/sci/ - Science & Math

Correlation ≠ causation.
Kys pseud

>>14657199
The correlation is 1:1, they're practically the same graph nigger

>>14657205
Proof?

>>14657212
Use your eyes retard ape

>>14657199
The causative relationship has been demonstrated and proven.

>>14657213
>Eyeballing graphs constitute correlation
Holy shit. I knew climate alarmists were retards but I didn't know you were this dumb.

>>14657214
>Another retard who thinks correlation = causation
Correlation ≠ causation.

>>14657212
>>14657217
HURR DURR I'M FUCKING RETARDED

see for yourself:
co2levels.org
ourworldindata.org

>>14657223
Correlation ≠ causation

>>14657212
Scientists don't create proofs, that's mathematicians. Scientists create hypotheses -> experiments -> theories.

>>14657229
Thanks for the bump

>>14657230
>The correlation is 1:1, they're practically the same graph nigger
This isn't a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified. It's an assertion that requires a proof.

>>14657199
>>14657217
>>14657222
>>14657229
true pseudry is mindlessly name-dropping irrelevant fallacies.

>>14657222
Are you scientifically illiterate, or just trolling? Do you know what a causative relationship is?

>>14657238
Not an argument. Kys.

>>14657195
Even if true, so what? Things will even out in the end, they always do. Just stop being faggots who want to control everyones lives.

>>14657240
no way, fag

>>14657243
Retard take

>>14657239
X causes Y. That's causative.
X correlated with Y. That's correlative.
X correlated with Y does not imply X causes Y.
My five year old could understand this, and yet your pompous ass can't.

>>14657243
good bait

>>14657249
shallow brainlet thinking

>>14657254
Not an argument. Kys.

>>14657236
I'm a different poster. I'm not saying he's right, but that you're seriously misunderstanding the point of science is you're asking for a proof.
>It's an assertion that requires a proof.
Since the topic of this thread is not math, you shouldn't be expecting a proof.

>>14657249
So you're scientifically illiterate. The causative relationship has been demonstrated and proven. Only a retard or a shill could pretend otherwise.

>>14657256
Maths isn't the only place where proofs are required you fucking sperg. Arguments require proof.

>>14657258
>The causative relationship has been demonstrated and proven.
Wrong. Only correlations have been found. No causative relationships have been found. Stop lying.

>>14657258
It's political dogma he can't dare challenge without risking his entire identity.

>>14657245
>SWEATY LE WORLD IS GOING TO END IF YOU DONT REDUCE YOU STANDARD OF LIVING TO A FUCKING DUNG BEETLE
Just kys if you want to save the planet. less people means less carbon, right? thats your causation hypothesis anyway

>>14657260
>Using the normie definition of the word 'proof' on /sci/ - Science & Math.
Just go back to /pol/ already. You don't belong here.

>>14657263
See
>>14657214

>>14657264
That makes him a retard

>>14657266
If you can't understand that correlation ≠ causation, then maybe /r/leopardsatemyface is more your speed.

>>14657267
>Schizo pixelated image is proof of a causative relationship
You climate alarmists get stupider every thread.

So, /sci/ what do i think of dual-n-back?

>>14657265
Or, you could hold corporations and oil companies accountable for the damage they're doing. The "personal accountability" angle of climate change was created by BP to offload their responsibility onto their customers.

>>14657275
I understand that you're lashing out because you can't understand the graph and it makes you embarrassed. It's okay to be scientifically illiterate, but you really shouldn't pretend that you know what you're talking about.

>>14657265
>LE WORLD IS GOING TO END
According to which scientists? Dr. Karen Winemom on faceberg?

>>14657289
Ad hominem. Not a valid argument. Either substantiate your arguments or kys.

>>14657271
Like I've already said, I'm not the graph poster. Once again, there can be more than one person interacting with you at the same time. The irony here is that that's actually a case of correlation not equating to causation that you're not getting.

Anyway, Id like you to hypothesize the origin of the carbon increase in the atmosphere. If it's not due to human activity, then what's causing it? Why not try and 'prove' all the climate scientists wrong and win a Nobel prize if you know better?

