/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11600379

> About Climate Changes & Global Warming:
https://files.catbox.moe/q4g7j2.webm

> Why You need to change ALL your plans for the Future:
https://files.catbox.moe/7tywlb.webm

> Will YOU Survive the Coming Ice Age?:
https://files.catbox.moe/vrf5fj.webm

> How the ENTIRE European Population will be NORDIC in some thousand years:
https://files.catbox.moe/w5dd23.webm

>>11600379
The climate has always been changing and always will. So yes, of course it's real. As for your pic - no, of course it's not driven by humans. Also those percentages ignores thousands of climate scientists who say they don't agree. They're simply not counted.

>>11600468
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

>>11600468
>As for your pic - no, of course it's not driven by humans.
Wrong. Pic related.

>Also those percentages ignores thousands of climate scientists who say they don't agree.
Source?

>>11600553
It's well known. Here's an example: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

>>11600553
>>11600704
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

>>11600553
>>11600704
>>11600712
https://web.archive.org/web/20090204034800/https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1101704.html

http://archive.is/6lrJU

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/

>in other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie.

>>11600534
That gif is of stratosphere temperature, global warming happens at surface level.

>>11600379
As expected, the thread turned into a /po/tard shityard.

>>11600553
>>11600704
>>11600730
https://mises.org/wire/bogus-consensus-argument-climate-change

>I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position.

>>11600733
>Truth is "/pol/tard shityard"
?????????

>>11600379
it's real but there's really good pseudoscience that popped up to discount it for no reason

>>11600553
>>11600704
>>11600730
>>11600734

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

To sum up, it was Al Gore who invented the idea that "climate change" is "settled science" and that there's a "consensus" that humans cause "global warming" / "climate change". Since then polls have been fabricated, modified and taken in such a way as to support this.

In general when you're dealing with polls you should always ask yourself "Who is doing the polling?" and how is it being done? And what political motivations are driving it? What interest money is involved? Etc.

>>11600704
LOL did you even read your own source? It says there is no restriction to who can sign and no verification of credentials. It claims 31000 "scientists" yet the only specific thing it claims about these people is that they have degrees. Most people with science degrees are not scientists. It doesn't even claim that any of its signers are climate scientists. So how does this show thousands of climate scientists disagreeing with the consensus? How does it show these alleged scientists aren't counted?

>>11600712
>The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.
This is a non sequitur. How are papers which state no position relevant to whether climate scientists agree or disagree with the consensus? How is the methodology flawed?

>In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.
This is funny, since only two paragraphs before this, the author talks about 66% of papers taking no position as if it counters the 97% figure, yet when discussing this poll, the fact that only 26% of AMS members stated a position is ignored. The author is a hypocrite with no interest in logical consistency.

High CO2 concentrations is correlated with the beginning of cooling

The largest known increase of co2 has happened over the past 10k years and the temperature is in a down trend over the past 10k years

Also anyone who says "scientific consensus" is not a scientist

Imagine if the scientific method was
1. Hypothesis
2. Check consensus
3. Does hypothesis meet consensus
4. If hypothesis is the consensus then hypothesis is correct otherwise false

>>11600712
Continuing >>11600773
The author also seems to imply that the members of the AMS are a representative sample of climate scientists, yet this poll from 2016 https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3 shows that only 37% of AMS members consider themselves experts in climate science. This poll also shows the percentage of AMS members agreeing with the consensus increasing from 55% to 67% in only 4 years.

This article does not show what it claims to show.

>>11600727
>https://web.archive.org/web/20090204034800/https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1101704.html
This article claims a list of hundreds of scientists, but doesn't give enough detail to find it. It also seems to be another list of general "scientists" instead of climate scientists. The lack of specificity in your sources seem to imply that there are only a handful of actual climate scientists that disagree with the consensus, which supports the 97% figure.

>>11600730
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/
Your sources seem to be decreasing in quality. This one claims to show global warming is a myth yet all it can offer are cherrypicked non-global temperature graphs.

>>11600732
Yeah, that's one of the things the gif points out...

>>11600734
Why exactly is this interesting? Most biology papers take no position on whether evolution is true, because it's already well proven.

