatts of new coal energy

Keep living in denial, Tao. China might be making significant gains in what you're doing to reverse your ecological damage, but you're certainly not slowing down the pollution you're making or planning to make.

>>11040385
Convection and conduction in the atmosphere are stronger than blackbody radiation from earth. There I simplified it for you.

>>11040378

The per capita argument means literally nothing in regards to climate change and emissions. The environment doesn't give a FUCK who is releasing the CO2 and how many people are in the country that release it. All that matters it the total amount.

>>11040436
How´s that denial? You are using anecdotes instead of looking at the big picture. A mutt consumes 7,8 MWh worth of fossil fuels, that´s 173% of what Chink consumes total. Stop trying to weasel out through first derivation, as long as there is such disparity in absolutes you have no right to whine about china.

>>11040462
It means a lot in regards to politics. Planet itself doesn´t really give a fuck where the gas came from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU

>>11040378

You people are so devious and scheming. Your "60%" is actually 70% and it's all coal. Our "60%" is almost all natural gas. God, no wonder dumb white liberals believe you when you say you're the green masters

>>11036605
>Is such a thing even possible?

>>11040628
You do realize China produces a lot of CO2 because that's where all the factories are so that American can have their mobile phones and plastic toys?

>>11041198
Blame the dealer, not the addict. We buy their shit because it is cheap. It is cheap because they treat their people and the environment like shit.

Also, they do plenty of polluting on their own (building empty cities, for instance), and they choose how to generate their own power. The only thing we can to do resolve the problem is stop doing business with China or heavily tariff products from there.

>>11041220
No i'll definitely blame the greedy pigs who outsourced American jobs for greater profit margins as well as the corrupt politicians who let them do it.

>>11041220
Yo, by your own metaphor the American based companies selling Chinese merch to Americans would be the drug dealers and the Chinese based manufacturing companies would be the drug manufacturers. Just so you're straight.

>>11041336
As do I. However, making gas cost $7/gallon will do all of jack shit to punish corporations that moved manufacturing overseas. Not that you proposed that, but in general most climate plans amount to fucking over the taxpayer with little real impact on the environment.

>>11041346
Manufacturers are dealers for dealers. The culpability only grows the further up the supply chain you go. Exceptions to those who produce raw materials with no intended purpose. China willingly positions itself as a dealer in morally questionable products. They aren't unwitting victims. People that outsource aren't innocent either. That being said, 30 years of this shit has lead to the domestic supply chain withering making business here even more expensive, so often small businesses are forced to outsource to stay competitive in many markets.

>>11040398
>gas can generate heat
yeah okay kid
>>11040425
1+0!=2
>>11040443
heat from the sun is transferred via radiation

>>11042093
low quality bait desu

>>11041400
>Manufacturers are dealers for dealers
That sounds like denial and cope. Manufacturers are manufacturers. Sucks that your analogy didn't back up your point.

>>11041400
As long as tariffs on goods produced overseas are equivalent or greater than domestic carbon taxes (which all intelligent proposals include) the problem takes care of itself. The whole point is that a carbon tax forces the market to optimize for solutions which do not produce GHGs. If companies don't adapt they won't last against companies that do.

>>11040397
Lmao bro, it's just 3 C

>>11042261
please explain why you believe carbon dioxide simply existing increases global temperatures

>>11042281
If you slow heat transfer between a hot system and a cold system what happens to the hot system?

>>11042281

>>11042290
>greenhouse radiation
so you believe co2 radiates heat on its own?
>>11042288
not global warming

>>11042293
>Imagine being this retarded
Does your blanket heat your bed when you're not in it?

>>11037251

with current population levels i feel like climate change is the only event that can actually help reset the numbers, it makes sense that this happens sooner before billions more are eventually lost from kicking the can down the road

>>11042302
so you think the earth is generating sufficient heat to raise global temperatures?

>>11042325
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you? The Earth absorbs and emits the energy from the sun. That's how blackbody radiation works.

>>11042332
and what exactly do you think the co2 does?

>>11042339
Reflects that light back down to the Earth where it's reabsorbed rather than leaving as blackbody radiation. That's whats being measured in the graph in this post >>11042290

Let me guess, this whole thing has been a rigamarole so that you can claim that it's just the sun getting hotter, right? See pic related

>>11042355
does any of the radiation coming in get reflected back into space by the same mechanism?
>Let me guess, this whole thing has been a rigamarole so that you can claim that it's just the sun getting hotter, right?
no, but solar activity has been more reliably connected to global climate change historically than anything else
hell, a season of more active flares are proven to affect the earth's magnetic field and really fuck things up

>>11042362
If you're genuinely looking for information then I'll stop calling you retarded.

Some of the incoming light is reflected away, but the light that is absorbed by the earth is emitted in a similar spectrum to the light that was blocked coming in and it's reflected back down. The light that's reflected back down continues this process until all of it has shifted out of the greenhouse gas spectrum or managed to escape while in that spectrum. We don't trap much of the light or else we would be a hellscape like Venus, but we trap enough to fuck with the weather and cause a bunch of problems.

>>11042391
I >>11042355
>>11042332
>>11042311
>>11042270
Daily reminder that Venus has some of the coldest poles in the solar system due to greenhouse gasses. Of course you would all know this if you actually bothered to research what insulation actually does.

>>11042293
So the temperature in the hot system doesn't increase? Why not?

>>11042415
Definitely not in the solar system, and extreme differences in temperature are exactly what I expect from absurd levels of greenhouse gasses. Winds that can melt a car as they pass and a lake or two of methane or some other volatile compound in the darkest, coldest regions of the planet. What fun.

>>11042416
I didn't say that
>>11042391
that sounds convenient
why does the wavelength change simply by being reflected by the earth? is it really sufficient to alter global temperatures enough to cause catastrophic damage? why is it that climate change is almost exclusively pushed by people trying to enact socialism?

>>11042415
>Daily reminder that Venus has some of the coldest poles in the solar system due to greenhouse gasses.
???

>>11042415
>>11042447
It's true, and this is exactly what you would expect from the greenhouse effect, as Venus's axis of rotation is on it's side its poles never encounter direct sunlight, and as it rotates extremely slowly it does not have a well mixed atmosphere, and therefore significant convection cannot occur. This means that the poles which never receive energy from the sun or convection stay cold.

>>11042432
Well whatever you're "expecting" certainly isn't gonna cause warming or the poles to melt. If anything it would keep the poles frozen. Sucks to be misinformed by theorists who rely on no empirical evidence.
Also unlike Venus, we fortunatly have these things called "plants"

>>11042447
Oh what! They didn't tell you that did they? That other planets also have these areas where the sun doesn't shine called "poles"? Maybe cause they simply like parroting the average temp because it serves as a better example for confusing people into believing that insulation only insulates heat. Protip: there's this thing called a "cooler". It keeps you drink cold. It has insulation in it.

>>11042438
>why does the wavelength change simply by being reflected by the earth?
>wavelength is entirely dependent on the temperature of the body emitting light, the sun is 5000 degrees while the earth is around 20 degrees

>is it really sufficient to alter global temperatures enough to cause catastrophic damage?
yes

>why is it that climate change is almost exclusively pushed by people trying to enact socialism?
It's mainly because your favorite parties are unashamedly corporate shills, taking action against climate change is bad for short term profits, and the shareholders are planning on dying before it becomes an issue.

>>11042464
you do know the difference between where venus's poles are in relation to the sun and earths right?

>>11042438
>why does the wavelength change simply by being reflected by the earth?
Because when you add energy to a molecule it vibrates in various ways that determine the wavelengths of energy that it emits. Whenever you warm something by letting it sit in sunlight you are changing energy from the sunlight into infrared heat.

>is it really sufficient to alter global temperatures enough to cause catastrophic damage?
Of course, the global temperature is determined by how much energy enters and leaves Earth. All of the energy leaving Earth is either reflected sunlight or infrared heat being radiated into space.

The effect of CO2 on this process can be directly observed: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>why is it that climate change is almost exclusively pushed by people trying to enact socialism?
Which scientists are socialists? Why is climate change exclusively denied by conservatives?

>>11042471
So then the tilt causes warming and not CO2?

>>11042478
I'm honestly not sure I can explain this in any simpler terms, Venus has cold poles because they never receive energy from the sun, or convection. Neither of those are true on earth.

remember when it was usually pretty easy to tell if someone was legitimately retarded or just trolling you?

>>11042466
so the earth is going to be destroyed and the only way to fix it is global socialism?
sounds like a hoax if I've ever heard one
especially since they've been pushing this since the 40s

>>11042481
So where did all the ice on our poles come from then? All the sun it gets must have made it right?

>>11042472
>Why is climate change exclusively denied by conservatives?
because the only solutions anyone proposes are socialism

>>11042486
you do realize the average tempurature on earth is significantly lower than venus right?

>>11042491
is it because there's less co2?

>>11042491
You do realize the poles on earth are cold and recieve little energy from the sun right? You do realize we're further away and spin faster right?

>>11042500
actually yes

>>11042458
>>11042464
My confusion is over why you think this is somehow caused by the greenhouse effect, it's not. The greenhouse effect is not an insulation since it doesn't affect the transfer of energy from the Sun to the Earth.

>>11042438
Most things radiate the light they absorb at a lower frequency then what they absorb it at. The Earth is no exception, but it's more complicated than the homogeneous representation I presented you with, different parts reflect light differently and do different things with the energy they absorb. Those complications in part give rise to weather systems and create feedback loops to establish the climate.

