/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12744218
Climate change is whatever climate change activists need it to be at that moment.

>>12744221
climate change is when i pull my dick out of your moms badonkadonk and the semen and vaginal fluid on my dick evaporates leaving the surface temperature of my penis colder.

>it's hot outside
>it's global warming!
>it's cold outside
>it's... global warming!
>it's nothing special outside
>it's still global warming!

>>12744218
>Was the Texas megastorm due to climate change?
well, the climate did change so technically yes

>>12744228
She's 75 so if you want to do that and she agrees, have at it. Sure she'll enjoy some company that isn't a cat.

Legitimate question to climate alarmists: what set of circumstances would it take to disprove something as general as "climate change"? Any weather event whatsoever is considered "climate change" because weather itself is dynamic. Climate change is unfalsifiable like claims about the existence of god.

>>12744237
>weather is climate
Deniertards are a broken record.

>>12744289
Constant cold weather for 1 year straight (globally)

>>12744289
weather doesn't prove or disprove climate change. average global temperatures do.

>>12744289
>Legitimate question to climate alarmists
What is a climate alarmist?

>what set of circumstances would it take to disprove something as general as "climate change"?
Why would you want to disprove something as general as climate change? Do you also want to disprove gravity? How about wind?

>Any weather event whatsoever is considered "climate change"
Only by retarded deniers like you who don't understand the difference between weather and climate.

>Climate change is unfalsifiable
Empirically observed phenomena are automatically falsifiable. If you didn't observe them they would be falsified. You're a fucking idiot who doesn't belong on this board.

>>>/pol/

>>12744289
Global average temperature returning to the pre industrial baseline

>>12744218
Look up the snowy winter of 1890 or the California flood of 1861. Or the 50 year megadrought of the 1300s. Now we have sattelites to observe the polar vortex in realtime but history is filled with extreme weather events. Hadrian was able to march elephants across the alps because they were snow free during the little ice age.

>>12744293
Alarmists were literally fretting about the recent "hurricane drought".

>>12744312
*Roman warm period, fuck.

>>12744318
>Alarmists
Who?

>>12744307
>Why would you want to disprove something as general as climate change?
A scientific hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Playing a game of "prove me wrong, protip: you can't" makes you just as bad as creationists.

>>12744336
>>12744309

>>12744295
>>12744301
>>12744309
How do you numerically distinguish between atmospheric warming effects and human encroachment on temperature monitoring stations, given the extremely strong multicolinearity between those variables?

t. statistician

>>12744293
>every possible weather supports my pet theory
Truthertards are religious fanatics.

>>12744336
>A scientific hypothesis needs to be falsifiable.
As I already said, anything empirically observed is automatically falsifiable. Climate change is not a "hypothesis," it is just something we observe occurring. Why do you want to disprove general facts? Are they threatening to you?

>Playing a game of "prove me wrong, protip: you can't"
Where did I say anything like that?

>>12744312
>Hadrian was able to march elephants across the alps
is this bait?

>>12744369
>Climate change is not a "hypothesis," it is just something we observe occurring. Why do you want to disprove general facts? Are they threatening to you?
Wonderful, so I'd better avoid anything climate truthers propose to do and continue to eat meat and use fuel. You are free to observe whatever you want meanwhile.

>>12744369
You've created a hypothesis that covers the range of all possible observations: there is no way to falsify it. Your post is dripping with religious dogma.

>>12744346
>How do you numerically distinguish between atmospheric warming effects and human encroachment on temperature monitoring stations
By comparing rural station data to urban station data.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509

>given the extremely strong multicolinearity between those variables
Source?

>>12744354
See >>12744293

>>12744371
>Wonderful, so I'd better avoid anything climate truthers propose to do
What is a "climate truther?" Weird how none of you retards can exclaim who you're talking about?

Anyway, nothing you said follows from anything I said. Explain what climate change being a basic observation has to do with ignoring things.

>>12744218
>science claim
>t. political entity
Mmmmhm.

>>12744373
>You've created a hypothesis that covers the range of all possible observations
What hypothesis are you talking about? Stop beating around the bush and say something.

