/sci/ - Science & Math

they wish

>>14631427
Do it between then

>>14631427
Has the climate change hypothesis ever made a verified prediction? Seems like literally nothing they have ever predicted has come true. Ozone layer didn't disappear, sea levels didn't rise, nobody is dead. According to Al Gore we should've all been underwater by now. Yet now they expect us to believe the next round of bullcrap predictions because it's "the latest science"

>>14631581
Damn phoneposting on the shitter... *better

>>14631584
>Seems like literally nothing they have ever predicted has come true.
They have predicted it gets warmer with more CO2 and it got warmer. They have predicted the sea levels would rise and they are rising. They have predicted the glaciers would melt and they are melting.
>Ozone layer didn't disappear
Not climate
>sea levels didn't rise
Yes they did and are still rising
>nobody is dead
No one can attribute single events to climate change, but people are dying in record heat every year. People die in floods. Again, can't say without doubt that something wouldn't have happened, but last year, people drowned in Germany in an event that will become more likely thanks to climate change.
>According to Al Gore we should've all been underwater by now.
He never said that
>Yet now they expect us to believe the next round of bullcrap predictions because it's "the latest science"
Well if you blatantly deny facts and make up your own, who cares what you think? You'll make up your own world anyway.

>>14631427
You wish not.

>>14631584
I'm sure your satellites measure something completely different

>>14631584
Is this a false flag or are /pol/tards really this stupid?

>>14631608
My eyes measure it fine lol

>>14631584
>Ozone layer didn't disappear
CFCs we're banned allowing the ozone layer to recover. That's what happens when appropriate action is taken to solve a problem.

>>14631608
Your image is also hilarious because it's made to look like the positive sloped line represents a steady rise, yet the axis starts below 0. Half of the years in your own chart have a FALLING sea level lmao.

>>14631608
sea level increases by about 3 mm a year? wow, so, like, by the year 2100 AD, the sea level will have increased by a whopping 30 cm? omg i'm literally shaking? bros, are there any therapists trained for this kind of stuff? that's like a whole ruler's worth of extra depth, oh no...
>>14631705
that's just climatologists not understanding basic calculus. the chart, as shown, indicates the sea level dropped between 1992 and about 2000. they would tell you instead that the sea level increased. what they mean is that they took the year 2000 as their 0 point, and that in 1992, the sea level was about 20 mm below what it was in the year 2000. it's a stupid plot designed by retards who don't understand math.

>>14631742
>"change in sea level" means "sea level"
Wow, that's retarded

>>14631412
It depends on your definition of science, but that it is science doesn't tell that it is not corrupted beyond repair.

>>14631705
>Half of the years in your own chart have a FALLING sea level lmao.
LOL, imagine being this retarded and not being able to read a graph. It seems like deniers above room temperature IQ have all realized they were wrong, so all that's left are these bottom of the barrel troglodytes.

>>14631752
No, it means change in sea level from a baseline. This is done because it makes it easier to combine data sets. Fucking moron.

>>14631787
>people who disagree with climate change peddlers are bottom of the barrel idiots
that's only because climate alarmists keep moving the goalposts. now if you inject any doubt, remind them of any history, or criticize any faulty plots, you're de facto low iq moron. it's a shutdown tactic, not an argument. it's more a reflection of the climate alarmists than the climate "deniers". i consider myself a climate realist, not a denier. i show the alarmists how pathetically wrong they are (and how they've been consistently wrong in the past)

>>14631798
you're the moron. it can be more clearly communicated by saying "sea level" and including a foot note that they've defined the sea level at the year 2000 to be 0m. take a lesson from physicists (real scientists): if we plotted the potential energy as a function of height close to the surface of earth, it would be a straight line. U(h) = mgh. we would define something (like the ground) to be our reference point. we certainly wouldn't label the y-axis as "change in potential energy", idiot.

>>14631742
>sea level increases by about 3 mm a year? wow, so, like, by the year 2100 AD, the sea level will have increased by a whopping 30 cm?
Incorrect, sea level rise is accelerating. The current rate is 3.7 mm per year. By 2100, sea level is likely to increase by 60-100 cm, depending on emissions.

>omg i'm literally shaking?
You understand how averages work, right? That means more flooding and deeper flooding.

>>14631801
ftfy

>that's only because climate alarmists keep moving the goalposts.
Your stupidity is not anyone else's fault, deniertard.

>now if you inject any doubt, remind them of any history, or criticize any faulty plots, you're de facto low iq moron.
It would be nice if you could do any of those things, but instead you just fail to read simple graphs and post Facebook mommy memes. LOL

>>14631839
i already debunked you last time you posted this. for example,
>some politician said this.
wrong, it was said by a climate scientist. i'm going to assume you're capable of finding the old thread and the paper, because you don't deserve me doing that work for you again.

>>14631812
>you're the moron. it can be more clearly communicated by saying "sea level"
But it's not sea level, you fucking troglodyte. It's sea level anomaly, which is just the change in sea level from an arbitrary baseline. Thanks for proving I was right about you. If you were a physicist you would be able to read simple graphs.

>>14631839
> consensus
most of you parrots don't belong in science
(like literally the vast majority of academia will never become true scientists)

>>14631847
>i already debunked you last time you posted this.
You didn't. Here, I'll post the thread since you're afraid anyone will actually check your lie.

>>/sci/thread/S14574798#p14578441

>it was said by a climate scientist
Nope, read the thread where you got BTFO. A scientist said "if this trend persists, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013," he did not say the Arctic will be ice free by 2013.

>>14631873
did the trend change? oh wow! the faggots saved the world again! (I'm not reading your thread, I observed climate alarmists long enough to know that you're all full of crap and nothing valuable in it other than a reminder for all of us that whole fields of science can be full of crap)

>>14631853
>NO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A THEORY
>THAT'S NOT SCIENCE REEEEEEEEEE
LOL. lmao even

>>14631882
>OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
not what you said (not what you have)

>>14631873
>I'll post the thread since you're afraid anyone will actually check your lie.
>>>/sci/thread/S14574798#p14578441
Imagine being this colossally fucking retarded. Here, your own source showing me utterly destroying you.
>>/sci/thread/S14574798#p14578652
Unbelievable.

>>14631881
>i already debunked you last time you posted this
>I'm not reading your thread
Pathetic. Thanks for admitting you got BTFO

>>14631839
the issue here seems to be that politicians lie about everything and people correctly shit on all the lying politicians. where's the problem?

>>14631886
That's what a scientific consensus is. Maybe you should go back to your containment board if basic terminology is too hard for you.

>not what you have
Delusional denial.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

>>14631898
The issue is that these were claimed to be predictions by scientists, in order to see doubt about climate science, but they're all misrepresentations or misattributions. Because that's all deniers have. Zero evidence, just lies.

>>14631890
you have to go back (you are talking to more than one anon down here)

>>14631908
>more than one retarded denier doesn't capitalize
Nice try, samefag.

>>14631902
>That's what a scientific consensus is.
sure, honey, keep on believing, I don't insist on you making actual science (actually discovering something new instead of wroking as a parrot whose job is to lecture kids what's been approved) because we all know what the value of your science would be, and we don't need more crap into this world.

>>14631913
as I just said, keep on believing.

>>14631906
but that's all anyone has. no one is exposed to the nonbullshit version, the only thing they're exposed to are obvious lies from politicians.

>>14631916
>bla bla bla.
No argument and no evidence presented. Pathetic.

>>14631918
Keep on trying to samefag and failing.

>>14631705
Holy fucking shit do you not know how to read a chart?

>>14631922
Climate science is publicly available, your wilfull ignorance is not a valid excuse.

>>14631925
You ignored my argument:
Did the trend change?

>>14631889
>doesn't post the replies where people prove him wrong.
I'm done with you fools. You have nothing but misinformation and lies.

The information proving man made climate change is freely available and simple to understand and you've had access to it for years. Stop coming to an anime image board for your 'facts'.
https://www.ipcc.ch/

>>14631933
what i have or haven't been exposed to personally doesn't matter. the reason climate science gets shit on so much is that a version of it which is obviously bullshit—even to you, to me, and to the scientists—is what's being sold to them by lying politicians that you, i, and the scientists all agree is inaccurate.