>The over 650 dissenting scientists
Where are the "thousands of climate scientists that haven't been counted" though? Most scientists are not climate scientists.

>are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Idiotic comparison. What about the thousands of authors of the research the IPCC cites to support its reports?

>>11600786
>High CO2 concentrations is correlated with the beginning of cooling
Where?

And how do you avoid the fact that high CO2 concentrations are causative of high temperatures via the greenhouse effect?

>he largest known increase of co2 has happened over the past 10k years and the temperature is in a down trend over the past 10k years
This is incredibly misleading. The largest increase of CO2 has happened in only the last 100 years and the temperature is in an extreme upward trend over the last 100 years. Why are you comparing an increase that happened in a certain period to the trend over that period instead of comparing trend to trend or increase to increase? The only purpose of comparing the increase to the trend is to create a spurious lack of correlation. Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?

>>11600803
>Also anyone who says "scientific consensus" is not a scientist
Anyone who cries about scientific consensus because it conflicts with their pet ideology is scientifically illiterate.

>>11600803
>Imagine if the scientific method was
But no one said it is. The consensus is simply the result of a theory being checked many times and passing. This means the vast majority of scientific research supports the theory. No one checks hypotheses by referring to the consensus.

>>11600849

>>11600947
>Past 10,000 years have largest increase in CO2
This shows the largest increase is in the last 100 years, which is only 1% of the last 10000 years. What is the point of making such an inaccurate statement?

>High CO2 concentrations are correlated with the beginning of cooling
This shows increasing CO2 concentrations are correlated with warming in Greenland, a peak is reached and then both CO2 and temperatures decrease slowly. So saying high CO2 concentrations are correlated with cooling is highly misleading. In reality, this process, called the Milankovich cycle, is controlled by changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity. According to the Milankovich cycle, we should be slowly cooling and CO2 should be slowly decreasing over the next tens of thousands of years. Instead, we are pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, causing rapid warming. Everything you've posted shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue.

>But there is no warming trend
There is a warming trend, over the last 100 years. This can be seen in the GISP site temps you posted. Your last image doesn't have a trendline so it says nothing about a trend or lack of trend.

>>11600947
You missed some questions:

How do you avoid the fact that high CO2 concentrations are causative of high temperatures via the greenhouse effect?

Why are you comparing an increase that happened in a certain period to the trend over that period instead of comparing trend to trend or increase to increase?

Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?

>>11600978
>This shows the largest increase is in the last 100 years,
no it doesn't

there is no warming trend

>milankovitch is the cause of rising temperature and CO2
I know

>>11600986
>How do you avoid the fact that high CO2 concentrations are causative of high temperatures via the greenhouse effect?
no evidence of this.
if you'd been educated you might be aware of pic related and absurdity of the idea of believing concentration of one gas is the earths temperature dial. Anthropogenic Climate change is preposterous

>>11601004
>no it doesn't
It does. Why are you lying about anyone can easily look up and that you can even see in your own graph?

CO2 10000 years ago: 265 ppm
CO2 200 years ago: 285 ppm
CO2 100 years ago: 300 ppm
CO2 today: 415 ppm

>there is no warming trend
Wrong. Pic related. Why are you lying about anyone can easily look up and that you can even see in your own graph?

>I know
Then why are you saying high CO2 concentrations correlate with the beginning of cooling when you know what actually correlates with the beginning of cooling?

>no evidence of this.
It's directly observed: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf and has been scientific fact since the 1800s. Why are you lying about such a basic fact?

>if you'd been educated you might be aware of pic related and absurdity of the idea of believing concentration of one gas is the earths temperature dial.
Who said it is?

>Anthropogenic Climate change is preposterous
Then why are you completely incapable of making an honest critique of it?

>>11601004
You missed some questions:

Why are you comparing an increase that happened in a certain period to the trend over that period instead of comparing trend to trend or increase to increase?

Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?

>>11601041
>CO2 10000 years ago: 265 ppm
>CO2 200 years ago: 285 ppm
>CO2 100 years ago: 300 ppm
>CO2 today: 415 ppm
nope, it is you who are lying

>high co2 isn't correlated with the beginning of cooling
the absolute state

why is there no greenland weather data available past 2015

>>11601062
>nope, it is you who are lying
Your own image proves I'm not and you are. This is really pathetic. What do you think the numbers are and what is your source?