>Your post is dripping with religious dogma.
How so?

>>12744387
We're talking about you. Stop playing dumb, it's annoying. Case in point: you accuse anyone who even discusses the testability of climate change as a scientific theory of being a religious heretic >>12744369

>>12744392
Holy shit you are insufferable. We are talking about the unfalsifiability of climate change.

>>12744218
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex#Climate_change

>>12744373
If you want to talk about hypotheses you should probably name one instead of crying about "climate change."

No Texans
are dumb, I'm Texas

>>12744402
>LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU: the post
Hypothesis: the climate is rapidly changing due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. Design an experiment to accept or reject that hypothesis, you fucking troglodyte.

>>12744221

Climate change activists would probably have a lot more support if they quit changing the definition every few months,

>>12744418
>>12744309

>>12744395
>We're talking about you.
What makes me a "climate truther" exactly? Is that just a phrase you made up to describe me or does it actually mean something?

>Stop playing dumb, it's annoying.
Stop being dumb, it's annoying.

>you accuse anyone who even discusses the testability of climate change as a scientific theory of being a religious heretic
I'm discussing the falsifiability of climate change, you need to be a bit more specific. No I didn't accuse anyone of being anything, I simply asked a question.

>We are talking about the unfalsifiability of climate change.
Climate change is not a hypothesis. What hypothesis are you actually trying to talk about? It seems like you're trying to avoid an actual discussion by being vague. Or you don't even understand what a hypothesis is. And as I akready said, climate change is falsifiable automatically since it's an empirical observation. Do you have a response or are you just going to whine more?

>>12744422
>temperature goes up:
>CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
>temperature goes down:
>CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
>temperature oscillates
>CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
Are you seeing a clear picture of the problem yet? The only way to falsify climate change is to observe a level of prolonged temperature stability that's unprecedented in the geologic record, since ANY change in the climate is still climate change.

>>12744418
>Hypothesis: the climate is rapidly changing due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
That's a well evidenced theory, and of course it's falsifiable since all you have to do is show humans aren't emmitting significant amounts of GHGs, or that GHGs don't cause warming, or that some other factor is causing rapid warming, or that rapid warming isn't occurring. Next question.

>>12744433
Why are you so retarded? Why are you incapable of arguing in good faith? Why are you being so evasive? Is it because you're afraid? Is it because of some deep rooted insecurity? Does it bother you when I respond exclusively with time wasting questions?

>>12744434
> global averagetemperature goes up:
>CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
well yes
>global average temperature goes down:
when?
>global average temperature oscillates
when?

>>12744421
When have they changed the definition?

>>12744442
Why are you such a faggot? Do you enjoy being dominated by strong black men? What color of underwear am I wearing?

>>12744444
he's probably whining about adoption of the term 'climate change' in addition to 'global warming' Though considering half the people in this thread don't understand the meaning of the word global it seems like it was necessary.

>>12744450
why don't you have an argument?

>>12744440
Why are you projecting so much? Your response has zero substance. The only one not continuing the discussion and arguing in good faith is you. You've got a lot of growing up to do buddy.

I'll repeat the questions and you can answer when you've matured:

What makes me a "climate truther" exactly? Is that just a phrase you made up to describe me or does it actually mean something?

Climate change is not a hypothesis. What hypothesis are you actually trying to talk about?

Climate change is falsifiable automatically since it's an empirical observation. Do you have a response or are you just going to whine more?

>>12744458
Why are you incapable of recognizing all of the arguments I have posted, and choose to ignore them? Why do you seem so intent on avoiding good faith discussion? Are you afraid of being wrong?

>>12744465
sorry i must have missed your response to this post >>12744442 as it clearly and eloquently destroys every argument you've made.

>>12744460
Okay hear me out: the universe is inherently observable, therefore any claim I make about the universe now falsifiable. NEW HYPOTHESIS: there is a silver teapot floating somewhere between the orbits of Venus and Mercury. Please proceed to prove or disprove this totally falsifiable (according to you) hypothesis. All failures to disprove my hypothesis will be accepted as evidence for the teapot, btw.

