/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12054075
Climate change is not a problem. Its natural process. Problem is speed of that change

>>12054075
Prosperity and growth for many countries

>>12054081
3 degrees of variation are a huge problem even if it occurs over 10 million years.

>>12054141
Care to provide proof for this retarded take?

Earth has went through far more than
>3 degrees of variation over 10 million years
And it is doing just fine.

>>12055317
>And it is doing just fine.
The Earth will be fine, it's the human race that should be worried.

>>12054075
>And if it's fake, provide contradictions that scientists and paid talking groups tend to gloss over that disrupt the narrative.

>be scientist
>imply nothing specific with blanket term "climate change" except maybes and worse case scenarios
>keep getting funded...goes without saying that if the point is still being mentioned you still have morons being paid to chase the shadow and make these "claims"

>stop mentioning buzzword "climate change"
>stop receiving money to research and talk about climate change

It's almost something that goes without saying that if you stop doing your job you stop getting paid but whatever.

>>12054141
What happened to the earth the last time it happened? How is it a problem?

>>12055672
>What happened to the earth the last time it happened? How is it a problem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Effects

>>12055317
Actually having background in geology and paleontology

The resulting loss of biodiversity isn't usually discussed in much detail. It could even result in ecological collapse or human extinction.

>>12056063
>The resulting loss of biodiversity isn't usually discussed in much detail. It could even result in ecological collapse or human extinction.
yeah, my monoculture lawn and farms really needs all of that biodiversity to function properly

>>12056063
I think today it's being taken with more consideration that in the past
Plenty of paleofauna seminaries I've watched during this pandemic, that were from ~2010 to the last year, talked about the importance of measuring local biodiversity, they found collapses happen short time before catastrophic events, as in the event itself wasn't the only and absolute cause of the mass extinction but the drop that filled the glass, except for the P-T and K-Pg boundaries of course

>>12056063
this but the fact that people forget that ecological collapse means literally starvation. save the bees has become a meme at this point but like, literally all of us eat food and all of that food is living material that is sensitive to these changes. yes the temperature and actual long term climate changes does effect communities and habitable regions but people seem to not understand that all it takes it a few dominoes to set off the "oh we don't have enough x to feed people" and then people will start overeating something else (assuming it's not gonna be multiple things which is honestly more likely). that kind of spiraling collapse would happen in like two or so season.

all of these complex systems are interconnected and people tend to focus on "oh boo hoo the planet is dying" when it's moreso "you should be selfishly altruistic for nature because otherwise we will quickly starve". bird communities for example have a massive impact on plant communities through defecation of seeds. the plant being properly dispersed involves both the bird and the plant being not only in the environment but healthy enough to make the journey. if one of these factors is off balance in any of the variables (fewer plants, plants not able to fruit, changing bird habitat due to climate, birds unable to lay eggs or eggs being overeaten by predators) then it can easily magnify into larger results (flock doesn't go to specific area or prefers a different plant in one season leading to less plants in one region and then more room for weeds so that next season when there ARE seeds there's no room for those seeds). We've seen this time and time and time again in history with the introduction of invasives or control measures for pests. Never forget that chestnut blight was introduced in the 1900s and eliminated 8.8 million acres of forest from the US by the 50s.

>>12054135
Wow, too bad. All that rich productive cropland in western Australia and the Arabian peninsula gone to waste.

>>12055698
>The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[37][38][39]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.

>>12055317
There is an ice age every 100,000 years you fucking dipshit.

>>12055672
>be retard
>confuse your ignorance of climate science for scientists not being specific
>keep repeating it's a hoax with no evidence
>gravity is fake because physicists get paid

>>12055698
>wikipedia
oh dear.

Isn't one of the long term effects of climate change acidification of the ocean and losing out on arable land? That's pretty much a double whammy in terms of food production because you'll be farming and fishing a lot less in the long run.

I support climate change. Humanity does not deserve to survive. Hopefully the rest of life on earth can adapt, hopefully humans die out.

