/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12614666
Oh come on you know the answer
Science is basically sucking politics dick to get funding these days so when politicians need something to be true there will always be some Michael Mann to take the cash and fabricate results

But again, you know this

>>12614666
Modern science is a scam and a hoax.

Typing something into your keyboard doesn't make it true.

>>12614666
>Why is modern science more and more censorship and faith based IE Climatechange, IQ etc etc
>My geography professor
Math, Physics, Chemistry. Fuck off.

>>12614759
Read the post you smartass
i am asking HOW this happened not WHAT is happening
>>12614766
not all of it
though the replication crisis alone shows its dying

>>12614666
No shitty professor is representative of science as a whole. The epidemic of shitty people is not because science is in decline, it is because western civilization is in economic demographic decline: when the youth have no economic prospects they turn to narcissism. If you have 40 years of the youth having no economic prospects you have an epidemic of 40 year old narcissists.

>>12614788
what are the implications of this when living conditions worsen
wont the narcissists think they still deserve all their luxuries and become violent?

>>12614775
>>12614776
ah yes the "i want to circlejerk im my 2nd reddit in peace" crew is already here

>>12614807
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM_QS984JKI
Seriously, it took me one single fucking google search.

You're just climate denier anon. Fuck off /sci/.

>>12614837
the fuck
yes it did turn the sahara green you fuckwit
the point is that people claim the currend desertification of the sahel is because of climate change when in reality rising temperatures would make it more moist and fertile

are you acutally this retarded

>>12614837
This has to be bait

>>12614858
not even that some even go as far as to spend billions of dollars on some project called the "great green wall" which is supposed to be some kind of artificial forest in the sahel that keeps it from the claimed desertification

in reality the NGO that does this siphons 90% of the funds into the board of directors pockets and plants like 100k trees a year, which is literally nothing if you consider the scale of the project they claim they are shooing for

its all a big scam for midwits

>>12614884
Isnt the great green wall in china?

>>12614888
yes but theres two of them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program

>>12614858
>the point is that people claim the currend desertification of the sahel is because of climate change
Uhhh, nobody has ever claimed that, at least it's not due to any human caused climate change.

People are referring to desertification of the planet. We don't have the ecosphere which will allow for the Sahara to get a monsoon season, there wont be enough transpiration. But is it really a good tradeoff to increase the Sahara's rain by .5 cm per year, at the expense of possibly total collapse of most ecosystems on the planet?

>>12614897
>Uhhh, nobody has ever claimed that, at least it's not due to any human caused climate change.
as i said in the post my professor literally taught this to a hearing hall of 500 students
also here literally from wikipedia
>Climate change is partly to blame. The United Nations estimates that roughly 80% of the Sahel's farmland is degraded. Temperatures there are rising 1.5 times faster than the global average. As a result, droughts and floods are growing longer and more frequent, undermining food production.

you absolute fucking nigger

It wasn't hotter in 3,000 BC, it was colder

>>12614903
If they were honest they would say that the end of colonislism also meant the end of the restrictions that prevented overgrazing and overfarming of the region but then again the UN is just a nigger apologetics Club at this point

>>12614909
im gonna need a source on that one mr onions

>>12614917
yea i formatted this in advance but it cropped it like this anyways fuck you too moot

If you control the funding, you control the science. Globalist bankers and billionaires control the funding.

>>12614903
I thought you were referring to the original desertification of the region. But no, we don't have the correct ecosphere for there to be a Saharan monsoon. So yeah, the region will gain .5 cm increase in rain per year, what's your point?

>>12614666
>>12614837
When I was a kid everyone acknowledged that Sahara desertification was caused by unrestrained pastoralism. There were pilot projects to re-green transition areas with strategic plantings. They were showing promise.

Tatutology is God now, though. We are causing Climate Change and we are powerless to stop it. To appease the Climate we must eat emulsified roaches and create new speculation markets for international finance.

Everyone's brain is broken by media psyops. The jews figured out how to use Netflix and NLP to switch off the rational faculty of Man.

>>12614940
>But no, we don't have the correct ecosphere for there to be a Saharan monsoon.
>Ecosphere
>monsoon
you should be eunathised

also yea 0.5 makes a huge difference as it allows for the buildung of an ecosphere that can hold more water and release it back into the air as plants give back 98% of all water they absorb
this of course would take a few thousand years but you goddamn faggot already know that i dont argue in that direction at all

you already admitted there will be more rain so how exactly does it cause desertification

>>12614666
>"scientific method"
Found the popsci idiot.

>>12614940
Why do you think changing goalposts and opening new fronts will help you
Just admit that "OK they lie about the Sahel being desertified by CC" but no you keep using semantics and wordshuffles until you ragequit the debate because someone questioned your holy climatechurch

>>12614917
You forgot to put AD on the end of the chart.

>>12614960
The sahara is already desert retard, they're talking about other places in the world that isn't currently desert, like the midwest US, Australia, southern Europe, ect. That's where the desertification happens.

>>12614986
i didnt make that one

>>12614988
literally the same rule applies there you fuckwit
the more water the air cant transport the further the hydrosphere streches inland
also if you claim the the balkans or italy could ever become deserts you are clinically retarded

>>12614983
There's two different mechanisms here: the rain and the temperatures. While rain may slightly increase, the region will experience net desertification due to increased temperatures, the rain will not be able to counteract increases in evaporation and soil desiccation.

>>12614666
>faith based
>this feels more like theology
It's been over ten years, take off your fedora already.

>>12614666
I can address this immediately.

Previous, during your vaunted Golden Ages™ of science, people were largely gate-kept like a motherfucker. Academia wasn't a function of upper classes and stayed there. Only the best minds attended, and when great minds from the lower classes were discovered, they still had to fight their way into academia. Only the upper classes were involved, which often meant that tuition could be exorbitantly expensive. Research was also less expensive because they didn't need things like the combined effort of a globalized economy to produce electron scanning microscopes. Things maintained themselves this way until about 1960.
In 1960, regular jackoff's like you, I, and the vast, vast majority of everyone else here on this board, got involved. Not only are most of us straight up not actually smart enough to participate, we've been fed a watered-down education specifically because too many regular jackoffs have gotten involved in academia. At the same time, a global economy formed, making it cheaper per unit (including wages), but requiring vastly more work and effort to accomplish the increasingly more complex things we produce. It is literally harder today to perform research. The only way to fund this more complex research is to bring in more and more regular jackoffs, continually lowering the standard, and spinning the globalization wheel that much harder as we search for international students more and more often.

inb4 SPEEK 4 URSELF IM SUPERSMART REEEEEEEEEEEEE no, you aren't - if you were that great of an academic, you would be doing research instead of shitposting on 4chan, you wouldn't ever waste your time here

>>12615000
>increases in evaporation are bad and cause deserts
just leave ok

>>12615008
i agree except for the gay ass self deprication
shit like history or polsci should be invite only and engineering, math etc should be taught hat some kind of high end trade school and shouldnt come with a degree

also actual reserach should ofc also be invite only

>>12614917
here ya go bud

>>12614666
>this feels more like theology
You don't know the first thing about theology do you? It's a philosophical, logically deductive, and historical field. Nothing you mentioned sounds like theology at all.

>inB4
>"logical" but <silly name for god>
Not an argument
>but g*d doesn't exist!
Doesn't matter, you can study the implications and consequences of any unrealistic construct or structure you want be it Turing machines with halting oracles or hyperreals.
>but theology is obviously mindless indoctrination stamping out thought reason and logic so says my fedora echo chamber who refuses to listen to them define their side
and you wonder where SJWs learned their MO slandering and not engaging their opponents?