>>12744472
Why would someone respond to question trolling with more question trolling?

>>12744477
>the universe is inherently observable, therefore any claim I make about the universe now falsifiable.
Doesn't follow, a claim is not an observation. Try again.

What this thread shows is that getting substance out of an AGW denier is like trying to wring blood from a stone. There is no substance, because their position has nothing but a thin political veneer behind it.

>>12744480
>I have no response so I'll just say he's trolling!!!!
How boring, has anyone else noticed the deniers getting dumber recently?

>>12744484
I have. It's natural selection, all the "intelligent" ones have died off so to speak.

>>12744481
You're refusing to acknowledge any of the arguments I have made, and you are deliberately playing dumb. It is extremely obvious that you are arguing in bad faith.

You made a claim: the climate is changing
I have replied: that claim is too ambiguous to be testable
You replied in turn: <incoherent trolling>

>>12744488
>You made a claim: the climate is changing
You made a straw man, the actual claim is considerably more precise.

>>12744492
So what is it? Could you please share it with us? Or will you do more post-hoc modifications of the original hypothesis in order to fit the data again (global warming -> climate change)?

>>12744487
Kind of sad, I've actually had some pretty fun arguments in climate threads over the past couple years.

>>12744498
>the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods'. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. WGIII

>>12744524
Now how do you falsify it?
>inb4 everything is falsifiable
bring me my silver teapot

>>12744539
How about not observing a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods?

>>12744553
>How about not observing
Just did it! Claim falsified!

>>12744565
OK sounds good, share your observations of the global climate system, and we'll compare notes and figure out which information is more likely to be true.

>>12744553
>How about not observing a change of climate
But isn't the climate always changing?
>which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity
How do you determine attribution of a natural process?
>which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods?
How do you determine if climate change was natural climate change or unnatural climate change? What if unnatural climate change and natural climate change look the same? Do you flip a coin?

>>12744582
>But isn't the climate always changing?
generally over millennia and never without a reason
>How do you determine attribution of a natural process?
You mean like for example being able to determine that variations in the earths orbit change how much radiation the earth receives, and this determines the earths glacial/interglacial cycle?
>How do you determine if climate change was natural climate change or unnatural climate change? What if unnatural climate change and natural climate change look the same? Do you flip a coin?
How about looking at what factors changed? Has incoming solar radiation changed? Have aerosols from natural sources decreased? Have humans burned enough fossil fuels to completely dominate any natural sources and raised the concentration of CO2 to the highest levels in 5million+ years virtually overnight?

>>12744289
Global average temperature trends downward for at least 8 years

>>12744631
>generally over millennia and never without a reason
Isn't this wrong? Weren't there several minor glacial periods within the last few hundred years? Why are you so bad at checking your sources?
>You mean like for example being able to determine that variations in the earths orbit change how much radiation the earth receives, and this determines the earths glacial/interglacial cycle?
Have you personally verified that *all* possible sources of natural climate change not to blame? Are you sure you didn't miss any?
>How about looking at what factors changed? Has incoming solar radiation changed? Have aerosols from natural sources decreased? Have humans burned enough fossil fuels to completely dominate any natural sources and raised the concentration of CO2 to the highest levels in 5million+ years virtually overnight?
Did you check that they haven't? Are you sure?

>>12744373
>You've created a hypothesis that covers the range of all possible observations: there is no other way to look at it
FTFY my friend

>>12744659
You've independently reconstructed the argument that creationists use for the existence of god. Congratulations!

>>12744649
>Isn't this wrong? Weren't there several minor glacial periods within the last few hundred years? Why are you so bad at checking your sources?
very minor and nothing even remotely global >>12744309
>Why are you so bad at checking your sources?
am i?
>Have you personally verified that *all* possible sources of natural climate change not to blame? Are you sure you didn't miss any?
And so we return to Russel's teapot, and the burden of proof is on those making the claim, and I have yet to see any evidence for any natural source, and mountains of evidence for anthropogenic sources.
>Did you check that they haven't?
see above
By the way, as soon as you invoke solipsism in any argument involving the real world you've lost so think very carefully where you're going with this.