>>12056757
This is correct. Once you add the population growth projections to arable land loss and OA then things get pretty dire.

>>12056757
Even considering things like that I don't think there's anything that can't be mitigated perfectly well with foresight and intelligent policies. However that's a pretty huge if, the lack of both is why climate change is an issue in the first place. At this point I imagine WW3 breaking out in response to climate change is more likely.

based

>>12054075
Most people are not aware changing weather pattern means long dry periods in usually wet and fertile regions like Central Europe and North America. As a result you get crop failure and fast deforestation. Of course this speeds up global overheating even more.

>>12056571
So you're really this ignorant
When biodiversity crashes, the survivors fill the niches left. When you have a total crash such as in the P-T event, or some regions of the T-J extinction, it takes much more time for life to restablish itself AND then fill back the previously left niches AND while doing so create new ones, allowing for the named radiation in this case

>>12056713
It's that simple and people still doesn't get it, it would be useless to discuss the raw data here

>>12054075
The mass migrations that will happen when some regions become literally uninhabitable for humans. We've literally never seen anything close to the amount of people that will all be trying to reach safety and food at the same time. Think the population of entire countries on the move.

>>12058493
>Most people are not aware
Global Warming (AKA climate change, whatever the fuck that is) is based on fraudulent data which has been exposed exhaustively. Earths climate is driven by the sun, Co2 is a trace gas and has no impact on climate and follows heating and cooling not the other way around. There is perfect correlation between sunspot cycles, solar procession and galactic procession and earths fluctuating temperature cycles as evidenced by ice ages. The most significant ice ages occur during the transit from one side of the galactic plane to the other

>>12056651
>gravity is fake because physicists get paid

Gravity is a description of mass accelerating. You'd think after 100+ years they would be able to explain WHY the mass actually does that but all you get is "because gravity".
Same with climatologists. You describe what you see and call it a cause. Because you're a bunch of retards who don't understand the bigger picture.
>muh CO2
"yes", it does that to make the climate disparities needed for mediating this planet. The "carbon cycle" is supposed to fucking happen. Climate is indeed supposed to change.

>a-and if it happens to much the earth will do this that and the other thing to mediate itself
>pay me to be a polish psychic now.
"Cool story bro", I'm still never going to invest in carbon credits and confuse a description for an explanation.

>>12058562
>When biodiversity crashes, the survivors fill the niches left.
"Yes"
>When you have a total crash such as in the P-T event, or some regions of the T-J extinction, it takes much more time for life to restablish itself AND then fill back the previously left niches AND while doing so create new ones, allowing for the named radiation in this case
"Yes".

>>12059850
>>12060586
go back to /pol/, /pol/nigger

>>12060593
>I swear it's not an ecchochamber, we just don't like people who disaggree
>you flat-earth-fucktard that molests own daughters with a donkey, just like it says in the bible, because those are the only people that would ever disagree
>now let me tell you, retard, why you're such a moron. First...
>hey, why aren't you listening? Fine, fuck off.
>proof I'm right, you wrong and that I win, because that's all that matters.
Did it feel cathartic?

>>12060649
It's not a matter of politics anymore, ice is melting when it absolutely shouldn't and the sea floor is farting things that we KNOW are markers of really bad times
so again, fuck off to /pol/, /pol/nigger, didn't read your shitty post btw

>>12056550
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJTGAtLH7Hw

>>12060593
Are you implying that climate change is a political discussion instead of a scientific one? I agree, and it should be discussed only on /pol/.

>>12060586
>Gravity is a description of mass accelerating. You'd think after 100+ years they would be able to explain WHY the mass actually does that but all you get is "because gravity".
I understand you're scientifically illiterate but even you should know that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. Regardless, you can keep asking "why" over and over again and eventually reach either the current limit of empirical knowledge or a question that has no answer. What exactly does this exercise show?

>Same with climatologists.
If climatology is as rigorous to you as gravitational physics then there is really nothing to argue about.