>the absolute state
Not an argument. Let's try it this way: what is "high CO2?"

You missed some questions:

Why are you comparing an increase that happened in a certain period to the trend over that period instead of comparing trend to trend or increase to increase?

Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?

Why are you lying about [there being no warming trend] something anyone can easily look up and that you can even see in your own graph?

Why are you lying about such a basic fact [the greenhouse effect]?

Who said [the concentration of gas is the Earth's temperature dial]?

>>11601114
Why do you think there isn't?

>>11601131
can't find it, do you have it?

>>11601129
>Why are you comparing an increase that happened in a certain period to the trend over that period instead of comparing trend to trend or increase to increase?
>Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?
this is semantics.
the trends to trends or the increases to increases aren't correlated.
>Why are you lying about [there being no warming trend] something anyone can easily look up and that you can even see in your own graph?
there is no warming >>11600947
>Why are you lying about such a basic fact [the greenhouse effect]?
you are misrepresenting the greenhouse effect as the mechanism behind the warming of the earth. The greenhouse effect talks about gasses ability to absorb heat this not a model of the earths climate
Who said [the concentration of gas is the Earth's temperature dial]?
The idea that the temperature is a function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is your belief. You believe this model >>11600849 absolutely laughable

>>11601129
I'd be interested to see what you think what we should do re climate change

>>11600831
>Most biology papers
Most biology papers findings wouldnt change even if evolution fell out of fashion. So of course they dont mention it, because they have nothing to do with it.
>What about the thousands of authors of the research the IPCC cites to support its reports?
What about them? You realize just because the IPCC can cite a paper to support their theories doesn't automatically mean the original author supports their conclusions.

>>11601135
https://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Rapporter/TR/2018/DMIRep18-04.pdf

>>11601170
>this is semantics.
So you get the same result if you compare trend to trend? No, both trends are decreasing over 10000 years.

>the trends to trends or the increases to increases aren't correlated.
LOL, they are the same.

>there is no warming >>11600947
I already showed you there is here >>11601041 and nothing you posted shows a lack of warming.

>you are misrepresenting the greenhouse effect as the mechanism behind the warming of the earth. The greenhouse effect talks about gasses ability to absorb heat this not a model of the earths climate
The greenhouse effect involves the ability of gasses to absorb *and emit* heat, and is a necessary part of any model of the Earth's climate. It's funny how you accuse me of misrepresenting the greenhouse effect while you're the one doing it.

>The idea that the temperature is a function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is your belief.
No, it's not my belief. The temperature is a function of more than just the concentration of CO2. CO2 simply happens to be the most dominant factor at this time. This can be seen in my post here >>11600553

You're a one trick pony, can you do anything else but misrepresent facts and your opponent's argument? You know, like actually presenting evidence of your claims?

You missed some questions:

Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?

What do you think the numbers [CO2 concentrations] are and what is your source?

Let's try it this way: what is "high CO2?"

>>11601175
An optimal carbon tax and increased support for nuclear and renewable energy.

Why do retards call it "climate change" when the grammatically correct phrasing is "rapid climatic change"

During the great depression did people say "we're really experiencing the bad effects of economy change" no, because they would sound like mouth breathing retards. They would have said "we're really experiencing the bad effects of rapid economic change"

>>11600773
>How is the methodolgy flawed?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

>>11601198
>Most biology papers findings wouldnt change even if evolution fell out of fashion. So of course they dont mention it, because they have nothing to do with it.
Is this supposed to differentiate biology from climatology?

>What about them? You realize just because the IPCC can cite a paper to support their theories doesn't automatically mean the original author supports their conclusions.
So an opinion is more important than what the research supports? The thing you deniertards never seem to get is that the consensus is a consensus of scientific evidence, not a popularity contest.

I'm glad you brought my attention back to this fake news though, since I had been thinking about this comparison. Why did they only count the 52 authors of the Summary for Policy Makers? The IPCC 2007 report is much larger than the SPM and has... 620 authors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_of_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis

Yet again we see how willing deniers are to make misleading arguments and outright lie.