>>14657295
The arguments have been substantiated, you just can't understand the graph. Why don't you start with wikipedia and work your way up to real science? Here's some links to get you started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

>>14657289
Nigger that's an image for ants. Nobody can understand that pixelated shit, because it makes their eyes bleed to try to read anything in it. Obviously it's compression artifacts from nimrods like you reposting it ad nauseum.

>>14657195
it's fake news
ultra fake news
horseshit fake eula juju

>>14657310
>he's seriously citing jewpedia
Kys.

>>14657311
It's perfectly legible, but here, have a larger one, retard.

>>14657319
Can you refute anything on any of those pages?

>>14657310
>Earth energy budget
>Budget
>Mfw the kikes are literally treating earth like a customer on a payment plan

>>14657327
Take a physics class

>>14657322
dw lad, he's just gonna ree about water being the problem not CO2

>Your honor, my client did not kill that man. Sure, she shot him, and then he died, but correlation is not causation! WHERE ARE THE PROOFS?!

>>14657326
>Can you refute 500,000 words of Jewpedia shilling?
Proof by intimidation. Not falling for it. If you have an argument to make, make it. Don't fall back on literal encyclopedias that nobody will read. Otherwise, kys

>>14657329
>>14657333
Not an argument. Kys. Why are climate alarmists incapable of making arguments?

>>14657195
Yeah probably, but what will you do about? The only solution is an extreme culling of humans, but the current elite really can't be trusted with that. What do we do?

>>14657334
If not human activity, what is your hypothesis for the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

>>14657341
Why are (you) incapable of making an argument?

>>14657330
I genuinely don't think he's smart enough to make that connection, but it would suck to try to explain to him that water vapor is in equilibrium with local temperatures due to its low atmospheric residence time.

>>14657195
I know it is but I also know that I hate scientists so I do everything I can to convince as many people as possible that climate change is fake. If scientists didn't support governments in medical coercion, I wouldn't be shilling for maximum chaos.

Did you know we are in a natural climate cycle and that the government is trying to hurt you with chemtrails? I heard they are building FEMA camps for the people that don't want to eat bugs. You should check out russiannewsuntoldtruth.com for what the scientists don't want you to know.

>>14657345
Not an argument. Correlation ≠ causation, simple as. You pretend your correlation implies causation. I'm telling you it doesn't. You have the cajones to ask me for an alternative causative model? Dude, drown yourself you fucking idiot. Correlation ≠ causation.

>>14657334
So to recap, you don't understand that graph demonstrating the causative relationship between CO2 and global average temperature, you don't want to educate yourself, you think that your ignorance entitles you to be spoonfed, and you have no counter argument for any of it. Why did you come here?

>>14657347
My argument is that correlation ≠ causation. Simple as. My five-year old understood it; it's not a difficult concept.

>>14657352
>cover the planet in a thermal insulator
>the planet gets warmer
>DuH iT's JuSt A cOrReLaTiOn BrO!!!1!

>>14657352
>You pretend your correlation implies causation
Imagine being this retarded. Causation implies causation, moron. There's a proven causative relationship.

>>14657358
Correlation is not causation. His argument is pretty clear. Or are you arguing that correlation IS causation? Because it isn't.

>>14657358
Not an argument. Attempt at poisoning the well. Kys.

>>14657361
>>14657368
>>14657369
Which is not an argument, since the causal link is literally in front of your face but you refuse to read.
>>14657369
and the pseud brings up yet another irrelevant fallacy.

>>14657361
Insufficient argument

>>14657352
>Not an argument.
Correct. It's not an argument, it's a question. Answer it.
>You pretend your correlation implies causation.
I am not the graph poster.
>You have the cajones to ask me for an alternative causative model?
Yes. Do you have the 'cajones' (whatever that means) to answer? Or are you going to keep dodging the question and baiting? If not human activity, what's causing greenhouse gases?

>>14657366
>proven causative relationship.
No, only correlation has been proven. Stop pretending that correlation = causation. They're different.

>>14657368
>>14657369
Would you like to try again?

>>14657374
Carbon dioxide is an insulator.