Changes to the climate can be catastrophic, especially if they happen faster than organisms can adapt. Largely it's a question of "catastrophic for who?" because most changes in climate will cause some species or another to go extinct regardless of the rate it occurs. Climate change will be catastrophic for humans if it causes the pollinators to become extinct, or our crops and food animals can't adapt quickly enough (or aren't given extra shelter), or of weather patterns change such that the good cropland becomes unusable, or if temperature extremes make large areas of the earth uninhabitable. The higher we raise the average global temperature the more likely each of those senarios becomes and if too many of them happen then we'll be faced with a societal collapse.

I have no idea why socialism has been gaining traction lately, or why climate change is used as a shoehorn for socialism. It could be that they don't see any free market solutions for curbing pollution and transitioning to a sustainable economy, or maybe they feel they need for perpetual growth fostered by capitalism is anathema to creating a sustainable economy. Personally I like socialism as a socioeconomic system, but I don't see it as the only solution to climate change. It would probably even slow action on a solution because you'd have to overhaul the markets or the government or both to establish the socialist system to enact your solution. Ultimately, if more people demand it then the market will shift to perform sustainably, but that may require regulations or a carbon tax/tariff.

>>11042490
A carbon tax is not socialism, and governments tax things all the time. You accuse others of having a political agenda when the only one denying scientific facts for political reasons is you.

>>11042508
But it does effect the transfer of energy from the earth to space, the fact that it doesn't effect sun to earth is why it increases the temperature in the system

>>11042464
>Well whatever you're "expecting" certainly isn't gonna cause warming or the poles to melt
Yep, we'll transition from our climate to Venus's climate smoothly, it won't be at all chaotic with many different stages. No, it'll simply get colder at the poles and hotter everywhere else.

I hope you're trolling

>>11042509
Pollinators don't like cold. That's why they hibernate and wait it out. Same with plants.

Socialism is on the rise because unsuprisingly enough, technology has made this generation too lazy for work and more time to think about what free shit they can try to get.

>>11042490
Common sense is "socialism"?
I'm very interested if you could give us example of

- "neutral" solution
And other example of biased solution opposite to what you call "socialism"

>>11036651
You’re still pretty far off.
t. Pilot

>>11036605
Stop reading about climate change.
Worrying never solved anything.
You'll notice nothing will change, except the weather.

>>11042515
It wont because we dont have the tilt or orbit venus does and never will. Try again.
>>11042511
There is no such thing as a scientific fact because science is a tool you massive dunderhead.

>>11042529
lol

>>11042502
not because venus is significantly closer to the sun?
>>11042511
the green new deal is not "a carbon tax"
>>11042522
neither is it "common sense"
in fact, there is nothing "common sensical" about following models that have consistently and falsely predicted imminent apocalypse for decades

A carbon tax is all we need.
We can keep expanding our oil, gas, and coal infrastructure and keep increasing our consumption but if we have a carbon tax all of that will magically go away eventually due to innovation.

t. psychotic market worshipper cultist

>>11042521
>They'll just sleep, bro
How well do your tomatoes overwinter? Temperature isn't the only aspect of climate. Some places will become too wet and other places will become too dry to support crops and the other plants that pollinators need to survive.

I like socialism because if I had received a UBI then I wouldn't have wasted a decade trying to sustain myself with a minimum wage job while I aquired my education. More free time means expertise can be aquired faster, and not having to work 80 hours a month to afford rent means more free time.

>>11042566
What happens when a source of energy becomes financially non viable?

>>11042558
>in fact, there is nothing "common sensical" about following models that have consistently and falsely predicted imminent apocalypse for decades

what models are these? climate models have proven to be extremely accurate

>>11042574
A CARBON TAX IS ALL WE NEED?!?!
DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT!!!
PAY ME MORE FOR FOOD SHELTER AND MOBILITY RETARD

>>11042572

>I like socialism because if I had received a UBI then I wouldn't have wasted a decade trying to sustain myself with a minimum wage job while I aquired my education. More free time means expertise can be aquired faster, and not having to work 80 hours a month to afford rent means more free time.

Amazing pasta potential, let me give a shot of the actual reality of the mumbo jumbo you just typed

I like socialism because if I had a UBI then I wouldn't have wasted a decade trying to be self sufficient like the dumbest animals on the planet are capable of. More free time means expertise can be wasted faster, and not having to work a blistering 1/9th of a month to afford rent in my high population density expensive area means more free time....for minecraft of course.

Pretty sure heat is still better than the inert cold by the way.

>>11042584
Excellent strawman you have there, but it's not even a clever deconstruction.

>Pretty sure heat is still better than the inert cold by the way.
Are you implying that if we weren't emitting greenhouse gasses that we would freeze, or is this some other nonsense that I'm just not getting?

>>11042574
>What happens when demand exceeds supply.

It will become expensive. Meaning that only the rich will get to pollute, kind of like how it will work once carbon taxes are implimented.

> no the rich won't offset the tax by increasing the cost and passing it off to the consumer.

Said every paid off politician ever.

>>11042578
I'm sure you've seen the video of Bernie sanders saying we had only had a few years left in 1987

>>11042591
is bernie sanders the name of a climate model? How have I not heard of this one?

>>11042589
>no the rich won't offset the tax by increasing the cost and passing it off to the consumer.

good thing we have antitrust laws, which mean any company that tries this will get priced out of the market virtually overnight.

>>11042587
Why do you still not know what an insulator does? Also yes if we had no greenhouse gas then the planet would have no atmosphere, no ability to insulate heat or cold.

Also its not a stawman cause you never elaborated on what you actually do on you "free time" and based on the info you provided you obviously don't like work or rent. So if it's not minecraft then what is it?

I've never met any "conservative" with such little faith in the free market, I feel like I'm speaking to a bunch of commies who are trying to sell me straight up communism

>>11042593
are you implying Bernie lied about existing climate models?

>>11042608
How would I know? Post the exact quote and context and maybe you can tell me. In any case last I checked Bernie was hardly an expert in climate science

>>11042596
Oh so thats why all those jobs went to China! The place that loves coal and has no carbon tax. Maybe China should have all the cheap energy while we bankrupt ourselves.

>>11042604
I've never met a market worshipper cultist that didn't try throwing around label buzzwords on anyone that disagreed with their absurd "solutions" to environmental degradation and climate change.

>>11042612
You have a point maybe allowing corporations to do whatever they want, isn't beneficial to the citizens of a nation. I don't like socialism but you've made some pretty compelling arguments.

>>11042558
>falsely predicted imminent apocalypse for decades
>falsely
You already have catastrophe caused directly by Climate Change, you are just in denial because you don't understand how it concern you.
It's like refusing to pay tax for Fireman thinking the fire will stop in front of your house.

>>11042616
You honestly have some pretty good points, what are your plans to reign in capitalism and put a stop to endless consumption? Anything that can be realistically achieved within the next 10 years?

>>11042611
have you not seen the video?
>>11042627
what catastrophes are directly and definitively linked to climate change?

>>11042631
1) rationing
2) moratorium on all new development

2 means a lot of construction workers will be out of work so UBI for them to keep the drugged out racist fucks from going on a rampage against immigrants.

>>11042633
No actually, I find a little disturbing you seem to take anything a politician says on faith without fact checking though.

>>11042636
Pretty massive political upheaval, do you think there is enough support among voters to achieve this in a realistic timeframe?

>>11042643
>do you think there is enough support among voters to achieve this
fuck no. not at the level of education they have.
but your carbon tax will not work either.

>>11042644
So your proposal is to just do nothing?

>>11042649
what can you do in a democracy when the people actually want to do nothing?

you could start by being honest about the problem and trying educate people as much as possible.

clearly, no one is buying the "carbon tax" is all we need shtick except stupid people.

>>11042638

>>11042638
so what do you believe the best solution for climate change is?

>>11042653
I don't think a carbon tax is enough to completely solve the problem, but it's at least a start, the sooner we make non polluting energy generation and transportation possible the better our future looks.

>>11042659
Right now, the best solutions are to incentivize behaviors that won't increase warming, this applies to virtually every industry, power generation, transportation, manufacturing, we have alternative technologies in all these industries which emit far far less GHGs but they currently aren't as cheap so corporations can't attempt to reduce emissions without risking being out competed by those that don't

>>11042671
I think a carbon tax could be part of the solution but on its own is kind of useless.

>>11042679
give me a tangible solution
"incentivize behaviors" is meaningless

>>11042682
The clean air and water acts of the 60s and 70s come to mind.

>>11042686
so we already solved it?

>>11042697
They don't apply directly to greenhouse gasses sadly, but we've solved a very very similar problem in the past yes.

>>11042599
>Also yes if we had no greenhouse gas then the planet would have no atmosphere, no ability to insulate heat or cold.
So the only thing maintaining the atmosphere is human emissions and the Earth is magical superconducting rock that is incapable of retaining heat? You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>Also its not a stawman cause you never elaborated
It's exactly a strawman. Your assumptions don't change the fact that you're setting up an argument that was never presented specifically for the purpose of taking it apart to strengthen your own argument.

>So if it's not minecraft then what is it?
Obviously studying, I thought I made that pretty clear. Besides the lack of time I couldn't afford to attend classes every semester. That adds quite a lot of time to the process.

>>11042710
>So the only thing maintaining the atmosphere is human emissions and the Earth is magical superconducting rock that is incapable of retaining heat? You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Where did he say human emissions? are you braindead?

>https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
> Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).

please for the love of God tell me you haven't graduated highschool yet.

>>11042719
>-18°C is no heat
>The context of this conversation isn't human emissions
Please for the love of God tell me you haven't graduated highschool yet.

