/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11284985
>doesn't know that smaller wildfires occur often pretty much everywhere
the vegetation on the forest floor is usually the first to catch fire which is why prescribed burning/clearing of forest floor is common
the particular situation in Australia has gotten out of hand because of prolonged heat and lack of rain for many years, as well as the lack of firebreaks preventing the fire from spreading further
an abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually preferable for the growth of vegetation

Wildfire isn't caused by spontaneous combustion.. It's caused by lightning strikes and human accidents mostly. Climate change is just what caused the conditions of heat and drought that allow such fires to take hold much more easily and burn much more ferociously.

>>11285057
>the particular situation in Australia has gotten out of hand because of prolonged heat and lack of rain for many years
Due to man-made climate change or is it natural?

>>11285065
Let's say you have two guys playing russian roulette. One of them has one bullet in the chamber, and the other has five bullets in the chamber. The first guy survives and the second guy dies. It's the same thing as asking whether or not the higher number of bullets is reason the second man died. Technically it's not possible to know for sure, because in theory he could still have survived (and the first guy could have died). But colloquially it's fair to say that yes: His death was due to him having too many bullets in the chamber.

>>11284985
You toss in 200 human arsonists. *boom* climate change.

>>11284985
>climate change
>>>/x/

>>11285065

>>11285649
>>11285618
>>11285358
>>11285065
Here's something I've been wondering: Can we really conclude that humanity has a direct impact on the climate? There is the correlation but do we have definitive proof that there is also causation? Same for CO2 in the atmosphere in relation to heat, there's a correlation but is there causation? I haven't really looked up any researches (besides seems like most of the scientific community and public believe climate change to have a causative link with CO2 near-unanimously), but I am a bit skeptical towards the idea

>>11284985
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-asarson-arresttollhits183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f

People do it

>>11285358
>200 human arsonist can set fire to an area as big as Austria

>>11287104

>one person can start a war that kill 60 million people

>>11284985
because, it cools down slightly, shit grows, then it heats up, shit burns, repeat. brainlet

>>11287091
We need to replace the captcha with a quiz on the basics of quantum chemistry.

>>11285358
>>11287100
So are you just useful idiots falling for Russian propaganda, or are you actually part of the IRA? Either way, the West will defeat you :)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/twitter-bots-trolls-australian-bushfires-social-media-disinformation-campaign-false-claims

>>11287160
an oddly apt comparison, one person alone cannot start the war, it's because of the overall political situation the individual can only light the fuse.
Just like the worst fires Australia has ever seen, they're horrible not because of arsonists but because it was the hottest year on record, creating far more fuel, making areas previously thought immune to forest fires vulnerable.

Quick Question,
Was anyone under the impression Australia was known for being a lush wet jungle or something not but a few years ago?

>>11285358
I think we can all finally agree the extra heat is man made this time. Simple solution: quit burning the fucking forests and robbing Greta of her childhood.

The poor koalas

>>11285618
I kek'd

>>11287922
no dude it's just an entire continent filled with shrublands kinda similar to the american west but with even less water

>>11287520
Actually they're the worst on record because of the politics of the greenie hippie retards who made controlled burning and forest floor clearing basically illegal. The "muh climate change" crowd is literally the reason for all this shit. Wouldn't be surprised if all the arsonists are greenies as well.

>>11287922
There are two large rainforesty areas on the east side, one north and one midway. They're basically unaffected.

>>11284985
> How can climate change cause plantlife to spontaneously combust?

No one said it could, but it does create hotter and dryer conditions that make pre-existing fires worse.

>>11287091
> Can we really conclude that humanity has a direct impact on the climate?

Can we really conclude that hitting someone in the head with a stone had any effect on them dying? Sure, there’s correlation, but how do we know there’s a causal relation?

>>11287927
>quit burning the fucking forests

Letting forests burn regularly actually discourages more intense fires from occurring.

>>11288560
>Actually they're the worst on record because

DING DONG WRONG

70s Australian bushfires were worse but were so bad because of overgrowth like you later say

>>11284985
99.9% of wildfires are, voluntarily or not, caused by humans. I work in the field, the so-called "anthropic" factor is fundamental in any fire risk assessment. If in a certain area is inaccessible to humans the fire risk is zero, regardless of the vegetation type or the meteorological conditions.

>>11288601
Yes climate change is caused by humans

>>11288660
>>11288601

/sci/ is fairly open to most things exept when it comes to the holy C word

Dont you dare question muh climate change !

>>11288660
Which is a good thing because more land will become fertile and ripe for growth meaning more food, and also the niggers, jews and arabs will burn because it's too hot. Most of Europe will feel like Italy tier weather which will be fucking amazing too.

>>11288660
Very retarded way of shifting goalposts. What you would/should have said if your IQ was higher than 70 is that higher temperatures means drier vegetation, and drier vegetation increases fire risk.

To address your "point", climate change is caused by the ever-changing Solar Constant (pic related), that we cannot and never will control. Whether we have an effect on the temperature trend of our planet or not is incredibly hard to determine scientifically.
Should we generally try to reduce our impact on our planet? Yes, of course, but whoever tries to sell you the climate emergency assuming that all climate change is man made is trying to sell you something or to get your vote.

>>11288668
NOOOOO HOW DARE YOU STEAL GRETAS FUTURE YOU EBIL NATZI CLIMATATE DENEIER

>>11288668
>get your vote
more like get your taxes

>>11288666
>Devil trips checked

I assure you that the most you study this kind of stuff the more you realize that the so-called "climate change activists" have not a fucking clue of what they're talking about.

>>11288679
I know
Did you read Svensmark or Shaviv by any chance?

>>11285649
this is lying with statistics 101. Zoom the temperature out, and use a full scale not 1.0C differences aa the whole fucking chart.