>You describe what you see and call it a cause.
As opposed to...?

>"yes", it does that to make the climate disparities needed for mediating this planet. The "carbon cycle" is supposed to fucking happen. Climate is indeed supposed to change.
Can you explain why? Even if we ignore the teleological fallacy, this is also exceptionally vague. The greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle occur with or without human emissions. You have completely missed the point, that human emissions causing rapid climate change is bad for humans.

>>a-and if it happens to much the earth will do this that and the other thing to mediate itself
>>pay me to be a polish psychic now.
>"Cool story bro", I'm still never going to invest in carbon credits and confuse a description for an explanation.
Can you translate this schizophrenic gibberish?

>>12059850
>Global Warming (AKA climate change, whatever the fuck that is) is based on fraudulent data which has been exposed exhaustively.
Like what?

>Earths climate is driven by the sun
Please explain pic related then.

>Co2 is a trace gas
So trace amounts of something can't have a large impact?

>and has no impact on climate
The greenhouse effect is a consequence of fundamental physics and chemistry, and can be directly observed:

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

>and follows heating and cooling not the other way around.
It's both.

Why do AGW deniers constantly lie?

>There is perfect correlation between sunspot cycles, solar procession and galactic procession and earths fluctuating temperature cycles as evidenced by ice ages.
LOL, current warming is completely uncorrelated with the Milankovich cycles you're referring to. According to those cycles we should be in the slow cooling phase after the interglacial warming that occurred about 10000 years ago. Instead we are warming on top of the interglacial warming, at a rate an order of magnitude faster than that warming. So you're competent wrong about the correlation, in both direction and magnitude.

>>12060586
>>12060953
Avatarfagging is a bannable offense.

>>12060993
>I understand you're scientifically illiterate but even you should know that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime.

And I understand that you're scientifically illiterate because what you've provided is an explanation to gravity using a model. A model that uses two things that were never empirically verified to exist (space and time).
You may have well said that gravity is caused by the curvature of unicorn farts and it would have been just as accurate of a description.

>Regardless, you can keep asking "why" over and over again and eventually reach either the current limit of empirical knowledge or a question that has no answer. What exactly does this exercise show?
That descriptions aren't explanations and re describing things over and over doesn't answer a "why" question.

>If climatology is as rigorous to you as gravitational physics then there is really nothing to argue about.
>still no explanation to why mass attracts mass
>still no explanation correlating CO2 rising with heat

>As opposed to...?
As opposed to using a scientific approach and not LARPing as a bum.

>Can you explain why?
Because heat goes to where it isn't by pressure mediation

>You have completely missed the point, that human emissions causing rapid climate change is bad for humans.
Oh so that was your point? Now prove how it's bad. Everything you've posted so far indicates that it isn't actually bad. Humans don't really do well in ice and snow.

>Can you translate this schizophrenic gibberish?
It is schizophrenic gibberish isn't it? Imagine being a main proponent of climate change (Al Gore) and actually discussing the possibility of investing in "carbon credits". What a fucking lunatic amirite?

Basically what I'm saying is that you can talk all you want to about shadows, I really don't give a fuck. Just don't enforce it as a "first sin" type of punishment towards me, where I have to suffer because of some stupid faggots belief system. (ex. California gas prices)

>>12061028
>muh Al Gore
You're like a broken fucking record

>>12061026
Found your house on google maps.

>>12061028
>And I understand that you're scientifically illiterate because what you've provided is an explanation to gravity using a model.
Every explanation is a model, you utter moron.

>A model that uses two things that were never empirically verified to exist (space and time).
Every time you measure a distance or a time you empirically verify that they exist. Schizo.

>That descriptions aren't explanations and re describing things over and over doesn't answer a "why" question.
Then give an explanation that isn't a description. You already avoided this question once. Let's see how many times you'll fail. Or just admit that nothing satisfies your definition of "explanation" and thus no "why" question is answerable by your standards.

>still no explanation to why mass attracts mass
I already gave you an explanation.