>>11601215
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>>11601204
>No, both trends are decreasing over 10000 years.
still lying. The trends are not correlated >>11601062

>CO2 simply happens to be the most dominant factor at this time.
which is what I disagree with

>Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?
I believe there is no unprecedented warming this>>11601041 is insignifcant to this>>11601062 >>11600947
I believe there is no evidence to believe anthropogenic climate is real.

>What do you think the numbers [CO2 concentrations] are and what is your source?
for what data

>Let's try it this way: what is "high CO2?"
2 standard deviations above mean for a data set. the larger the data set the more something can be said to be high. In this case>>11600947 I'd guess above 260ppm.
Are you actually so retarded you don't understand the concept of high?
Imagine actually debating high CO2 concentration is correlated with the beginning of cooling

>>11600849
where do I buy and sell temperature futures?

>>11601232
>still lying. The trends are not correlated >>11601062
Yes you are still lying, since that does not show the modern temperature trend. The temperature data ends in 1855. The modern temperature trend can be seen here >>11600849, here >>11601041 and here >>11601204. But you know this already. You know you're explicitly lying, but you do it anyway. Do you have any shame?

>which is what I disagree with
Then argue against it instead of things I never said. Unfortunately, we both know you can't, since you have no actual knowledge of the topic we're discussing and can only straw-man and lie.

>I believe there is no unprecedented warming this>>11601041 (You) is insignifcant to this
How is it insignificant? It shows the warming you delusionally deny.

>I believe there is no evidence to believe anthropogenic climate is real.
You were provided with plenty of evidence. Where is your response to the radiative forcing of CO2, shown in >>11600553 and >>11601041? "I disagree" is not a response to scientific evidence, it's an admittal that you have no argument.

>for what data
??? You said the CO2 concentration I gave you are a lie. What data is telling you that?

>2 standard deviations above mean for a data set.
Why 2 standard deviations?

>I'd guess above 260ppm.
So you're basing your correlation on a guess of an arbitrary standard? But you supposedly already know about Milankovich cycles, which are not caused by CO2 levels reaching some arbitrary level. Do you ever get tired of being BTFO?

Not to mention that CO2 concentration has been much higher than 260 ppm over the last 100 years, and cooling has not begun. The opposite has occurred, rapid warming. So your alleged correlation is false.

>Are you actually so retarded you don't understand the concept of high?
I do, which is why I can see that high CO2 is correlated with high temperatures.

>>11601232
You missed some questions:

Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?

What do you think the numbers [CO2 concentrations] are and what is your source?

>>11601264
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weatherfuture.asp

>>11601264
How do we know that there haven't been huge spikes up and down like that all the way, but that we obviously lacked tools to detect them? The closer you are to the time, the nosier the data will be.

I mean, ofc an average looks smoother.

>>11601293
adding the modern data doesn't make the trends correlate you retard. Temperature is flat
the rate of change of temperature is not unprecedented either. pic related
>How is it insignificant? It shows the warming you delusionally deny.
the treds don't correlate if you add data post 1855. pic related

>why 2 standard deviations
becaus 95% of the temperature is beneath that. Still having trouble with the concept of high you retard?
>So you're basing your correlation on a guess of an arbitrary standard? But you supposedly already know about Milankovich cycles, which are not caused by CO2 levels reaching some arbitrary level. Do you ever get tired of being BTFO?
>debating the concept of high.
You are the dumbest cunt on here

>>11601296
answered them here >>11601232

>>11601328
>How do we know that there haven't been huge spikes up and down like that all the way, but that we obviously lacked tools to detect them?
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

>>11601293
>You said the CO2 concentration I gave you are a lie. What data is telling you that?
link where I said this

>>11601331
>adding the modern data doesn't make the trends correlate you retard.
It does. You don't seem to understand what correlation means.

>the rate of change of temperature is not unprecedented either.
Globally it is. Also, how can you even tell that for the GISP2 data? The x axis has 1000 years as a unit.

>Temperature is flat
How is warming flat?

>the treds don't correlate if you add data post 1855. pic related
That shows a clear correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperature.

>becaus 95% of the temperature is beneath that.
That would be true, if the temperatures were normally distributed. Unsurprisingly your knowledge of statistics is as lacking as your knowledge of climatology. And why is 95% important?