>>11288682
Nope, I'm not a climatologist, I'm doing a PhD on remote sensing stuff that is focused on fire management, and that's why I'm studying stuff in the field. It's very interesting but I don't really enjoy crunching the mathematics behind climate models/circulation models/fluid dynamics in general.

Do you feel like pointing me towards something interesting written by them?

>>11288694
Fuck im on the phone rn
I will give you some stuff when im home given that the thread survives

>>11288694
Also go watch this
Ball goes a bit top far into tinfoil territory when it asks about the why but his refutation of the CO2 narrative holde up and is really easy to understand as well

https://youtu.be/M1VJtER2IUE

Here is a lecture from him, although its cut in a weird way i dont know why exactly they did that

>>11288706
>>11288702
Thank you both

>>11284985
>Why isn't this happening to other countries
Australia is wider than Africa or South America at the same latitude. A large inland area is far enough from the sea that it lacks moisture.

>>11288685
>i have no argument

>>11288719

>>11288733
You'll notice, nigger, that the majority of the fires are in less arid areas. Most are in semi-green areas which produce a lot of forest trash. Trash which is illegal to clear out because of greentard lobbying.

>>11288752
>e in less arid areas
less dry than inland, but still dry as fuck

>>11288706
Some of Ball's critics have claimed that he has received funding from the fossil fuel industry,[7][28][63] especially through the organization Friends of Science, whose scientific advisory board he sits upon.

LOL

Also i researched this subject a lot and a lot of arguments tims using have been proven false

We are not the direct cause but we are adding fuel to the fire..
How hard is it to understand that we are a big civilisation now, and that we have grown very big and that we impact our planet

>>11288768
Yes i am sorry for violating your holy climate stuff with counterarguments

Obviously we need to deindustrialise all of the Western nations and flood them with unskilled and sometimes violent people in order to save the earth

I will also go and burn my car right now and go on the street and protest to be taxed more

>>11288768
>we have grown very big
Maybe if you wouldnt speak like a toddler one could actually take you seriously

Also how exactly was ball refuted? He is literally only showing data and lets it speak for itself. Are you saying that all the sets and graphs he shows are fabricated and false?

>>11288560
>Actually they're the worst on record because of the politics of the greenie hippie retards who made controlled burning and forest floor clearing basically illegal.
Please show evidence first management was banned in these areas. Then show how this caused drought.

>>11288668
>climate change is caused by the ever-changing Solar Constant (pic related), that we cannot and never will control.
Incorrect, irradiance has been going in the opposite direction of warming for two decades now, which is why you used a graph cut off 20 years ago. Also, even if it were increasing, the increase is too small (less than 15%) to cause the observed warming.

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

>Whether we have an effect on the temperature trend of our planet or not is incredibly hard to determine scientifically.
Yes, and that's why it took over a hundred years of scientific research to determine the answer.

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>Yes, of course, but whoever tries to sell you the climate emergency assuming that all climate change is man made is trying to sell you something or to get your vote.
No on me said all climate change is manmade. Do toy have anything else besides lies and strawmen?

>>11288706
Yeah and don't forget to take geology lessons from a flat earther.

>>11288779
>flood them with unskilled and sometimes violent people in order to save the earth
they woudl have higher carbon footpring in 1st world than in their home countries

>>11288841
My point was that the solar constant trends are the MAIN reason of climate change on our planet.

>No on me said all climate change is manmade.
Maybe you didn't, but many want people to believe exactly this, pay their carbon tax and consoom eco-friendly bullshit.

>>11288788
>Also how exactly was ball refuted? He is literally only showing data and lets it speak for itself.
Then why is he speaking? Oh wait I forgot climate scientists don't have data and graphs. Nevermind.

The video starts with Ball trying to confuse the audience by conflating the climate with weather. Any climatologist knows that weather is much more chaotic than climate. Is Ball a climatologist? Apparently not.

Then Ball claims that Antarctic ice cores were presented as proof that CO2 drives temperature. Ball is simply lying, no climatologist said this. He also fails to inform the audience that ice core data showed the local temperature in one place, not global temperature.

Then Ball claims that no record shows temperature going up after CO2. This is another lie as the current temperature record shows this and reconstructions of global temperature show this: http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

I'm not going to waste any more time watching this shit, Ball has not refuted anything except for his own reputation.

>>11288903

>>11288913
>Incorrect, irradiance has been going in the opposite direction of warming for two decades now, which is why you used a graph cut off 20 years ago. Also, even if it were increasing, the increase is too small (less than 15%) to cause the observed warming.
You do realize that 20 years is a puny timeframe to draw absolute conclusions don't you? Your "argument" is basically: "In the past 20 years, as shown by this sourceless graph, the average temperature on Earth has increased despite the concurrent decrease of the Solar Constant."

Therefore what? Humans are the only cause of climate change? I'm all for reducing our footprint, but if you actually want to do something relevant start looking for a way to do mass sterilization in China, India and Africa.

>>11288920
>m-muh feelings
sun at 2020 is the same as at 1880 you absolute retard

>>11288599
>70s Australian bushfires were worse
No they weren't.

>>11288706
>t*m b*ll
https://youtu.be/ZpcwyeGQlA8

>>11288926
Feelings? Are you projecting or just a schizo?
You do realize that you are drawing conclusions using a single graph of two quantities that are indirectly correlated? Are you implying that to a value of Solar Constant should correspond a value of average temperature on Earth? Did you just out yourself as a retard?

>>11288903
>My point was that the solar constant trends are the MAIN reason of climate change on our planet.
Then how does that respond to the idea that the fires in Australia are caused by increased drought from manmade climate change? The Sun is not the main cause of current climate change so your statement is just an irrelevant generalization.

>Maybe you didn't, but many want people to believe exactly this
Like who? Typical deniertard, has mo argument so reverts to strawmen.