>>still no explanation correlating CO2 rising with heat
It's called the greenhouse effect, surly you've heard of it.

>As opposed to using a scientific approach and not LARPing as a bum.
Only you and a few other schizos seem to think relativity is unscientific. How is it unscientific?

>Because heat goes to where it isn't by pressure mediation
What does that mean and why is it? That sounds awfully a lot like a description of heat and not an "explanation." This also doesn't even seem to answer my question. I asked you why the climate "should" change, not why it changes. You seem to think that there is some grand design and not just things happening.

>Now prove how it's bad.
Pic related.

>Humans don't really do well in ice and snow.
Do you live in ice and snow now? Do you think people lived in ice and snow in the 1800s? Then why do you think mitigating AGW means living in ice and snow? Humans do well in the climate they evolved in, which we are rapidly leaving. Ignoring the consequences of global warming and making up an ice and snow boogeyman is idiotic.

>It is schizophrenic gibberish isn't it?
Yes.

>>12061075
don't bother too much he's a /pol/turd refugee trolling

>>12061089
He's not, he's a schizo named Ken Wheeler.

>>12061099
>literal eu schizo
jesus christ bro

>>12061075
>Every explanation is a model
every model is a re description of the real thing. A representation, an imitation.

>Every time you measure a distance or a time you empirically verify that they exist.
>measure space
>what is it that you're measuring?
>"space, duh"
>..so what is space..
>what we measured
>which is...?
>we measured a "distance"
>so space is "distance" or a measurement itself?
>No it's space!
Ad infinitum. Keep chasing the shadow, I won't stop you
>measuring time
>but time is a measurement itself

>Then give an explanation that isn't a description.
>Prove what has no proof of existence exists.
I can't. Sorry.

>I already gave you an explanation
And you used two non-empirically verified things to do so. Unfortunately space or time has no properties to cause anything so this is not an accurate explanation.

>Only you and a few other schizos seem to think relativity is unscientific. How is it unscientific?
Because like I said, "Space" and "time" don't actually exist to be modeled in the first place.

>What does that mean and why is it? That sounds awfully a lot like a description of heat and not an "explanation."
Correct you are! It is a description of heat doing something. "Heat" is a quality of something else so to speak of it as something is a misnomer. When specifically "air" is heated it expands, it's motion and magnitude increases. When the heat is taken away, the air contracts and condense. So air with the quality of being cold acts as a vacuum for the expanded heat to condense to.

>I asked you why the climate "should" change, not why it changes.
I missed the "should", but if you're going that route then "by necessity". Otherwise there would be "no climate"

>You seem to think that there is some grand design and not just things happening.
You seem to think everything happens out of chaos despite visible order and structure to things?

1/2

>>12061099
Hey it's rent free dude! How am I doing in your head? Can I move out now? Do I get my deposit back? I'm insulted that you think I'm chubby and have tattoos despite the timestamped picture I so lovingly gave you!

>>12061075
2/2
>Do you live in ice and snow now?
No.
>Do you think people lived in ice and snow in the 1800s?
Some did, but most moved away because that shit sucked. Is the reason why I am here, not living in ice and snow.
>Then why do you think mitigating AGW means living in ice and snow?
I don't. What do you mean?
>Humans do well in the climate they evolved in
Last time I checked, we evolved because we left the torpidity of snow and ice. Also we built lots of fires too.
>which we are rapidly leaving
>yes in favor of the indoor life where we have generators, heat and electricity to do the work we fucking hated doing.

>Ignoring the consequences of global warming and making up an ice and snow boogeyman is idiotic.
Explain how increasing the insulation on something that heats makes something cool. Did you misread one of my posts or something?

>Yes.
I agree, why should I pay for other countries to industrialize? Pretty stupid if you ask me.

>>12061089
Climate change is a political discussion and should me moved to >>>/pol/

>>12061153
>every model is a re description of the real thing. A representation, an imitation.
And? Again please provide an explanation that is not a description, model, etc. Show us true reality in and of itself, oh wise one! You can't, you fucking hypocrite.