>>12614807
again, go look at real science or fuck off.

>>12615010
>retard can't differentiate between local and global effects
A story as old as time itself, should have listened to your professor.

>>12615096
>no medival warming
>no roman warming
>no bronze age warming
>gay ass "red line go brr" scaremongering
>ice age is 3.5° colder instead of the usual 6! minimum

yea thats based off michael mann isnt it?

>>12615004
>lying
But he has lied publicly. He's coopted speeches and made claims about his academic performance which are wrong.

>self-enriching
Um... that's what all politicians do?

>vain
True.

>lazy
Was Trump lazy? I don't know how he was lazier than any other president. He made moves - even if you didn't like the moves he made.

>incompetent
The difference between Trump and Biden is that Biden follows the advice of his cabinet and staff while Trump just does whatever he wants. Biden is arguably much more informed on politics than Trump is but if Biden was making all the decisions himself he would also look "incompetent".

>unqualified
That's why he was elected. Americans were tired of having "qualified" presidents making disastrous decisions (often led by special interests) for the public. Trump had no ties to any politician or PAC and that's what made him desirable.


How can you be 60-70 years old, all that wealth of knowledge and experience, and still not have come to the conclusion that all politicians are evil?

>>12615109
>science is when i get told i am smart for repeating shit other people say
>>12615124
>>retard can't differentiate between local and global effects
again saving yourself by opening a new front
go ahead and tell me how does the water that condesnes in the sahara make it out there instead of raining back down and creating a water circly that can sustain plants?
what winds leave the sahara instead of entering it and dying there
you fuckwit dont know shit about climate

>>12614666
Big brained answer is that both sides are bullshit

>>12614666
>Why is modern science more and more censorship based
It's been that way for centuries.
>and faith based
Scientific ideas have always been faith based ie subjective, intuitive, conjectural and persuasion based. The mechanical sterile view of science is a shitty meme.

>My geography professor for example said in one breath that the Sahara was a green savanna a few thousand years back because the higher temperatures allowed for the hydrosphere to reach more inland due to the air being able to transport more water vapor if its hotter
No, more localized radiation led to lower air pressure which enabled more rain.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-sahara-african-humid-periods-paced-by-82884405/
>Orbital precession greatly influences North African climate because it controls the strength and northward penetration of the monsoonal rains. Strengthening summer-season solar radiation causes the North African landmass to heat up relative to the adjacent Atlantic Ocean due the lower thermal inertia of the land surface relative to the upper ocean mixed layer. The warmer land mass creates a broad low pressure zone, driving the inflow of moist air from the tropical Atlantic. Since precession controls summer insolation, it effectively controls the amount and northward penetration of the monsoonal rains into North Africa. Simple atmosphere-only climate models have shown that a 7% increase in summer radiation results in at least a 17% increase in monsoonal rainfall, and up to 50% if ocean feedbacks are included

>and in the next sentence he said that also the sahara was expanding because of climatechange and that it was never hotter before
...globally. Models suggest Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is responsible for 2/3 of it so the other 1/3 is being attributed to climate change.

>My geography professor
*Your 9th grade freshman high school earth science teacher*
>he just said "trust the experts"
A geography professor would be the expert.

>>12615151
>science is when i get told i am smart for repeating shit other people say
Empirical sciences with no foundation in physics are worthless. There is only one empirical universe and its principles are described by physics. Everything else is a scam.
And in case you wonder why I didn't list Biology: wake me up when they dropped excel sheets.

>>12615233
>Empirical sciences with no foundation in physics are worthless.
ok then go ahead and do economics or geography based 100% based on math and physics i will wait here

>>12615137
>no medival warming
no it's in there
>no roman warming
also in there
>no bronze age warming
also there
>gay ass "red line go brr" scaremongering
red line is just the instrumental record, nothing scaremongering about that, just reality.
>yea thats based off michael mann isnt it?
not an argument

>>12614666
>My geography professor for example said in one breath that the Sahara was a green savanna a few thousand years back because the higher temperatures
Because it would be politically problematic to mention the curse of desert which semite religions impose on our world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB9jQT1w96Q

>>12615247
>ok then go ahead and do economics or geography
as a matter of fact, economics can be connected to game theory.
geography is not a science, it is merely acquisition of data. There is no predictive merit to it.

>>12615144
>Um... that's what all politicians do?
Trump lost money in office, unlike the others
>Donald Trump is a lot less rich today than when he was elected president
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-trump-wealth/index.html

>>12615259
>red line is just the instrumental record,
>instrumental record in 2100
retard

i would recommend not using data based on plants as that data literally trails CO2 becasue CO2 is what plants "eat"

use ice cores or sediment analysis but then again that would show that you are wrong and climate change will not kill us all which is something you desperately want so you can play the selfless hero who eats the bugs

>>12615279
oh noes he's color blind

>>12615273
economics cannot be a hard science
socialist states tried that and they increased poverty and decreased efficiency

>>12615279
>i would recommend not using data based on plants as that data literally trails CO2 becasue CO2 is what plants "eat"
we're not even discussing CO2's effect right now. So lead/lag doesn't matter we're purely discussing global temperature. Which anyone who knows anything about climate will tell you an icecore sample from Greenland isn't.
This is all pretty basic stuff I'm not sure where your hangup is anon.

>>12615287
>plays smug becasue he has no arguments

>>12615279
The medieval warm period was confined to Europe and did not influence the world average temperature.

>>12615298
The irony is palpable

>>12615295
Yes and i just tied to explain to you that you cannot predict temperature with plants as they trail CO2 harder than they do temperature

pic related
STEM is mobilized for consumerist aims

>>12615302
source
>>12615305
so tell me where im wrong instead of playing "le smug science man"

>>12615309
Funny post but I think it’s a good thing.
We’re testing the limits of the primitive body
First with slavery and fitness now with welfare and obesity

>>12615291
>economics cannot be a hard science
you're claiming psychology can't be a hard science, then. Which is only true insofar that it is computationally unfeasible, yet the same can be said regarding the systems described by thermodynamics. Yet it's a hard science.

>>12614666
You’re not going to find the answer here. I fucking hate this place. Fucking losers.

>>12615324
stop branching out
i said economics cant be a hard science and there is no hidden message
ffs

>>12615331
well if i ask on /pol/ my thread will be drowned out by BBC and Tranny threads only to recieve 1 reply saying "its the jews" before it dies so i thought i would ask here

>>12615316
>https://www.skeptical-science.com/science/the-medieval-warm-period-myth/
>What is not so well known is that this warming was restricted to just the North Atlantic.

>>12615330
>i said economics cant be a hard science
well then, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was the human (psychological) factor that made you think that way. What else is it, then?

>>12615308
>Yes and i just tied to explain to you that you cannot predict temperature with plants
predict? who's predicting?
anyways Marcott et al isn't based on tree ring data, please do your research.

>>12615340
>skeptical-science
so no source then ok

>>12614780
We let too many people read and think they're smart

>>12614780
>>12615338
you did what you accuse others of doing.
The Jews really ruined everything, you won't accept it because you're a raging faggot, now kys.