>>11287922
There's a reason only a few coastal areas are inhabited

>>11288943
you are drawing conclusions by waving hands

>>11288953
1) The unbiased way to put that would be:
"The increased drought due to climate change increased the fire ignition risk and propagation rates of natural (0.01%) and ma-nmade (99.99%) fires."
Or even "the temperature increase due to climate change bears the negative effect of increased fire ignition risk and propagation rate".

2) The only reason why climate change is so relevant in the public eye is that some politicians (Democrats in the US, leftists in EU) use it as a means to gain consensus and to justify new taxes (which is exactly the case in my country). Polarizing climate policies is one of the most petty acts our politicians have done in the past 60 years.

Also, for the love of god, buy a new keyboard, type slower or cure your dyslexia.

>>11288965
Democrats are leftists. Why do you separate them?

There's this thing called sparks...

>>11288938
>>11288911
>>11288845
>Gore makes wild claims of death and destrucion that do not come true
>Mann literally refuses to explain how he made his climate model
>97% study was literally 2000 papers, 800 of which were discarded in the process

/sci/: *Silence*

>mention Names like Ball, Svensmark, Shaviv once
>Show ice cores from literally anywhere
>mention that they literally grew wine and olives near stockholm in the middle ages because it was so much warmer

/sci/: Reeeeee fake science! Dishonest work! Funded by interest group! dont touch muh holy climate garbage reeeeee

>>11288920
>You do realize that 20 years is a puny timeframe to draw absolute conclusions don't you?
A lack of correlation is certainly enough to refute the claim that the climate is driven solely or mainly by the Sun, based solely on correlation! My argument on the other hand is not based on correlation, but on the fact that solar variability is too weak to cause observed warming.

>Your "argument" is basically: "In the past 20 years, as shown by this sourceless graph, the average temperature on Earth has increased despite the concurrent decrease of the Solar Constant."
That was one part of my argument. Why did you ignore the rest?

>Therefore what? Humans are the only cause of climate change?
Are you capable of reading the post I was responding to? I even greentexted it to show what I was reciting. No need to make up fake points.

>>11289022
>tf when /pol/ has become an esoteric mystical facist forum with the occasional lefty shill of BBC thread
>tf when /his/ and /sci/ have become of onions and cuckoldy reeking shitholes with the occasional nazi trolls

4chan is no place for sensible people anymore anon
dont even try

>>11289029
All these boards are fine if you use your filter
And dont mind the climattards here they will see when their predictions fail to hold up

Again

>>11289022
>Gore makes wild claims of death and destrucion that do not come true
Not a climate scientist.
>Mann literally refuses to explain how he made his climate model
His model has been validated by the numerous other models that have been made since by others which also happen to behave similar to his.
>97% study was literally 2000 papers, 800 of which were discarded
Since when is 1200 considered a bad sample size?

>>11289022
>mention that they literally grew wine and olives near stockholm in the middle ages because it was so much warmer
The global average temperature wasn't warmer than it is now.
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

>>11289035
>they will see when their predictions fail to hold up
>Again
Predictions made by actual climate scientists based on actual data have been surprisingly accurate though:
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk

>>11289037
not the one you responded to but

>Not a climate scientist.
Doesnt matter. Back then the "consensus" said he was right. He wasnt.

>His model has been validated by the numerous other models that have been made since by others which also happen to behave similar to his.
If this is true why would he refuse to show how he did it? Also why does his model contradict literally every ice core you can take on our planet.

>Since when is 1200 considered a bad sample size?
Its less about 1200 being a bad sample size, but raher about discarding 800 papers because they "dont fit your requirements" and then prance around with a bombastic number like 97%

>>11289039
>https://skepticalscience.com/
yea let me pull out "thecoldsun.org" and "gasprominternational.ru" as my sources since everything goes now
>>11289040
look im sorry but i will not watch 25 minutes of crowder i fucking hate the guy

>>11289048
Skeptical science is on the sticky for a reason.

>>11289040
>WORLD IS ENDING IN 10 YEARS
>PAY MORE TAXES EAT BUGS SELL CAR HAVE NO KIDS
>WORLD WILL LITERALLY END IN 10 YEARS IF YOU DONT

*nothing happens*

>yea but we actually didnt say all these things, it was about 0.5 degrees and some stroms in the nevada desert or something
>BUT WORLD WILL LITERALLY END IN 10 YEARS FROM NOW
>PAY MORE TAXES EAT BUGS SELL CAR HAVE NO KIDS ABOLISH BORDERS RUIN ECONOMY SELL OUT TO BIG BANKS
>WORLD WILL LITERALLY *LITERALLY* END IN 10 YEARS IF YOU DONT
>LOOK AT THIS POTATO LOOKING CHILD! SHE SAD ITS YOUR FAULT

*nothing happens*

>well actually.......

and repeat until climate scientists are hanging from the lampposts

>>11289057
>>11289051
>>11289048
>>11289043
>>11289040
>>11289039
>>11289037
>>11289035
>>11289029
Okay you guys seem invested into this one way or the other so answer me the following if you may

All partys that care about climate change frown upon nuclear energy, be it thorium or uranium. They seem to love those windmills and solarpanels although those barely fare better in terms of CO2 per KWh than lets say Natgas or properly filtered coal plants.
Why is that?

Also why is every movement that seeks to combat climate change not only so damn well funded but also never calls out China, India or say nigeria? Its always Europe and the US and they really do a lot already.

Not a student of natural science but soon PhD in makroeconomics. And to me from my field and perspective this really seems like a scam but then again consensus and all that stuff i guess?!

so enlighten me please

>>11289063
Oy vey
Stop asking those antisemitic questions

>>11289064
yes thanks for discrediting our whole case

>>11289063
I mean, if I could make the world love nuclear energy again, I would. Apparently people think they can hedge their bets with wind and solar, also:
>Natgas
>properly filtered coal plants
Both memes in terms of emissions, Natgas is slightly better though. But no, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, they all completely smoke both of those in emission reductions.