>>12744218
It's impossible to attribute any specific weather event to climate change. Weather is not climate.

>>12744675
HOW DARE YOU DENY THE CLIMATE **APOCALYPSE**

>>12744696
read his post again Greta

>>12744700
SCIENCE DENIER!!! The climate CATASTROPHE will bake you alive in your skin. Earth will become HOTTER THAN THE SUN!

>>12744696

>>12744218
over the last year we've had the lowest output of co2 into the local environment due to the wuhan flu from fu manchu keeping everyone inside. over the last few decades nasa has released information showing that the earth has become more green than ever before. its more likely climate change was holding back this kind of event.

>>12744707
god i wish you people were actually smart enough to be interesting

>>12744717
how many semesters into your undergrad degree are you, my hyperintelligent friend?

>>12744715
not by much honestly.
>greening
> China alone accounts for 25% of the global net increase in leaf area with only 6.6% of global vegetated area. The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%), but in India is mostly from croplands (82%) with minor contribution from forests (4.4%)
http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/humans-are-officially-greening-the-earth-is-that-a-good-thing/
less of a good thing than you think
>its more likely climate change was holding back this kind of event.
not even sure what you're saying here

>>12744723
0 I just run my dad's jetski dealership

>>12744736
Wow, you must be much smarter than us inbred science deniers. I guess my graduate degree was all for nothing.

>>12744744
I mean considering you have less reading comprehension than someone who sells jetskis I think that's clearly the case. I guess what they say about academia is true.

>>12744218
no it was caused by covid. everything is causes by covid now.
https://www.brighteon.com/b28940bc-e60f-4be9-8a52-6f74baf256d5

>>12744732
i never said it WAS a good thing or bad thing

>>12744450
Lmao what faggot, let me guess amerilard right?

>>12744218
extrema weather phenomena have occurred ever since.
this is a correlation != causation fallacy as its practically impossible to quantify the influence of climate change on such .
there are claims that climate change encourages extreme weather phenomena but without any kind of quantitative analysis and reasoning this is just a superficial claim that might as well be completely fabricated.

Consider a loaded, six-sided die which has a 1/2 probability of rolling a 1. If you roll the die, and the result is a 1, is it because the die was weighted?

>>12744795
honestly I absolutely love this image because whoever created it just isn't capable of abstract thought. Makes me laugh every time.

>>12744948
This comment glows with aids

>>12744955
seems i struck a nerve

>>12744948
>w-well you are not capable of thought
ad hominem instead of responding to the argument
interesting how you dont refute the message, so it must be true, Mr. Bootlicker

even more interesting how you dont even bother to responding to the post you are quoting at all, guess thats just the intellectual level of the average bootlicker, or the person who defends such

>>12745004
it's cute you think there's even an argument.
I hate to explain the joke but you asked so here we go.
First is the assumption that anyone left of /pol/ is an anarchist, this is funny for multiple reasons but the largest is simply that mainstream liberal ideology is about as far removed from anarchism as possible, and both anarchists and libs would be the first to tell you that.
Second (where the meat of the joke is) the meme is a butthurt reaction to being called a bootlicker, this has nothing to do with actually licking boots, but is about how one has a love of submission to authority, instead of responding to this the creator of the image decided to find some pictures of libs (who generally also love authority) literally licking the boots of a bunch of blacks (probably between their shifts at McDonald's) the greatest Irony being if that if there's any group that probably has negative power and authority it's definitely blacks.
So to summarize, still love licking boots? (not literally we discussed this)

>>12745049
>if there's any group that probably has negative power and authority it's definitely blacks
>>>/reddit/

>>12745049
imagine getting it so completely wrong but still writing up all that crap in a self congratulatory manner

>it's cute you think there's even an argument
yes, and the main point of the image from >>12744795 is to expose hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to submitting to authority (the dimorphism depicted is that of authority of the state vs authority of an ideal).
to cement this, an image of people actually and literally licking boots is placed next to the comic.
so much to the meaning of the image.