>>14657374
See
>>14657322

>>14657373
Decent bate, but I'll explain once again.
A plot shows correlation. You claim there's a causative factor.
I explain to you that correlation ≠ causation. You ask me what's the causative factor if not your causative factor.
Listen carefully: it's a correlation. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. Dunno what you're not getting here mate.

Reminder that basically climate change is a meme and civilization lives during an incredible and unusual period of natural warm temperatures, and that we should be preparing for the natural shift back to sporadic warming and cooling. Reminder that civilization has resulted in unprecedented stable temperatures and we should continue doing what we are doing.

>>14657388
>natural warm temperatures
What natural phenomenon is causing these warm temperatures?

>>14657388
>dude ancient china and achilles were burning too much coal and they totally started climate change in 10,000 bc
this is what climate change believers actually believe

>>14657385
Not that anon but I would like you to prove the causative relationship between any two things then if being plottable is grounds to disqualify

>>14657394
>causing
Correlation ≠ causation.

>>14657385
You are a special kind of stupid

>>14657371
>>14657376
Not an argument

>>14657402
You never made an argument to argue against.

>>14657398
You are pants-on-head retarded. WHAT IS CAUSING THE "NATURAL WARM TEMPERATURES"? Things don't just happen for no reason. Tell me, in your own words, what is causing the warming.

>>14657397
Easy. Hang yourself. You die. That's a causative relationship. I recommend a sturdy rope that can withstand your copious amounts of adipose tissue. Of course we need more than one data point, so you should get all your climate alarmist friends to hang themselves as well. With 100% certainty, zero outliers, I'll determine hanging yourself kills yourself. Which, just to be clear, is something you absolutely should do.

>>14657398
Carbon dioxide is an insulator.

>>14657385
>A plot shows correlation. You claim there's a causative factor.
I don't because I'm a different poster.
>You ask me what's the causative factor if not your causative factor.
Not mine, but yes, that's what I'm asking, so answer the question: What, according to you, is causing the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

>>14657401
Not an argument.
>>14657410
>pants-on-head retarded.
You get that phrase from fact chookers? Once again, correlation ≠ causation.

>>14657419
>causing
It's a correlation that's found. Correlation does not imply causation.

>Can test in lab what spectra of light CO2 and any other gas blocks
>Can test in lab the greenhouse effect via a box filled with gas
>Can directly measure atmospheric CO2 levels
>Can directly measing incoming solar radiation via satellite
>Can directly measure outgoing solar radiation via satellite
>Can directly compare incoming vs outgoing solar radiation to see whether we are warming or cooling
>Can directly measure sea level rise
>Can directly measure global temperature

What else do we need to prove causation again?

>>14657422
Justify this claim, retard
>>14657388

>>14657434
I don't know, but prove it!

>>14657263
>Only correlations have been found. No causative relationships have been found.
Except the physical mechanisms have been explained and all other possible forcing factors have been calculated and ruled out. You can prove causation by determining a mechanism by which X causes Y and ruling out other possible factors.

>>14657429
Are you saying that things just happen for no reason? Like cause and effect is spurious?

>>14657413
sorry anon, i can plot mortality rate vs the number of times hung, therefore it's just a correlations

>>14657429
That's beside the point. I'm not asking you about correlation or causation. I'm asking you why you think greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing.

>>14657441
See
>>14657322

>>14657434
>We measure correlation
>What else do we need to establish causation
Sigh. Do I even need to say it again? I guess so. Correlation never implies causation. Never.
>>14657445
>My causative explanation is better than yours, therefore correlation implies causation
No, correlation never implies causation.

>>14657452
Nobody said anything about plots, schizo.

>>14657470
You are the special-ist kind of stupid

>>14657406
Yes he did.

>>14657495
No, he didn't. He's just failed to understand the data presented, refused to read, and repeated "correlation ≠ causation" over and over again.

>>14657470
>Any possible scientific experiment you conduct only ever measures correlation, and correlation never implies causation, so I'm always right and scientists are always wrong despite the fact that I offer no alternative hypotheses or experiments or theories!
So why are you posting on /sci/ exactly? Once again, go back to /pol/, you don't belong here.

>>14657504
He's making a very simple argument that you are failing to debunk. Nothing you have posted has in any way actually confronted his point. It's pathetic, really.