>>12615345
>no argument
SAD

>>12615331
Maybe the answers we give you contradict your personal interests, kike? Fucking leave already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk

>>12615345
Yeah, except the site is literally stickied at the top of /sci/ retard, it you actually read the sticky you wouldn't need to fall into such retarded arguments.
>https://sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/subjects/earth-sciences

>>12614666
>My geography professor
It's teacher, not professor. A professor teaches in university. That said, don't talk about things you don't know. It might save you future embarrassment. Do your homework and maybe you'll contribute to our body of knowledge someday. Until then, shut the fuck up.

>>12615352
not OP but i like the part where your meme site has this chart where they basically go

Michael Mann has been disproven
>no he hasnt
Watervapour is the biggest greenhouse gas and has the strongest impact
>yes but that doesnt matter
Medival war period must have been warmer to make certain events possible
>you cant prove that those events happened lol
temperature doesnt trail CO2 in a linar way so we need more info to make predictions
>the world is ending do you want this to be your fault

gtfo with that gay shit you only embarress yourself

>>12615378
>some mod on an anonymous imageboard stickied some like therefore its 100% correct
you are a weird s kind of scientist man

>>12615394
>still no arguments
SAD

>>12615389
love how you fags always attack the credentials when someone doesnt share your opinion

>>12614666
This applies more to economics than science...

>>12615407
ok then you win you get tell all your friends that you showed that evil internet nazi by playing smug faggot and dishonestly dismissing actual evidence

see you in 10 years when your priests postpone their doomsday another 10

>>12615418
> dishonestly dismissing actual evidence
what evidence? One graph of a greenland ice core?

>>12615410
Because a professor in the field wouldn't say that

>why is the fundamental theorem of algebra true
>math teacher: "Trust the book"
>math professor: "Do you want the complex analysis proof or the Galois theory proof?"

>>12615422
math and geography are very different in that regard

>>12615419
you literally claimed bronze warm, roman warm and medival warm are all to be found on that chart >>12615096

like who the hell would classify a raise of 1/10 of a degree as a warm period

come on now

also as the guy >>12615137
pointed out the ice age is too warm which you conviently didnt adress >>12615259 here

>>12615460
>like who the hell would classify a raise of 1/10 of a degree as a warm period
you apparently, you're discovering the difference between local and global good job!
> pointed out the ice age is too warm which you conviently didnt adress
according to what data? Another polar ice core sample? Again local temperature isn't global, I'm not sure how to explain this in a way you won't understand.

>>12615485
you know we cant really argue here if you keep shifting your stance on what exactly you mean or meant by what but thats fine, sice you are probably underage you will live long enough to see you are wrong

>>12615496
How have I shifted my stance?

>>12615485
this local argument is the biggest get out of jail free card these faggots have ffs

to their luck we only have samples from greenland, siberia and antarctica so they can always move to their plants and algae and claim victory by saying "yea these are global" when 90% of their shit is based of of the same faulty data taken in some foerst in canada back in the 80s

never bother to talk to someone like this they know they are wrong deep down

>>12615508
also to add to this post their "global data" is literally just like 3 or 4 local samples mashed together and weighted with white noise added
we dont even have enough wetherstations to do truly "global data" and i am 100% certain noone bothers to go to the middle of the sahara or deep into siberia to collect data they just call their collegues in singapore and hawaii and then modell that data on the entire pacific whilst leaving tundra and desert mostly blank

this is literal garbage
some korean scientist called this "ga-go effect"
garbage in garbage out

>>12615508
>I'll ignore every piece of evidence that doesn't agree with the position I arbitrarily hold
How brave!

>>12615521
needless to say when you do a computer model you are the one who 100% decides what comes out in the end since there are no premade programs to calculate what climate looks like or was like
YOU make the algorithm so you must have a vague notion of what should be correct and what isnt, and if these "scientists" had any integrity whatsoever they would take preexisting ice cores and sediment data, take an average and try to be as truthful to that as possible in order to predict the future accuratly

>>12615521
>also to add to this post their "global data" is literally just like 3 or 4 local samples mashed together and weighted with white noise added
source?

>we dont even have enough wetherstations to do truly "global data"
wait I thought we were discussing reconstructions, now you're talking about the instrumental record? When did you get lost in the source?
;)
>i am 100% certain noone bothers to go to the middle of the sahara or deep into siberia to collect data
source?
;)

>this is literal garbage
source?
;)

>>12615525
this is both of us and OP too
we literally cant know what the climate will be like and thats fine to me but not to you as it seems

>>12615539
you spoiled fucking child you father didnt beat you enough

>>12615540
We can though, it's a physical impossibly that significantly altering Earth's energy budget won't cause an increase in temperature. It's basic thermodynamics.

>>12615539
how about you prove that your "global data" is actually global first

>>12615549
LOL this idiot things waste heat causes climate change i am fucking done

>>12615544
you seem upset likely as a result of your cognitive dissonance, by the way I think it's very funny you've completed 4/5 steps on the "Science Worshiper's Method" of your image. The only part missing is you're shouting "TRUST ME" instead of "TRUST THE EXPERTS"

>>12615549
You had me for most of the thread man but this is just too retarded

Nice lurking here anyways

>>12615552
Sources are in the image, go crazy.

>>12615555
you make claims and then think others have to disprove them and you are also smug about it

>>12615560
no YOU have to prove it to me
i will not do research for you

>>12615553
>>12615556
>it's another "climate expert" who doesn't know what the greenhouse effect is episode
yikes I'm getting tired of this rerun.

>>12615569
THIS GUY THINKS THE FUCKING GREENHOUSE EFFECT CONSERVING WASTE HEAT FROM FACTORYS IS HEATING UP THE PLANET JESUS CHRIST JUST DELETE THE BOARD ALREADY

>>12615567
>no YOU have to prove it to me
I don't owe you shit, I'm just here to make you look stupid so your kind won't feel welcome on this board.
Again, I've provided sources for what I've said, you can either read them and come back, or ignore them (step 4 of the science worshipper's method) and keep talking out of your ass.

>>12615574
>>12615569

>>12615569
saved
>>12615577
>world is ending the end is nigh
prove it
>no im just here for the lulz

>>12615569
Is this bait

>>12615569
man

>>12615584
>>12615589
Honestly the stacking strawmen left and right, while having an absolute meltdown, is my favorite part of every climate thread. It almost makes this waste of time worthwhile.

>>12615584
>world is ending the end is nigh prove it
I never said that but if you want to read about potential impacts of climate change here you go.
>https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

>>12615593
you literally just said you dont have to prove anything to anyone and then went on to say wasteheat is warming the planet

>>12615597
But does it mention the waste heat from the factorys

>>12615599
>you literally just said you dont have to prove anything to anyone
I said I provided a source for everything I said, and it's not my job read it to you like you're my fucking child. So either read it or go to step 4 of the science worshipper's method
>wasteheat is warming the planet
where did I say that?

>>12614666
so this thead began with why is science so authoritarian and ended with some climatefags and polfags ripping each others heads off over whos experts are right

how odd

>>12615616
No one's really brought experts into it to be honest.

>>12615613
watch my boi tim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE

>>12615618
>>12615619
oh shit

>>12615618
this is my source btw
its in there but i wont tell you where as i dont need to to your homework for you
if you dont read it we win
https://www.clearquran.com/002.html

>>12615616
"If there is one thing I have learnt about experts, they're experts on fuck all"

>>12615626
I've already read it, thanks. Sorry there isn't much which supports your case. As I've read your source now I'm sure you've done me the courtesy of reading mine so we can continue the conversation.
So do you still doubt reconstruction shown in Marcott et al (2013) isn't global? and if so why not?