>>11289070
>Both memes in terms of emissions
No not really
You have to take the whole process of making the Solar panel (those are the worst) or Windmill into account. And you also have to rebuild them every 10 years. Some people say 15 but in germany (where i am from) the companys themselfs say 12 and deliver 10. A

Also there is literally no way to keep those indstrys afloat without government money.
Also if a windmill breaks after like 5 years then you have literally emitted more CO2 and produced no net energy

those really suck belive me

>>11289073
>And you also have to rebuild them every 10 years
Maybe solar panels from the early 90s, modern solar panels can run for 20 years and only experience marginal reductions in output. That's been my experience with them in Murica.
>Also if a windmill breaks after like 5 years
If a windmill breaks after 5 years you repair it, trust ME, I live in Kansas, half of our energy comes from wind. Power companies here were voluntarily switching to wind a few years back because it was cheaper than fossil fuels.

>>11288965
Are you illiterate? None of this responds to anything I said. Let's reiterate the two things you have yet to explain:

1. How is your alleged claim that the sun is the "main driver of climate" be relevant to a discussion of current climate change?

2. Who says all climate change is manmade?

Your continued avoidance will be taken as an admittal you're full of shit.

>>11289040

Oh man potholer ! I like his videos - im not a scientist, im a video editor by proffesion
I have seen countless videos on this subject
But only potholers videos seem properly researched and he even had debates with people who disagreed with him
Also can confirm that hes no shill, ive watched enough of his videos to figure out that, well, he simply enjoys making them, like a hobby..

>>11289063
ok ignore >>11289064

I am not telling you its a scam but it kinda is. In societys around the globe people always need a common goal. Now the problem here is that after the USSR broke down the "ultimate evil" was defeated and the western nations stood there without puropus. Slowly but surely postmodernist thought began to fill this void. Be it the Atheist wave, SJWs, or this climate shit, people need a cause to fight for.

Now you could say that we are basically running into a hard one here because one side took it as a goal to enforce those stupid postmodernist garbage thoughts and the other side made it their eternal goal to stop them and is going down a similar path the european right has gone before in the process.

This is highly dangerous and the only chance of actually preventing major conflict would be to swallow your pride and sit together and look at the facts. Both sides are unable to do this though.

Now when it comes to climate i would say the people who follow and defend the "science" mean well but there just cant be good intention behind the data produced by lets say Mann (yes because hes a nice and easy strawman but fuck off).

Just belive what you want but dont join this fight on either side. This will get really ugly really fast if society keeps polarising like this. Obviously both sides know this but from their perspective they are saving the world so they dont care

>>11289100
>>>/his/

>>11289043
>Doesnt matter
Yes it does.
>the "consensus" said he was right
Show me that the vast majority of climate scientists said he was right and show the data they used to back up this conclusion.
>If this is true why would he refuse to show how he did it?
Him showing his workings does not determine whether or not it is correct. The fact that it has been reproduced by multiple people using many different data sets is very strong evidence towards it being a valid model.
>raher about discarding 800 papers because they "dont fit your requirements" and then prance around with a bombastic number like 97%
Can you show that the 800 papers they discarded were actually AGAINST the claim that GW is anthropogenic? Because that's the only scenario in which throwing away said papers would invalidate the statistic.

>Gore makes wild claims of death and destrucion that do not come true
I'm not aware of any climatologist named Gore, why are you listening to him about the climate?

>Mann literally refuses to explain how he made his climate model
Nice denier meme. All the data and code is publicly available, and his model has been replicated. Next lie, please.

>97% study was literally 2000 papers, 800 of which were discarded in the process
There are several studies showing 97% of published research supports the consensus, you'l have to be more specific.

>Reeeeee fake science! Dishonest work! Funded by interest group! dont touch muh holy climate garbage reeeeee
So you are not going to defend the misrepresentations and lies that comprise Tim Ball's lecture? Thanks for admitting you're full of shit.

>>11289048
>yea let me pull out "thecoldsun.org" and "gasprominternational.ru" as my sources since everything goes now
Would you like me to paraphrase the article for you or do you want me to find another source showing you how you're wrong about the MWP?
>i will not watch 25 minutes of crowder
The video is not made by Crowder, the first clip of crowder is a part of a compilation of prominent deniers making statements directly related to the topic the video is debunking. Potholer included these clips so one can't make the argument of his rebuttal being a "strawman".

>>11289057
>WORLD IS ENDING IN 10 YEARS
Climate scientists using climate data never made this prediction. Watch the video, it literally addresses that exact point.
>PAY MORE TAXES EAT BUGS SELL CAR HAVE NO KIDS
Not a prediction.
>WORLD WILL LITERALLY END IN 10 YEARS IF YOU DONT
See point 1.
>nothing happens
Wrong.
>yea but we actually didnt say all these things
Who is "we"?
>repeat until climate scientists are hanging from the lampposts
You want to lynch climate scientists for stuff they never said?

>>11289099
Me too. The very fact that he actually sources the papers he references puts him above 90% of the other pundits on this topic. Also it's nice to see someone teach scientific paper literacy and encourage the viewer to apply said knowledge themselves, instead of just telling them what to think.

>>11289124
>Nice denier meme. All the data and code is publicly available, and his model has been replicated.
So why was the libel lawsuit thown out?
>So you are not going to defend the misrepresentations and lies that comprise Tim Ball's lecture?
If you tell me what exactly they are i can talk to you about those in more detail
>gore is no scientist yaddah yaddah
Okay nice so go back to papers from that time and see for yourself everyone was backing gore. Greta (or rather her handlers) this time is more careful and deliberatly doesnt tell any details or demands

Same goes for >>11289123

With the 800 papers fair enough the both of you but only because this would devolve into detail fights and climatemen love to derail the conversation that way

>>11289043
>Back then the "consensus" said he was right. He wasnt.
Source?

>If this is true why would he refuse to show how he did it?
He posted the data and code online. Are you sure you know what you're talking about and aren't just parroting lies you read on some blog?