>>14631939
>freely available and simple to understand
propaganda usually is (in these threads you guys never try to convince people with that simple to understand information, you prefer to scream retarded crap like "the science is settled, overwhelming majority of scientists agree!" (when we know that majority is ALWAYS wrong)

>>14631908
Same lack of capitalization, same parentheticals. LOL, you got caught lying, again. Dishonest little prick.

>>14631950
see, this is what you resort to, irrelevant crap (and that this particular crap is false doesn't even matter)

>>14631941
>what i have or haven't been exposed to personally doesn't matter
Then why did you bring it up?

>the reason climate science gets shit on so much is that a version of it which is obviously bullshit—even to you, to me, and to the scientists—is what's being sold to them by lying politicians that you, i, and the scientists all agree is inaccurate.
No, it's mostly due to retarded deniers who ignore evidence and oil shills who misrepresent evidence.

>>14631957
>pay no attention to my dishonest behavior and misrepresentations of climate scientists, it's irrelevant
Wow, how convenient. How many times are you going to get BTFO before you stop posting lying? What's it going to take?

>>14631962
>evidence
What is your "simple to understand" evidence?
That the summers got way too hot for you since you moved to Palestine where you don't belong?

>>14631962
i didn't bring up my personal experience, you did. and no, the reason it gets shit on isn't oil companies underselling it, it's very clearly politicians overselling it.

>>14631968
Nice distraction tactics, but I will persist.
Did the trend change? (I'm still not reading your thread to figure out if you answered this question, because my guess is you never did and you never will)

>>14631950
so not capitalizing (common with desktop users), and using parenthesis (common with people who know how to communicate) is only ever possibly used by one single anon? get a lot of the ego on this guy -- he's incapable of believing multiple anons can think he's a retard.

>>14631977
>Nice distraction tactics, but I will persist.
Distraction from what? You're the only one trying to distract from getting caught lying, again.

>Did the trend change?
Obviously, moron. Otherwise the Arctic would be ice free. This is not even a controversial statement, it's just basic math.

>I'm still not reading your thread
That's fine, you can just fail to defend yourself and forfeit. I accept your concession of defeat.

>>14631971
>What is your "simple to understand" evidence?
Who are you quoting? Sorry, I can't guarantee the evidence will be simple to understand for someone of your low intelligence. Nor does it need to be.

>and no, the reason it gets shit on isn't oil companies underselling it, it's very clearly politicians overselling it.
That's a convenient excuse, but the main reason is stupid people like you who shit on things they have no understanding of. You're the problem.

>>14631991
>Obviously, moron.
What did I miss? What did we change in our activity so drastically that we saved the world?
>Otherwise the Arctic would be ice free.
Only if that guy wasn't as full of shit as you are. But since you're believer who's not in church only because "the trend has changed" you don't tend to doubt. But you will never be a scientist.

>>14631973
No, you did. >>14631922

>and no, the reason it gets shit on isn't oil companies underselling it, it's very clearly politicians overselling it.
That's a convenient excuse, but the main reason is stupid people like you who shit on things they have no understanding of. You're the problem.

>>14631979
>so not capitalizing (common with desktop users), and using parenthesis (common with people who know how to communicate) is only ever possibly used by one single anon?
Where did I say it isn't possible? Is possible every single post here is written by a different person. So what? You got caught. Get over it.

>>14631998
> doesn't post that "overwhelming" evidence
> still believes he answers the same guy
what a redtard faggot

>>14631998
the second quote is me, the first isn't. you calling me stupid when i probably agree with you on climate science while simultaneously lying to yourself that people shit on climate science because they like oil companies rather than the much more plausible truth that they hate lying politicians is exactly why we're all irredeemably fucked. people like you suck

>>14631999
>What did I miss?
Basic science education.

>What did we change in our activity so drastically that we saved the world?
Why do you think a trend that isn't even 10 years long represents solely our activity?

>Only if that guy wasn't as full of shit as you are.
No, it's just an objective fact that if that trend persisted the Arctic would be ice free. Doesn't matter how much you whine and how much many puerile insults you throw out. You lost.

>>14632013
I'm the other "you", try to educate me on "cimate science" so that I get "redpillied" in a way.

>>14632004
>> doesn't post that "overwhelming" evidence
Already posted, illiterate /pol/tard. Go back a few replies until you find it. Good boy.

>>14632015
so the question is.. did the trend exist in the first place?

>>14632013
>lying to yourself that people shit on climate science because they like oil companies
That's not what I said, lying retard. I said the primary reason is stupid people like you. Your view of reality is determined by your preconceived beliefs, not evidence. That's why you whine about politicians instead of looking at the evidence. It's convenient for you.

>>14632019
> doesn't know how to use the board
do it again, with the number of the response this time (few is something like four)

>>14632022
Yes, it's right there in the data. The real question is, why should anyone care what you have to say? You have nothing.

>>14632027
No, you should find it. It will be a good exercise for you and teach you there are consequences to making shit up.

>>14632029
>You have nothing.
While you have funding. Mazel tov!
>>14631758

>>14632040
Yup, nothing. As I predicted. Fuck off.

>>14632018
i'm not the right person to be educating other people on climate science, but from what i can tell if you remove all the absolutes and all the urgency from what politicians say about it, what's left is pretty close to what climate scientists say about it—a dynamic which is expressed perfectly by the image i first replied to.

>>14632033
I'm leaving this thread, next time try to be less arrogant, your data is crap even though I haven't read it, your attitude tells me it is.
Also if all your predictions fail, your theory is shit.

>>14632025
have fun killing the planet by working against helping the planet i guess

>>14632049
>the image i first replied to.
and how would I tell where it was? It's not pol, we don't have no id's here.
Are we not in some little ice age now?

>>14632055
Plan(e)t loves CO2
Nice subversion tactic to tell "my factories spoil the atmosphere? Your breath does! and here's a campaign to prove it"

>>14632056
this one >>14631839
they have ids on /pol/ like on reddit? lol no wonder the rep is so bad

>>14632069
>like on reddit
you would know

Why is it always the same guy who posts shitty meme images and refuses to provide arguments against data and just denies everything?

>>14632085
who doesn’t know that reddit has ids lol

Being on a planet this warm is literally torture.

How long will we torture ourselves? The next 5 decades? That's a lot of heatwaves to bear, and they're just gonna get worse.

>>14631584
>Ozone layer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

>>14631687
https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

>>14631412
Of course, I give your mom climatologies all the time

>>14632085
The third is a fake cover and the rest are about cold weather in the US. But you knew that already, shill.

>>14632052
>I'm leaving this thread
Good.

>your data is crap even though I haven't read it
LOL, the comedy writes itself.

>Also if all your predictions fail, your theory is shit.
What predictions failed?

>>14631742
>sea level increases by about 3 mm a year? wow, so, like, by the year 2100 AD, the sea level will have increased by a whopping 30 cm?
>80*3=30
>the chart, as shown, indicates the sea level dropped between 1992 and about 2000
Ok this bait is too obvious now.

>>14631848
> anomaly, which is just the change in sea level from an arbitrary baseline
Not the change. The difference.

>>14631835
Yo does that mean if I own property in AZ it'll be worth more when the coasts flood? Hell yeah

>>14632099
I thought CO2 emissions went down in 2020 because everyone quarantined and production plummeted? Why does that chart show 2020 with a massive spike? Does that mean when the globohomos try to force everyone to not leave their house in the name of climate change we can tell them they are stupid?

>>14632022
The trend is not really doubtable. Also, you see that the ice is still shrinking, but slower so. The other graph has data until 2005 and fits from 1995, where it starts falling off.. You see that it was steeper than it is today. So, yes, the trend did change. I'm not sure why you have to ask this when the information is literally out there. Just do your own research instead of parroting people :^)

>>14632628
you would need a graph that starts at 1960, like pic related, because the decrease was relatively insignificant compared to the net increase since the industrial revolution

>>14631412
it has ology in the name so it must be science

>>14632628
>Why does that chart show 2020 with a massive spike?
Because the graph shows the CO2 concentrations and not the emissions. The emissions were not negative, you dingus
>Does that mean when the globohomos try to force everyone to not leave their house in the name of climate change we can tell them they are stupid?
That means you most likely failed calculus or I fell for your bait.