>>12615647
becasue i cant fucking access it without paying and a little text that goes
>11k different samples form land and oceans
doesnt quite do it for me
but i told you that the first time you told me to look it up

>>12615647
also i also take tim ball as my source go watch this guys video >>12615619

>>12615619
I'll have to side with the courts on this one
>Andrew Weaver's defamation suit against Ball was dismissed in 2018. The judge noted that Ball's words "lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory" and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favor of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views.

>>12615664
Since when are Judges scientists

>>12615657
Are you not OP? Do they not teach you how to look up papers anymore?

>>12615670
Do you not know how courts work? That's kind of the whole point.

>>12615670
Not being credible was Ball's defense, his words not the judge's.

>>12615657
Here I'll spoonfeed you
>https://gofile.io/d/Lf1xkM

>>12615619
The stadium analogy sucks. With any sound we can decompose it into its constituent frequencies and observe them, same thing with the climate. Same way we can remove background noise from recordings, we can remove background noise from what we want to observe in the climate, like solar radiation, heat islanding and so forth.

>>12614759
I think OP is asking *why* science didn't used to be like that, and why it became like that

This shit AGAIN
>discoveries in any branch of science, but particularly in biology, geology and astrophysics, that contradict scripture are scientism, therefore religion, as I have defined it.
>discoveries that do not contradict scripture are science, which is God's work, while all the rest is Satan's.
This troll conception of science is literally and unironically what's taught in for-profit American charter schools administered by evangelicals and operated like corporations at the top. Itt Burgers getting raped from both ends by the same mega-grifters they vote for.

>>12616072
All burgers know that politicians are there to fuck you over, take your money, and indoctrinate your kids.

>>12614666
>Geography Professor
Maybe try asking a geologist or climatologist for your global warming question. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>12616072
I just think it's hilarious watching people fall for such blatant corporate propaganda. Isn't it funny how objective scientific topics such as global warming become "political" when they threaten profits or 3000-year old holy books?

>>12616072
>being this retarded and schizo
lel

>>12616492
till they figure out how to use the "agw is a catastrophe" meme to ensure their market dominance.
>“I am writing to urge you to attend the upcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [‘Earth Summit’] scheduled for early June in Brazil and to support the concept of establishing a reasonable, non-binding, stabilization level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.”
>– Ken Lay [CEO, Enron Corp.] to George H. W. Bush, Letter of April 3, 1992.

>>12614666
1. People inherently want to believe in a God

2. People would rather believe in a God that can actually effect miracles than one that can't.

3. Science can do things that are indistinguishable from miracles to those who don't bother trying/are too stupid to learn it, so for those people it's easier to just worship it like it's a religion.

... it's not because of some evil cabal hellbent on brainwashing people to forward their agendas or some shit. It's just because people are simplistic, dumb, and/or lazy. Trust me people in the scientific community abhor the blind "I love Science!" parrots just as much as you deluded schizos do.

>>12614666
>Why is science in decline
Politics, money and subsequent public distrust in science/scientists.

>>12616503
>reasonable, non-binding,
WOW HOW BRAVE
Enron wanted to make sure their crony used the power and influence of the US, to ensure terms were favorable for their business. (aka utterly useless.)

>>12616516
Because speciation isn't about phenotype, retard
>inb4 muh IQ differences
Caused by environment, not genetics
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691615577701

>>12616072
1) OP clearly is a fedora, stop your cringy boogeyman'ing of christfags
2) scientism is real and bad. There's literally 2 sjws on my street with these "science is real" signs

>>12616492
>objective
>climate models
kek, modelling is always subjective in what you include vs being tractable. The numbers are for insight and not hard predictions.
>Isn't it funny how objective scientific topics such as global warming become "political"
OK, scientifically derive the laws to pass to deal with global warming and mathematically prove they are the optimal laws to pass :^)

Scientismistic and math-illiterate hippies proclaiming climate models as objective certainties is why there's so much skepticism over climate change. Conservatards and lobbyists use the fact that observations didn't follow the model exactly as proof they are debunked.

>>12616513
well enron was one of the architects of the paris accord, their real reasoning is since they were on top while environmental regulation would hurt them it'd hurt their competition more allowing them to consolidate more of the market.

>>12616567
and the paris accords are retarded half measures so it seems accurate

>>12616658
yup, good enough to give politicians the appearance to low info voters that they care about what they are taking tax funds for while the only thing it does is reduce the competition for the megacorp ceos who bank roll them.

>>12614766
Depends, chemistry and physics are hard science. Climatology and human anthropology are increasingly filled with people seeking to push a personal agenda.

>>12614858
Doesn't overgrazing contribute by nibbling up perennials so only annual grasses and weeds can grow?

>>12615096
During the Roman warm period Hadrian was able to march elephants across the alps because they were snow free. Winegrapes were grown in the southern part of England.

>>12616565
LMAO Keep shilling, maybe you can be like Richard Lindzen and receive a dividend check once coal companies go out of business https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

>>12614780
It’s LITERALLY the jews. Now and forever, always has been.
But also >>12615349, PhDs should be much more exclusive than they are and so midwits are dominating the field. Look up the Jolly Heretic’s video on midwits, it explains this.
It’s the jews, anon.

>>12614666
>implying

>>12615340
Medieval warm period evidence from around the world
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

>>12616562
>Caused by environment, not genetics
nope
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/51/13441.abstract

>>12614666
whites got cucked by the jews, the intellectual and self-autonomous mindsets that birthed the modern West in the Renaissance have been forgotten, white people wish to be niggers, and everyone wants to be an ant in a colony consisting of every human on the planet mixed to be the same race. academia is full of chinese and pajeets these days, both of which still suck at science and philosophy. The age of the China being the largest world power is very near and India superpower is also unironically near once these two countries get good at science.

>>12616702
your point? what does that tell you about global temperature?

>>12615144
>How can you be 60-70 years old, all that wealth of knowledge and experience, and still not have come to the conclusion that all politicians are evil?
Because he's a fucking atheist

>>12616755
his main evidence is citing Soon and Baliunas (2003) I won't even get into how Soon is a literal big oil shill. But that paper is a fucking well known abomination. Half the editors of the journal who published resigned because of it.
Basically they just cherry-picked any warm period in proxies anywhere in 400 year range and ignored everything else.
Easterbrook does the same thing, notice how random the periods he cites are. pic related

further reading: (most of the authors of this are authors of reconstructions which Soon misrepresented)
>http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/mann2003a.pdf
>In a similar vein, the specification of a warm period, requires that warm anomalies in different regions should be synchronous and not merely required to occur during any 50 year period within a very broad interval in time, such as AD 800-1300, as in SB03. Figure 2 demonstrates the considerable spatial variability in temperature variations of the past millennium, and the false impression one might gain regarding hemispheric-scale temperature changes from the apparent temperature changes in any particular region. The specific notions of the 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' arose, understandably, from the Eurocentric origins of historical climatology [e.g. Lamb, 1965]. While relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, and cool conditions during the 15th to the early 20th century are evident from reconstructions of hemispheric-mean temperature (Figure 1), the specific periods of coldness and warmth differ from region to region (Figure 2) from those for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. Rather than indicating inconsistency, the difference between such regional and hemispheric-scale anomalies follows naturally from the physics governing atmospheric variability.