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

>Also why does his model contradict literally every ice core you can take on our planet.
Bizarre claim. Ice cores are proxies for the temperature in one location, while Mann's model is for average global temperature. So how can they "contradict" each other when they are not measuring the same thing? Please explain this "contradiction."

>Its less about 1200 being a bad sample size, but raher about discarding 800 papers because they "dont fit your requirements" and then prance around with a bombastic number like 97%
How are the discarded papers relevant? You haven't even given the name of the study.

>>11289048
>yea let me pull out "thecoldsun.org" and "gasprominternational.ru" as my sources since everything goes now
Please do, they will be easy to refute and will destroy your credibility. Assuming you have any credibility left after completely failng to respond to the argument and instead attacking the source without even explaining how the source is bad.

>>11289057
Do you have any substantive arguments or are you just going to repeat the same debunked strawmen over and over?

>>11289142
pretty good summary of what actually happened in the libel case

>In reality, the court tossed the case in what appears to be an act of pity for Tim Ball. As a statement from Mann’s lawyer explained, Ball’s request to terminate the lawsuit “relied heavily on his alleged state of health” and because, per Ball’s defense team, his claims are “given no credibility by the average, reasonable reader.” (An assessment bolstered by the fact that in a similar suit, a judge ruled that “a reasonably thoughtful and informed person… is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views.”)

>On the health front, the plea to toss the case notes that Ball, born in 1938, “suffered coronary heart failure” in 2017, after “quintuple bypass surgery” ten years prior, in addition to having Type 2 Diabetes. Apparently being old is a defense?

>Ball’s attorney also added that his website doesn’t show up in at least 92% of searches for Dr. Mann, and that it has “low popularity.”

>https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881956/-Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory

>>11285057
>an abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually preferable for the growth of vegetation
And for everything else. Kind of ruins the notion that CO2 is bad for life on Earth and for the environment, seeing as how it is a key ingredient for life and good health.

>>11289142
>So why was the libel lawsuit thown out?
What is the price of tea in China?

>If you tell me what exactly they are i can talk to you about those in more detail
Right here >>11288911

>Okay nice so go back to papers from that time and see for yourself everyone was backing gore.
If you tell me what exactly they are I can talk to you about those in more detail

>>11285062
Australian has been a particularly arid and desertlike landmass for millenia. If this was really "Climate Change" then you would expect Australia's climate to become wetter and more prone to flooding. The simple fact that it is "business as usual" there indicates that your pet theory of Climate Change is bogus.

>>11289193
>food is a key indie but for life and good health
>therefore eating too much can't be bad

>>11288725
You sure don't. : )

>>11289202
>food is a pollutant
>Lets tax our food.
Is this really the level of argument you're sinking to? Using childish analogies about food being a pollutant? Makes sense that you are a "le brainlet" poster.

>>11289208
>food is a pollutant
Wow, so not only are you a retarded denier, you don't even understand how analogies work

>>11289199
>Australian has been a particularly arid and desertlike landmass for millenia.
So thre Australian climate doesn't change? What exactly is your point?

>If this was really "Climate Change" then you would expect Australia's climate to become wetter and more prone to flooding.
Because?

>The simple fact that it is "business as usual"
The simple fact is that setting records is not "business as usual."

>>11285065
>man-made climate change
>natural
no difference

>>11289213
So you are saying that CO2 isn't a pollutant? Then we are in agreement.

>>11289202
>food is a key indie but for life and good health
>therefore eating too much can't be bad

>>11289217
>Posts graph going back a hundred years.
Fail
Climate changes all the time. A real change would not be "more of the same". From the perspective of Climate Alarmists like yourself, colder Northern Countries are supposed to be getting warmer; i.e. their climate is changing. It would make sense therefore, is this is truly climate change that warm countries like Australia would get colder, if they continue to stay as warm and dry on average, as they have been in the past that is not a change.

>Because?
Stated above. I'm just going by the logic of Climate Change dogma. If you find it bizarre or illogical, then I don't blame you.

>>11287337
I just like making climate alarmists mad. Easiest troll possible, which is still somewhat politically acceptable (since being racist isn't)

>>11289213
>>11289217
>>11289239
What age are you? Just curious.

>>11287337
>Russian propaganda
You should be aware that in the 90s, Democrats and Leftist lost their collective minds at Republicans who, they claimed, were paranoid over a "Red Scare"? They regularly shamed them with terms like "McCarthy era politics". Now those same liberal representatives (Pelosi, Clinton et al) and media talking heads are behaving in precisely the same way. That just shows the level of hypocrisy these people are capable of. How you can have faith in people, who will say anything to get into power, like that is beyond me. Or maybe you were just born after 90s and don't remember, in which case stfu until you reach an age of maturity before posting about politics.

>>11289238
No I'm saying you are too retarded to understand am analogy is moot an equivalence.

>>11289248
>>Posts graph going back a hundred years.
>Fail
Not an argument.

>Climate changes all the time.
And?

>A real change would not be "more of the same".
How exactly is increased wildfires due to higher temperatures not a real change?

>From the perspective of Climate Alarmists like yourself, colder Northern Countries are supposed to be getting warmer; i.e. their climate is changing. It would make sense therefore, is this is truly climate change that warm countries like Australia would get colder
No, you literal drooling retard, nothing about the average global temperature increasing implies warmer countries get colder. Are you really this mentally deficient or are you trolling?

>>11289268
>two things involve Russians
>therefore they're the same and you're a hypocrite
Thank you for illustrating the intellect of the average /pol/tard for us

>>11284985
There is energy debt stored in icebergs, when they melt, it gets even warmer, you must warm sea water, to get it even warmer, but that thing is not monitored.

I think land clima is okey, but sea is so fucked up we must start doing something and we are doomed anyway.

>>11289342
If you are using an analogy then it is a by definition a statement of equivalence, otherwise you are simply talking about food and nothing else. But at this point your are arguing semantics, which has no place in science.