now to your fallacious "interpretation"
>First is the assumption that anyone left of /pol/ is an anarchist
no one said that and nothing in the image says that, that belief is entirely your projection.
the image directly mocks anarchists as they are referenced by their insignia, the image doesnt actively classify anyone as anarchist however.
the people in the right side of the image are merely a prop to show that this practice happens not just figuratively in reality.
>the largest is simply that mainstream liberal ideology is about as far removed from anarchism as possible
your claim, your belief.
this has little to do with the topic and the image doesnt comment on this divide at all.
you are off the mark with this.
>the meme is a butthurt reaction to being called a bootlicker
no, not at all and not even remotely close to the truth.
>this has nothing to do with actually licking boots
the picture directly depicts this and even if it is supposed to imply as a meta message the literal meaning still holds true.
>if that if there's any group that probably has negative power and authority it's definitely blacks
... and thats exactly the purpose behind these boot licking actions.
the sentiment of that is however not the primary idea for the comic, this serves just for illustration purposes.
>still love licking boots?
a question to me? why? we are discussing the meaning now why do you feel the urge to let yourself down to ad hominems?

>>12744488
>You're refusing to acknowledge any of the arguments I have made
Like what?

>You made a claim: the climate is changing
>I have replied: that claim is too ambiguous to be testable
How is it ambiguous? Do you know what climate is? Do you know what change is?

>You replied in turn: <incoherent trolling>
No, my reply was that any empirical observation is inherently falsifiable. You have yet to respond. Try again.

>>12744795
Wrong.

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8537

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/7/

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ef2

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world

>>12744671
It's incredibly ironic you compare him to a creationist while falling into the same fallacy of thinking that all evidence pointing to a theory being correct means that it's unfalsifiable. Evolution is unfalsifiable too, right?

>>12745421
quote something specific and also show how this refutes claims made in post >>12744795

copy pasting a plethora of semi related links is not an argument

>>12745445
You claimed it's practically impossible to quantify the influence of closure change on extreme weather events. This is false, it's been done for years. You didn't even look at the links and tried to bluff your way past them.

>We demonstrate that human-caused climate change caused over half of the documented increases in fuel aridity since the 1970s and doubled the cumulative forest fire area since 1984.

>Extrapolating these results to the 2017 event, we conclude that global warming made the precipitation about 15% (8%–19%) more intense, or equivalently made such an event three (1.5–5) times more likely. This analysis makes clear that extreme rainfall events along the Gulf Coast are on the rise.

>69% of the 355 extreme weather events and trends included in the map were found to be made more likely or more severe by human-caused climate change.

>9% of events or trends were made less likely or less severe by climate change, meaning 78% of all events experienced some human impact. The remaining 22% of events and trends showed no discernible human influence or were inconclusive.

>>12745483
alright
>climate change caused, ..., increases in fuel aridity, ..., and doubled the cumulative forest fire
this is an observation, the increase in aridity and the forest fire area, while this statement alone doesnt causally link them at all (also these observations only hold true for the geographically limited area from which they originate, whether they relate to anything besides that is questionable )
just naming both in the same sentence and saying "they occur at the same time so they must have something to do with each other" is a prime correlation/causation fallacy

>>12745516
>this is an observation, the increase in aridity and the forest fire area, while this statement alone doesnt causally link them at all
How would a description of the paper causally link them? You asked for quotes to show the links were relevant to your claims. If you refuse to read the papers then that's not my fault.