>>14657470
you cannot prove causation for anything then if by definition you claim experiments can only measure correlation
causation can also be proven on the basis that there is no alternative explanation that matches observation our current understanding of the laws of physics unless you want to disagree with those too
>>14657477
try reading up the reply chain

>>14657510
He's not making any argument. At best he's throwing a tantrum.

>>14657510
It has been debunked very thoroughly, try scrolling up just a bit to >>14657434, and see also >>14657322.

>>14657513
The only people throwing a tantrum in this thread are deranged climate change believers who cannot compute basic logic.

>>14657524
You're delusional

>>14657524
Clearly we aren't reading the same thread.
Here's the one we're in right now: >>14657195

>>14657522
Correlation is not causation though. Your graphs and charts simply show correlation. They aren't offsetting for countless confounding variables (many of which are beyond the capacity for contemporary science to comprehend and conceive of.

Climate change believers like all other zealots, think they have it all figured out. They cannot explain why the temperatures skyrocketed in the BC. They simply screech about how correlation is causation.

>>14657510
He's shitposting about how all scientific experiments are only measuring correlation and therefore meaningless. His argument is a non-starter since it tries to undermine the scientific method itself. If you don't respect the scientific method, then why even post on a science related board at all? To bait and shitpost? Good job.

>>14657199
>>14657212
>>14657217
>>14657236
Occam's razor fgt

>>14657524
Then respond to any of the evidence provided ITT

>>14657195
>>14657223
>>14657310
>>14657322
>>14657394

>>14657537
>They aren't offsetting for countless confounding variables (many of which are beyond the capacity for contemporary science to comprehend and conceive of
Prove it.

>GUYS SERIOUSLY WE NEED TO STOP POLLUTING THE CLIMATE GUYS WE ARE GOING TO BE UNDERWATER BY 2012 I MEAN 2008 I MEAN 2020 I MEAN 2025 I MEAN
yawn. i pollute as much as possible. #based

>>14657537
see >>14657364
also I love how despite you screeching about muh ad hominem or whatever you've been throwing insults the entire time even with your first post in the thread.

>>14657548
>WE ARE GOING TO BE UNDERWATER BY 2012 I MEAN 2008 I MEAN 2020 I MEAN 2025 I MEAN
According to who?

>>14657548
>WE ARE GOING TO BE UNDERWATER BY 2012 I MEAN 2008 I MEAN 2020 I MEAN 2025 I MEAN

>>14657539
Making erroneous inferences about causation from correlation is not 'following the scientific method'. Nice try though. Trust the scientism.

>>14657554
No one made erroneous inferences about causation from correlation though.

>>14657547
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.
>>14657549
That isn't me.

>>14657554
You are dumb as hell

>>14657552
>>14657553
Al Gore and all the other climate change schizos. Reminder that the climate change scam has been going since the 60s in various forms. DUDE THE OZONE LAYER LMAO

>>14657557
And you made the claim. Justify it.

>>14657557
Correct, as you say it's on the idiot saying that covering the planet in a thermal insulator isn't what's causing the temperature to rise to prove his claim.

>>14657563
So nobody.

>DUDE THE OZONE LAYER LMAO
Have you ever heard of the Montreal Protocol?

>>14657563
If they said that a significant portion earth was going to flood, that would indeed be stupid, since there isn't enough water on the planet to flood more than maybe the lowest 100 feet or so. Do you have a source?

>>14657214
This graph shows that:
1. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse effect gas than carbon dioxide.
2. Most of the infrared that could be absorbed by CO2 is also being absorbed by H2O.
3. Most of the infrared that could be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. So, increasing CO2 right now won't make any difference.

Climate is controlled by hydrothermal vents. We have known this for a while but it's not talked about as much because of political reasons

>>14657581
>Most of the infrared that could be absorbed by CO2 is also being absorbed by H2O
H2O also has this strange tendency to fall out of the air.

>>14657565
>>14657567
No I didn't. You're making the claim that climate change is man made, but you are providing no proof for the claim. You are using correlative datasets and then sperging out about how it is proof of something.