>>11042710
>So the only thing maintaining the atmosphere is human emissions

Greenhouse gas. Yes. Like watervapor.

>Your assumptions don't change the fact that you're setting up an argument that was never presented specifically for the purpose of taking it apart to strengthen your own argument.

You youself said that you wasted your time trying to sustain yourself with work and would rather have freetime. You never elaborated further. What am i misrepresenting? The only thing I've assumed is that you're gonna play minecraft with you free time but that's not a misrepresentation because you never elaborated on what you would do with it. Sit and think all day under a tree like Buddha perhaps? What?

>Obviously studying, I thought I made that pretty clear

Yeah that'll put food in your belly. Maybe if you study a cow long enough it'll cook itself into a meal for you. Are you Matilda by chance?

>>11042701
how is it similar?

>>11042733
>-18°C is no heat
> IF IT'S NOT 0K I WIN GET FUCKED IDIOT!!!!!!11111

this has to be satire.

>The context of this conversation isn't human emissions

the previous poster clearly stated if there were no greenhouse gasses on earth NOT if there were not human emissions. Your failure to understand basic English is your own.

>>11042701
unregulated emission of pollutants from industry were damaging the environment and public wellbeing so we regulated things and fixed the problem. We're in pretty much the exact same situation today, although now it's global rather than localized.

>>11042741
Nobody is concerned about the naturally occurring ghgs that are in equilibrium and keep our planet in the range we like it, we're concerned about the previously sequestered ghgs that are being added to the atmosphere at an alarming rate and the resulting warming that pushes us out of the range we like.

>You youself said that you wasted your time trying to sustain yourself with work and would rather have freetime. You never elaborated further.
Oh, boy. Alright, I'll do the job that your education system clearly failed to do
>sustain myself with a minimum wage job while I aquired my education.
>with a minimum wage job while I aquired my education
>while I aquired my education
>aquired my education
>my education
>education
Now if you read this sentence slowly, sounding out every word and being careful not to skip any, then you'll notice that I specifically mentioned my education. In this context that implies that work is interfering in my education.

>Yeah that'll put food in your belly.
No, that's what the UBI would be for. I can study more because I don't have to spend as much time acquiring food. Funny enough, aquaponic system are among my studies so over time it does actually put literal food in my belly.

>>11042745
The context of this entire thread is human emissions, so the fact that oxygen and nitrogen exist isn't really important. You're being equally pedantic by refusing to acknowledge that -18°C is several hundred degrees north of "no heat".

>>11042775
>N-No YOURE THE ONE WHOSE BEING HYPERBOLIC!!!

Ok I'm clearly just being trolled at this point.

I was wondering if my understanding was off about climate change. Are any of of these statements are incorrect?
1: Climate change will cause global damage via hurricanes, drought, flooding, forest fires, (earthquakes?).
2: All of these things can be prevented or reduced adequately reduced by some amount of science and engineering.
3: People (likely very many) will die as a result of climate change.
4: Wealthy and important people are not in danger from the effects of climate change.
5: The country with the best economy will be the most resilient to the effects of climate change (not accounting for land RNG).
6: The country with the biggest military will be the most resilient to the threat of war or invasion due to climate change.
7: Companies and workers stand to benefit from some effects of climate change as it opens up a lot of demand.
9: The longer we wait on climate change the more we will need from scientists, engineers and the more demand there will be.
10: Areas affected by funding or subsidization are effected by inertia to have a tendency to retain more funding than areas not affected.
11: Climate change and WWII can be fairly compared and it is not dishonest or foolish to do so.

From this we can conclude that climate change isn't inherently a bad and will lead to a lot of good if you ignore the suffering of some people; however this kind of systemic violence is already culturally accepted and the western world could not currently function in the way that it does without it. If you knew WWII was coming in 1930 it would make a lot more sense to try and go into the firearms business than do peace protests in Germany.

>>11042789
1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11 are all incorrect
10 is an incoherent mess - can you rephrase?

>>11042770
>Oh, boy. Alright, I'll do the job that your education system clearly failed to do.

So you'll actually do something instead of wasting time figuring out what to do and telling others what to do? Seriously doubt that since you believe that UBI is just a never ending well for "thinkers" to plunder.

>No, that's what the UBI would be for.

Where does the income come from you moron? Everyone else doesn't have to work and gets to play like stupid you now so who is gonna fund it? Circular reasoning itself?

>I can study more because I don't have to spend as much time acquiring food. Funny enough, aquaponic system are among my studies so over time it does actually put literal food in my belly.

So then you do want to work. Unless you are actually Matilda and the fish is gonna levitate into your hot air dispenser.

Most people go to school for education in order to get a better job, but I guess you're just going to school because you were convinced to. Or maybe because you actally wanted to be smarter. Well unfortunately there is no free school of Athens for you to actually learn how to think. Only paid sophists that tell you what to think. So enjoy your debt and pondering someone elses thoughts, its probably what caused you to believe that something comes from nothing like the idea of UBI suggests.

>>11042512
Yes, which is why saying Venus's poles are cold because of greenhouse gases is retarded.

>>11042787
I don't think you know what that word means

>>11042835
>Where does the income come from you moron?
Everyone above a certain income. Everyone in the US could have $1000 per month by doubling the tax rate. The only alternative to this that I would support is raising the minimum wage to match the cost of living at about $25/hour and legislation to have it adjust automatically every year. Either way it's less labor for the right to exist.

>So then you do want to work.
Now you're just playing semantics games. I don't want to work a meaningless job to earn a wage under the poverty line while being told that if I work harder then I'll earn the privilege to afford more than the basics of survival. Guess what I have to do until I aquire specific skills or start my own business? Guess what isn't conducive to either of those things?

>>11042915
self actualization is a sign of a dying society

>>11042915
>Everyone above a certain income.

Just what I thought. All work and no play makes Jack your sugar daddy.

>Everyone in the US could have $1000 per month by doubling the tax rate

Wealth redistribution with a different description.

>The only alternative to this that I would support is raising the minimum wage to match the cost of living at about $25/hour and legislation to have it adjust automatically every year. Either way it's less labor for the right to exist.

What is the cost of living for a 14 year old looking for an entry level position? That is who minimum wage jobs are really designed for. Young people with lots of energy looking to build a resume and make money. People who don't know how to think or know how to live or work for themselves. Not older people who should have gotten a clue or moved over to the next higher position. Basically what I'm saying is that they're for stupid people who are easily replacable. There are millions of jobs that pay more than minimum wage and you don't even need an education. Just some common sense and work ethic.

>Guess what I have to do until I aquire specific skills or start my own business?

Get a fucking clue for starters and think for yourself. Stop dreaming about me paying your sorry dumbass to fish in minecraft. It doesn't take any groupthink to tell you what to do with your life... Unless of course its the government, which you would need to expand in order to execute this batshit insane idea.

>>11042979
>There are millions of jobs that pay more than minimum wage and you don't even need an education. Just some common sense and work ethic.
Seriously. I got paid nearly double minimum wage at a fucking pizza place because I:
>showed up on time
>cleaned up after myself
that's literally all it takes for a minimum wage employer to do whatever they can to retain you
hell, when I put in my 2 weeks notice (got another job in an office paying ~$4/hr more) they offered to match the rate of the other place and fast track me to corporate management
I didn't take it because I thought the other job was in an industry I preferred
ultimately I made the right choice since it helped me get a cushy job at a university and earn a free MBA that led to a six figure salary, but damn if I wasn't tempted

>>11042892
I refuse to believe anyone can be unironically as stupid as you're pretending to be.

>>11042797
Can you explain in which ways they are incorrect? And 10 just means that if X department's demand goes up and their funding goes up, then time passes and their demand goes up; due to the work required to lower their funding they will have an average net increase in funding afterwards compared to a department who never got the extra funding. This could play out in multiple ways, like if there is a delay in lowering the money they get a bonus, of their money is lowered but to a higher amount it was initially they get a raise, or maybe the policy is that funding is cut if they go under budget so they retain the money. It also costs money to fire people and if there is a new big project that they would normally not do but because the costs of upscaling are already mitigated it is more feasible.

>>11042558
So the green new deal is "the only solution anyone proposes?"

>>11043001
Alright, just so you're clear, hyperbole is overstatement for dramatic effect. It has nothing to do with pedantry.

>>11042627
>You already have catastrophe caused directly by Climate Change,

NAME IT ! Name something that is ONLY caused by climate change, that would NOT have occurred without man made climate change.

>>11042979
>Wealth redistribution with a different description
It is exactly redistribution of wealth. Remember at the start of this conversation when I said I liked socialism as a socioeconomic system? Socialism is the redistribution of wealth.

>That is who minimum wage jobs are really designed for
That's patently false. The minimum wage was established so that everyone would be able to earn a livable wage and was intended to rise with inflation. Either you're lying or you've been lied to.

>A bunch of nonsense and projection
The average US tax rate is 23.8% and the median income is $32,000. That means that more than half of Americans benefit from a UBI of $1000 generated by doubling the tax rate. The poverty line for a single person is $12,500 so you also nearly eliminate poverty in the US.

>>11042993
This is pure fantasy. I've worked many minimum wage jobs and nobody holding a minimum wage position is ever paid more than $9/hr, and no company offered you ~$18/hr to stay in a minimum wage position.