>Ad infinitum.
I'm not seeing any refutation there of space being empirically verified. Try again.

>>but time is a measurement itself
No time is a dimension of the spacetime manifold. It's like saying left is a measurement.

>I can't. Sorry.
Then you're a fucking hypocrite.

>And you used two non-empirically verified things to do so.
No I didn't. Why are you lying?

>Unfortunately space or time has no properties to cause anything so this is not an accurate explanation.
Spacetime has curvature which causes gravity. Your bullshit fails immediately.

>Because like I said, "Space" and "time" don't actually exist to be modeled in the first place.
They are modeled and the model is empirically verified. Your bullshit fails immediately.

>Correct you are! It is a description of heat doing something.
So it's not an expansion according to your definition. So answer the question.

>When specifically "air" is heated it expands, it's motion and magnitude increases. When the heat is taken away, the air contracts and condense.
These are descriptions, not "explanations." Try again. Also, why does air do this? And don't you dare give me another description.

Wow this sure is fun, I can simply reject any explanation you give me and automatically win any debate without actually saying anything substantive.

>I missed the "should", but if you're going that route then "by necessity".
If it's "necessary" (which by the way is a description and not an explanation) then say that.

>You seem to think everything happens out of chaos despite visible order and structure to things?
Order, structure, and chaos are simply descriptions of what we observe. And as you have taught me, descriptions are not real.

>>12061171
>I don't. What do you mean?
If AGW prevents people from living in ice and snow then not mitigating AGW means living in ice and snow.

>Last time I checked, we evolved because we left the torpidity of snow and ice.
Nope, humans evolved in and have always lived in the current ice age. If this is the ice and snow AGW will save us from then we don't need to be saved.

>>yes in favor of the indoor life where we have generators, heat and electricity to do the work we fucking hated doing.
None of those necessitate global warming.

>Explain how increasing the insulation on something that heats makes something cool.
Where did I say it did?

>I agree, why should I pay for other countries to industrialize?
Who asked you to?

>Climate change is a political discussion
Denial of science for political reasons doesn't make the science political.

>>12061171
>I'm not Ken Wheeler, I'm a different schizo that just parrots everything he says!
Distinction without a difference, Ken.

>>12061194
1/2
>And? Again please provide an explanation that is not a description, model, etc. Show us true reality in and of itself, oh wise one! You can't, you fucking hypocrite.
I'm not a hypocrite because I'm not claiming space and time exists. I'm also not providing an explanation to something that doesn't exist either because I'm not a religious nutcase.

>I'm not seeing any refutation there of space being empirically verified. Try again.
I'm not seeing empirical evidence of the claim that space exists. You failed once because you equated "space" as "measuring a distance", which isn't even something. It's an action, "to measure". And a measurement isn't something itself either, what's measured is something. So what the fuck "is it" that you're measuring and calling "space"?

>Then you're a fucking hypocrite.
No. I'm just not a retard who talks endlessly about shit that doesn't exist. I'm pointing out the claim that is "space exists" was never actually verified nor is logical.
>No time is a dimension of the spacetime manifold
Which is a made up description! Furthermore it's circular. If time is a dimension of "the spacetime manifold" you're just defining time with time, only with the addition of "space".
But if it makes you feel any better, your descriptions are correct. You described "time" as part of some other model, just as I would correctly describe a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow or a quarter left under my pillow by the toothfairy. It's imaginary but because it's imaginary, the descriptions are correct.

>No I didn't. Why are you lying?
>space
>time
>don't exist yet are somehow warped

>Spacetime has curvature which causes gravity. Your bullshit fails immediately.
The irony is hilarious. Everything you just said is a made up description and completely unverified.

>If it's "necessary" (which by the way is a description)
It's an explanation for it's existence because otherwise it would not exist.