>>14631705
Either retard or intentionally trying to misrepresent the very basic chart.

>>14632249
It's funny, I didn't know one of the covers was fake, but I still have doubts that what you said about the other three is true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>14632251
>Good.
Not so fast, I came back.
>What predictions failed?
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

>>14632806
From your own link
>Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

>>14632806
There was a massive snowstorm in the US in 1973 and 78, people genuinely freaked out because there were long periods of blizzards, months even.

Of course weather =/= climate, such blizzards arent evidence of global cooling by themselves. I also think in 78 the blizzards were confined to the eastern US.

>>14632810
>cei.org/blog
Is it sfw or is that a blog about cum eating?

>>14632810
>some rando's blog
Lol, lmao

>>14632810
Decided to Google it before clicking
>The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit libertarian think tank founded by the political writer Fred L. Smith Jr. on March 9, 1984, in Washington, D.C., to advance principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. CEI focuses on a number of regulatory policy issues, including business and finance, labor, technology and telecommunications, transportation, food and drug regulation, and energy and environment in which they have promoted climate change denial.
Still saved me a click

>>14632638
>you see that the ice is still shrinking
I do not and neither do you. And is the sea level rising? Did your boss sell his beach house already?

>>14632811
It's wikipedia, anybody can shit in there, it's there just to show that such theory existed.

>>14632814
nice argument again, redtard, I didn't bring you the first link I found, because it had not sources, but one with actual scans of publications

>>14632815
> it's not true if it wasn't through peer review
> it is definitely true if it was through peer review
Is it even possible to publish such metaanalysis in current climatologist literature?

>>14632816
So both your parents sucks the big guv's dick and you want to, so whatever the current concensus is, you suck it up. I see, no more questions.

>>14632810
So retarded and easy to debunk
>1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’
Doesn't mention climate change. Let's look into Paul R. Ehrlich:
>Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) is an American[2] biologist, best known for his warnings about the consequences of population growth and limited resources.
Not about climate change at all.

>1969: ‘Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.’
Same guy, still not about climate.

>1970: Ice age by 2000
Arguably about climate, but about smog, which we started filtering out of the exhausts. Also, in hindsight, CO2 warming outperforms shielding/cooling by smog. One of the few wrong predictions, but not consensus of any kind. It's one prediction.

>1970: ‘America subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.’
Again, this Ehrlich guy? Why does the cum eating institute love this guy so much?

>1971: ‘New Ice Age Coming’
Again, smog
>If sustained over "several years"
Guess what we didn't do? Keep blowing out smog. But again, I think even with more smog, this would be wrong.

>1972: New ice age by 2070
Don't say it's man-made, say that it's a possibility that can't be excluded. By using retard-grammar, the cum eaters make it sound like they were sure about a new ice age by 2070. Not "we cannot exclude a natural new ice age, possibly as early as 2070"

The title was "50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions" not "50 years of things that couldn't be excluded at that time".

If you don't have a smoke alarm, people tell you "if you don't have it, we can't guarantee that you wake up in case of a fire and you might die". If there hasn't been a house fire after 10 years, do you go around like
>suck it, smoke detector cucks, you were WRONG and smoke detectors don't do shit, I will never trust a firefighter again

>>14632823
Do we need to practice reading graphs together? The sea levels are rising, but again, that's in a graph :( >>14631608

>>14632825
Ok, write something else then and see what happens.

>>14632829
When we scientist talk about publications, we usually mean peer-reviewed articles, not interviews with newspapers.

>>14632829
>>14632834
CEI got millions from ExxonMobil. Whose cock are you sucking?

>>14631412
To some level it is. Parts of it are testable so they are science, others are not testable so they are not science.

>>14632849
>Do we need to practice reading graphs together?
>https://www.sealevels.org
Two questions:
1) what exactly happened in 1900?
2) how do you know that you can trust that graph?
> When we scientist talk about publications, we usually mean peer-reviewed articles, not interviews with newspapers.
The question remains: Is it even possible to publish such metaanalysis in current climatologist literature?

>>14632854
>CEI got millions from ExxonMobil.
why not billions? citation needed

>>14632849
>Ok, write something else then and see what happens.
it depends. I suspect your sect to be monitoring that subject erasing all dissent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1010653/she-spent-a-decade-writing-fake-russian-history.-wikipedia-just-noticed.-?source=channel_rising

>>14632893
>why not billions?
Because that would not be true and I wouldn't lie to back up a point. See here and the sources herein: https://www.desmog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute/

Kinda explains their fanboyism:
https://cei.org/citations/can-exxonmobil-be-found-liable-for-misleading-the-public-on-climate-change/
https://cei.org/blog/down-in-flames-judge-dismisses-new-york-climate-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil/

>>14632907
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
How can you trust this list? Anyone could write something on that list :^)

>>14632909
thanks

>>14632909
Thanks again. But then again why should we trust our governments and why should we oppose those who produce products and don't take our money when we don't buy from them?

>>14632944
>But then again why should we trust our governments
We shouldn't. Actually, "our" governments (which is actually countless of governments in 4d space throughout decades and across continents) are the ones disregarding scientific consensus for so long that we're steering right at possible turning points. We should listen to the actual experts in the fields. We should listen to the consensus of conferences and meta-analyses. We should ignore faggots like this Ehrlich guy who make claims like "by this year, something will happen for sure". We should look claims that are either straight forward like "I did a linear fit and if it continues like this, we will hit zero by that time" or that have the necessary scientific professionalism. Under what assumptions does something happen with what uncertainty? The IPCC releases thousands of pages regularly, explaining, testing and using their models. If the nerds who normally tell you "well if our models of the atmospheric dynamics, the carbon uptake in oceans bla bla bla are correct, then our models predict a span of bla with a confidence interval...." tell you we're fucked, then we are.
Politicians are not scientists. It's part of their jobs to make statements that are stronger than what is scientifically safe. Trump said we'd be on the moon by a certain year and NASA immediately said that this depends on several things and started explaining under which scenarios, what timeline is realistic. Ignore the people who are always loud and look at the quiet people who recently became loud. That's when you should start to worry.

>>14632909
They are still correct. Global warming is a nothing burger

>>14633002
If Exxon says so, it must be true

>>14632969
>We should listen to the actual experts in the fields.

>>14633004
I dont care who said what, global warming is a nothing burger. Literally nothing has happened or the effects are so insignificant that you need very careful scientific analysis to even detect it.

>>14633009
>very careful scientific analysis

>>14633029
Glaciers are always melting and freezing in different places on the earth. Nobody cares nobody lives in a glacier and its also not evidence of anything global. If global warming was as apocalyptic as you say it is you would not need to prove it to anyone, it would be obvious in daily life

>>14633057
>Glaciers are always melting and freezing in different places on the earth
Yeah. Melting in summer and freezing in winter. Look at the picture. Both are in summer
>If global warming was as apocalyptic as you say it is you would not need to prove it to anyone, it would be obvious in daily life
You could say this alt literally anything.

>>14632607
Same thing, pseud.

>>14633379
[math]x - x_0 \neq \frac{\partial x}{\partial t}[/math], pseud

>>14633387
That's rate of change, not change! How many times do you need to get BTFO before you realize you're a LARPing pseud moron who doesn't belong here?

>>14633411
I honestly don't know which of the retarded anons here you are, but some moronic turd though that a negative number here means a negative rate of change. If you understood that, it probably wasn't you.

>>14633411
when we discuss potential energy in physics, we define a reference point where U = 0. then, anywhere else we say the potential energy is some value, mgy. we do NOT say the "change" in potential energy. same type of plot, more clearly communicated because physicists, unlike climatologists, know how to communicate.

let me make it easier for your pea brain to comprehend. the entire point of defining a reference point of zero is so that you can avoid writing those pesky changes.