>>14657581
>1. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse effect gas than carbon dioxide.
No shit, retard. Water vapor is in equilibrium with local temperatures and availability due to its low residence time so it can't drive warming.

>2. Most of the infrared that could be absorbed by CO2 is also being absorbed by H2O.
That doesn't matter at all.

>3. Most of the infrared that could be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. So, increasing CO2 right now won't make any difference.
Retard take

>>14657594
>a direct causal link is just "correlative data"

https://realclimatescience.com/the-history-of-the-modern-climate-change-scam/
>trust the science this time pleaaaaaaaaaaaase
No, I don't think I will. I think I will cook a steak on my coal fire and leave my generator on overnight for fun. In the morning I will throw my litter from my truck, and at the breakfast diner I will tell the other learned back country patrons about my latest findings on the scientist menace. We don't recycle. We drive big cars. We eat meat. We don't like you and we don't like your lies.

>>14657602
There is no causal link. Conflating the two isn't going to convince anyone scientifically literate.

>>14657594
>No I didn't.
See
>>14657537

>You're making the claim that climate change is man made, but you are providing no proof for the claim.
See
>>14657195
>>14657223
>>14657310
>>14657322
>>14657378
>>14657394
>>14657547

>>14657612
>smother the planet with an insulator
>the planet suddenly starts getting hotter
>"Th-there is no causal link."

>>14657612
See
>>14657322

>>14657621
You're making a claim and not providing any evidence to support the claim. Erroneous conclusions drawn from correlative data cannot provide evidence of causation, no matter how much you plead and cry.

>>14657634
The irony

>>14657622
There is no causal link to suggest any manmade insulator has any statistically notable influence on the climate.
>>14657628
Correlation is not causation.

>>14657641
Not an argument.

For a history of sciencists lies regarding climate scams see
>>14657608

>>14657643
There is no causal link to suggest that thrusting a knife into a nigga's heart has any statistically notable influence on his rate of bleeding out.

>>14657612
But by that logic any scientific experiment can't ever imply a cause, thereby making the scientific method (hypothesis -> experiment -> obeservations -> theory) pointless for determining cause. Thereby, according to you, making all of science pointless. Thereby making your shitposting on this board pointless. Once again, what are you trying to accomplish here? You don't belong here. Go back to /pol/. We get it. You think EVERYTHING is just a correlation and correlations NEVER imply causation, so scientists are ALWAYS WRONG. That's your argument. You offer no alternative hypothesis for why things are the way they are. You 'argument' is just: "I'm right because I am". Good for you. Now fuck off back to the shithole you came from.

>>14657650
False equivalence and racist.
>>14657656
I'm just following the scientific method that was taught to me by those on this very boar who claim rates of vaccine induced myocarditis among young men cannot be trusted, because they don't account for false test rates. Science has proven to be flexible, and scientists are happy to fudge the numbers however they please. If you cannot summon evidence that at the very least hints at a causal climate change relationship according to this high bar of true science, that's on you. This is my home board now, I'll be here a while.

>>14657195
>CE
>BCE
Dropped

>>14657675
>he's an anti-vaxxer
WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE! HAHAHAHAHAHA. And let me guess, the earth is flat, right? FUCKING LMAO.
>high bar of true science
Yeah, dude. Totally. Deny everything and offer no alternative. Truest science ever.

Guys I already answered it you can stop sperging about stupid shit now

>>14657693
go home christfag

>>14657675
It's not a false equivalence at all considering the ridiculous amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and the fact that the increase is man-made.
>and racist
irrelevant red herring, and a strange take to see coming from a tourist

>>14657700
>he's an anti-vaxxer
Huh? Take your meds. Until you provide evidence that your crazy climate change model accounts for all possible extraneous variables, we will have to accept that correlation is not causation.

>he still thinks any of this matters

>>14657710
What's the answer?
>>14657716
It's a false equivalence because they are not equivalent. The climate was undergoing global cooling last century according to scientists.

>>14657713
Crimoar atheistfag

>>14657710
what was your answer anon?