>>11043546
>Name something that is ONLY caused by climate change
So if smoking is not the ONLY cause for lung cancer, that must mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, right?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-natural-disasters-on-climate-change/

>>11043124
the green new deal has been endorsed by every major politician pushing climate alarmism
so yes

>>11043773
>This is pure fantasy. I've worked many minimum wage jobs and nobody holding a minimum wage position is ever paid more than $9/hr, and no company offered you ~$18/hr to stay in a minimum wage position.
sounds like you're just a lazy fuck
I started at minimum ($8.25 in MA), and within 3 months was at $11/hr
11+4=15, not 18. The new job offered me $15/hr which the "tier above fast food restaurant" matched while offering me the role of associate kitchen manager/expediter. My role would be essentially the same except that I could yell at my coworkers and have a path to upper management.
The fact that you don't think this is possible is evidence you're nothing but another lazy leftist.

>>11044690
False and doesn't follow anyway. Try again.

>>11044714
nice source, bozo

>>11044701
Oh, so you're just bad at math and don't understand what minimum wage or a promotion is. A minimum wage position is a position that starts at minimum wage, and a promotion changes your position. Minimum wage is $7.25/hr, double that would be $14.50/hr, and four dollars more than that is $18.50/hr.

>>11044734
Minimum wage in Massachusetts is $8.25. Double that is $16.50. I got paid "nearly double" at $15. You're being intentionally ignorant here.

I never said I got paid "entirely double and then an additional $4". I gave you the end result: "nearly double" and described how that happened. Now please turn in your internet detective badge because you're being put on an unpaid suspension.

>>11044729
>makes source-less claim
>demands source

>>11044764
>wants me to list literally every major politician pushing climate alarmism with a direct quote from each of their gnd endorsement
should be pretty easy to show me one or two who oppose it if you really think they don't support full blown socialism m8

>>11044762
>I never said I got paid "entirely double and then an additional $4"
You certainly implied it. You said that you were making double minimum wage in the same position and then you said that when you went to put in your two weeks you were promoted with a $4/hr raise.

Maybe I'm being overcritical. The nuances of English are probably irrelevant to a proud pizza manager such as yourself.

>>11044782
>makes unknowable claim
>gets upset when asked to prove it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Criticism

>>11044802
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Criticism
Damn that retard got BTFO how will he ever recover? If I was ever so utterly wrong I would seriously reconsider my entire life.

>>11044787
When did I imply it? Sounds like you made an improper inference.
I did not say the position was the same. I said the employer was the same: "at a fucking pizza place." Your inability to comprehend simple sentences is not my problem. Your badge, please.
>a proud pizza manager such as yourself
looks like you missed the rest of my story too, m8

>>11044802
>John P. Holdren, former science advisor to Obama, thinks the 2030 goal is too optimistic
oh gee such criticism
you really showed me
some people want socialism but don't think they can dupe voters into passing it

>>11044824
The implication was in the fact that you said you were being paid double and then added on the fact of your offered promotion.

Shame you gave up that path to upper management. Hopefully your new job doesn't prize English anymore than the old one.

>>11044828
>Paul Bledsoe of the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank affiliated with the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, expressed concern that setting unrealistic "aspirational" goals of 100% renewable energy could undermine "the credibility of the effort" against climate change.[37]

>Economist Edward Barbier, who developed the "Global Green New Deal" proposal for the United Nations Environment Programme in 2009, opposes "a massive federal jobs program," saying "The government would end up doing more and more of what the private sector and industry should be doing." Barbier prefers carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, in order to "address distortions in the economy that are holding back private sector innovation and investments in clean energy."[61]

>When Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was confronted by youth associated with the Sunrise Movement on why she does not support the Green New Deal, she told them "there’s no way to pay for it" and that it could not pass a Republican-controlled Senate. In a tweet following the confrontation, Feinstein said that she remains committed "to enact real, meaningful climate change legislation."[62]

So let's see, not all politicians support the GND, the list of supporters is only a fraction of Congress, and, most importantly, saying that politicians support the GND does not mean it's the "the only solution anyone proposes," You lose again, retard.

>>11042633
>>11043546
>what catastrophes are directly and definitively linked to climate change?
All catastrophes made more numerous and worse by Climate change
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/12/10/climate-change-was-behind-weather-disasters/
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-natural-disasters-link-increase-global-warming-report-warning-a8103556.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmurray1/2019/09/13/two-degrees-of-separation-from-climate-change-catastrophe/

The majority of the scientific community agree and the minotiry who deny it are often corrupted by the few who make billions or gain political power from the reckless exploitation of Earth.

>>11044854
No. I told you the end result then detailed how that was achieved. This is an extremely common practice in story telling. You're just salty you've never been paid higher than minimum because you're a lazy fuck who failed to graduate college and are now strapped with debt you'll never be able to repay.

>>11044861
Oh wow so Paul Bledsoe wants that end result but doesn't think voters will swallow the socialism pill? Edward Barbier too? And Dianne Feinstein just wouldn't endorse it because it would never pass the Republican Senate?

Wow so great, you really showed me you dumb faggot.
>>11044871
>muh 97% of scientists meme
this has been debunked dozens of times

>>11044928
>this has been debunked dozens of times
Fakenew propagated by the big polluter

>>11043773
>Socialism is the redistribution of wealth

Communism, with a different descriptor.

>That's patently false. The minimum wage was established so that everyone would be able to earn a livable wage and was intended to rise with inflation. Either you're lying or you've been lied to

Originally implimented in the great depression era to get workers back on their feet. Also specifically to help sweatshop workers, who were mainly women and children.
Yeah, it was enforced by the government and what a surprise that it didn't end up working well past the extremes of the great depression. Good luck expanding it, it'll work less than it already doesn't.

>The average US tax rate is 23.8% and the median income is $32,000. That means that more than half of Americans benefit from a UBI of $1000 generated by doubling the tax rate. The poverty line for a single person is $12,500 so you also nearly eliminate poverty in the US.

"I want to fuck half the country over so I can sit in Blue's Clues thinking chair".
It's not gonna fly you idiot. Anyone who would be forced to pay for your lazy ass under a tyrannical government that forces them to would just end up leaving or going poor like yourself. Then no one is gonna pay for your free money every month except yourself which would beg the question " why did we impliment such a pants on head retarded system that bankrupts the hardworking rich for the dumb and useless to pay their own stipends. Or maybe you won't be asking yourself that if by that point everyone had already been dumbed down enough into povery and psychosis that it just becomes the new normal.

Everyone will be stupid and poor so no one will be and then you'll be equals. Equality by depravity, but at least you'll have 1000 dollars a month. Just enough to buy a couple loafs of bread.

>>11044951
The 97% stat was created by a fucking journalist who read some scientific journals, and put them into buckets of "doesn't mention human involvement" and "mentions human involvement." 97% of the arbitrary journals he read mentioned human involvement to some degree, so he took the massive logical leap of stating "97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans" rather than "97% of the journals I read indicated some level of human involvement in climate change." It's a bullshit stat created by a 100% bullshitter.

>>11044928
Nice attempt at moving the goalposts once again, but you forgot to delete your posts:

>because the only solutions anyone proposes are socialism

>the green new deal has been endorsed by every major politician pushing climate alarmism

You lost, get over it, lying retard.

>>11044975
>moving the goalposts
in what way?
the people you cited explicitly stated they would support the socialism if they thought it would pass the legislative barrier

>>11044973
>The 97% stat was created by a fucking journalist who read some scientific journals, and put them into buckets of "doesn't mention human involvement" and "mentions human involvement."
Why are you lying? What he actually did is separate the papers between those that stated a position on whether global warming is occurring and caused by humans. Among those that stated a position, 97% concluded that global warming is occurring and caused by humans. This has been confirmed by several other studies, both examining the published research and directly polling scientists.

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

>>11044975
Name one solution to climate change that would not have to be enforced by the government.

>>11044981
>in what way?
First you said that the only solutions proposed are socialism. Then you switched to saying that every politician supports the GND (which doesn't mean the GND is the only proposed solution). Now you switched yet again to saying, "OK not every politician supports the GND, but they want socialism." As I have pointed out throughout this thread, none of this is even relevant since the major proposed solution to AGW is a carbon tax, not "socialism."

>>11044989
Why?

>>11044986
>What he actually did is separate the papers between those that stated a position on whether global warming is occurring and caused by humans
No, he separated them as to whether the position was that ANY amount of warming was affected by human activity. Pretty rich you're accusing me of lying when he claims this on his own fucking website.

>>11044989
>Name one solution to ozone depletion that would not have to be enforced by the government.
>See you can't do it, therefore ozone depletion is a fake socialist conspiracy!!!!11

>>11044997
Every climate alarmist politician supports socialism. This is fact. GND is an example of a widely supported socialist proposal, with the only detractors saying they support the goal (of socialism) but don't think it can be implemented in the current political climate.
My position and claim has not changed. You're just retarded.

>>11044973
The idea that you need 100% to make Climate change true is the fake news they invented.
A single scientific proper study impossible to refute would be enough proof, and we have thousand of them.
At this point basic common sense and observation show that mankind need to cut down and work more efficiently.

>>11044981
Politic shouldn't even have anything to do with it.
X side is pro business and only care about making money even if it destroy the planet
Y side is pro people and consider that not destroying the planet we live on should be higher priority
If so happen that whatever party is not benefic to mankind, common sense and survival instinct should have been enough to do the right choice.

>>11045006
Nope, if you actually read the paper you'll see that minimal human causation was counted in the rejection category.

>>11044967
>Communism, with a different descriptor
They're actually different systems. Remember that Orwell decried the death of words.

>Good luck expanding it
It's been expand several times and income disparity is a massive problem right now. We could do away with it entirely if we enact a UBI

>It's not gonna fly you idiot
It's the major campaign promise of a popular presidential candidate. I don't think he'll win and if he does I don't think he could get it past this Congress, but it demonstrates a new political will that will likely grow over time.