>>12061194
2/2
>Order, structure, and chaos are simply descriptions of what we observe.
Yes. Now explain why those things happen.
>And as you have taught me, descriptions are not real.
They aren't something in and of themselves no. The point I'm getting at is that you can describe things that actually exist and things that don't exist. What will tell you the real story behind what's being described is the explanation. The explanation is what will verify things that seem obscure or ludicrous.
I can describe to you a flux capacitor for instance, what it does, what it looks like, what it's features are. Yet the explanation would reveal to you that it doesn't actually do what I described it as being able to do, it would elaborate on why it actually exists and "is a thing".

>None of those necessitate global warming.
>heat doesn't necessitate warming

>Where did I say it did?
Whatever, one of us got lost grasping straws.

>Who asked you to?
I was never asked to, that's the joke. In order to fix the alleged damages that man made climate change causes, you would literally have to enforce it. That takes money and resources no? Do you think all countries would participate it fixing these alleged damages?

>Denial of science for political reasons doesn't make the science political.
Fair enough, /pol/ chases enough shadows as it is.

>>12061218
>Parrots a Ken quote.
Hi, Ken!

>>12058493
people are also not aware how fast this happens
you go from - just some death trees, no need to worry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4g2rrOj0c8
to - vast areas of forest dead - OMG how is this even possible - in 3 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7S_GNq31Y

>>12061099
Can I get a quick rundown on this Ken Wheeler? I've been off /sci/ for a few months so I'm not up to date on the latest spammers and schizos

i don't even need to read the thread to know it's been derailed by retards

>>12061274
>I'm not a hypocrite because I'm not claiming space and time exists.
Right, you're a hypocrite for attempting to enforce arbitrary standards on what is an explanation or what is scientific and then immediately failing to adhere to those standards yourself.

>I'm also not providing an explanation to something that doesn't exist either because I'm not a religious nutcase.
You're not providing an explanation at all.

>I'm not seeing empirical evidence of the claim that space exists.
I anyway gave it to you. Measuring it is the most basic empirical evidence you can get. You haven't given me a reason why this is not evidence.

>You failed once because you equated "space" as "measuring a distance"
No I didn't, I said measuring distance is empirical evidence for space.

>which isn't even something
A measurement is something.

>So what the fuck "is it" that you're measuring and calling "space"?
What else do you think it is?

>No. I'm just not a retard who talks endlessly about shit that doesn't exist.
But that's exactly what you're doing.

>I'm pointing out the claim that is "space exists" was never actually verified nor is logical.
It's verified every day. You are not in the same space as everything else. If you were there would be no separation between you and everything else. But there is a separation, that can be empirically measured. How is it not logical?

>Which is a made up description!
What does that even mean? Which descriptions are not made up? I already asked you for your explanation of true reality without models or "made up descriptions" and you have failed again and again. Your objections are meaningless because they apply to anything and everything. If you want to be scientific you need to be able to discern between models, not just whine that something is a model.

>>12061274
>Furthermore it's circular. If time is a dimension of "the spacetime manifold" you're just defining time with time, only with the addition of "space".
Spacetime is not the same as time, so this is not circular. No more so than describing any other dimension as part of the manifold containing it. Try again.

>It's imaginary
Then you should be able to refute all empirical evidence for it. I suggest you start by showing that you can't measure time and that events are not separated by time.

>>don't exist yet are somehow warped
But they do exist, as I've already shown. Repeating they don't over and over again is not an argument.

>Everything you just said is a made up description and completely unverified.
It's all verified.

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

>It's an explanation for it's existence because otherwise it would not exist.
This is just another description, and it's circular. Try again.

>>12061310
>Yes. Now explain why those things happen.
They don't happen, they're descriptions of what does happen. What does happen can either be reduced to being caused by other things that happen or are irreducibly fundamental. But all of this is a model, and you can't escape that. You especially can't escape that by making up your own physics terminology and then refusing to explain what it means.