>>14631945
Everything done by the IPCC is sourced. All their science can be proven. All you need to do is actually read and follow through but you're too lazy to do even that.

>>14633597
>All their science can be proven.
>t. Couldn't define science if my life depended in it

>>14633600
>t. haven't seen a university from the inside

>>14633728
It's as I suspected. You don't need to see the inside of a university to do R&D, retard. Kys

>>14633737
What unskilled labor R&D do you do? "Hey boss, see if I put cum on the screws, they don't get loose so easily once it dries"

>>14632969
This kind of thinking is what caused the pandemic response to be so overblown. More damage was done to people by the lockdowns and regulations than the disease itself because people went way too far in following the experts. These people only know about what's the best thing to do IF your singular goal is dealing with the concern of their field, they don't know how to balance mutually exclusive uses of limited money and don't know anything about the economy, don't know anything about what problems are more important than the ones they spend all their time dealing with, and they don't know anything about morality and human rights. Climatologists would do the equivalent of turning all matter into paperclips if you let them completely dictate policy. Even if their global warming predictions are true this time, I'd rather be free and eat meat and drive a car on a slightly warmer earth then live in a pod and eat the bugs in a slightly cooler earth.

>>14633749
>because people went way too far in following the experts
You are literally in the board that's supposed to be filled by experts. If you want to be angry at labcoat-wearing eggheads, go to another board. Can you guess which one I have in mind?

>>14631602

Do not click this link https://failed-predictions.surge.sh/

>>14633071
>You could say this alt literally anything.
Yeah, and justifiably so. Name one apocalyptic event that's occurred in my lifetime which I would even know existed if I didn't watch the news. The media is literally shaking about a new scary thing every day and it's always fake. I wouldn't even have known about covid without the news if it wasn't for the overblown response being highly visible and disruptive to my life. Nobody would have.

>>14632628
Idiot

>>14633757
Acidic rain, HCFCs/Ozone hole. You are not omniscient. You wouldn't even know what's going on 2 villages north if you didn't have any form of media.

>>14633754
Honestly, I won't. The last link was so embarrassing that I'm done with you. IIRC, surge.sh is some easy/cheap hosting service, so this is literally less effort than baur-research.com. That guy at least registered a domain for his schizo shit.

>>14633454
The axis literally says "change in sea level" so excuse me for assuming it was labeled correctly.

>>14633753
Are you able to summarize the main point of my post?

>>14633762
Yeah and I didn't need to know or care about either of those, did I?

>>14633764
>open source bad REEEEEEE

>>14633765
In case you are not a native speaker: This is the same as saying anomaly or "sea level at that time minus sea level at a specific other time". But if this triggers your autism, then here is another graph for you that you should be able to understand.
>>14633766
Was your main point that quick and coordinated government action can stop catastrophes at an early stage, then yes.
>>14633768
And since you samefagged, I can also reply again. You maybe didn't, but the dying forests were not so good. And if you don't live in Australia, you also wouldn't have gotten cancer from the ozone hole.
>>14633769
Not what I said, moron. For all we know, Mandlbaur could be using only free software and still have a domain.

>>14633772
>Not what I said, moron.
It's what you implied. Don't play coy fag.

>>14633774
Did you just imply to suck cock?

No, what I implied is that a self-hosted blog by some faggot is the worst source you could give me apart from "A hobo once told me" or "I had a vision while I was high on lsd"

>>14633774
Ok, I did you a favor and did click. Yeah, as I expected. Some faggot collecting news articles of "A journalist wrote in 2004 that something could happen and then it didn't REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

>>14633778
>by some faggot
Got any facts to back that up?

>>14633787
Whoever collects dozens of articles where even the predicate is "might" or "could" and then goes full sperg that it didn't happen should just neck themselves. Seriously. I bet if his mommy tells him "Teddy take an umbrella, it might rain this afternoon" he gets a temper tantrum once he gets home and it DIDN' EVEN RAIN MOM WHY DID YOU LIE TO ME

>>14631608
>mm
it's fucking nothing lmao

>>14633793
>REEEEEEEEEEEE that's too much evidence for me to sift through so I'll just dismiss it as unreliable
You're no different from the climate deniers which reject the IPCC dumps of links.

>>14633797
Is that what she said?
>>14633799
>evidence
It's fucking news articles.
>Some navy guy said ...
Who gives a shit what some navy asshole says? I said before, whoever says "in this many days or years, that event will happen for sure" is likely not a scientist, and if he is, not one that should be taken seriously.

>>14633807
>d-don't worry babe, it gets a few millimeters longer every year
lmao

>>14633807
So if they say it absolutely will happen, they're not a scientist. If they say it might happen, and it doesn't, they're absolved of responsibility and weren't wrong. In other words, at best they're always right and at worst they're never wrong. Fucking lol. Kys retard

>>14631412
It stopped being a science as soon as politicians and corporate lobbyists got involved.

>>14633814
>indicate

>>14633829
>(((computer models)))

>>14631412
yes, its a multi-discipline one.

however, those that are against it politically want 100% proof, which is not possible until after it has taken place. and if it is then proven, they will ten switch the argument to something else. they are NOT interested in the science, only attacking the science and scientists for their political ends.

>>14633840
On the contrary. When polled on the facts regarding climate change, conservatives routinely outperform liberals on knowledge. In fact, regarding science, all conservatives want is for climate activities to make their methods transparent. Statisticians who try to replicate climatologist models are unable to do it, because climatologists guard their secrets. It's why the creator of the hockey stick is being sued and statisticians are being called as witnesses to repudiate the climate alarmists findings

>>14633840
>and if it is then proven, they will ten switch the argument to something else
They were distracted with denying covid for 2 years now. Ok, first they were distracted by claiming how dangerous it is because the Chinese have such long queues before a crematorium. Then once it became mainstream to take it seriously, they immediately were downplaying it for a year. After the vaccine came, they started spreading some century-old conspiracy theories like that it makes women infertile. When a rare, but serious adverse effect did pop up, they completely ignored that the governments immediately changed the program so that the risk groups don't get that vaccine anymore (young women and astrazeneca). Like, they are always one step behind and one step ahead at the same time, but inverted by 180°. I think, they are just chaotic stupid.

>>14633840
Notice he always argues about semantics and never actually argues against data or methodologies

>>14633847
>conservatives routinely outperform liberals on knowledge
Do the conservatives want to conserve the planet, while the liberals advocate for the liberty of driving around in cars and eating meat?

>>14633847
You are talking absolute bullshit. All the data is is publicly available and after there have been multiple independent studies that have confirmed his reconstruction

>>14633854
You're operating under delusional assumptions. ever consider that conservatives who know more about facts surrounding climate change are more likely to deny the climate alarmists claims? You're a mouth breather. Kys

>>14633847
>conservatives routinely outperform liberals
i didnt mention parties for a reason. there are some liberal conspiracy style deniers

those in charge dont want change on ANYTHING unless it lines their pockets even more. way of the world whomever is in charge

>>14633856
Keep digging faggot. There are people here who know enough to know you're an ignorant dumb fuck.
https://medium.com/moe-farms/creator-of-global-warmings-infamous-hockey-stick-chart-loses-climate-science-lawsuit-bb0e6c78b549

>>14633857
>ever consider that conservatives who know more about facts surrounding climate change are more likely to deny the climate alarmists claims?
Yeah, I understand. If you want to conserve the environment as it is, you probably read a lot about it like those greenpeace people

>>14633861
it never used to be a political potato until someone noticed it would affect their bottom line.....

>>14633859
>lawsuit
Since when does that have anything to do with scientific evidence?
Why are you ignoring that it has been confirmed by other research?

>>14633866
>Since when does that have anything to do with scientific evidence?
Do you know what the lawsuit is? Seriously dude, this is embarrassing. Kys you retard

>>14633859
attacking the messanger is a common political tactic.