>debating the concept of high.
I'm debating your arbitrary standard of high, which you have no justification for and which I've already shown is irrelevant since the beginning of cooling is caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity, not "high CO2." But of course you ignore that and go straight to puerile insults.

>answered them here >>11601232
So you're saying you actually believe this crap and you're just parroting it? Why do you believe it when I've already shown it to be false? I don't believe you believe it, I don't believe you're that delusional.

And you didn't answer this question: What do you think the numbers [CO2 concentrations] are and what is your source?

You just said "for what data" which is a nonsensical response. I'm asking you what data you're using to claim that my concentrations are a lie.

>>11601340
Here: >>11601062
>>CO2 10000 years ago: 265 ppm
>>CO2 200 years ago: 285 ppm
>>CO2 100 years ago: 300 ppm
>>CO2 today: 415 ppm
>nope, it is you who are lying

>>11601361
no it doesn't are you blind >>11601331
>Globally it is.
no it isn't, where is the evidence.
>how can you even tell that for the GISP2 data? The x axis has 1000 years as a unit.
where is the evidence it is changing in an unprecedented manner
>How is warming flat?
the rate of warming trend is flat over the past 10000 years
playing semantic games again you shill.
>I'm debating your arbitrary standard of high, which you have no justification for and which I've already shown is irrelevant since the beginning of cooling is caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity, not "high CO2." But of course you ignore that and go straight to puerile insults
I never said deny causation I said deny correlation. Imagine actually thinking arguing against high CO2 concentration is correlated with the beginning of cooling it is not deniable.
>I've already shown it to be false?
you have shown no evidence for unprecedented climate change or rate of climate change let alone been able to show any evidence that any change is attributable to actions of mankind
You deny there has been no increasing temperature trend over the past 10,000 years despite the last 10,000 years having the largest increase in CO2 concentration in the last 400,000 years
>>11601365
fair. I thought you had put temperature in there too. My mistake

>>11601396
in you post in>>11601331
there are about hundred years missing information, you know that?

>>11601396
>retard,shill
does not make your statement more reasonable

>>11601206
>nuclear
based Australia would become the saudi arabia of the world.
When OUEC 21st century uranium shocks to leverage geopolitical support fo the Australian annexation of New Zealand

we have all the gold as well

>>11601427
You believe human activity is causing unprecedented change and rate of change to the climate; the burden of proof is to provide evidence. There is none in this thread.

And there is evidence to the contrary that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the dominant variable in global temperature when in the past 10,000 years they have not even been correlated.

>>11601396
>no it doesn't are you blind >>11601331
Temperature is rising at the same time CO2 is rising. This is called a correlation.

>no it isn't, where is the evidence.
Right here: >>11600849. Are you pretending to be stupid?

>where is the evidence it is changing in an unprecedented manner
Why are you avoiding the question?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
tl;dr current warming is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming

>adding the modern data doesn't make the trends correlate you retard. Temperature is flat
>the rate of warming trend is flat over the past 10000 years
Then so is the trend in CO2. Thanks for disproving yourself.

>playing semantic games again you shill.
Please explain how this is a semantic game. You attempted to misleadingly compare an increase over 100 years to a trend over 10000 years. Your deception was revealed immediately and nothing you've said disputes this.

>I never said deny causation I said deny correlation.
I never said you did. Why is correlation even relevant if you already know causation?

>Imagine actually thinking arguing against high CO2 concentration is correlated with the beginning of cooling it is not deniable.
It's meaningless, since you are guessing an arbitrarily chosen level of "high CO2," and it's irrelevant since we already know what causes the beginning of the cooling.

>you have shown no evidence for unprecedented climate change or rate of climate change let alone been able to show any evidence that any change is attributable to actions of mankind
No matter how much you repeat these lies, the evidence is still in the thread for everyone to see:
>>11600553
>>11600849
>>11601041
All you're doing is destroying your own credibility. Please keep repeating your pathetic lies and denying what's right in front of your face. I win every time you do it.

>You deny there has been no increasing temperature trend over the past 10,000 years
Where?