Ultimately your opinion is irrelevant so feel free to deny climate science and rail against muh socialism. Whatever happens in the political world will not be changed meaningfully by anything you say or anyone you vote for.

>>11045008
when the left has been using climate alarmism as a back door for socialism for half a century, it's more likely than not to be the case

>>11045010
>A single scientific proper study impossible to refute would be enough proof, and we have thousand of them.
then cite one(1)
>Politic shouldn't even have anything to do with it.
politics has everything to do with it
the implementation of socialism is the end game
If I told you that a big brown bear was going to break into your home unless you joined forces with my (poor) household and used your resources to connect our homes so I could freely access your food and resources, you'd rightfully be skeptical that I was trying to scare you into just giving me your stuff. When I say "sharing of resources has nothing to do with it, we should be focusing on the BEAR", that doesn't make it so.
>>11045012
incorrect

>>11045010
and fyi the vast majority of that 97% fall into cook's category of "explicit endorsement without quantification" meaning "some involvement"

>>11045008
I said climate change not ozone depletion. Try again.

>>11045003
>>11045003
If you are forced to pay for a service you never wanted then that seems pretty tyrannical if you ask me.

>>11044986
>you're wrong! That study was even less scientific then you first thought!

I fucking love it. You wouldn't know what science is even if some actual empirical evidence came along for you to use.

>>11045010
>>11045012
>Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.
t. Dr. Richard Tol
>That is not an accurate representation of my paper
t. Dr. Craig Idso
>Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.
t. Dr. Nir Shaviv
>Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument
t. Dr. Nicola Scafetta
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

>>11045009
>Every climate alarmist politician supports socialism. This is fact.
Then prove it.

>GND is an example of a widely supported socialist proposal
It's not even widely supported. Only a fraction of Democrats support it.

And yet again you fail to respond to the fact that the major proposed solution to AGW is a carbon tax, not "socialism." Pathetic.

>>11045023
>I said climate change not ozone depletion.
So you agree that ozone depletion is a socialist hoax?

>If you are forced to pay for a service you never wanted then that seems pretty tyrannical if you ask me.
Then everything the government does is tyrannical to you. Why is solving global warming "socialist"? Just argue that the entire government should be abolished.

>you're wrong! That study was even less scientific then you first thought!
How is it less scientific? And why are you ignoring every other study that confirmed it, including direct polls? Because you have no response. What a retard.

>>11045029
the vast majority of house democrats support the GND
that's why they refused to vote on it you retard
now in what way do you believe a carbon tax will help?
will it do anything to the vast majority of carbon consumers except raise their costs?

>>11045025
>Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise" Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
>Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C). I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

>Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
>Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

>>11045013
>They're actually different systems. Remember that Orwell decried the death of words.

Descriptions are not explinations.


>Good luck expanding it
It's been expand several times and income disparity is a massive problem right now.

Wonder what helped cause that disparity.

>We could do away with it entirely if we enact a UBI
>we'll replace wealth redistribution with another form of it.
Have fun getting the same results.

It's the major campaign promise of a popular presidential candidate. I don't think he'll win and if he does I don't think he could get it past this Congress, but it demonstrates a new political will that will likely grow over time.

Hahaha i know about weakling clone asian Bernie Sanders. How does it feel falling for someone who literally pays people to meme him on this website? A venture capitalist who pays to subvert you, and you fell for it. Why?

>Ultimately your opinion is irrelevant so feel free to deny climate science and rail against muh socialism. Whatever happens in the political world will not be changed meaningfully by anything you say or anyone you vote for.

All I can say is "4 more years". Also please show me a graph, with a source that shows a 1000 year history and comparison of CO2 and temperature so that we can see the facts. That way we won't have to rely on journalists opinions.

>>11045039
>Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize" Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
>Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement: "The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."
>I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit REJECTION with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.
>With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2."

>>11045034
I never made a claim regarding ozone depletion.

>Then everything the government does is tyrannical to you.

Basically yeah.

>How is it less scientific?
Journalist opinions based on no empirical evidence are not scentific.

>And why are you >ignoring every other study that confirmed it, including direct polls? Because you have no response. What a retard.

Vostok ice core samples are thw most comprehensive study on the history of the planet s climate and confirms that CO2 lags behind tempurature. Also anyone with an iota of common sense can empirically show that fire and heat cause smoke, not the other way around. Try operating a stove sometime and see for yourself.

>>11045025
>>11045039
>>11045064
If you let scientists rate their own paper you get the same result.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
>We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

And you're yet again ignoring all the other studies that confirmed the 97% consensus. You lose.

>>11045018
>incorrect
Why are you lying?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

>(5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results'

>(6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming '...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'

>(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming 'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission'

Can someone please tell me why AGW deniers constantly lie about information that is publicly available and easy to quote?

>>11045015
If it's a backdoor for socialism, why is the major proposed solution simply a carbon tax?

>>11039110
This but unironically.

>>11036605
Its fake+gay

>>11037452
I thought I was on reddit for a moment.

>>11045074
>Explicitendorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).
>Details of the survey text are provided in the
supplementary information (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/
8/024024/mmedia)[dead link]
The survey asked what percent could be attributed to human activity and then classified AGAIN by the surveyors NOT the scientists who authored the journals

>Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
>Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
>Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
>What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
>The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
>By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%.

>>11045035
>the vast majority of house democrats support the GND
The wikipedia page lists 97 members of the House supporting the GND. So that's less than half of the number of House Democrats. How is a minority = "vast majority?"

>>11045082
AGW is explicitly denied by multiple scientists Cook et al. claimed endorsed it as cited in this thread.
>>11045083
>get people on board with the "problem" by saying "look 97%" and "we need to do SOMETHING"
>get onerous tax passed
>does nothing
>"NO WE NEED TO DO MORE WE NEED SOCIALISM"
is it really that hard for you to see?
let me guess: you're also a socialist

>>11045097
support doesn't mean explicit endorsement

>>11045070
>I never made a claim regarding ozone depletion.
So the same argument can't be applied to ozone depletion because...? Is there a reason or are you just a hypocrite?

>Journalist opinions based on no empirical evidence are not scentific.
OK, but how is the study not scientific?

>Vostok ice core samples are thw most comprehensive study on the history of the planet s climate
This doesn't respond to my question, and it's false to boot. The Vostok ice cores are a history of the climate in one area in East Antarctica, not the planet. The most comprehensive study of the planet's climate is being conducted right now with thermometers. If you want to go older than that you need a global reconstruction. There are several available, and I suggest you go look at them.

>and confirms that CO2 lags behind tempurature.
Wrong. http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

>Also anyone with an iota of common sense can empirically show that fire and heat cause smoke, not the other way around.
CO2 is not smoke, so what your point?

>>11045034
>>11045117
Thanks for making clear you are just a troll.
You've reach the level of bullshit minimum for me not to worry about you contaminating others.

>>11045096
>The survey asked what percent could be attributed to human activity and then classified AGAIN by the surveyors NOT the scientists who authored the journals
Again, why are you lying? If you look at the supplemental information it shows the exact text of the survey email. The participants were asked to select their category from a drop-down:

https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291suppdata.pdf

So now you've objectively lied twice about publicly available information. Why???

>>11045105
Ah I forgot you can read the minds of those who have not stated they support the GND and can therefore conclude that the majority supports it. Problem solved.

>>11045120
>ignores every argument
>calls others a troll

>>11045138
and the main text of the so-called "study" explicitly states fewer than 35% of the studies ACTUALLY endorsed AGW
studies that talk about global change
then they manipulate the data to eliminate ones that are neutral.
Now do you actually have a response to the direct quotes from scientists misclassified or are you going to continue to push shit stats?

>>11045103
>AGW is explicitly denied by multiple scientists Cook et al. claimed endorsed it as cited in this thread.
A few scientists out of thousands. Again, the conclusions were replicated by other studies and by direct surveys.

>get people on board with the "problem" by citing scientific evidence
>get tax passed that gradually transitions the economy away from fossil fuels
>trillions of dollars saved by mitigating harm from global warming
>IT'S SOCIALISM REEEEEEEE!!!!1
Why are you being such an alarmist?

>>11045153
>and the main text of the so-called "study" explicitly states fewer than 35% of the studies ACTUALLY endorsed AGW
0% of scientific papers endorse the Earth being round!

>Now do you actually have a response to the direct quotes from scientists misclassified or are you going to continue to push shit stats?
I did already respond to it, a few mistakes don't change the conclusion, which has been replicated in many different ways.

Now do you actually have a response to why you lied about publicly available information twice? I really need to understand the psychology of why you feel the need to lie to support your position. Thanks.

>>11036605
I hope the climate changes quickly, i want to see the collapse of civilizations.

Oh, how i wish to see the world burn.