>>12614666
science isn't in a decline. more people know about science and trust it, which means more idiots trust it as well. That's what is happening.

>>12614666
you should mention how global warming is causing rivers in africa to be "rebirthed"
or the greening of the sahara.
you cant win with these people. just focus on science and math.
they'll make up something else to freak out disproportionately about soon as long as its fear-based people forget the math and how to use it..

>>12616973
tell that to the scammers selling veterinary anti parasitics/malarial shit to desperate idiots who give it to their family.
herd definition no longer applies
sokal hoax, stat bias weighting and lab rat selection for efficacy in specific pharma trials to show positive correlation..
keep prescribing haldol and thorazine until you decide its actually neurotoxic though. i trust you to science correct

>>12614666
There are 2 types of scientists in this world. Those who want money, and those who want the truth.

>>12617063
was going to argue.. but
i supposed truth AND money is still just truth.

>>12614666
>Science Worshiper's Method
I worked in a lab like this, except the data wasn't discarded, just massaged until the analysis worked out.

>>12614666
Because politicians and partisan actors discovered that people would swallow anything you toss at them if you called it “scientific.”

>>12614666
We decided to spend trillions fixing Africa instead

>>12616935
okay but memes aside can you tell me how the fuck one can actually prove that the medival warm was local?

the only people who (sometimes) recorded temperature were europeans because asians didnt bother and the rest didnt have the tech

all samples that are not plant based show it exists also your sources that "prove" that they there was no warming in africa, asia, na, sa etc literally use plant samples for everywhere except Europe where they use recordings and estimations based on old scripture

this is just dishonest as fuck not gonna lie

>>12617477
>okay but memes aside can you tell me how the fuck one can actually prove that the medival warm was local?
it's easy, you just don't cherrypick proxies based on location.
>all samples that are not plant based show it exists also your sources that "prove" that they there was no warming in africa, asia, na, sa etc literally use plant samples for everywhere except Europe where they use recordings and estimations based on old scripture
You still haven't given an actual reason why you think it's valid to just ignore all treering data, your dude here even cites mainly tree rings >>12616755
and pretty much all proxies support the MWP being local, Icecores (outside Europe) Coral, mineral deposits in caves, sediment, boreholes, isotopic analysis etc all agree, the MWP was a local phenomena.

>>12617503
>You still haven't given an actual reason why you think it's valid to just ignore all treering data...

no i didnt but others in the thread said it multiple times
CO2 and Plant growth corrolate harder than Temperature and Plant growth
imagine it like the Landau Symbol where only the highest exponent is relevant in the end
in this case its CO2 and not temperature, which is also why climatemen love those datasets since it perfectly trails CO2 since its essentially a CO2 graph not a temperature one

>it's easy, you just don't cherrypick proxies based on location.
flooding it with useless data doesnt really do it
if i had ice cores or sediments from all over the world i would show them to you but places where you can take those are rare
you gotta make do with what you have

>pretty much all proxies support the MWP being local
they dont but ok direct me to the datasets that say otherwise
>inb4 he links some computermodel and goes "dude those proxies were used in there" like >>12615096

theres no arguing with fanatics

>>12617526
>no i didnt but others in the thread said it multiple times
CO2 and Plant growth corrolate harder than Temperature and Plant growth
Even if this is true (which it doesn't seem to be) , you realize CO2 levels are completely stable over the period we're discussing right? So it's not even a relevant point.

>if i had ice cores or sediments from all over the world
Put some actual effort in, then there's a whole lot more than just greenland.
>they dont but ok direct me to the datasets that say otherwise
>>12615729
Is just one, there's plenty more.
>theres no arguing with fanatics
Once again the irony is palpable.

>>12618897
>you realize CO2 levels are completely stable over the period we're discussing right?
THIS HAS TO BE FUCKING BAIT
THIS IS PRECISELY THE REASON YOUR GRAPH IS BASICALLY FLAT WHEN THERE SHOULD BE BUMPS AND LOWS WHERE THE HISTORICAL WARMS SHOULD BE

JUST FUCK OFF YOU GODDAMN SMOOTHBRAIN

>>12617503
>>12617526
>>12618897
>>12619332
Chess with a pidgeon except there are two pidgeons

>>12614666

Point out it is established science that higher CO2 reverses desertification because it helps plants breathe. Desertification is happening for other reasons than CO2.

>how the fuck did this happen

Deep cultural reasons. I think it has some historical precedence in the last 2,000 years of Chinese history. China was the leading center of the world but then they got obsessed with what were essentially standardized tests and bureaucracy which eventually stifled their creativity.

Similar things are happening here. There are also cultural engineers behind it.

If you haven't seen Yuri Bezmenov he gives an outline of how it is the result of a direct attack on the ideology of the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q

>>12619372
the big brain answer is that current climatechange is caused by our magnetic field weakening which results in the sun ionising more particles in the upper athmosphere which makes water vapor stay there longer which in turn increases the greenhouse effect
read svensmark and shaviv

>>12616562
>Caused by environment
Ha, correct, except you need to think on a bigger timescale. There is no reason not to hypothesize that there are differences in intelligence between humans due to thousands of years of living apart in very different environments. Likely having to plan ahead for seasonal differences selected humans for intelligence compared to humans that don't encounter the same environmental difficulties. Intelligence is expensive energy wise, there is no benefit in the eyes of evolution to be smarter than you need to be to survive.

>>12619378
>Deep cultural reasons. I think it has some historical precedence in the last 2,000 years of Chinese history. China was the leading center of the world but then they got obsessed with what were essentially standardized tests and bureaucracy which eventually stifled their creativity.
>Similar things are happening here. There are also cultural engineers behind it.
not OP but please go on or link something about this
this is really interesting

>>12615008
>you wouldn't ever waste your time here

This place is actually better than most science magazines. You can get exposed to a vast amount of information you would otherwise be steered away from.

>>12615137
>why would regional climate anomalies show up prominently on global reconstructions
Truly astounding intelligence

>>12615323
Big brain take right here.

>>12615279
The Greenland ice core record ends in 1850. Why do you fags think you can lie and fabricate bullshit and not expect to get called out?

>>12619397
funny how you guys went from
>it doesnt exist
to
>it only was like half a degree
to
>it was like 5 degree as you say, but it was local

>>12619416
and the medival warm ends in the 15th century which is what the poster wanted to outline
also no, greenland isnt in europe and isnt connected to its climate in a meaningful way so its either two parralel local events or a single global event

>>12619394
>link something about this

The youtube video I linked is probably the best thing you can watch to understand the cultural shifts since the 60's.

>>12619427
ah come on everyone knows that one

>>12619423
Greenland temperatures from the ice core are reflective of that location and are totally different from global proxy reconstructions. Localized proxies show there was a warm period in Europe but global proxies show it wasn't a global occurrence. We know from satellite thermometry warming is not homogenous.
Also he's posting false graphs because the Greenland ice core ends in 1850 before ant anthropogenic warming but extend it to say it ends in 2000 AD because they have to falsify graphs and lie to spread their bullshit.