>>12745483
>Extrapolating these results to the 2017 event, we conclude that global warming made the precipitation about 15% (8%–19%) more intense, or equivalently made such an event three (1.5–5) times more likely. This analysis makes clear that extreme rainfall events along the Gulf Coast are on the rise.
a terrible quote as you completely left out the specific event that is discussed
>global warming made the precipitation about 15% (8%–19%) more intense
this is not a logical argument, as it is not clear how precipitation and global warming are causally linked
also, this specific observation is limited to a geographic area
>along the Gulf Coast
furthermore
>made such an event three (1.5–5) times more likely. This analysis makes clear that extreme rainfall events
again, just an observation that these events occur more often
they then take this and make the assumption that this also implies a higher likelihood
this is quite a claim as statistical outliers are possible and whether thats likely or not is not quantified at all, as a result the point is not credible
the person who wrote this has a poor grasp of what can reasonably be claimed based on statistics
again, the causal link between global warming and such events is assumed but not proven in the slightest

>>12745559
>refuses to read the paper
>complains the quote doesn't give all information in the paper

>>12745483
>69% of the 355 extreme weather events and trends included in the map were found to be made more likely or more severe by human-caused climate change
>were found to be made more likely or more severe by human-caused climate change
oh really were they? then it should be no problem to present the evidence
>found to be made more likely
again a fallacious assumption based on limited and incomplete data
>9% of events or trends were made less likely or less severe by climate change, meaning 78% of all events experienced some human impact. The remaining 22% of events and trends showed no discernible human influence or were inconclusive.
questionable categorization that makes little sense without quantifying the merit for such a specification
complete gibberish as a result of number twisting and arbitrary parameter choices, again ...
>made less likely or less severe by climate change, meaning 78% of all events experienced some human impact
is complete nonsense because its based on an unproven assumption
a causal link that is defined to be per se axiomatic
this is not science or scientific practice, this is ideology
>experienced some human impact
not quantified and therefore completely meaningless

when you cite a paper you are supposed to state which paper you are citing
the citations you have picked show that whatever happened in that paper was not scientific practice

>>12745585
See >>12745578

>>12745587
you are too handicapped to scroll up half a page to get the context
you absolute retardation knows no bounds, like the classic science denier that you are

>>12745590
>you are too handicapped to scroll up half a page to get the context
What context?

>literally refuses to look at research that refutes him
>calls others science denier
Dumbest hypocrite in this thread.

>>12745597
>What context?
there it is, you admitting yourself that you have no clue what you are talking about

>>12744218
Extreme weather has been increasing and so has temperature. We don't have proof of causation but it suggests the two are connected.

>>12745603
>there it is, you admitting yourself that you have no clue what you are talking about
I have no clue what you're taking about, because you're making vague references. Fucking retard.

>>12745645
Right, if you look at trends, you can make claims about it having a connection to climate change.
Pointing to any single extreme weather event (e.g. Texas freeze, Hurricane Harvey, 2011 tornado super outbreak, etc.), there is no way you can just say that that single event is a result of climate change, because these things do happen regardless of changing climate.

>>12744346
Why was ice from nearly a thousand years ago, when examined, found to contain carbon dioxide that matches higher average temperatures that we have now today? Did the peasants Porsches fill the air much? I'll tell you, it's because the temperature determines the CO2 amount in the air, and not the other way around.

>>12745934
The climate is changing, it's a question of it being natural or not. Since humans contribute with less than 1% of the total carbon dioxide every year, it's unlikely that the changes that we observe, are due to human activity.

>>12744307
>Why would you want to disprove something as general as climate change? Do you also want to disprove gravity? How about wind?
Well people didn't lose their jobs and fuel prices weren't hiked because Gravity wasn't proven or wind wasn't proven to exist.
There are a lot of falsifiable data and rigged/funded research that can be used to boom an industry that was never mainstream before.
And i don't oppose that.. but believing anything with a blind eye will bring you nothing but chaos.
If you want to prove a set of hypotheses are true You must provide evidence for it.
And explain to people in layman's terms. Because Everyone on this planet ain't clever enough to understand clustering and LW regression, but most of them are dumb enough to use a gun and gaslight society to cause total chaos.

>>12745684
your references are complete bullshit
>you're making vague references
im not making any references

take your meds, you clearly live in an alternate reality

>>12746114
>your references are complete bullshit
You haven't even looked at them. If you're going to lie, you should at least be good at it.

>im not making any references
So this doesn't refer to anything?
>you are too handicapped to scroll up half a page to get the context
OK retard, I won't respond to babble about nothing.