>>14657734
I love you

>>14657726
>Take your meds.
Ooh, I don't know if I should. Maybe they'll give me myocarditis. LMAO.

does it seem like he cares, or is he doing for the extra shekels?
if you really want go do something about it, go after corporations
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions

>>14657731
>>14657735
Find it chomos. Not my fault you bickered like faggots over smoke. Youre all wrong though and I'm right now stop fighting!

>>14657647
>Hurr durr look at this propaganda page! That means I don't need to substantiate any of my claims!

>>14657744
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253

Among males 16 to 24 years of age, the excess number of myocarditis events per 100000 vaccinees in the 28-day risk periods after the first dose of BNT162b2 was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.70-2.39) events and after the second dose was 5.55 (95% CI, 3.70-7.39) events*, and it was 1.75 (95% CI, −0.20 to 3.71) events after the first dose of mRNA-1273 and 18.39 (95% CI, 9.05-27.72) events after the second dose

During the 28-day risk period after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, there were 73 myocarditis cases. Excess events of myocarditis were 3.26 (95% CI, 1.90-4.61) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among all males, and 1.37 (95% CI, −0.14 to 2.87) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among males aged 16 to 24 years

Climate change is NOT real.

>>14657750
Is it the hydrothermal vents?
>>14657751
>A documentation of lies told by scientists is propaganda
Hmmm interesting

>>14657731
>The climate was undergoing global cooling last century according to scientists.
Which scientists?

>>14657753
>the excess number of myocarditis events per 100000 vaccinees in the 28-day risk periods after the first dose of BNT162b2 was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.70-2.39) events and after the second dose was 5.55 (95% CI, 3.70-7.39) events*, and it was 1.75 (95% CI, −0.20 to 3.71) events after the first dose of mRNA-1273 and 18.39 (95% CI, 9.05-27.72) events after the second dose
Correlation =/= causation. Woops. LMAO.

>>14657762
>>14657608

>>14657765
That's what I'm saying. That is the bar of scientific evidence that /sci/encists demand, so it must be applied equally.

>>14657760
>My propaganda is heckin' real and valid because one of the writers has a PhD in memeology

>>14657731
It's not a false equivalent because they are equivalent.
>The climate was undergoing global cooling last century according to scientists.
The warming slowed and temporarily reversed because the earth was covered in smog. And if you faggots don't do something to stop globohomo from spewing out tons of CO2 every year, you'll have to choose between bringing back smog or coping with low crop yields and expanding deserts.

>>14657766
Ahh, the propaganda page you linked told you so. It's all making sense now.

>>14657770
That doesn't seem to be a refutation of any of the evidence of scientists making incorrect claims about mankind and climate change as catalogued in that link. Sad.

>>14657769
You are a special kind of stupid

>>14657775
>any documentation of our past lies is propaganda
I see. Trust the science.

>>14657773
They are not equivalent, sorry sweaty. Take your racism back to /pol/ tourist.
>>14657780
Not my problem.

>>14657776
>Hurr durr, you have to respond to everything on my propaganda page! What's a gish gallop? That's not on the page...

>>14657776
That doesn't seem to be a valid list of scientists who claimed the Earth was cooling during the 20th century. Sad.

>>14657784
Your stupidity is very much your problem.

>>14657769
Except it's a double edged sword, so you could use it to argue both sides of any argument. You're just on the side of anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers because you are a contrarian. You don't have a point. You're using someone else's flawed logic (concerning vaccines) to defend your own opinions (that climate change isn't real). You propose no new hypotheses, you don't do experiments, you don't publish results, you don't come up with new theories. You just voice your (politically incorrect) opinion. Fuck off.

>>14657781
What lies told by who?

>>14657785
>>14657790
>science zealots still refuse to acknowledge their lies about climate change
telling. anyone reading this thread can see you are full of shit. who is paying you to spread this dangerous climate change nonsense rumor?

>>14657793
Not my problem.
>>14657799
I'm not anti-vax. I don't have a position on climate change other than that it is near and dear to followers of science and I don't like scientists and they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, so I may as well not trust them.

>>14657805
>this dangerous climate change nonsense rumor
What's dangerous about it?

>>14657805
Who is paying for climate propaganda? Who indeed?