>>11601438
>have not even been correlated.
despite the last 10,000 years having the largest increase in CO2 concentration and rate of increase in 400,000 years

>>11601433
Not really, fuel costs are practically insignificant for nuclear. Uranium is relatively abundant around the world and you don't need that much of it. Also, uranium extraction from seawater is becoming viable and provides a virtually unlimited source.

>>11601442
the pic is insignificant
>>11600849
is a model not data
>Then so is the trend in CO2.
no it is not pic related >>11601062
>You attempted to misleadingly compare an increase over 100 years to a trend over 10000 years.
never did this
>know causation?
you cannot have causation without correlation and CO2 and temperature are not correlated over the past 10,000 years despite the greatest increase in CO2 ever

>>11601229
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001
>1.
Cook et al (2013) do not show tests for systematic differences between raters. Abstract rater IDs may or may not be confidential (Queensland 2012, 2014), but the authors could have reported test results without revealing identities.
This never gets adressed explicitly, all they do is say that "Tol published instructions on how to identify raters from anonymised data using stolen private correspondence3and has publicly identified raters on multiple occasions"
So his criticisms that raters may have sytematic differences still stand.
(if you read the link, Tol claims that roughly half of the raters were the authors of the paper and the other half were close associates of them; weird that they are silent about this)
>2.
The paper argues that the raters were independent. Yet, the raters were drawn from the same group. Cook et al (2013) are unfortunately silent on the procedures that were put in place to prevent communication between raters.
The first part of the criticism (non-representative selection of raters) is never adressed, as for the second sentence, what wee get is this:
>Tol (2016) questions what procedures were adopted to prevent communication between raters. Although collusion was technically possible, it was -in practice -virtually impossible. The rating procedure was designed so that each rater was assigned 5 abstracts selected at random from a set of more than 12,000. Consequently, the probability of two raters being assigned the same abstract at the same time was infinitesimal, making collusion practically impossible.
>Raters had access to a private discussion forum which was used to design the study, distribute rating guidelines and organise analysis and writing of the paper.
This is just false, just because they didnt rate them at the same time does not mean they can't communicate about them.
So in conclusion we have to say that this criticism also still stands.

>>11601229
>>11601452
>3.
>The paper states that 'information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden' from the abstract raters. Yet, such information can easily be looked up. Unfortunately, Cook et al (2013) omit the steps taken to prevent raters from gathering additional information, and for disqualifying ratings based on such information.
Response:
>While there was no practical way to hinder raters from fuller investigation ofeach of thousands of abstracts they viewed, raters affirm that this occurred in very few instances, mainly to clarify ambiguous abstract language.
So the answer is basically "we asked them wether they did and they said no". This is really shit methodology. Especially when you consider that these raters probably all knew each other.
>4.
>Cook et al (2013) state that 12 465 abstracts were downloaded from the Web of Science, yet their supporting data show that there were 12 876 abstracts. A later query returned 13 458, only 27 of which were added after Cook ran his query (Tol 2014a). The paper is silent on these discrepancies.
They adress this one and it seems like this was just a misunderstanding/technical issue. This criticism has been fairly adressed in my opinion.

>>11601229
>>11601452
>>11601456
>5.
>The date stamps, which may or may not have been collected (Cook 2013, Cook et al 2014b), reveal that the abstracts were originally rated in two disjoint periods (mid-February to mid-April; second half of May). There was a third period of data collection, in which neutral abstracts were reclassified. Unfortunately, Cook et al (2013) do not make clear what steps were taken to ensure that those who rated abstracts in the second and third periods did not have access to the results of the first and second periods.
Response:
>The event that separated the first and second rating periods was the hacking of the private website hosting the rating system, which forced relocation to a new web server. Therefore the only thing that distinguished the first and second rating periods was that one was before and the other after the hacking event. The third rating period involved classification of 1000 randomly selected “no position” abstracts into either abstracts stating no position on AGW or stating an uncertain position on AGW –by definition, the raters during the third period had access to the fact that the relevant abstracts had been categorised as “no position”. Consequently, this has no relevance to the integrity of the abstract ratings.
They never explicitly mention that they took any steps to prevent this. The criticism still stands.