>>11289369
>Not an argument.
It is an argument. Your dataset is too small, much like your penis.

>increased wildfires due to higher temperatures
Circular argument. You are attempt to use increased numbers of wildfires to prove climate change (increased temperatures) by claiming that temperature increases cause more wildfires, but you haven't proven that statement yet. There could be other factors you're not accounting for. Read the OP for more on that. Or have you forgotten the thread you are replying to?

>lobal temperature increasing implies warmer countries get colder.
>I'm just pretending to not understand what your saying
The only retard here, is you.

>>11289427
It's a statement of similarity, not equivalence.

>hurr you think CO2 is food!!!

>>11289457
It's a dumb analogy applied incorrectly.

>>11287091
It's been theorized since XIX century that manmade CO2 will cause global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

In Austria we've had records of climate related science since basically forever. Even during imperial times consensus in academia had already settled on climate change being a thing.

>>11289427
The person arguing with you is a retard, but the reason why CO2 in higher atmospheric concentrations is bad is because it raises the average temperature of the earth. This in turn will make it less habitable for most species living on it including humans. What's worse is that once CO2 concentrations become high enough, they cause secondary warming effects such as decreased ablation and methane emissions from ice.

>>11289445
>Your dataset is too small
Too small for what? Use your words like a big boy. Make an argument.

>Circular argument. You are attempt to use increased numbers of wildfires to prove climate change
Incorrect. I never said this proves climate change. Climate change is proven independently, by direct observation such as in the temperature graph I posted. Is this graph based on increased wildfires? You really are incapable of basic thinking, huh?

>There could be other factors you're not accounting for.
Could be, or are?

>>I'm just pretending to not understand what your saying
No I really don't understand where you got the idea that anything implies earnest countries will get colder. Please explain it to me. Or just stop pretending you're not a complete retard and admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>11289464
Yes, saying food is a pollutant because I analyzed CO2 to food is a dumb analogy applied incorrectly. I'm glad we're making progress.

>>11289427
you're pretty stupid. the analogy is very simple and quite appropriate

>>11289472
How can CO2 be bad if CO2 is plant food? Are you saying food is bad? Wait who's the retard?

>>11289445
>Your dataset is too small
No it's not. Trends that are observed through hundreds of years of data is enough to completely nullify any temporary and small variations which in turn allows for study of the long term factors that impact global temperature. Of course data does exist that go back millions of years, but the accuracy of that data is less which means that only trends over hundreds if not thousands of years can be worked with in that data.
>Circular argument. You are attempt to use increased numbers of wildfires to prove climate change (increased temperatures) by claiming that temperature increases cause more wildfires, but you haven't proven that statement yet. There could be other factors you're not accounting for. Read the OP for more on that. Or have you forgotten the thread you are replying to?
Perhaps you should ask yourself: "Could scientists possibly know something I don't?" before assuming they are all wrong. Of course scientists study all of the different variables that can affect the climate such as solar output, orbital distance etc. And when those are accounted for it becomes EVEN MORE evident that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible as shown in >>11285649
>The only retard here, is you.
Obviously when the global climate changes as to get warmer, most countries in general would get warmer regardless if they are below average or above average in temperature. This is common sense, and more importantly it's exactly what the scientists have been predicting.

>>11289485
heres another equally retarded statement
>how can oxygen be bad if oxygen is animal food?
you're literally at about a grade 4 level of intelligence. you should be embarrassed

>>11289374
Oh snap! Here I was thinking I needed to go back to the 90s to prove who retarded you are, when I only needed to go back three years. Remember when Trump was complaining that the election was rigged and Hillary said; "It's not rigged you're just losing"? Then afterward, she hypocritically stated that Russia had interferred with the election, even though we all know that she lost, because James Comey reopened the investigation of her email server, a few weeks before the election.
This leaves us with two conclusions:
A). The Russians didn't interfer were the election. Unless you are suggesting they somehow got to Comey.
B). Therefore you have no reason to be a Red Scare McCarthy era hypocrite.

>>11289485
The reason why CO2 in higher atmospheric concentrations is bad is because it raises the average temperature of the earth. This in turn will make it less habitable for most species living on it including humans as they and the ecology in general are not adapted to higher temperatures. What's worse is that once CO2 concentrations become high enough, they cause secondary warming effects such as decreased ablation and methane emissions from ice which raises temperatures further.

>>11287091
>Can we really conclude that humanity has a direct impact on the climate?
It's unequivocally false. I thought people here would be intelligent enough not to fall for liberal lies.

>>11289481
Simple anaologies spring from simple minds, I guess.

>>11289217
>>11289473
>>11289494
Perhaps the data set is not too small afterall. I was getting confused between other graphs that only go as far back as the 1970s. I apologise for this. However, I knew there was something fishy about it. The fact is that this data is most likely falsified like all climate alarmist data (See pic related). Your question about "Could scientists possibly know something I don't?" is a leading one. Climate alarmism is not science it is political consensus.

>>11289513
simple analogies are sometimes the only thing that can get through the thick skulls of brainwashed fools

>>11289502
>liberal lies.
you're a political hack. this is a science board. go back to /pol/

>>11289523
>Your question about "Could scientists possibly know something I don't?" is a leading one
No it's not. You should look into what climate scientists actually say and what their evidence is before just falling back on bloggers and tabloids and calling it a day.

>>11289496
Do you want to ban oxygen now as well?

>>11289528
lol, I've got a PhD in Climateology. I'm telling you, with empirical data, that it's a hoax made by liberal goverment organizations.

>>11289532
No, but you probably shouldn't be huffing pure oxygen straight out of pressure tanks, and you probably shouldn't put a massive slab of dry ice to melt in your bedroom at night with the door closed.
Or maybe you should. That's one less retard in the world. Since it's harmless, why not right?