>>12619480
>Greenland temperatures from the ice core are reflective of that location
well they align with the Vostok cores which are from antarctica, which is on the other side of the planet so local my ass
>totally different from global proxy reconstructions.
>>12617526 here explained why plant and algae models are bullshit

>they have to falsify graphs and lie to spread their bullshit.
no it stops becasue we have reliable data from actual live mesurements since 1850 and those are taped onto the data in every graph regarding temperature at this point, including your beloved hockystick producing plant magic

>>12618897
>Even if this is true (which it doesn't seem to be)
KEK
Someone should tell all the Farmers using Greenhouses
Maybe they should just heat their tomatos up 10°C instead of cutting them in CO2 rich enviroments then

Jesus christ man

>>12619505
They correlate in CO2 because it is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere but not in the temperature proxy space. Arctic climate is much more variable than the Antarctic because of the circulation in the southern hemisphere around the continent.
Global Proxies using ice cores, sediment cores, corals and many more show that temperature fluctuations are variable locally just as we see today

>>12619592
The fuck does this graph even Show

>>12619598
okay you dont seem to understand this graph so let me cite you wikipedia
>Delta-O-18 changes directly as a result of temperature fluctuations, so it provides a very good record of the climate.

so the Y axis is actually a proxy for the temperature and if you would look this up in a table instead of a ~140k year graph you would see that the temperature does indeed corrolate

alternatively you could just zoom into to picture and look at the tiny last bit, as the beginning of the last ice age distinguishes the holocene quite good it looks about the same
but then again if you want raw data just look it up written ito a table instead of a graph

>>12619598
Greenland and Antarctica ice core temperature proxies clearly don't align. Or are you too retarded to read a simple graph?
By the way global proxy reconstructions are made with global proxy data that show climate change heterogeneity just as today

>>12619626
i meant end of the ice age ffs

>>12619633
look at you reeeing at random posters thinking they were me KEK

also greenland is conveniently cut off before reaching into relevant territory so you cant make assumptions about the time period we talk about
and no i never said local climate events dont exist and have never existed i said the bronte, roman and medival warmings were global and fighting me on this front is just bad faith

>>12619633

>>12616054
Because universities where built on aristocratic notions of honour. Its one of the few institutions still like this. But like the rest of those institutions when you remove the honour all ur left with is a hierarchical which are always oppressive and easily corruptible.

>>12619633
wait is this guy suggesting that because three 200k year long datasets dont corrolate at every point three very tiny and specific warmings were local

>>12619645
Are you going to post some evidence from global proxy reconstructions proving that the MWP was global or not?

>>12616755
>Easterbrook
He's been caught many times falsifying data

>>12619670
*Accused
By noone less than among others michael mann lmao

>>12619674
As mentioned before he purposely assigns the end of the GISP ice core to be 2000 AD when it ends at 1850 AD because he's a fraud. Current temperatures in the GISP site are much higher than the MWP in that site

>>12614666
>Why is science in decline?
It isn't.
>muh professor
Nobody gives a shit.

>>12619697
>>12619674
He reports the red line at the end as the instrumental period when it ents 100 years before anthropogenic warming even starts

>>12614666
>this feels more like theology than STEM how the fuck did this happen
You know nothing about theology.

>>12619660
how the fuck am i supposed to do that
as someone else already said greenlands and europes climate are less linked to each other than europe and asia/africa yet datasets from both dont fucking appease you
plus the graphs from your vostok graphs clearly (if in bad resolution) at least indicate warming around the same time everywhere that superceeds the current temp within the holocene (as >>12619626 said)
, which is all i need to prove really as the MWP is just one of many examples for just that

there are no ice cores found in africa, i dont think the glaciers in the himaljas are permanent enough to be used for this and plant data doesnt work for reasons a thousand times mentioned over and over again

you can screech all you want about insuffient evidence its not me that wants to fundamentally change the world and its ecnomy

>>12616562
>links to paper investigating muh Flynn effect
>doesn't know the Flynn effect almost exclusively applies to subtests that are not very g-loaded

>>12619697
>As mentioned before he purposely assigns the end of the GISP ice core to be 2000 AD when it ends at 1850 AD
everone does this you fucktard
read
>>>12619505
>no it stops becasue we have reliable data from actual live mesurements since 1850 and those are taped onto the data in every graph regarding temperature at this point, including your beloved hockystick producing plant magic

almost every model stops in 1850 and uses actual mesured data from there on also what the fuck does he want to prove with the data between 1850 to 2000 are you retarded

>>12619736
There is ample evidence posted in this thread about the regionality of the MWP yet you're screeching about tree-rings not working because of reasons

>>12616712
How am I shilling? I just said your stupidity is the reason why people mistrust CC. Idiots like you caused this problem.

>>12619750
yes you keep posting plant data i am aware of that

>>12619750
>tree-rings not working because of reasons
this is literally the core of you whole doomsday theory
if this is true you faggots lose everything
this is why you didnt respond to my post >>12619562

>>12619562
You only see CO2 fertilization dominate when it's actually the limiting factor, eg an artificially fertilized temperature controlled greenhouse.

>>12619767
no you just made that up
1k+ ppm is ideal fo every plant on this earth and we currently have less than half
Bildergebnis für ideal co2 for photosynthesis
>For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production.
literally the first google hit

>>12619747
>everone does this you fucktard
They absolutely do not do this. He uses data from the ice core from 100 years before present and presents is as anthropogenic warming which is a plain lie. When you look at the instrumental record in the GISP site it's currently above -27C. We see areas in the northern hemisphere warming more rapidly than others.
The GISP core ends at 1850 because that where the core ends.

>>12619776
You are legitimately retarded citing how to raise crops in controlled greenhouses. As if temperatures and rainfall patterns didn't chance in the planet if we had a 1000 ppm CO2 atmosphere.

>>12619783
>They absolutely do not do this. He uses data from the ice core from 100 years before present and presents is as anthropogenic warming
well according to him (and me) all warming up until today is anthropogenic so either you dont understand what all those terms you throw around mean or just just bank on me not knowing

>He uses data from the ice core from 100 years before present
he cant becasue as you say yourself
>He uses data from the ice core from 100 years before present

the data form there on is instrumental record and taping that on as soon as the record starts is commonpractice

even michael mann does it see pic related

>>12619790
>You are legitimately retarded citing how to raise crops in controlled greenhouses. As if temperatures and rainfall patterns didn't chance in the planet if we had a 1000 ppm CO2 atmosphere.
you either have brain damage or are the most dishonest fuck on the entire planet

this conversation is about CO2 and plant growth and you just said here >>12619767 that it only works for certain plants and doesnt do much anyways
and now you switch to "well yes ok CO2 does do a lot but the weather would change" just off yourself you have no argument

>>12619790
also no temperature would significantly change at 1k ppm thats my entire point

>>12619793
This graph by has zero instrumental data in there.
>>12619713
He reports the ice core ending in in 1950 AD trying to say that anthropogenic warming is small when the ice core dataset ends in 1850 AD.
In the graph you posted there is a clear labeling of the instrumental data and the proxy data. I can't believe I have to say it again but temperatures in Greenland from instrumental measurements are so high that they are out of the temperature range of the graph.
The GISP chronology end at 1850 so it has no information about current times. Presenting it as if it had is fraudulent.

>>12619835
okay lets assume you are right and he did present instrumental data as proxy data with evil intent
what does he stand to gain from that?
talk about the topic usually focuses on the MWP or other warmings that exeeded today

>>12619854
He's passing proxy data as if it overlapped with anthropogenic warming when it ends 100 before that. He literally shifted the axis of the proxy data forwards in time. As I've repeatedly said, the current warming in that location greatly exceeds the MWP warming that peaked at -30.5C. We now see temperatures there that exceed -27C.