>>11601229
>>11601452
>>11601456
>>11601460
So in conclusion, the methodology is flawed because:
1. Systematic differences between raters are not accounted for.
2. Raters were drawn form a biased group and next to no steps were taken to ensure there was no communication between them about their results.
3. No serious effort was made to prevent raters from looking up information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date, even though the study claims the papers were anonymized.
4. No serious effort was made to prevent raters from discussing their results from previous rating periods subsequent to their participation in the next rating period (ties into point 2.)

Also don't you think it's weird that the main body of the response is just a reaffirmation of the original paper and all the direct responses to Tol's 5 points of criticism are hidden in the supplementary materials?

So now that a lot of emissions have been efectively stopped by corona, how will we see this represented in climate data that isn't CO2 ppm?

>>11601438
I think there is more than enough amount of data available to come to that conclusion. In the last 30 years we even achieved the most detailed data we can have and this trend is something we should worry about, see >>11600553
>>11601041
. However, I never understood what we as society have to lose if we reduce or stop burning this amount of coal/oil at the rate we are doing now. Instead of that we chose to have endless discussion of pieces of data that is taken out of context or not understood by people that are questioning it.
Have a nice day.

>>11601222
>Is this supposed to differentiate biology from climatology?
Not at all, just show that youre reasoning here: >>11600831
>Why exactly is this interesting? Most biology papers take no position on whether evolution is true, because it's already well proven.
is flawed.

>>11601450
>the pic is insignificant
It's highly significant to humans. Are you human?

>is a model not data
Every reconstruction is a model based on data. Every temperature graph you've posted is a "model not data." Hypocrite.

>no it is not pic related >>11601062
Where is the trendline?

>never did this
You did. The largest increase of CO2 happened only in the last 100 years.

>you cannot have causation without correlation
Of course you can. Are you still in elementary school? If A increases B and C greatly decreases B then A and C lead to B being decreased even though A causes B to increase.

>CO2 and temperature are not correlated over the past 10,000 years despite the greatest increase in CO2 ever
They are correlated throughout. And we are seeing the most rapid global warming in the period as a result. Enough with these pathetic lies. Either you respond to the evidence I presented or you lose.

>>11601493
The true question is not what we have to lose by burning less fuel but rather what we have to gain by handing government employees our money.

>>11601499
>It's highly significant to humans. Are you human?
>change climate is significant to humans
true
>climate change is caused by humans
no evidence
>there is something we can do to stop the climate changing in the way it has for the past 400,000 years
no evidence
>climatic models are as proven as ice core sampling
false
>You did this
I never said that I said the last 10000 years have the largest increase of CO2 conc of any 10000 years in the past 400,000
> If A increases B and C greatly decreases B then A and C lead to B being decreased even though A causes B to increase.
you cannot say increased CO2 conc increases temperature when over the past 10k years we've had the biggest increase of CO2 and no increase in temperature
>Either you respond to the evidence I presented or you lose.
no evidence of unprecedented change of temperature
no evidence of unprecedented change in rate of change of temperature
no evidence man is contributing to the change in temperature

>>11600379
https://youtube.com/watch?v=i-qBOyrD0-0

>>11600379
Excessively polluting with impunity is not possible. Let's stop pretending we can get away with it.

>>11601953
That's retarded. A change of even a few fractions of a percentage will have catastrophic effects on climate. When you combine the death of O2 producing algae, the destruction of rain forests, and the excessive production of CO2, you're setting-up a disaster for humanity.
Ignoring the evidence isn't going to make the problem go away.

>>11600379
Live your life and stop trying to fuck with God's domain, he has that shit covered. I am not a retarded liv and let God type Christcuck but we are talking about planetary climate here, clearly in God's domain not mans. Only Jews would have so much hubris as to claim we could effect such things

>>11600379
>CLIMATE CHANGE REAL ?
no

>>11601958
This is bullshit reasoning. Try snorting 1.25 parts per 10,000 potassium cyanide and see for yourself that that kind of ratio kan have severe effects.