>>14657808
>I don't like scientists and they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, so I may as well not trust them.
I don't like you and may as well not trust you. See how far that gets us? Nowhere. Good job.

>>14657808
>I'm not anti-vax
>>14657675
>I'm just following the scientific method that was taught to me by those on this very boar who claim rates of vaccine induced myocarditis among young men cannot be trusted, because they don't account for false test rates.

>>14657750
found it >>14657728

>>14657823
That isn't anti-vax

>>14657809
It distracts us from real problems and results in entrenched corruption.
>>14657812
Take your meds.

>>14657952
So you don't believe that the covid vaccine causes myocarditis?

>>14657956
You don't like knowing who pays the think tanks that manufacture your opinions? Poor baby. Maybe this isn't the right place for you.

>>14657965
The Covid vaccines do cause myocarditis

>>14657199
he thinks fourier is wrong

>>14657968
I reached climate realism entirely through my own research and logical assessments of the climate change hoax.

>>14657388
>civilization lives during an incredible and unusual period of natural warm temperatures
hmmm

>>14657971
So you are an antivaxxer and correlation = causation?

>>14657975
Is that why you don't understand what an energy budget is?

>>14657563
you got hit with a strawman my friend. maybe stop consuming political content would be my suggestion.
>microwaves are bad, you uhhh you read it everywhere!!
thats whats happening here. please check things yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Te5al2APrQ

This is the truth

>>14657989
>youtube
Into the trash it goes

>>14657986
I'm an expert on that topic.
>>14657988
That isn't a coherent argument, what are you trying to say?

>>14657996
>I'm an expert on that topic
Great! Explain Earth's energy budget and why the planet is warming.

>>14657996
>what are you trying to say?
that you think about climate change in strawmans and clickbait headlines instead of actual findings

>>14657999
The energy budget is irrelevant and the planet is warming in a fashion consistent with the uptick in temperatures that began well BC. Ipso factor, ergo, therefore, it is not a manmade phenomena and in keeping with this fact we should in fact not be concerned.

>>14658001
They aren't strawmans. Scientists have a long and broad history of lying about everything related to climate change.

>>14658006
So you're not an expert on the topic of energy budgets and you're making shit up as you go along. Glad we established that.

global warming is fake simply because those scientists paychecks depend on saying global warming exists

>>14658006
>the uptick in temperatures that began well BC
U wot m8

>>14658018
What if I told you they could be paid more if they said it didn't exist?

>>14658031
nta
That's a great point, but they are still pretending the little man is the main culprit, when they should target corporations instead. For that reason, I am going to continue to grill, until they address the elephant in the room.

>>14658012
Wrong.
>>14658027
Zoom out. See
>>14657388
>>14658018
That is true.
>>14658031
Wrong. Nobody is paying money for people to tell the truth about the lack of evidence for manmade climate change. However there are vast and deeply corrupted and subsidized industries dedicated to investing in and profiteering from the climate change hoax.

>>14658041
Good for you. Tell your local congressmen that you are in favor of legislation that holds corporations accountable for their pollution

>>14658046
U wot m8?

>>14658057
That isn't temperatures

>>14658046
>Wrong
So you can back your assertion that the energy budget of Earth isn't relevant to the temperature of the Earth?

Protip: you can't

>>14658061
This one is.

>>14658067
Yes, and as you can see the temperature is following its own natural cycle. A spike in co2 is irrelevant.

>>14658063
I can. There is no evidence that the irrelevant and defunct idea of an energy budget has any bearing on the natural cycles of earthly climate.

>>14657195
The earth's magnetosphere has weakened by 25% was this also caused by humans?

>>14658073
The temperature is also spiking. You can't see it because CO2 is the top layer

>>14658077
You have failed to back your assertion. Why don't you start here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_budget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

I think climate change will/is causing problems (see Miami and Venice), but I also think climate scientists are retarded. Back in the 50's and early 60's climate scientists were certain Earth was about to enter a new ice age.

>>14658098
That is incorrect.

>>14658118
Prove it

>>14658115
>Back in the 50's and early 60's climate scientists were certain Earth was about to enter a new ice age.
Which scientists?

>>14658126
They have been linked in this thread.

>>14658128
They haven't. Tell me their names.