>What will tell you the real story behind what's being described is the explanation.
No, it's empirical verification. An explanation is just another description. You're contradicting yourself again. You reject spacetime curvature even though it's an explanation because you think it isn't empirically verified, even though it clearly is. And then when it comes to your own explanation you fail to even define your terms, let alone provide empirical evidence.

>>heat doesn't necessitate warming
Correct. The entirety of human waste heat has no affect on the global climate.

>I was never asked to, that's the joke. In order to fix the alleged damages that man made climate change causes, you would literally have to enforce it.
No I wouldn't. Carbon credits are a strawman only you brought up.

>>Parrots a Ken quote
Your delusions are showing again.

>>12062090
You can google him. He started out as a fat amateur photographer, who claimed to be professional because he bought a lot of cameras and reviewed them on YouTube. The delusions of grandeur were immediately apparent, as he had no skill in photography yet criticized others. He eventually accepted a chalet from a photographer to do a "shoot off" and lost so miserably that his opponent felt sorry for him and realized he was mentally ill. Then Ken moved on to proclaiming himself to be a Buddhist philosopher and translator. He bizarrely mixed Buddhism with Nazi race theory, and was again ridiculed by the community he was attempting to operate in, the Buddhist blogosphere. Then he moved on to Electric Universe style crap, where he currently resides happily since those loons will accept anyone spouting nonsense as long as it contradicts established physics.

>>12054135
This seriously looks like a bullshit map. Why would the deep reds be right next to deep greens?

>>12058577
Don't worry, Europe will take one for the team and let them all in. It will be up to the Chinks and Americans to ensure the survival of humankind.

>>12054135
You do realize a -50% fall in yields in the world's more productive areas more than offsets a 100% increase in some Siberian shithole, right?

You can't read a map, it seems. Because your map means food prices will skyrocket worldwide.

>>12064154
It's a polish shitposter don't bother replying.

>>12064203
You're just jealous of his apples.

>>12054075
>paid talking groups
>the narrative
found the schizo denialist

>>12060593
That's a compelling argument Mr Nye.

>>12063634
>why would nevada be a desert when california has the best climate in the country
you

>>12061017
>It's both
no it isn't. Cold weather = less atmospheric C02, warm weather = more atmospheric C02. You can demonstrate this one with a bottle of coke and a fridge.

After 1975 the quality of weather station data declined markedly. NASA has become a sad shadow of its former self, this is evident in the divergence on your graphic at the time lower quality data started to be incorporated also funding for global warming research was made available for any scientist pushing the agenda. Did you forget the recent scandal with leading warmist academics being exposed for colluding in data fraud?

This video explains the solar oscillation as discovered by Ukrainian astrophysicist Professor Valentina Zharkova.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY
This will either be proven or dis-proven in the next year or two.

>>12064519
>C02

>>12060593
>>12060953
>t.

>>12064647

>>12064519
>Cold weather = less atmospheric C02, warm weather = more atmospheric C02
Right, and vice versa too. It's called the greenhouse effect. Care to explain why you keep ignoring it?

>After 1975 the quality of weather station data declined markedly.
According to what analysis?

>Did you forget the recent scandal with leading warmist academics being exposed for colluding in data fraud?
Yes, I must have. Please refresh my recollection.

>This video explains the solar oscillation as discovered by Ukrainian astrophysicist Professor Valentina Zharkova.
OK, so what? No solar oscillation explains current warming. Solar activity, cosmic rays, etc. are all going in the wrong direction.

>>12056651
>acktchually.jpg
Probably a bad example, but if gravity is defined as attractions of mass, and mass doesn't really exists (it's a measure of inertial resistance of particles moving through the higgs field)(much like time. Time doesn't exist, it's just a measurement of entropy), than gravity is fake and gay and just a term we use to loosly and poorly describe a shared and consistent phenomenon we don't fully understand (much like climate change.)

>>12064697
OK schizo.

>>12054075
human mental performance is reduced measurably over 600 ppm

>>12067489
all these stinking basement dwellers live 24/7 in over 600 ppm