>>14633859
Ok let's look at the court decision, shall we?:
https://archive ph/uzvao
>The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences.
So no ruling on climate change
>The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.
>Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish.
So, instead of pursuing the libel stuff, Mann did other things, which the judge interprets as "Mann doesn't care enough"
>the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel
lol, in the meantime the witnesses died of old age
>The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.
So, it was dismissed because Ball is an old fuck and it just took too long. It never even came to a trial. That's your triumph? That is your proof that climate change is a hoax?

>>14633873
Some frivolous lawsuit by some assblasted denier over an old climate dataset?
>outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”
Yeah it’s clear what his vais and intent was. As if some clueless judge has the authority on evidence.
I will ask again but you’ll keep talking about unrelated shit. Do you have arguments against the data or methods?
Here’s the link to all the data and code used.
https://atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/lmr/

>>14633885
By the way, the whole thing was just that one geezer said about another geezer that he "belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State". And the judge basically said "Fuck off, you smell like piss and all your friends are dead, we won't have a trial on this"

>>14633890
Wow, so now personal blogs are valid sources? Fuck you, hypocritical piece of shit.

>>14633892
>personal blogs
>washington.edu

>>14633892
It’s almost like you’re a lying denier shill. Make an argument against the data or shut up.

>>14633900
He won't even address that his lawsuit example is nothing but hot air after I cited the actual court documents. I think, he must be really mentally retarded or trolling. But ok, we're not much smarter for engaging with him either

>>14633897
You ever been in academia? It's a personal blog given to a professor by the university. He can post whatever he wants there so long as it's not illegal or against the university's rules. Holy shit you're a grade R idiot, R for Retard.

>>14633903
I want to call him out for being a dishonest shill

>>14633904
If it's written by a professor on the website if his university, that's not a personal blog. He is an employee publishing this in the name of his employer. Unlike that Unabomber website or the medium.com link. What makes you think that this is a personal blog? Seriously?

>>14633909
Also, this site consists of 80% links to other sites. It's not really a matter of personal opinion how to spell the URL, is it?

>>14633904
It’s a link to the data repository and the GitHub with the code

>>14633904
>>14633892
Are you going to keep lying or are you going to refute the data and method that’s clearly linked in the page?

>>14633909
>>14633912
Just like how the earlier blog you repudiated had a bunch of links elsewhere. You're obviously ignorant about what you're talking about, and clearly have at most a bachelor's degree. Wouldn't be surprised if still in undergrad tbqh

>>14633919
Tell you what. I'll dispute the data on the page when you dispute the sources in the earlier source you dismissed as being from a blog.

>>14633920
>blog you repudiated
I did even click on it for you, sweetie. I also followed the links. Do you think that the data linked here is the same quality as "in 2003, scientists said, there might ..." newspaper articles? I looked at yours, now you look at the other one.

>>14633909
>>14633911
>>14633912
I fucking hate undergrads. Yes, it's obvious how much education you have.

>>14633932
Looked at it. Clicked x. Happy? That's how this works right? Btw you'll never be a woman tranny. Kys

>>14633920
I’m making this really easy for you. Refute the linked data of the LMR study or shut the fuck up you dishonest shill

>>14633934
>I fucking hate undergrads.
Still seething you failed the entrance exam?
>>14633937
And you'll never fuck one, but both facts are ok. So you looked at it and didn't understand it or how come instead of commenting you just parrot some tranny bullshit? Why are trannies always on your mind anon? Do you want to be a girl or do you want to suck girl cock?

>>14633939
>refute the hockey stick graph or shut the fuck up
I'll make this easy for you. Prove you have any education beyond a bachelor's or shut the fuck up.

>>14633942
Why is sucking cock on your mind? You're a twisted faggot who will never be a woman. Nobody will ever love you.

>>14633943
Oh wow, now it's about titles, not about data. In that case, Anon:
https://scientists4future.org/we-are/initial-statement/
>>14633949
Because you started talking about girls with cocks. And I already told you, I don't even want to be a woman. And since you seem concerned: I'm pretty confident my wife loves me

>>14633953
>https://scientists4future.org/we-are/initial-statement/
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm dying. I don't even need to respond anymore, you've just self owned so hard I don't think I could top that. Thank you, anon.

>>14633943
You’re really going through the logical fallacy list huh? I’m personally cited in the study but you refuse to make any sort of argument beyond complaining about a link

>>14633573
>when we discuss potential energy in physics
No one cares, LARPer. You don't even know the difference between change and rate of change. Just stop posting.

>>14633976
Thank you for admitting you're a shill.
>Argument from Fallacy
Look it up, sweaty.

>>14633985
Refute the data. Keep in topic and stop talking about unrelated things

>>14633992
>Brings up fallacies
>Is taught fallacy fallacy
>Demands other anon stay on topic
Kek. Clockwork. So which shill are you? Youre one of the German shills aren't you? You the same anon blasting nuclear? You're what, a 24 year old German? It fits.

>>14634000
Refute the data

>>14633962
Wait, you don't listen to us because you think we don't have degrees (I do, no idea about the other guy)? But you also don't listen to people WITH degrees? Well, by Jupiter, you must be an ignorant asshole who doesn't listen at all then.

>>14634003
I'm pretty confident you're one of the Krauts. If not, a shitskin right? Definitely not American right?

>>14634009
>Definitely not American right?
You mean, Americans wouldn't ask you to stay on topic but engage in an exchange of insults with you, burger? Go shoot up a school or whatever you guys do for fun

>>14634009
Come on shill boy, focus. Refute the LMR data

>>14631602
Shit, I can predict a cake will get sweeter if I add more sugar. But there's a difference between chemistry and cooking and that's the difference between science and art. Climatology is closer to the art of cooking.

>>14634014
Ah so you're European. I think kraut is right on the nose. Now which kraut... Fortunately, some of us here know how to do research. Unlike you.

>>14634024
Actually, I wasn't even that anon lol. But why do you think he would be a kraut? I mean, I get the dumb, fat American meme who doesn't want to walk to Walmart and therefore insists on blasting CO2 into the atmosphere. Your compatriots literally die in wars over oil around the world. But krauts? If you think of bicycles instead of cars, that's the Netherlands. Germany is actually the country burning coal and driving everywhere.

>>14634018
>>14634014
Hmm maybe I'll just email the entire group and tell them at least one of them is posting on 4chan. European countries like Germany and Sweden take this kind of thing very seriously. Perhaps an investigation into which of you are pedophiles

>>14634024
Nor him but as I said, my paper is cited in the LMR study and I work in the field. Refute the data or shut up. It should be easy for you if you’re so smart

>>14634037
Sure thing, bud. Email "the European group". Are you gonna ask Bruxelles to forward this?

>>14634023
>Climatology is closer to the art of cooking.
Argument from ignorance.

>>14634037
You really talk about everything except the science

>>14634035
Your European, hypocritical, ignorant ego is written all over your posts.

>>14634053
So why did you make this about origin now? Did you run out of mud for the waters? Now you have to threaten to dox people so you can feel like you achieved something tonight?

>>14633939
Have you guys frozen a controlled amount of substance in water and then seen if you get all of it back using your same extraction processes?

>>14634052
>the science

>>14634058
wat. Have you shat your pands and then seen if you can wiggle it out through the leg of your pants and leave it on the floor without causing suspicion?

>>14634062
Hey, we broke him so much that he retorts to Wojaks. How much more until you kys? Would save the world quite some CO2

>>14634055
Nobody is threatening to dox anyone. You're exhibiting signs of schizophrenia. You're not important enough to dox, get your ego in check retard.

>>14634066
If you're so concerned about CO2 emissions, don't have kids. Also, don't travel internationally. Are you following both of those doctrines?

Why does this happen in every climatology thread?

>>14634094
The shills get BTFOd so hard they shut down. They use talking points and when clever anons prove it the shills regroup. Tldr it's because the climate alarmist shills have an unwinnable position. They're fixated on "the science" and yet can never define what they mean by "the science". This is because they couldn't give the proper definition of science if their career depended on it.