>>12745998
>Since humans contribute with less than 1% of the total carbon dioxide every year, it's unlikely that the changes that we observe, are due to human activity.
This doesn't follow. It's the change in CO2 that causes the change in temperature, so the total amount of CO2 is irrelevant. You should be asking what percentage of the change in CO2 is being caused by humans. The answer is more than 100% since nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

>>12745361
this is the lamest attempt at a response I've ever seen please read it again, feel humiliated and try again.

>>12744708
>a sticker of a little girl getting ass fucked will pwn the libs
>but democrats are the pedos i promise

>>12746029
>Well people didn't lose their jobs and fuel prices weren't hiked because Gravity wasn't proven or wind wasn't proven to exist.
So you're arguing against scientific facts for purely political reasons.

>There are a lot of falsifiable data
All data is falsifiable.

>and rigged/funded research
Like what?

>And i don't oppose that.. but believing anything with a blind eye will bring you nothing but chaos.
Rejecting scientific evidence for no reason is blind belief.

>If you want to prove a set of hypotheses are true You must provide evidence for it.
There's massive amounts of evidence. What hypothesis are you talking about?

>>12745998
damn I haven't heard this absolute smoothbrained take in a while

>>12746388
Greta is over 18

>>12746381
>factual refutation of every single point
>durr its "lame"
retard

>>12744948
Next time you will start literally eating shit and then complain that it was not abstract shiteating?

>>12745361
>is to expose hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to submitting to authority (the dimorphism depicted is that of authority of the state vs authority of an ideal).
Ideal:
>satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
this is utterly braindead, in your mind you think worshiping an existing external governing body is the same as having by definition self determined ideals? your entire interpretation fails right here and commenting further is pointless.

>to cement this, an image of people actually and literally licking boots is placed next to the comic.
No the identity of the people is the entire crux of the argument, as the anarchist is portrayed as licking boots next. According to your interpretation if a trump supporter, or neo nazi were portrayed literally licking a boot the meaning of the image would remain the same. Which is clearly nonsense.

>>12747011
In this case I suspect you're also incapable of literal thought

Climate alarmism is the setup to justifying depopulation and removing your individual material power

All I hear as a result are bitching at the serf class to change habits, and taxes that just mean the wealthiest companies have less competition

That said I don't want to breathe in pollution and have polluted waters.

>>12747653
>>>/x/

>>12744218
>Severe snowstorms and freezing temperatures
Yep. Sounds like it must have been global warming to me

>>12744312
>>12744370
Not bait, he’s talking about the Scottish alps

>>12744218
>Standard physics has known about the Greenhouse effect for over a century
>Human industrial activities drive up CO2 concentration to the highest level since the Pliocene
>Planet starts warming up extremely fast as predicted by modeling
>Spectrography proves CO2 is radiating heat back into the atmosphere
>Climate starts becoming more extreme as predicted
Single consistent theory and model supported by the evidence.

>"its solar activity"
>"but its snowing outside"
>"earth isn't warming"
>"earth is warming but it isn't humans"
>"its good for the planet because there was primitive life during the pliocene surely this means Humans will thirve"
Random schizo excuses contradicted by the evidence. No unified explanation.

>>12744671
>do research
>findings indicate a thing is occurring gradually all around the world, with known inputs
>nnooooooooo, your findings can't all point in one direction! The heckin creatiorinoooosss

The human body being composed of cells and organic matter, of course, is unfalsifiable I suppose. I guess it's time to rethink all study of the human body because of a retard on /sci/

>entire thread full of deniers simply saying nuh-uh

Why even bother?

>>12747112
>worshiping an existing external governing body is the same as having by definition self determined ideals?
No, you fundamentally don't understand the statements I made.
>According to your interpretation if a trump supporter, or neo nazi were portrayed literally licking a boot the meaning of the image would remain the same.
Wrong, the identity of these people literally licking boots is secondary and just from the image alone it's impossible to tell. You do not know the identity of these people and you will be incapable of finding out their identity to make any definite statements.
Also you are still missing the main point and bickering about side details that are more or less trivial for the overall image, symptomatic for a person that hasn't got it but still wants to talk about it.