>>11045145
pick one who hasn't explicitly endorsed it and we'll research their position:
Terri Sewell, Tom O'Halleran, Ann Kirkpatrick, Ruben Gallego, Greg Stanton, Ami Bera, Jerry McNerney, Josh Harder, Nancy Pelosi, Jim Costa, TJ Cox, Katie Hill, Julia Brownley, Tony Cárdenas, Brad Sherman, Norma Torres, Raul Ruiz, Linda Sánchez, Gil Cisneros, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Nanette Barragán, Katie Porter, Lou Correa, Harley Rouda, Scott Peters, Diana DeGette, Jason Crow, Ed Perlmutter, John B. Larson, Jim Himes, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Al Lawson, Stephanie Murphy, Darren Soto, Val Demings, Charlie Crist, Kathy Castor, Lois Frankel, Ted Deutch, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Frederica Wilson, Donna Shalala, Sanford Bishop, Hank Johnson, John Lewis, Lucy McBath, David Scott, Ed Case, Tulsi Gabbard, Bobby Rush, Robin Kelly, Dan Lipinski, Sean Casten, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider, Bill Foster, Lauren Underwood, Cheri Bustos, Pete Visclosky, André Carson, Abby Finkenauer, Dave Loebsack, Cindy Axne, Sharice Davids, John Yarmuth, Cedric Richmond, Jared Golden, Anthony G. Brown, Steny Hoyer, David Trone, Richard Neal, Jim McGovern, Dan Kildee, Elissa Slotkin, Haley Stevens, Debbie Dingell, Brenda Lawrence, Angie Craig, Dean Phillips, Ilhan Omar, Collin Peterson, Bennie Thompson, Emanuel Cleaver, Dina Titus, Susie Lee, Steven Horsford, Chris Pappas, Ann McLane Kuster, Donald Norcross, Jeff Van Drew, Andy Kim, Josh Gottheimer, Frank Pallone, Tom Malinowski, Albio Sires, Donald Payne Jr., Mikie Sherrill, Xochitl Torres Small, Ben Ray Luján, Kathleen Rice, Hakeem Jeffries, Max Rose, José E. Serrano, Antonio Delgado, Paul Tonko, Anthony Brindisi, Joseph Morelle, G. K. Butterfield, Joyce Beatty, Marcy Kaptur, Tim Ryan, Kendra Horn, Kurt Schrader, Dwight Evans, Madeleine Dean, Mary Gay Scanlon, Chrissy Houlahan, Susan Wild, Matt Cartwright, Conor Lamb, Mike Doyle, James Langevin, Joe Cunningham, Jim Clyburn, Jim Cooper, Lizzie Pannill Fletcher

>>11045145
>>11045180
Al Green, Vicente González, Sheila Jackson Lee, Henry Cuellar, Sylvia Garcia, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Colin Allred, Marc Veasey, Filemon Vela Jr., Ben McAdams, Elaine Luria, Donald McEachin, Abigail Spanberger, Don Beyer, Jennifer Wexton, Suzan DelBene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Kim Schrier, Denny Heck, Ron Kind, Gwen Moore

>>11045159
>A few scientists out of thousands.
No, an alarmingly large number of scientists who claim the interpretation is wildly false in a single direction, indicating it's not random error.
>Again, the conclusions were replicated by other studies and by direct surveys.
The "direct survey" had less than a 10% response rate, AND refuted the original claim. The data was then further manipulated to omit the self reported papers with no position to get the 97% number.
Consider this: we have 100 candy experts (fatties) in a room. We hand out surveys asking them to tell us whether they believe snickers are the greatest candy bar ever made. 66.4% of those experts (fatties) mark "no opinion" while 0.7% mark "it is not the greatest candy" and 32.6% mark "it is the greatest candy"
You then throw out all the "no opinion" surveys and claim "97.1% of candy experts (fatties) agree that snickers is the greatest candy ever made"
Do you now understand how this is misleading and dishonest?

>trillions of dollars saved
source?
>>11045163
>0% of scientific papers endorse the Earth being round!
that's why the "implicit endorsement" category existed in both the """"""study""""" and the survey
did you even read it?
>I did already respond to it
you don't get to say that when you respond after I asked you to, dumbass
>Now do you actually have a response to why you lied about publicly available information twice?
Just clarified it for you (again). It's not a lie.The surveyors even claim they manipulated the data afterward:
>To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).
even this is misleading, because they only classified something as category 4 if it explicitly stated no opinion
if no opinion was stated they just tossed it out

>>11045180
>>11045185
You're the one who made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Enjoy.

>>11045203
nice cop out, fag
all on that list who are climate alarmists are also socialists
this is widely known

>>11045200
>No, an alarmingly large number of scientists who claim the interpretation is wildly false in a single direction, indicating it's not random error.
7 is alarmingly large? LOL no. And of course it's in a single direction, since that is the only direction the blog cares about! Most of the complaints are from deniers whose papers didn't state a conclusion on AGW, so they're not even mistakes.

>The "direct survey"
There are multiple surveys. See >>11044986

>AND refuted the original claim.
How?

>The data was then further manipulated to omit the self reported papers with no position to get the 97% number.
How are papers with no position relevant? Are the number of papers that take no position on whether the Earth is round relevant to the question of whether the Earth is round?

>Consider this: we have 100 candy experts (fatties) in a room. We hand out surveys asking them to tell us whether they believe snickers are the greatest candy bar ever made. 66.4% of those experts (fatties) mark "no opinion" while 0.7% mark "it is not the greatest candy" and 32.6% mark "it is the greatest candy"
You are falsely equivocating an opinion with a scientific paper. "No opinion" is relevant to what opinion people have of a candy bar, since it's a direct answer to the question. A scientific paper that does not answer the question being asked is irrelevant to the question being asked.

>source?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29795251

>that's why the "implicit endorsement" category existed in both the """"""study""""" and the survey did you even read it?
You will find almost no papers implicitly endorsing the Earth being round. So according to you there is no consensus the Earth is round.

>you don't get to say that when you respond after I asked you to, dumbass
So did you not read my previous responses or are you just ignoring them?

>>11045200
>Just clarified it for you (again). It's not a lie.The surveyors even claim they manipulated the data afterward:
>To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).
How is this a "manipulation" when the categories were already named as some variant of "endorsement," "neutral," or "rejection?" You're grasping at straws. Just admit you lied and explain why you did so. Thanks. And I'm still waiting for a response on your lie about how any level of human causation was counted as an endorsement when the category descriptions directly refute that.

>even this is misleading, because they only classified something as category 4 if it explicitly stated no opinion
Please explain how this is different from the description of the category in the email:

"4 Neutral: paper doesn't address or mention issue of what's causing global warming."

>if no opinion was stated they just tossed it out
Because it's irrelevant tot he question.

>>11045210
>I don't have to prove my claims, you do!
Nice cop out, fag.

>>11045048
>All I can say is "4 more years"
Oh no, it's retarded. I know there's no laws preventing someone from running again after they're impeached, but it will sure will put a damper on his chances.

>Also please show me a graph, with a source that shows a 1000 year history and comparison of CO2 and temperature so that we can see the facts
Sure, here you go. It'll be nice to get back to the original topic of anthropogenic global warming.

>>11045273
Yes 7 is alarmingly large when the errors were "the opposite of what I said in my paper".
>multiple surveys
generally with sample sizes not much larger than the 7 you scoff at
>How?
look at the picture in the post your responding to and actually read the post
>How are papers with no position relevant?
Because the CLAIM is that 97% of scientists AFFIRM AGW. This is blatantly false by the very same data they present.
Please remember the papers surveyed were ALREADY prescreened for ones that specifically dealt with climate change.

>You are falsely equivocating an opinion with a scientific paper.
>False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two arguments, which appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not, are deployed to support a claim or basis of critique. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.
>The following statements are examples of false equivalence[7]:
>"The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no different from your neighbor dripping some oil on the ground when changing oil in his car."
>The comparison is between things differing by many orders of magnitude: Deepwater Horizon spilled 210 million US gal (790 million l) of oil; one's neighbor might spill perhaps 1 US pt (0.47 L).
>"They're both living animals that metabolize chemical energy. There's no difference between a pet cat and a pet snail."
>The "equivalence" is in factors that are not relevant to the animals' suitability as pets.
No, I presented a case you could wrap your tiny brain around where the reporting of results is dishonest in an identical fashion.

>ncbi
great, a report saying that IF all of your assumptions are correct then they will be correct
>You will find almost no papers implicitly endorsing the Earth being round.
Literally every paper that uses physics that takes into account the position, size, or curvature of the earth will implicitly endorse this
>So did you not read my previous responses or are you just ignoring them?
I responded already

>>11045295
Do you think "impeach" means "to remove from office?"
.
>but it will sure will put a damper on his chances
Just like Bill Clintons popularity after he was impeached. Basically your line of reasoning seems to be "if we make him look bad he'll be bad". Stop relying on memes as your source or wisdom please, its genuinely embarrassing and the current cause of the destruction of the democrat party.
>Sure, here you go. It'll be nice to get back to the original topic of anthropogenic global warming.

So far you have not provided me the graph or source I asked for

>>11045290
>How is this a "manipulation" when the categories were already named as some variant of "endorsement," "neutral," or "rejection?"
I've already explained this multiple times ITT:
Any paper that has even a hint of endorsement is included in the 97%. Any paper that is entirely neutral is thrown out. This is data manipulation.
>Please explain how this is different from the description of the category in the email
Because if the paper doesn't EXPLICITLY state that it's neutral it was THROWN OUT. How many fucking times do I need to repeat this?
>Because it's irrelevant tot he question.
A paper on climate change that was intentionally included in the study is suddenly "irrelevant tot he [sic] question"? Why did they include them to begin with?

>>11045294
so you can't name one(1) climate alarmist who isn't socialist?

>>11045321
>Do you think "impeach" means "to remove from office?"
Obviously not. Impeachment just allows a president to be held accountable for his crimes. Removal from office is a possible (and in this case likely) result. This is a weak gotcha.

>Just like Bill Clintons popularity after he was impeached.
Exactly, except Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and Trump is being impeached for much more serious crimes.

>So far you have not provided me the graph or source I asked for
Are you 12? The graph you asked for is a subset of the graph I provided. I can see that you're hoping to couch your argument in that region where the temperature overshoots the CO2 concentration probably using the lead/lag narrative. That's intellectually dishonest at best. How about we talk about this very tight correlation over geologic timescales instead?