>>14634094
Because the same guy derails every conversation with unrelated things. Notice that not once he has actually argued against data or research.
It's a common disinfo tactic

>>14634151
You keep saying faggy shit like "the science", yet when asked what is "science" no answer has been given. Kys you fucking retard. Also, you fail to understand multiple anons are grilling you for the faggot you are.

>>14634161
Still not on topic I see. Come on, argue where the LMR data is wrong

>>14634165
>asking for the definition of science isn't on topic on a thread about whether climatology is science
Embarrassing. Kys.

>>14634167
Come on, you can do it. You're supposed to be smart right?

>>14634173
Nope, you're not there yet. Boomer comics are off topic. You can do it

>>14634046
It's true tho. You guys can't nail anything on the head. Like I said, it's just kinda "if we add more of this to the mix, we'll get more that". Like eh, that's an insult to real science.
Give us numbers that don't make me question if my truck isn't big enough to finally put NYC 20ft under, cause so far it's been fake results after fake results. Did you even predict this recent ozone hole? If so, how far in advance? After it was already inevitable?

>>14634190
>ageism
bigotry and prejudice have no place in science

>>14634200
You do realise that the atmosphere is kinda complicated right?

>>14634200
>it's just kinda "if we add more of this to the mix, we'll get more that"
Wrong. Let me know when you're done making shit up based on your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.

>Give us numbers that don't make me question
No one cares about your reaction to the data. No one needs to cater to your special needs. The data has already been provided in this thread. You have no excuses.

>so far it's been fake results after fake results
You haven't even looked at the results.

>Did you even predict this recent ozone hole?
What does this have to do with climate? Moron.

>>14634224
>REEEEEEEEEEEE it's hard ok
>But we're never wrong because all our analysis is retroactive
>We don't predict, we only project
>THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED OKAY, THIS WILL HAPPEN IF WE DONT ACT **NOW**

>>14634249
Who are you quoting?

>>14634252
You.

>>14631602

>>14631412
No. They're the gender studies faction of the science world.

Its fucking criminal that geography is no longer studied anywhere becsuse it's uncool.

>>14634259
No.

>>14634281
Yet I still took the time

As a layperson in this field, I cannot confirm or refute "the data." A chart saying one thing or the other means nothing to me because I don't know anything about where these people are getting measurements or models from. I need to use the accessory evidence that I can understand to determine whether it's likely to be true or not. Here are the facts that I can see:

>Hypotheses about climate trends aren't based on controlled experiments and aren't falsifiable
>Scientists have been making alarmist claims about apocalyptic climate trends since the 80s, and nothing bad has happened yet
>They used to warn about an upcoming ice age but now say the exact opposite, which undermines their credibility significantly
>Scientists can further their careers by publishing alarmist research that supports the consensus
>Scientists face backlash for publishing research that contradicts the consensus
>The peer review model makes it relatively more difficult to publish research that's politically disadvantageous, so there's a snowball effect which would tend to increase the amount of "evidence" for the consensus
>The same people saying "trust the science" on climate are also people telling me to "trust the science" on trans children and other subjects I don't like

This makes it very hard for me to take the climate alarmist claims seriously.

>>14634428
>and other subjects I don't like
and there you go, not science, but whether you like something or not. political.

>>14634441
Please define what science is and justify whether climatology is science or not.

>>14634444
please define the difference between science facts and things you dont like

:=D

>>14634428
>Hurr durr, I can't recognize a correlation and I don't believe that experiments can identify a causative relationship
Kill yourself

>>14634446
Correlation ≠ causation.
Kys

>>14634428
>Hypotheses about climate trends aren't based on controlled experiments and aren't falsifiable
In the same way astrophysics doesn't let you do controlled experiments. And they're obviously falsifiable.
>Scientists have been making alarmist claims about apocalyptic climate trends since the 80s, and nothing bad has happened yet
Journalists mostly
>They used to warn about an upcoming ice age but now say the exact opposite, which undermines their credibility significantly
Feel free to link to a paper.
>Scientists can further their careers by publishing alarmist research that supports the consensus
Conversely, they can further their career by sucking up to big oil.
>Scientists face backlash for publishing research that contradicts the consensus
lol no
>The peer review model makes it relatively more difficult to publish research that's politically disadvantageous, so there's a snowball effect which would tend to increase the amount of "evidence" for the consensus
Not politically disadvantageous, but the reviewer might just be a fag. That's in every discipline though.
>The same people saying "trust the science" on climate are also people telling me to "trust the science" on trans children and other subjects I don't like
Nobody cares what the media or 'the people' say.

>>14634454
The greenhouse effect is causation. Braindead /pol/tard.

>>14634454
That's why we've performed experiments to demonstrate the causative relationship. Try to be less retarded.

>>14634461
Tell everyone what the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is.

>>14634465
Proof?

>>14634428
>As a layperson in this field, I cannot confirm or refute "the data."
Oh well, you'll just have to become an expert then.

>>Hypotheses about climate trends aren't based on controlled experiments and aren't falsifiable
Wrong.

>>Scientists have been making alarmist claims about apocalyptic climate trends since the 80s, and nothing bad has happened yet
Like what?

>>They used to warn about an upcoming ice age
No they didn't.

>>Scientists can further their careers by publishing alarmist research that supports the consensus
They could further them even more by proving the consensus wrong.

>>The peer review model makes it relatively more difficult to publish research that's politically disadvantageous
Climate change is politically disadvantageous. It would be very convenient for everyone if it was false.

>>The same people saying "trust the science" on climate are also people telling me to "trust the science" on trans children and other subjects I don't like
Genetic fallacy.

This makes it very hard for me to take the deniers claims seriously.

>>14634470
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14634467
The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is irrelevant, it's the *change* in the greenhouse effect that causes warming. Dumb /pol/tard.

>>14634467
The Natural greenhouse effect or the anthropogenic?

>>14634467
Water vapor has too short of a residence time to drive global warming.

>>14634454
Correlation [math]\nRightarrow[/math] no causation

>>14631608
That margin of error is a laugh.

>>14631412
Not really no. It's about as scientific as econometrics. Most of it is fitting arbitrary models to data with very little understanding of what may or may not be going on.

Like you can still make predictions this way, but I'd hardly call it science.

>>14634428
>Hypotheses about climate trends aren't based on controlled experiments and aren't falsifiable
They actually are in huge parts, both even. A huge part about climate physics is understanding climate archives. Ice cores, organic material, stalagmites etc. The chemical processes like the solubility of limestone at different temperatures, or isotope fractionation are determined by controlled experiments. The global temperature is something like finding the Higgs boson in petabytes of data. You need all of your data, put in models, make sure there's enough redundancy and cross-checks and only if everything is self-consistent, you calculate a global average temperature. And you see that competing analyses get the same results. Ultimately it is a natural science and not lab science though. There is only one Earth and we cannot repeat these things arbitrarily often. But the same is true for geology, astronomy etc.
>Scientists have been making alarmist claims about apocalyptic climate trends since the 80s, and nothing bad has happened yet
"Scientists" is not a homogeneous mass. If one scientist gives crappy newspaper Interviews that doesn't discredit thousands of others who do good work. I think you're making it easy for yourself to just ignore warnings about actual dangers ahead. No one claims to know where the tipping points are. But there's a good chance they lie between 1.5 and 2°. Currently we're on a course to Miss The 2° even. Why are you trying so hard to not see this?
>They used to warn about an upcoming ice age but now say the exact opposite, which undermines their credibility significantly
That was never consensus. No one said "this will for sure happen". Please use your brain.
>Smog could have a cooling effect
is not the same as "zomg we're gonna freeze". It was a valid hypothesis at the time. And actually completely independent of the greenhouse effect. We know since 1941 that the CO2 from fossile fuels warms the planet.

these guys think courses in climate physics are rigged to give the answers wanted. if only they understood the math. oh well!