>>12619854
>what does he stand to gain from that?
Fossil fuel money from peddling climate denier nonsense

>>12619869
>We now see temperatures there that exceed -27C.
you do know that i can fact check those numbers you make up all the time?
>the current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is -29.9°C
from wikipedia
again
you fucking liar

>>12619882
>The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001-2010).
this is not eastbrook btw
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/12887#:~:text=The%20current%20decadal%20average%20surface,decade%20(2001%2D2010).

>>12619887
>decadal
I was referring to more recent yearly temperatures but as you've pointed out the decadal average is still higher than the MWP

>>12619835
>>12619882
notice how he switched to contesting the ice core results after he got btfod on treerings

>>12619910
its bout the same actually and all that without factorys and power plants and with a dx/dy roughly the same as previous warmings
with alomst 100ppm co2 added on top no less

almost as if
you know
it isnt caused by co2

>>12619332
Could you expand on what you mean here? Your argument isn't clear in the least.

>>12619912
>provides no refutation of the treering data and ignores that those proxy reconstructions have many more proxies than just treerings

>>12619921
not him but basically
>CO2 is flat
>Temperature model accoding to plants is flat
>Plants react way harder to CO2 than to temperature
>plant growth models of temperature are tied to follow CO2 no matter what
>are therefore invaild for the goal of modelling temperature-CO2 corrolation

if you legitimatly didnt understand this despite it being explained like 20 times in this thread you should consider trade school

>>12619919
hmm
>talk about the topic usually focuses on the MWP or other warmings that exeeded today

>>12619921
>many more
yes they usually sample five digit long numbers of proxy data, half of which are plants and another third algae and the go on from there

garbage in garbage out

again if you find me a hockeystick only based on ice cores and sediments (without trickery in the modelling ofc) i recant
but you literally cant

>>12619945
ok the mwp doesnt exeed today it i give you that one tell all your friends about it
bronze age and roman does
what you gonna do now?
row back to "muh local data"?

>>12619936
>Plants react way harder to CO2 than to temperature
I still need a citation for this, in the context of treeRing reconstructions, I'm afraid I can't just take your word for it.

>plant growth models of temperature are tied to follow CO2 no matter what
What? source please.

>>12619960
oh looks like higher temperature seems to drag plant growth down LOL
>Higher temperature reduced plant height; average individual leaf area; capsule length, width, and mass; sound seed number; and mass per capsule but increased specific leaf mass. Elevated CO2 increased single sound seed mass. Higher temperature decreased both percentage and rate of germination, whereas elevated CO2 decreased germination percentage but increased germination rate. Seed germination increased with storage duration. Higher temperature increased transpiration. However, elevated CO2 decreased transpiration but increased net CO2 assimilation and water use efficiency. Elevated CO2 increased chlorophyll b but decreased chlorophyll a:b ratio. Ethylene production was enhanced by increased temperature. We conclude that despite the negative effects of higher temperature on some plant characteristics, S. noctiflora has the potential to thrive under conditions of climate change.
source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/591988?seq=1

thanks for making me research this it will help me in future arguments with climatefags

>>12619958
I don't know why you keep going on about this. The temperature peaks of the ice core are exceed those even before the MWP that never went higher than 28.5C. The regionality of the MWP is pretty evident.

>>12619982
Your source clearly shows temperature has a strong effect, so it adds literally nothing to the conversation. Your argument is that Tree ring reconstructions are invalid because they only react to CO2. Your source doesn't prove your point in the least. Try again.

>>12619992
>Your argument is that Tree ring reconstructions are invalid because they only react to CO2.
no my agument is that temperature has a far lower impact than CO2 but you know that but you cant argue without strawmanning

also https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.15283
says that temperature increase without more CO2 does not result in bigger plants whilst a Co2 increase without temperature increase does
mild temperature increase with much more CO2 is the best tho

if this logicpuzzle does melt your brain you should make yourself a flowchart but this basically rules out predicting temperature from treerings entirely

>>12619990
im gonna need a source on that graph since the official website of the project says ~-30 as well

>>12619958
>row back to "muh local data"?
Actually yes because even within Greenland there is significant variability in temperature. Taking the temperatures from a single site and extrapolating it to global climate is not appropriate. That's why global reconstructions are used to assess this instead of a single site.

>>12620012
>actually yes because even within Greenland there is significant variability in temperature.
>maritime climate exists therefore this is invalid

faggot

>>12620012
>That's why global reconstructions are used
no they are used because you can mangle that data until you get your desired result

>>12620012
again you can force a draw if you go for "we cant know for sure" but then we wont implementing the policys your corporate masters want

>>12620030
Ah yes the classic step 4 of science worshippers method, either provide evidence for this or fuck off.

>>12620055
>prove that climatepriests tamper with the data

>"What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case."

>inb4 he refused to show how he got the hockeystick because it was so true it doesnt need proof

>>12620084
it gets better too
>Mann says that his lawyers are considering an appeal. He can appeal to his heart’s content, but there is not a court in North America that will allow a libel case to proceed where the plaintiff refuses to produce the documents that may show whether the statements made about him were true or false.

literal retard

>>12614666
>left wing politics stifling important research
>usual shakedown style behaviors of the political/administrative class who view science as a tenant that has to pay rent to justify its existence
>capitalism
>high iq genes becoming less common among the populace, leading to greater disinterest in science from society at large and fewer highly creative antisocial genius types who make ambitious scientific breakthroughs.
>The wrong side lost wwii
>the Soviet Union collapsed which allowed the west to get drunk on its own hubris and completely lose its mind and began operating every aspect of their society the wrong way.
>WWI happened and sent the civilized world on a path to decline by wounding its collective spirit.

>>12620084
>>12620093
oh and the deadline wanst like 2 week but more like 8 years lmao

>>12620094
>>WWI happened and sent the civilized world on a path to decline by wounding its collective spirit.
based take

>>12620084
>muh Mann
His reconstruction has been verified by Marcott et al. and PAGES2k and all the procedures and data are freely available
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2013/03/07/339.6124.1198.DC1/Marcott.SM.pdf

>>12620000
>no my agument is that temperature has a far lower impact than CO2 but you know that but you cant argue without strawmanning
So if CO2 is constant you would agree effects from temperature are very easy to see right?

Your source really doesn't help your case
>These climatic changes are predicted to have enormous impacts on the Earth's vegetation. Temperature is one of the most important controls on species distribution across the globe (Woodward, 1987), and most biological processes are temperature‐sensitive.

>When water or nutrients are limiting, as is common in terrestrial ecosystems and many agricultural settings, the positive effects of rising CO2 and warming are likely to be lower than those predicted from well‐watered and fertilized systems. For example, elevated CO2 had no impact on biomass of a temperate grassland when water and nitrogen were both limiting (Reich et al., 2014), the ability of a temperate forest to accumulate carbon under high CO2 was limited by both soil fertility and water availability (Oren et al., 2001), and the impacts of elevated CO2 and temperature on photosynthesis and respiration were erased during drought in Eucalyptus (Duan et al., 2013)

>It is important to remember that changes to the carbon fluxes discussed here do not necessarily lead to changes in biomass

It's especially weird how you're citing a paper which is explicitly looking at effects of AGW when you're denying it.

>>12614917
>Greenland = Sahara
>1800s = today
Oh no, it's retarded.