>>11045362
Picture is irrelevant. I thought I closed the file explorer without choosing anything.

>>11045324
>Any paper that has even a hint of endorsement is included in the 97%. Any paper that is entirely neutral is thrown out. This is data manipulation.
How is this manipulation? How are neutral papers relevant?

>Because if the paper doesn't EXPLICITLY state that it's neutral it was THROWN OUT.
What the fuck are you talking about? Neutral just means no position was stated. Neutral papers are irrelevant to the question.

> Why did they include them to begin with?
Because it's part of the sample space. How can they exclude it without reading it?

Nothing you've said makes any sense. You just want the conclusion to be wrong. The consensus exists, verified by many different studies. Get over it.

>>11045326
If I do you will just say they're not an "alarmist" or secretly a "socialist." Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. Or you could just admit that you're making up excuses to deny AGW.

>>11045382
>How is this manipulation? How are neutral papers relevant?
Let's say you survey 100 people. 32 of them express an affirmative to your question. 66 express a neutral stance. 2 express a negative to your question. Is it ethical to state that 94% of your subjects express an affirmative stance? This is at least the 3rd time I've explained it. Either you're too stupid to understand or you're being intentionally obtuse.
>Neutral papers are irrelevant to the question.
They most certainly are not when you are dealing with the claim "97% of climate scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming."
>Because it's part of the sample space. How can they exclude it without reading it?
They excluded plenty of other papers "without reading [them]"

>>11045399
Cool fallacy. Try again, but this time with an actual example.
AGW is far from established science, and EVERY alarmist is using it as an excuse to backdoor socialism.

>>11045313
>Yes 7 is alarmingly large when the errors were "the opposite of what I said in my paper".
Most of them had nothing to do with what was said in the paper, just deniers angry that their papers were correctly identified in contradiction with their personal opinion.

>generally with sample sizes not much larger than the 7 you scoff at
Why are you again lying about publicly available information? Are you addicted to it?

>look at the picture in the post your responding to and actually read the post
I did, you just keep repeating it's manipulation over and over again without explaining how neutral papers are relevant.

>Because the CLAIM is that 97% of scientists AFFIRM AGW.
No, the claim of the Cook paper is that 97% of published research expressing a position endorse AGW. 97% of scientists endorsing AGW is shown by surveys.

>This is blatantly false by the very same data they present.
What data shows this when they didn't survey based on scientists positions but on paper positions? You seem to be confused since you didn't actually read the paper. Nowhere does it show scientists' positions on the question, what was reported was their answer on whether *their papers* had a position on the question.

>Please remember the papers surveyed were ALREADY prescreened for ones that specifically dealt with climate change.
And?

>No, I presented a case you could wrap your tiny brain around where the reporting of results is dishonest in an identical fashion.
But it's not identical as I already explained. You didn't respond to my explanation of the difference. Try again.

>great, a report saying that IF all of your assumptions are correct then they will be correct
Nowhere is the conclusion assumed, try again.

>>11045313
>Literally every paper that uses physics that takes into account the position, size, or curvature of the earth will implicitly endorse this
OK, here's the top 100 Earth science papers:

https://www.nature.com/collections/zqnrvjdvqw/

>Sixty-six million years ago, an asteroid approximately 9km in diameter hit the hydrocarbon- and sulfur-rich sedimentary rocks in what is now Mexico. Recent studies have shown that this impact at the Yucatan Peninsula heated the hydrocarbon and sulfur in these rocks, forming stratospheric soot and sulfate aerosols and causing extreme global cooling and drought. These events triggered a mass extinction, including dinosaurs, and led to the subsequent macroevolution of mammals. The amount of hydrocarbon and sulfur in rocks varies widely, depending on location, which suggests that cooling and extinction levels were dependent on impact site. Here we show that the probability of significant global cooling, mass extinction, and the subsequent appearance of mammals was quite low after an asteroid impact on the Earth’s surface. This significant event could have occurred if the asteroid hit the hydrocarbon-rich areas occupying approximately 13% of the Earth’s surface. The site of asteroid impact, therefore, changed the history of life on Earth.

Nothing here implicitly endorses a round Earth. Shall I continue?

>I responded already
How did you respond to them when you claim they don't exist? I know it's hard keeping track of all these lies at the same time, but try to at least maintain consistency in your lies.

>>11045362
>>11045362
>Obviously not. Impeachment just allows a president to be held accountable for his crimes. Removal from office is a possible (and in this case likely) result. This is a weak gotcha.

You also know that "impeachment inquiry" is not impeachment right? Also: what crimes?

>Are you 12? The graph you asked for is a subset of the graph I provided. I can see that you're hoping to couch your argument in that region where the temperature overshoots the CO2 concentration probably using the lead/lag narrative. That's intellectually dishonest at best. How about we talk about this very tight correlation over geologic timescales instead?

What is really intellectually dishonest is not posting sources to graphs. You graph may have well calculated "unicorns over time" and it would have the same meaning. Sources or get outsourced, preferably by someone with a brain that actually knows what "scientific" actally means.

>>11045452
>Most of them had nothing to do with what was said in the paper, just deniers angry that their papers were correctly identified in contradiction with their personal opinion.
>no, the author of this paper does not have the correct categorization, I do: the neutral unbiased owner of a climate change alarmism website

>Why are you again lying about publicly available information?
When it comes to thousands of papers, response rates of 200-350 is tiny.
>I did, you just keep repeating it's manipulation over and over again without explaining how neutral papers are relevant.
I actually both explained and demonstrated how they're relevant. They're specifically relevant because of the final claim.
>No, the claim of the Cook paper is that 97% of published research expressing a position endorse AGW. 97% of scientists endorsing AGW is shown by surveys.
Right, but the actual claim Cook continually makes (as well as politicians who cite him) is that 97% of climate scientists agree. That's also the claim you're using to fallaciously back up your personal climate alarmism.
>Nowhere does it show scientists' positions on the question
No, but that's the final claim you dumb fuck.
>And?
You asked how to screen them without reading. They must have had a pretty good method of doing it before
>But it's not identical as I already explained
No you didn't explain. You just claimed I made a logical fallacy that I didn't. The identical misleading action is reporting a fraction of the survey data. The content of the survey is irrelevant to the analogy. Stop being obtuse.
>Nowhere is the conclusion assumed
>Here we combine historical evidence with national-level climate and socioeconomic projections to quantify the economic damages associated with the United Nations (UN) targets
>and socioeconomic projections
>projections
>PROJECTIONS
äb-ˈtüs , əb-, -ˈtyüs
...
2a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID
He is too obtuse to take a hint.

>>11045474
>You also know that "impeachment inquiry" is not impeachment right?
This is like the "it isn't the fall that kills you" arguments.

>Also: what crimes?
I'm so tired of answering this question. Why don't use Google and save me the trouble?

>What is really intellectually dishonest is not posting sources to graphs.
Ah, I see. Because you don't know how to use google.

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitzrSY8m72eD770g231nKn1pck07kC2jMlv50bRdj04BhbK6jh-PcaxLgyKncAnpna-BNHcFiFEnv7Krg0TIUClgTSz_1aKtAojdzIq7dE3dw4wBj8RCrSopUhA0B2sUicfbCkofTMo9DXF3bGU5xR_1w5GPJdj3gsRIZiwpp76r_13ZPNTcwZvN004z9wm-HEYNSstJHV68r5E4a7nplbkCjM0XM8NVXY_1C_16SSaD3zeyo52bMst0AJbsFmGl3yuQKgJA5PJk0clvnOLT4_1wIYhfVIy3VQUZIaBVlpBdgxurilVNxvhOZZxWFO-jLicZ7_1xjpa6PETHbdJnMTsYO6genPwlJQPw

>>11045459
Pic related is from the study you just cited.
>Shall I continue?
Please do. I'd love to continue dunking on your ass over and over.

>>11045485
>When it comes to thousands of papers, response rates of 200-350 is tiny.
So 200-350 is "not much larger" than 7? LOL.

>I actually both explained and demonstrated how they're relevant.
No you didn't, you made a false equivalence between a question about opinions and a scientific question.

>Right, but the actual claim Cook continually makes (as well as politicians who cite him) is that 97% of climate scientists agree.
He claims "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming." This is proven here https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

If you switch from "Basic" to "Advanced" then the claim is "Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming."

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

>That's also the claim you're using to fallaciously back up your personal climate alarmism.
I've never used that claim for anything. AGW is easy to prove directly. There you go lying again.

>No, but that's the final claim you dumb fuck.
Final claim of what? It's one claim the paper we're discussing is not even cited for. His main claim is that there is a scientific consensus, which is not a consensus of opinion but of published scientific evidence.

>You asked how to screen them without reading. They must have had a pretty good method of doing it before
No, I asked you how papers with no position are relevant, which you still have not answered. Instead, you pretend to not know how to search for papers.

>No you didn't explain. You just claimed I made a logical fallacy that I didn't.
I did, see >>11045273

>>11045485
>The identical misleading action is reporting a fraction of the survey data. The content of the survey is irrelevant to the analogy.
All the data was reported, and of course the question being asked determines what data is relevant towards answering the question. There is no relevance in papers that state no position on AGW in answering the question of whether the literature endorses AGW.

>asks for source of economic projection
>rejects source because it's a projection
Get off the science board.

>>11036605
Good goy worrying about climate change and not 4 billion Africans.