>>14634428
>>14634557
It's been 80 years and faggots still claim that the scientists can't make up your mind. This greenhouse effect by man-made CO2 is completely uncontroversial. Stop pretending otherwise. If your house is on fire and I tell you "we're gonna burn to death" and a minute later I say "oh shit actually the gases will kill us before", do you refuse to get out of the house because I can't make up my mind?
>Scientists can further their careers [...]
>Scientists face backlash [...]
>The peer review model makes it relatively more difficult to publish research that's politically disadvantageous [...]
Oh god. You have never published a paper and it shows. You are just completely wrong. I don't know what else there is to say.
>The same people saying "trust the science" on climate are also people telling me to "trust the science" on trans children and other subjects I don't like
Oh now the mask has fallen. You're just an angry lower middle class /pol/tard who doesn't like change. Let me guess, the Jews are also behind this? What about immigrants? Great reset? Davos? Bilderberg?
We gave you all the facts we have, there are literally thousands of pages of the IPCC explaining their methods. Everything is open. Learn the craft and refute them or just shut the fuck up about things you don't understand. We explained things to you, delivered sources, delivered data, are open to questions you might have, but you do nothing than fling shit, move goalposts and derail the thread. People like you are the reason, democracy is a mistake. I'm serious. You're the false balance to every topic. Your opinion should not matter at all. Try to learn or shut the fuck up

>>14634562
I wish it was this easy. At first, I thought that the environmental physics lectures would be smooth sailing, but they were actually quite hard. And I wish I could have just said "cars bad, eat bugs", but they asked me about eddies, energy transport, fluid dynamics, Navier-Stokes... and those were just the lectures for physicists, not for people whose sole job is to work on the environment.

>>14634588
the one i did had a reasonable level of calculus. but it wasnt that bad.

>>14634536
Totally wrong. Why are you lying?

>>14634601
General relativity and QFT were worse, but I went in arrogant and came out humbled. "Little bit of clouds, water rises, rain falls, how hard can it be". I passed, and not just barely, but it wasn't as easy as I thought.

>>14634557
>We know since 1941
1856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#Circumstances_affecting_the_Heat_of_the_Sun's_Rays

>>14634575
>blah blah blah /pol/
I'm gonna k*ll you in the next civil war

>>14634642
I was referring to Hermann Flohn proving anthropogenic climate change in 1941, but yes. Everything has been around for enough time. The climate conference of 1979 would be enough for policymakers today.

>>14634575
>the climate shill is insulting people for being a lower economic class than he is
the mask comes off. why is it always these smug, wealthy elite jackasses who tell people of lower caste than they to change their lives? you're a plague.

>>14634661
Ask yourself "are we the baddies" if you threaten to kill the people whose main concern is to keep our planet habitable. No one is born evil, what's your origin story? Bullying in school? No success with women? Did your father drink and beat you? What happened since you were a sweet, innocent child that you have come to such a hateful Person that threatens to kill people?

>>14634663
anything would be enough for policymakers of today because they're all hypocritical assholes who think they deserve exemptions of nobility to their own laws

>>14634670
>insulting people for being a lower economic class
My family comes from that class as well. It's a statistical fact that people who are angry at everything nee are found in that class most often.
>wealthy elite jackasses who tell people of lower caste
I wish. I grew up without my own room in a moldy rented apartment. I know it would be easier if you could be angry at the rich because if you weren't poor they wouldn't be rich. I've heard it so many times. And I still believe in redistribution of money etc. Eat the rich!
But I'm not rich. Now that all kids earn their own money, my parents are a bit better off, but no one in my family is rich. And I hope you know the salary of researchers. You don't get rich like that either.

>>14634689
sure are a lot of mentions of your past and not your present. what are you hiding?

>>14634689
you do realize that your language betrays your content, right? you write like a wealthy elite because you are one. stop it with this "i'm one of you! i swear!" bullshit. it's obvious to people who actually are poor, and grew up poor, that you're full of shit with your faux sympathy.

>>14634689
>and i still believe in [buzzword]. [Slogan!]

>>14634697
What are you hiding? Present: shitty 1-year contracts at a salary of 30-40% of what I'd get if I worked for a private company instead of a research institute. Oh and I'd work much less in a company. If you think that scientists are the evil omnipotent overlords, part of the world elite, you couldn't be more wrong. Why would anyone do the job we do if they didn't genuinely care?

>>14634703
using percentages to hide your actual salary. typical. just admit you're wealthy are are trying to tell the poor how to live their lives, while making no sacrifices yourself. that's how climate alarmists like you operate, and it's disgusting.

>>14634700
>you write like a wealthy elite because you are one. stop it with this "i'm one of you! i swear!" bullshit. it's obvious to people who actually are poor, and grew up poor, that you're full of shit with your faux sympathy.
Give me some way to determine if I'm part of the elite or if I grew up poor. Now I'm not poor, I get by, but I could do a lot better given my qualifications. But it's not like I have to skip meals because of inflation or I live paycheck to paycheck.

>>14634708
i'm not going to help you hide your status and continue lying. just know that people can tell that you're a liar.

>>14634703
terrible rationale and you should rethink your canned answer if you're going to be answering questions like that. one assumes that even joseph fucking goebbels genuinely cared about what he did, and probably cared about it even more sincerely than you pretend to care.

>>14634704
The salary is meaningless if you live in another country and have a different currency and cost of living. You can look up postdoc salaries. They are public and there's no room for negotiation. I'm not doxxing myself any further, use Google to find out what a young researcher earns during the first few years after his phd.

>>14634711
Ok you win the victim olympics. Keep thinking that my 16 year old bike is a Maserati if you want. Keep thinking that my studio apartment is a penthouse. I know, rejecting reality helps keep the whole "climate change can't hurt me" picture alive.

>>14634713
>one assumes that even joseph fucking goebbels genuinely cared about what he did,
Goebbels was actually quite the smoothbrain. A lot of first and second row nazis made huge profits though.
> you pretend to care.
What's your logic here? I don't care about the planet or science at all? As in, I work as a postdoc because in addition to my official salary I get gold from the lizard people on Epstein's island? Or what do you mean?

>>14634716
rethink this canned answer, too. many extremely rich people are famous for not spending a dime

>>14634721
>canned answer
You keep parroting this. Do you think people cannot genuinely talk to you and they are all part of a big conspiracy to deceive you? Do you think, the cia taught me canned answers I should give when cornered? This is a fucking anonymous imageboard, I could tell you to eat a dick and ignore you anytime. Why would I need canned answers?

>>14634719
are you saying smoothbrains can't genuinely care? i'd rethink that answer, too.
(forget the "you pretend to care" part—i see that it reads like a personal attack in a way that i didn't intend it to read)

>>14634728
if i'm parroting myself, am i really a parrot? and no, you don't have to do anything. i'm just pointing out what doesn't fly

>>14634721
>>14634711
>>14634704
>>14634700
>>14634670
>Noooo! You have to be rich because that fits my narrative!
You'll have to cope harder to protect your delusions and victim complex

>>14634729
I'm actually saying smoothbrains actually care more than the capitalist opportunists in the party. IIRC he adored Hitler like no one else. Also, he had his own, independent weird views that somewhat aligned with Hitler's but there were some socialist ideas in there too. Basically exchanging the bourgeoisie with Jews. Yeah, I think that guy genuinely cared in a twisted way.

>>14634740
top one is me, bottom four others

>>14634746
I really don't care that you're beset by the same delusions as others. Seek help.

>>14634671
I don't care about your intent or the fact that you think we live in Harry Potter.

>this guy is still derailing the thread and has yet to refute the data when all the repositories and code libraries have been posted

>>14634737
Who are you to tell me what flies and what doesn't? I answer your questions honestly and they don't fit into the fragile alternative reality you constructed to escape whatever trauma you may have suffered. Your mind sees my answer as a threat to its psychosis, so it attacks me with all force. I can't be rich. I must be elite. Scientists are evil and lying and stupid and keep contradicting themselves. They all have a political agenda because a scientist cares personally what other people eat or when they cut down the rainforest!
I honestly don't care what you eat as long as it's not a burden to our planet. I honestly have never seen the rainforest, so personally I don't have any connection to it and you could cut it down for all all I care personally. On a more factual level I know how terrible it is for our planet to cut down and burn natural CO2 reservoirs. But that really doesn't fit into the "scientists = evil" theory. Or do you think that I have an irrational hate against Brazilian woodsmen and want to destroy their jobs?