>>12620114
then marcott is a liar too
simple as
imagine sueing for insane amounts of money and the chickening out when the court demands you prove your science is true
this guy is a liar and everyone that supports him out for the climatemoney and clout

>>12620124
>not even looking at the procedure document

>>12620116
>It's especially weird how you're citing a paper which is explicitly looking at effects of AGW when you're denying it.
>muh when, if etc

it doesnt matter if the author researches this subject becasue of climatechange
also nice one skimming the paper to look for anything that could remotely help you
pseud

>>12614666
>faith based IE Climatechange
Seems you are discarding data that doesn't align with your model.

>>12620138
>>12620128
>>12620122
>>12620116
samefag or reddit reeinforcements?

>>12620084
>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.”

>What this all means: no, the court didn’t rule that Mann’s hockey stick was a fraud. And no, it has nothing to do with Mann supposedly refusing to release the data for deniers to double check. Again, Mann took to Twitter to explain that “The ‘Hockey Stick’ data & code are all available & have been for more than a decade,” with a link to the FTP site that’s hosted the data since, by the looks of it, at least 2003.
weird.

>>12620143
cope

>>12620137
Please respond to this
>So if CO2 is constant you would agree effects from temperature are very easy to see right?
(you have to agree with this, as your source clearly states that temperature has an effect even without CO2)

>>12620124
Surely you can point out the methodology errors they did right?

>>12620128
i dont need to
manns case ended in 2018 and cost him millions this paper is from 2013
if marcot has produced anything less fraudulent that mann he could have used it in court

he didnt

>>12620084
>He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.
Your source is full of shit. The data and code has been publicly available for more than a decade:

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

>>12620155
>So if CO2 is constant you would agree effects from temperature are very easy to see right?

what is there to respond to the graph is flat
you have forced yourself into a position where you need to prove a negative and you are smug about it
also whats with the switching of positions again i thought temperature was the driving force behind plant growth
the fuck is wrong with you

>>12620161
so why was the case dismissed and why was mann left with millions in court fees if he could have easily won?

>>12620157
>i dont need to
Pretty sure you do, otherwise you're a liar.

>manns case ended in 2018 and cost him millions this paper is from 2013
What does one have to do with the other?

>if marcot has produced anything less fraudulent that mann he could have used it in court
Used it for what?

>>12620171
>Used it for what?
to prove that tims assumption that the hockeystick is a fraud was a lie and in fact libel
dont play stupid

>>12620157
>>12620168
What do convoluted court cases have to do with anything? Lawyers and judges are not who decide the veracity of research. Especially when many others have replicated and verified that reconstruction

>>12620157
>>12620146
pic related a statement from Mann's lawyer.

>>12620168
>so why was the case dismissed
Because Tim Ball complained that he was dying and discovery was taking too long.

>why was mann left with millions in court fees
Source?

>if he could have easily won?
What does one have to do with the other?

how it started
>>12615664
>>12620146
how its going
>>12620185

>>12620177
>to prove that tims assumption that the hockeystick is a fraud was a lie and in fact libel
How can he do that when the case is dismissed? Also how do you know that he didn't do that?

>>12620190
>What does one have to do with the other?
the court was literally about the thing being a fraud and after 8 years he couldnt present any evidence that it wasnt

>>12620165
Ahhhh I see that's where you're hung up. You're looking at the global average temperature which shows very little variation, and assuming that the individual proxies which make it up also must show no variation. You know if you weren't too lazy to look at any actual data you wouldn't have this problem. Anyways needless to say tree rings show plenty fluctuations in temperature on the local scale from year to year.

>>12620196
becasue mann sued in march 2011 and was ordered to produce evidence before the year was over
the case was dismissed in 2019

>>12620198
>after 8 years he couldnt present any evidence that it wasnt
Source? You claimed he failed to present data that was already publicly available, so I don't see how further claiming he failed to present something is evidence it doesn't exist.

>>12620198
Except that's not what Ball's lawyer seemed to think ;)

>>12620204
>becasue mann sued in march 2011 and was ordered to produce evidence before the year was over
Which evidence?

>>12620199
>You're looking at the global average temperature which shows very little variation, and assuming that the individual proxies which make it up also must show no variation.
dishonest and smug about it
>tree rings
only ragebaiting at this point

see you in 2030 when the world ends
have fun when the anons from above return

>>12620198
Not only is the data available but it has been verified by others

>>12620214
>dishonest and smug about it
not an argument, please actually provide something of substance.

>only ragebaiting at this point
argument please, we've gotten down to the meat and potatoes of why you're mistaken, don't run away now.

>>12620214
>>12620259
>time inbetween 10 minutes
>he waited 10 minutes just to be Sure OP is gone to proclaim victory

>>12620337
You think 10m between posts is a lot? I've been averaging like 2 hours between posts lol.

>>12620342
Its ok man hes gone
But just for the record you both had your moments ngl

>>12620352
not going to lie I'm pretty butthurt I shared the entire database for marcott et al and no one even looked at it, let alone actually gave a reason for why it was invalid.

>>12620364
Hes right about treerings lmao
Rest idc we cant do anything anyways lol

>>12620372
>Hes right about treerings lmao
Carry on the torch, why is he right? Prove treerings are an invalid proxy.

>>12620375
Nah im good

>>12620380
boring

>>12620383
Ok im not gonna dig you out a big source or anything but plants dont really react to temperature at all other than them having an "ideal temperature" and the futher they stray from that the less good they grow

Also think of CO2 as food, there cannot be an increase in biomass without more food so even if higher temp somehow means more ideal conditions for every plant Sampled it still wouldnt do anything if temp stagnates

So temp might as well have stagnated during all the time but you cant know even if it didnt there wasnt more food for them to make use of the marginally better conditions

t. Aced Abitur biology LK where we had this 2 semesters

>>12620418
>still wouldnt do anything if temp stagnates
If food stagnates
Sry

>>12620418
>Ok im not gonna dig you out a big source or anything but plants dont really react to temperature at all other than them having an "ideal temperature" and the futher they stray from that the less good they grow
exactly, so if it's too hot or too cold you'll see it clearly in growth patterns. If you see actual changes in climate it's very obvious especially when you compare tree at different latitudes, unfavorable areas where temperatures are normally far too cold for optimal growth will grow far more than normal, areas that are usually close to optimal might be too hot, and show reduced growth.
>even if higher temp somehow means more ideal conditions for every plant
No one is making this claim.

>So temp might as well have stagnated during all the time but you cant know even if it didnt there wasnt more food for them to make use of the marginally better conditions
Again this relies on the assumption that every tree everywhere has optimal growing conditions, something that is basically never the case.

>>12620418
If only we had a method of veryfing this without tree rings
Oh wait, sediment cores, ice cores and other marine proxies show the same thing.
Even if tree rings didn't work as proxies, all others show the hockey stick

>>12614666

> tfw celebrated Zariski lemma turns out to be an easy exercise in linear algebra since it was stated in a pompous manner

btw - hello Satan

also I MUST publish, everyone MUST PUBLISH

shitty or not, here we go

inb4 9 pages, 10 authors, (1 page abstract, 1 page intro, 1 page bibliography)

omg it is full of shits

>>12614759
>Science is basically sucking politics dick to get funding these days
As a scientist who helps writing grant applications, this is 100% true and the vast majority of active scientists is aware of it. That's why so many good people leave for the industry these days.
Some of them use dog whistles in their studies though, like non-obviously wrong statistics or low sample sizes, bias, stuff like that. If you're in the know and aware the group usually produces valid stuff, then you know it's a grant-driven publication.