>>11289497
The russians interfered in the election through the use of micro-targeted propaganda on sites like FB and Twitter AND Comey opened the investigation. Both of these things helped Trump win.

>>11289540
>lol, I've got a PhD in Climateology.
I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.

>>11289532
piss off, you fucking sleazy worm
go chase an ambulance or something

>>11289531
That data comes from climatologists. Your question was a leading one in the sense that there was no real right answer to it. I never said all scientists were wrong to begin with. If I say yes to your statement, it appears that I concede your point about CO2 negatively impact the climate. If I answer no, then it makes me sound like megalomaniac of some kind. I'm not saying that you were entirely aware of what you were doing there. It was most likely unconscious on your part. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't have brought it to your attention.

>>11289540
I've got a PhD in Mongolian basket-weaving and I'm telling you, with empirical data, that you are a faggot.

>>11289542
>Probably shouldn't
Lol. You've gone way wide of the mark. It's like arguing with a teenage girl at this point. Wait a minute... Is that? Gretta?..

>>11289553
>That data comes from climatologists. Your question was a leading one in the sense that there was no real right answer to it. I never said all scientists were wrong to begin with. If I say yes to your statement, it appears that I concede your point about CO2 negatively impact the climate. If I answer no, then it makes me sound like megalomaniac of some kind. I'm not saying that you were entirely aware of what you were doing there. It was most likely unconscious on your part. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't have brought it to your attention.
That's not what I meant. What I meant is that you clearly do not actually know what the scientists claim or what their evidence is.

>>11289523
>like all climate alarmist data (See pic related)
Posting graphs without a single source makes you look incredibly stupid.

>>11289540
Post time-stamped proof

>>11289547
>micro-targeted propaganda
Lmao! This thread just keeps getting better. "Micro-targetted" as in they were targetting a very small group of people? That'll surely win them an election right? And besides. Didn't Hillary win the popular vote? Who were the Russians targetting. The Electoral College? Lol.
>both of these helped Trump win.
The latter certainly did. It is up to you to PROVE that the latter did. And since there will always be a doubt, your red scare mccarthy tactics are groundless. I guess we should just love your hate, isn't that what Hillary would do?

>>11289571
>>11289558
>>11289548
>needing to prove myself to some virgin low IQ lefty that believes in climate change
kek

you'll all see when all this hysteria about climate change ends up being absolutely fucking nothing once the liberal elite get bored of trying to control you NPCs with it and move on to the next thing.

>>11289547
imagine unironically believing that ads on facebook and twitter affected the outcome of the US election

trust me guise i have PhD climate warming is totally fake!

>>11289567
The source of this data, obviously enough, is the same place that all the climate data going back ove a hundred years in Australia comes from i.e. weather stations. It has been adjusted for "Maximum temperature", which you would know if you had bothered to read the filename.

>>11289523
>The fact is that this data is most likely falsified like all climate alarmist data (See pic related).
LOL you're incorrectly using daily maximum temperature, which is highly susceptible to changes in time of observation. In the past, temperatures would be taken more often in the afternoon than in the morning. This leads to higher maximum temperatures observed in the past. Use annual mean temperature instead.

>>11289573
>Micro-targetted" as in they were targetting a very small group of people?
No, as in they were targeting specific individuals based on their browsing habits, not just broad advertisements.
>Who were the Russians targetting. The Electoral College?
They were targeting people in swing states. You think a group powerful enough to run such a campaign wouldn't understand how the US elections are run?

>>11289583
Imagine being so naeive you think foreign powers wouldn't jump on the absolutely ridiculous propaganda potential unregulated targeted ads have

>>11289603
>weather stations
Who compiled the data? What was their methodology? Who produced the graph? How do I know you didn't just make up fake data points and whip up a graph in Excel at the beginning of this thread? All these questions could've been avoided if you had just posted an actual SOURCE for your data.

>>11289751
>Excel
That's actually a google spreadsheets graph by the looks of it

>>11289751
His source is a conspiracy-addled nutjob named Tony Heller who misrepresents climate science on his blog for a living. Here has a habit of using average max daily temperatures instead of annual averages because they are more susceptible to error caused by time of observation changes. He then compares this data to the annual averages and misrepresents the bias in his own data as proof that climatologists are manipulating the annual averages.

>>11289810
>Tony Heller
Ah, the retard who got BTFO by Potholer and hasn't responded to the debate in months.

>>11288920
Why do climate change deniers always point to those countries when trying to discuss solutions? Poor af dirt farmers in underdeveloped countries, starving for their rice, as if they're part of this issue. The population growth there is a myth, it halted a long time ago. Them wanting to move towards western living standards is the real issue, cause our lifestyle isn't sustainable to begin with.

>>11289485
Get off this board, jesus christ. People are trying to have real discussions here, you need to have a basic idea of what the threads are about if you wanna try to participate. It's fucking amazing how ill informed people using this board are sometimes.

>>11289810
>more susceptible to error caused by time of observation changes
Why would this be so? A maximum temperature is a maximum temperature no matter when it was recorded. If you are shifting the time of day that you recorded it, then it could be a problem. But any kind of shifting would have an impact on annual averages as well. Do you have an evidence of such a change?

>>11284985
Muslims cause combustion.

>>11288668
>To address your "point", climate change is caused by the ever-changing Solar Constant

The current warming trend is anthropogenic.

>>11288903
>My point was that the solar constant trends are the MAIN reason of climate change on our planet.

What, on the scale of hundreds of millions of years?

>>11288929
>No they weren't.

They were. In the Northern Territory alone in 73-75, more than twice as much land was burned as has been burned in the current season.

>>11288967
> Democrats are leftists

Like five of them.

>>11289142
>So why was the libel lawsuit thown out?

Because it wasn’t possible to prove that Mann was actually harmed economically by the supposed “Libel”. That’s what libel is.

>>11289193
>And for everything else. Kind of ruins the notion that CO2 is bad for life on Earth and for the environment, seeing as how it is a key ingredient for life and good health.