>>14634748
you think it's a delusion that many extremely rich people are famous for not spending a dime? try reading a book or a newspaper or maybe just try reading anything?

>>14634755
i haven't asked you any questions. i just jumped in on the class issue because it's a pet peeve of mine. you can take my advice on how to frame and answer things or you can ignore it. idgaf about you personally either way

>>14634754
He is honestly schizophrenic. Look at how hard he attacks everything that could make him question his views. Like John, always going one step at a time further in absurd theories and suspicions. Completely ignorant about facts, first answering some unqualified bullshit and once you have them really cornered, they muddy the waters and derail even more.

>>14634754
you arguing like john mandlbaur isn't something to be proud of.

>>14634759
>how to frame and answer things
I'm not a public figure. I'm not a politician, nor am I in a political party or NGO. I don't give a fuck how to frame things, I'm just myself

>>14634764
why are you posting in this thread? are you trying to deradicalize certain anons? are you trying to radicalize anons? are you trying to derail threads? how you frame your content will have different effects. if you have a specific intent, then you need to take care that how you frame things is reflective of that intent... otherwise you run the risk of achieving the opposite of your goal. if you truly don't care about that, then i don't know what to tell you other than your behavior would be indistinguishable from that of a troll.

>>14634764
then don't take my advice, simple as.

>>14634458
>>14634476
>>14634557
parsing posts like this only something a redditor would do.
you make this site worse than it is.

>>14634756
I think you have a victim complex and are trying to justify it, but it will take a proper evaluation by a licensed professional to determine that for sure. Seek help

>>14634796
you think that knowing some rich people spend a lot, some spend some, and some spend a little describes a victim complex? tell me more

>>14634795
it's also why reddit is such shit. at that point, you're no longer having a discussion.

>>14634802
That's not the part that implies you have a victim complex. Seek help.

>>14634795
>>14634822
pale fire already sent this shit up in the 50s. now we teach kids to literally be kinbote and parasitize their own fantasies into whatever text they're pretending to write about or reply to.

>>14634856
well that's the only thing the post you replied to says, so i'm gonna guess you're either a retard or a schizo. am i warm?

>>14634795
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST REFUTE MY BULLSHIT POINT BY POINT
>REDDIT!!!!11

>>14632642
Ahhhh I see, I was confused by what that graph was trying to depict.

>>14634876
That's all you want me to read from that post, but that's not all that's there. Seek help.

Threads like this are why I'm rooting for climate change. Humanity is borderline sapient and it shows.

>>14635217
no, i want you to read me exactly what you read. why won't you?

>>14635733
Seriously. I've come to terms with it. Either we avoid it or as a species we get what we deserve. It's unfair that those who are responsible aren't those who suffer most, but they are the ones whose heads get chopped off first.

>>14635871
It's tragic, really. We're "wise" enough to be able to cause great harm, but still to foolish to avoid it. We're half-baked.

>>14634575
Kys reddit faggot

>>14631687
I love these so much.
I can't believe anyone smart enough to solve the captcha would think those kinds of image prove anything though

>>14636075
/sci/ needs an IQ captcha. In the very least it should be a calculus problem.

>>14636116
That would be pretty funny. I think someone once made a mockup screenshot of how that would look like

I'm pretty sure there was a very brief moment in history where some petroleum company(ies?) did research into climate change and realized how bad CO2 was for the atmosphere and were preparing to invest into green technology, before deciding to just lobby for "climate change fake" instead.
I wonder what that timeline would have been like.

>>14636138
I think this timeline was largely inevitable. If the west gave up on oil, every competing nation would have a distinct advantage. Oil therefore is a matter of national security - indeed, it could be that we can thank spooks for the oil companies' change of heart. Of course, we could have tried flattening these opposing nations, but then we'd be contending with the spectre of nuclear war. Honestly, I'm surprised we haven't formulated a quantitive/predictive theory of psychohistory yet. There's very little freedom for humanity as a whole.

>>14636207
Well at least with the current geopolitical situation a lot of Europen countries seem to see green energy as a way towards independence from third parties.
Who knows, maybe Putin will get a peace nobel price for stopping climate change at the end of all this :^)

>>14635871
>>14635926
the hell are you two smoking and why should anyone give a fuck about the state of our "species"? first of all, humans aren't going to go extinct no matter how extreme climate change gets. the tragedy would be to lose a lot of other beautiful species (which would eventually be replaced by new biodiversity after a period of turbulence). second, who cares if a number in a book says that there are 8 billion strangers you'll never talk to or interact with, or if it says you have 2 billion imaginary "species" friends instead? really?

>>14635868
>rethink this canned answer, too
Implies delusions of persecution. Seek help.

>>14636236
Green energy only makes sense because all the cheap oil is drying up, sadly. We talk green but nobody really wants to walk it because the EROI is usually inferior.
>>14636240
Because people like to reflect on the events that lead to the end of something. I as an individual see very clearly that our global civilisation is on the precipice of collapse, and humanity as a whole possibly endangered. My reflection is simply that we were dealt a shitty hand. All power and no wisdom - that this was inevitable. Waxing philosophical like this is futile, sure, but it passes the time and maybe will help in the formulation of some nugget of wisdom that my descendants can use to not suffer the same fate. I mourn the environment, too, but most people alive have grown up in this barren hellscape and don't know any different. For most, it's hard to feel the loss of something you never really had.
>humans aren't going to go extinct no matter how extreme climate change gets.
Say that to Venus. Not that it's a likely outcome, but a mere 50mya, Earth was a toasty 14C hotter. Could mammals our size even survive that?

>>14636276
so you're a schizo, cool

>>14636285
>Say that to Venus
come on man, even the worst case 80 year predictions are that the economy will contract by 10% over the base case. cut the crap.

>>14636290
The worst case scenarios given by the IPCC are sugar-coated to hell and back. Realistically, we're going to see an increase in migrants and political tension as land and resource values shift with the climate. Like every other time in recorded history, this will lead to war (we may be seeing this already). But unlike ancient history, we're covering the whole map - there's no one else to carry the torch if the conflict spirals out of hand. One misstep and the enormous, frighteningly delicate web of trade that we rely on for modern technology collapses, bringing us back a good hundred years or more. Only, we have a society built on capabilities that would no longer exist. Further collapse. And if there's anyone to pick up the pieces, they have to deal with the fact that all the easy to extract resources have been exhausted, the land poisoned, and the weather made potentially severe or desert-like. Not the conditions you want to rebuild. Maybe we'll make our way through, but given that the climate crises was entirely "avoidable", I have low hopes.

>>14636307
even rome only "collapsed" if you compress a thousand years into a few paragraphs and describe it from the perspective of kings and courts. normal people who weren't involved in politics or palace intrigue simply went on with their lives

>>14636075
>>14636116
I have a very high IQ, I scored over the max on the WAIS (145 or 147, I forget) taken in a clinical setting.

I know claiming a high IQ on the internet is cringe and you probably won't believe me anyway, but to be honest I think it's sort of the reason I find an image like this compelling in the first place. I was taught from a young age that I'm smarter than everyone else and I shouldn't listen to them, including teachers, but trust my own reasoning and intuition instead, both explicitly by my father and also by formative experience. Just assuming I'm always right is true frequently enough that it becomes a useful heuristic, but it fails when I'm faced with situations in which I don't know how little I know. Even knowing this doesn't really help me avoid overconfidence in these situations because I can't know which situations they are.

A lifetime of thinking teachers and bosses are dumber than me, and everyone around me is retarded, has also given me an antagonistic and contrarian personality. I don't just think experts can be wrong, I also want them to be wrong. I want to take positions that are different from what everyone who thinks they're smart thinks, just to prove them wrong. I love to take untenable or unlikely positions and argue them just for the sake of the exercise. And, I hate everyone including myself.

So go ahead and institute your IQ filter captcha, I would absolutely love it. And I will repost that image afterwards with glee.

>>14636317
Nice blogpost faggot

>>14636289
Seek help.

>>14636790
bot