>>11045596
>So 200-350 is "not much larger" than 7? LOL.
Not when we're talking about literally thousands of papers it's not. But you knew that.
>No you didn't, you made a false equivalence between a question about opinions and a scientific question.
The content of the survey was irrelevant. That's why I used the ridiculous example of fatties' opinions on candy. The equivalence was in the reporting, not the survey. But you knew that.
>He claims "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming." This is proven here https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
>our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community
Nice try, fagoo
Also please refrain from using Jack Cook as evidence Jack Cook is right.
>AGW is easy to prove directly
Then do it.
>Final claim of what?
That 97% of climate scientists are in consensus that the earth is warming and it's because of human activity. But you knew this.
>No, I asked you how papers with no position are relevant
>Because it's part of the sample space. How can they exclude it without reading it?
>How can they exclude it without reading it?
Looks like you did ask that question, I answered it, and then you denied asking it. Typical.
>I did, see >>11045273
Please see my first response in this post.
>>11045606
>There is no relevance in papers that state no position on AGW
Except when you try to make a claim that would include them.

>>11045497
>India Is Overtaking China as the World’s Largest Emitter of Anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide
>New insights into earthquake precursors from InSAR
>Source and dynamics of a volcanic caldera unrest: Campi Flegrei, 1983–84
>Climate induced human demographic and cultural change in northern Europe during the mid-Holocene
>Climate of doubt: A re-evaluation of Büntgen and Di Cosmo’s environmental hypothesis for the Mongol withdrawal from Hungary, 1242 CE
>Hydrogeochemical changes before and during the 2016 Amatrice-Norcia seismic sequence (central Italy)
>Dominant control of agriculture and irrigation on urban heat island in India
>High levels of ammonia do not raise fine particle pH sufficiently to yield nitrogen oxide-dominated sulfate production
>Observed drought indices show increasing divergence across Europe
>Severe Pollution in China Amplified by Atmospheric Moisture
>Role of Oceanic and Terrestrial Atmospheric Moisture Sources in Intraseasonal Variability of Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall
>Urban Seismology: on the origin of earth vibrations within a city
>Evidence of local and regional freshening of Northeast Greenland coastal waters
>Evidence of long-term NAO influence on East-Central Europe winter precipitation from a guano-derived δ15N record

No mention of round Earth in 14 out of the first 25 papers. So only 44% of Earth science papers endorse round Earth. Thus claims that there is a consensus that the Earth is round are false and based on data manipulation.

>>11045641
>Not when we're talking about literally thousands of papers it's not.
What does do the thousands of total papers have to do with 7 being close to 200-350? Nothing. This is like the denier meme that CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

>The content of the survey was irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? The fact that you keep relying on this analogy while being unable to give a single sentence explaining why neutral papers that state no position on AGW are relevant shows you have no clue. The analogy is just a restatement of what you were supposed to prove in the first place.

>Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC. Therefore, we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE and UE groups.
Nice attempt at taking that sentence out of context, you pathetic liar.

>Also please refrain from using Jack Cook as evidence Jack Cook is right.
I used his website as evidence of what he said. Stop lying.

>Then do it.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>That 97% of climate scientists are in consensus that the earth is warming and it's because of human activity.
I asked what this was the final claim of, not what the claim is. Are you illiterate?

>Looks like you did ask that question, I answered it, and then you denied asking it.

Here's the line of discussion:
>>How are papers with no position relevant?
>Because the CLAIM is that 97% of scientists AFFIRM AGW. This is blatantly false by the very same data they present.
>Please remember the papers surveyed were ALREADY prescreened for ones that specifically dealt with climate change.
>>And?
>You asked how to screen them without reading. They must have had a pretty good method of doing it before

The question you were answering here was not about screening.

>>11045641
>Please see my first response in this post.
Your response to my post was

>Because the CLAIM is that 97% of scientists AFFIRM AGW. This is blatantly false by the very same data they present.
>Please remember the papers surveyed were ALREADY prescreened for ones that specifically dealt with climate change.

The first sentence is irrelevant to the paper we're discussing and the second doesn't answer the question. And you didn't respond to this

>"No opinion" is relevant to what opinion people have of a candy bar, since it's a direct answer to the question. A scientific paper that does not answer the question being asked is irrelevant to the question being asked.

And since you claim the content of the question doesn't matter, we must conclude from the data that there is no consensus the Earth is round, since only approximately 44% of papers support it.

>>11045644
1) You did not review all the text in all those papers.
2) You are strawmanning my position: I say the claim of a 97% scientific consensus on AGW is based on data manipulation because that specific claim actually is based on data manipulation. There is no such "study" to review studies of the earth for positions on round vs flat earth.
>India Is Overtaking China as the World’s Largest Emitter of Anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide
"Data was employed to develop an OMI-based emission catalogue for nearly 500 sources around the GLOBE"
>New insights into earthquake precursors from InSAR
Specifically, 159 RADARSAT-2 images (75 collected along descending ORBITS and 84 collected along ascending ORBITS)

really you just have to read the studies on your own if you care m8

>>11045677
>1) You did not review all the text in all those papers.
It would take too long to do so. The abstract is enough.

>2) You are strawmanning my position: I say the claim of a 97% scientific consensus on AGW is based on data manipulation because that specific claim actually is based on data manipulation. There is no such "study" to review studies of the earth for positions on round vs flat earth.
The "data manipulation" was ignoring irrelevant papers. You even provided an analogy describing how to conduct a survey on opinions on candy bars. And you claimed that the content of the question is irrelevant, the same methodology should be used for any question. Were you straw-manning yourself? If all of these arguments are correct, then the same should be true for analyzing whether papers support a round Earth. Based on your own proposed universal methodology, we must conclude there is no consensus on Round Earth, since most papers don't even implicitly endorse it. If we removed all papers that do not state a position on Round Earth, then we would get 100% of papers endorsing it, but that is of course data manipulation and cannot be done.

>ORBIT
An orbit is simply a repeating trajectory. A satellite can orbit around the flat Earth by repeating the same circle over its surface.

>>11045670
What does do the thousands of total papers have to do with 7 being close to 200-350?
350/11000 is ~3%
that's insignificant
that's why they're close
but you knew that.
>How is it irrelevant?
Because that was not the point of the analogy. This is like the fagoo meme where they go "you're comparing homosexuality to murder" when someone says they separate actions from perpetrators. You're intentionally missing the point.
while being unable to give a single sentence explaining why neutral papers that state no position on AGW are relevant
except here >>11045641 and >>11045485 and >>11045313 and >>11045200
>Nice attempt at taking that sentence out of context, you pathetic liar.
What context do you need? It explicitly states their sample is not representative.
>I used his website as evidence of what he said
That's what I called you out on, dumbass. Screw your fucking head on.
>Feldmen et al.
wow it's nothing
he explicitly states it's nearly impossible to accurately measure what he's attempting to measure, and then he speculates based on past data that was poorly measured by his own standards
>I asked what this was the final claim of, not what the claim is. Are you illiterate?
No, you said "Final claim of what?" which really can mean just about anything. Next time try to articulate your question better.

>The question you were answering here was not about screening.
It actually was. Re-read the discussion. From the beginning this time. Should take you a while. I'm gonna head home and read your retarded drivel in the morning.

>>11045695
>The abstract is enough.
The abstract most certainly is not enough to claim a paper never mentions something.
>irrelevant papers
Still not irrelevant. I've explained why they're not half a dozen times now.

>>11045704
>350/11000 is ~3%
>that's insignificant
Again, what does that have to do with whether 7 is close to 350? 7/350 = 2%, so insignificant by your own words. What a bizarrely retarded argument.

>Because that was not the point of the analogy.
The point of the analogy is that "no opinion" is relevant to the question of whether fatties' believe the Snickers is the greatest candy bar. But this fails to explain why papers with no position are relevant to whether the literature supports AGW. A fatty giving no opinion on whether the Snickers is the greatest candy bar is evidence against fatties agreeing the Snickers is the greatest candy bar. A paper which fails to mention a position on AGW is not evidence against AGW. A paper which fails to mention a position on whether the Earth is round is not evidence against the earth being round. As I already explained in my initial response, the source of failure in the analogy is that every fatty answer is an answer to the question, while not every paper surveyed is an answer to the question. Asking a person for their opinion is not analogous to surveying papers for a conclusion. Do you now understand how this is misleading and dishonest?

>What context do you need? It explicitly states their sample is not representative.
Not representative of the entire climate science community, representative of climate experts: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming." Nice try, but your attempt to misrepresent failed again.

>That's what I called you out on, dumbass.
No, you claimed that I used it as evidence that he was right. I used it as evidence of what he said: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming," which you mischaracterized as "97% of scientists" or "97% of climate scientists."

>he explicitly states it's nearly impossible to accurately measure what he's attempting to measure
No he doesn't. Are you capable of not lying about any scientific study?

>>11045704
>No, you said "Final claim of what?" which really can mean just about anything.
There is no way this can mean "what is the final claim" which is the question you answered. If I had said "Claim of what" then that would be ambiguous, but "Final claim of what" can only be interpreted as "what is it the final claim of."

And you failed to answer the question even though you now know what it means, because you know the claim is not related to the paper.

>It actually was.
It wasn't. I posted the line of discussion in the post you're replying to. The question was

>>How are papers with no position relevant?

Which you again fail to answer.

>>11045706
>The abstract most certainly is not enough to claim a paper never mentions something.
It's enough for a broad statistical analysis.

>Still not irrelevant. I've explained why they're not half a dozen times now.
You haven't. I've explained how they're irrelevant.

>>11036605
The only long term solution is depop, and that's gonna happen whether we do it gradually or we let nature do it for us a whole lot faster.

Y'all niggers are gonna be awfully surprised when media finally start reporting on studies that involve particle forcing.