Try breathing it.

>>11289199
>If this was really "Climate Change" then you would expect Australia's climate to become wetter and more prone to flooding.

Or, you know, even dryer and even more arid.

>>11289829
>Knocking over the chess pieces and declaring victory
I don't see how Potholer "won". If anything it looks like he has successfully disproven the claims of climate alarmists in his videos with all his talk about CO2 not being able to cause a catastrophic runaway greenhouse effect and the impact of orbital mechanics and cycles on weather. All in all, Potholer is not as stupid as your average Climate alarmist, but he is still incredibly stupid.

>>11290031
Read the thread before posting.

>>11290054
>Read the thread before posting

I try to avoid reading shitposts.
CO2 is necessary for life but that doesn’t mean an excess of it isn’t possible, and it is.

>>11290035
No one has presented any data that this is the case. And even if they did they would need to show a link to climate change, which afaik also hasn't been done. And even then they would have to prove that this was the only causal factor in the increase in wildfires, and ignore the more reasonable and evidence based ones declaring bad forest management and arsonists, as the cause. If you want to say that climate change has had a bit of an effect on the issue, then you would have to say, how much, in what way, and how you calculated it. It seems very childish to say "B-b-but climate changed helped too" without any evidence to support that.
If Australias climate became wetter it would be a change in climate, therefore climate change.
If it became drier it would be a change in climate, therefore climate change.
It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and frankly a boring one at this point.

>>11290055
Read the thread.

>>11285091
Yeah sorry that analogy is dogshit.

OXYGEN IS ANIMAL FOOD YOU STUPID FUX I LERNED IT IN GRADE 4

>>11290048
Hi Tony, as has been pointed out to you numerous times before, the debate is still open if you want to make a rebuttal video. Every month you leave it just makes you look worse and worse

>>11289917
He's not arguing in good faith and he knows exactly what he's doing. Fuckers like him (possibly get paid to) come into these threads and deliberately shit up the discussion with long-debunked talking points.

>>11290081
>No one has presented any data that this is the case

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change

> And even if they did they would need to show a link to climate change

Increasing dryness and aridity IS climate change.

> And even then they would have to prove that this was the only causal factor in the increase in wildfires

Didn’t say it did.

> If you want to say that climate change has had a bit of an effect on the issue, then you would have to say, how much, in what way, and how you calculated it.

Wrong. Increasing dryness increases the ability of fires to spread. You don’t need to do math to know that.

> It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis

Wrong. It is easy to prove whether or not the climate has changed.

>>11289984
https://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-short-introduction-to-time-of.html?m=1

Bottom line is that Tony uses incorrect raw data and doesn't tell anyone that it's incorrect because it gives him the answer here wants.

Aussies are smack dab in the middle of hearing the canary in the coal mine for global warming. The effects of it literally cannot be any more blatant, don't dig your head in the sand.

>>11284985
>How can climate change cause plantlife to spontaneously combust?
and m8, isn't winter?

>>11290164
kek

>>11290087
How so, pray tell

>>11289739
there was over 2.5 billion spent on the election and you re telling me this powerful group spending less than 1/10th of that made any perceptible difference?

81 million dollars between the two candidates on facebook vs russias 46k

2.5 billion total versus russias 1.25 million total per month?

Are we going to go after the Israelies for doing the same thing spending over 22 millon?

You have to reach so fucking far to think the slavic boogeyman did anything worth of shit when you had a democrat who literally collapsed after a debate and looked like someone seizuring when having extended conversations in crows of people.

>>11290173
>http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change
See >>11289523

>Increasing dryness and aridity IS climate change.
Any change IS climate change. Hence why it is unfalsiable.

>Didn’t say it did.
>Climate change is just what caused the conditions of heat and drought that allow such fires to take hold much more easily and burn much more ferociously.
This is literally the subject being discussed in this thread. It is what the media are saying also. If you are not having the same conversation, don't respond.

>You don’t need to do math to know that.
>It is easy to prove whether or not the climate has changed.
More difficult is to prove how CO2 has changed the climate and how to prove its effects. Otherwise it is a unfalsiable hypothesis. If you just say, "hey look, there was change here" we were right, then that is circular reasoning. You need to be able to predict when, where and what effects climate change would have to make scientific claims about it. Seeing as how climate alarmists predicted that we'd all be underwater by now shows that you are batshit crazy and no one should listen to you.

>>11290547
Bottom line appears to be that you don't have any evidence to back up your previous statement about time of observation effecting Tony Heller's results. You've now made a second unfounded statement about Tony using "incorrect raw data". If you can't provide proof of your statements then it is obvious that you are making it up.

>>11291915
> Any change IS climate change. Hence why it is unfalsiable.

Wrong.

> This is literally the subject being discussed in this thread. It is what the media are saying also.

It’s probably correct, since a dryer environment is more fire-friendly.

> More difficult is to prove how CO2 has changed the climate and how to prove its effects.

Already been done. CO2 causes warming and warmer temperatures alter the environment in various ways, like making it dryer. You don’t need “Muh math” to know that heat dries stuff.

>>11284985
>obvious bait thread
>200 posts ommitted

EVERY FUCKING TIME

>>11284985
Current wildfires in Australia were started by some fuckers, they have nothing to do with climate warming, or whatever you people are calling it these days.
Now somebody tell me why are they quietly replacing signs in Glacier National Park? Were their models wrong again? Is climate warming happening slower than expected, despite us doing nothing about it?

>>11288668
>climate change is caused by the Solar Constant
Incorrect, it is caused by the greenhouse effect.

>>11292063
>OXYGEN IS ANIMAL FOOD HOW CAN OXYGEN BE BAD!!!!

you're a fuckwit. go dig holes. have a beer.

>>11292203
>what is Little Ice Age

>>11292063
>Were their models wrong
What "computer models" were those signs basing their estimate off?