>>11601452
You ignored the response:

>Four of the five specific bulleted criticisms of C13 in Tol (2016) concern the rating process. This diverts attention from the abstracts, which are invariant and can be reassessed by anyone at
any time (an interactive feature inviting people to replicate the abstract ratings of C13 is available online1). Instead Tol focuses on the notion that raters could have colluded with one another or otherwise failed to observe the agreed upon procedures. This argument fails to
recognise that C13 was a survey of the abstracts, not a survey of the raters. The raters were simply a mechanism for determining a rating for the abstracts in the survey. Procedures were put in place to try to ensure that individual ratings were independent, and that the final rating was a reasonable representation of an abstract’s position with respect to AGW. The abstract rating results are further validated by comparison of the abstract ratings with the results of the
author survey where the scientists who produced the studies were invited to rate their full papers, resulting in a 97% consensus.
>Ultimately, however, all the ratings are available online2 and anyone can check how an abstract was rated. It is also quite possible for anyone to redo the entire analysis in a similar, or a different, way.

>For raters who provided more than 500 ratings (N=13), individual rater consensus ranged from 95.798.2% in initial ratings and 96.297.8% in final ratings. Interrater variability could potentially affect reported consensus by up to 1.4%.

>>11601452
>Furthermore, rater consistency was assessed by observing the statistics of the time series of ratings. Using moving windows of ratings (N=50, 100 or 500) and calculating consensus within
these subsamples, it was previously shown in Cook et al (2014) that there was no significant drift in calculated consensus or notable exceedance of bootstrapped confidence intervals in
initial ratings. There is no evidence of a significant effect from interrater differences or from communication between raters.
>Lastly, the 97.1% consensus derived from abstract ratings was independently confirmed by the 97.2% consensus derived from the selfrating survey of authors of the climate papers. None of
the criticisms of the abstract rating process are relevant to the selfrating survey.

>>11601452
>So the answer is basically "we asked them wether they did and they said no". This is really shit methodology. Especially when you consider that these raters probably all knew each other.
What exactly do you think could be done to stop people from looking up the paper when they have to read the paper? Where is the evidence this actually occurred?

>They never explicitly mention that they took any steps to prevent this. The criticism still stands.
The response explains why the criticism is irrelevant. It's the same as the previous criticism about communication.

>So in conclusion, the methodology is flawed because:
None of these are significant flaws. And this only criticizes the volunteer rating section of the paper while ignoring the self rating section which confirmed the result of the first.

In summary:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."
-Richard Tol

>>11601498
You just added another reason why papers would take no position on whether evolution is true. You didn't actually show my reasoning is flawed.

>>11601520
If handling government employees our money means burning less fuel then we certainly have a lot to gain. Why do you want to harm the economy by subjecting it to unmitigated climate change?

even petrol companies were already 30 years ago secretly aknowledging that they were causing global warming

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

>>11601532
>no evidence
I gave you evidence, you ignored it, you lose.

>climatic models are as proven as ice core sampling
"Ice core sampling" does not give you temperature, a model based on ice core sampling gives you temperature. Once again you prove your ignorance of climate science.

>I never said that I said the last 10000 years have the largest increase of CO2 conc of any 10000 years in the past 400,000
That increase is over the last 100 years. So you did say that.

>you cannot say increased CO2 conc increases temperature
It's directly observed.

>when over the past 10k years we've had the biggest increase of CO2 and no increase in temperature
Why do you keep lying? The increase in temperature was shown to you several times. But I'm glad you are at least comparing increase to increase instead of misleadingy comparing increase to trend.

>no evidence of unprecedented change of temperature
>no evidence of unprecedented change in rate of change of temperature
>no evidence man is contributing to the change in temperature
Since you've proven yourself incapable of arguing without lying about what's right in front of your face, this debate is over. You lose. Tell me when you've matured enough to have an honest conversation.

>>11601953
>>11601958
Yawn

https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm

How many graphs and links have been posted in this thread? Anyone counted? 200? Is there an AI tool to combine/analyze all of them and spit out the actual ultimate TRUTH? I need truth. Where is the the truth?

>88 posts
>22 posters
probably a couple of anons engaged in a pissing match. ok never mind then.

>>11602279
Reading is hard, I know.

>>11602129
CO2 is not cyanide.
CO2 is not poison.
That's a non related argument.

>>11602946
>manmade CO2 can't have an effect because it's a trace amount
>cyanide can't have an effect because it's a trace amount
Why is the former a valid argument but the latter isn't?