>>14658115
>Back in the 50's and early 60's climate scientists were certain Earth was about to enter a new ice age.
Scientists or all scientists? Was it 2 crackpots who were certain or was it consensus?

Fellas. This whole thread was a ruse. Here's my actual stance based on deductive reasoning to back it up if anyone cares:

1. Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than Co2: https://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

>The longwave radiative forcing of the climate system for both clear (125 W m−2) and
cloudy (155 W m−2) conditions are discussed. The authors find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water
vapor to the total longwave radiative forcing is 75 W m−2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W m−2.

2. Co2 comprises less of Earth's atmosphere than water vapor (pic related)

3. Humans produce less than 5% of the Co2 that nature otherwise does: https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A4b.html#:~:text=Did%20you%20know,of%20human%20activity

4. Yet, the above point is still false and humans are responsible for the increase in long-term deadly Co2 since in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/?fbclid=IwAR0wMbHgIQsH99VkgJS4PKZitJfc9Y4cK9Q2bdEGBD_9vdYQZlafn9603jE#:~:text=Are%20the%20forests%20to,called%20the%20carbon%20cycle

>>14658136
fuck you I do know how to use spoiler tags pls no bully

>>14658122
I'm not denying that the temperatures are going up in the last two irrelevant graphs you posted. However all they show is it going up by a small amount in a very myopic timeframe. It is intentionally misleading.

However, your graph posted here >>14658067 has the relevant timeframe, and shows temperatures bobbing up and down naturally. The co2 component of the graph is exactly why everyone laughs at climate changers, because it is the perfect example of correlation not equally causation. There is NO corresponding enormous spike in temperatures, not even a hint of a lagging one. Instead you try to conflate the tiny increase in temperatures on your myopic graphs with the missing spike. It's pathetic and transparent.

>>14658140
FUCK WHY DID HIRO CHANGE THIS SHIT

>>14658132
Read the thread
>>14658134
Just a few crackpots trying to manufacture a consensus, just like we have today. No serious scientists consider manmade climate theory to be plausible.

>>14658145
>No serious scientists consider manmade climate theory to be plausible.
Name a serious scientist who considers it implausible.

>>14658136
>Water vapor
Is in equilibrium with local temperatures due to its low residence time and therefore cannot drive global warming

>Co2 comprises less of Earth's atmosphere than water vapor
Irrelevant

>Humans produce less than 5% of the Co2 that nature otherwise does
Irrelevant. Learn about the carbon cycle. Pic related.

>>14658149
nigga refer to point 4 of that. I agree with you.

>>14658142
And the global average temperature is higher than it has been in a million years because...?

>>14658149
sorry I forgot how to use spoiler tags lol

>>14658145
So nobody.

>>14658136
>>14658140
>>14658143
>>14658150
>>14658153
God damn I am dropping my spaghetti tonight. This is the link I was referring to: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/?fbclid=IwAR0wMbHgIQsH99VkgJS4PKZitJfc9Y4cK9Q2bdEGBD_9vdYQZlafn9603jE#:~:text=Are%20the%20forests%20to,called%20the%20carbon%20cycle

>>14658151
Natural cycle

The entire schizo movement of moronic climate change believers can be debunked (in the eyes of observers, but never in the eyes of the climate afflicted) by the simple demand that they zoom their graphs the fuck out. They will ALWAYS be butthurt that their co2 correlation does not equal causation, but if you explain it or show the relevant graphs to anyone who actually cares about the truth and not zealous dogma, it is clear as day.

>>14658181
you're wrong, literally see co2levels.org and zoom out. look at the huge spike well above any co2 ppm that's been historically recorded. your boomer argument doesn't hold up.

>inb4 i'm called a faggot for posting info that can easily be deduced from simply eyeballing it/being layman-friendly

>>14658236
Nobody is denying that co2 is spiking retard

>>14657726
For you, the only proof that global warming is real is when most of the earth will become inhabitable by humans, and by then it'll already be too late.

>>14658466
That's right. Problem?

>>14658358
Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then?

>>14658470
No. Learn to read, spastic.

>>14658181
Hundreds of millions of years ago, there were no humans though. Can you show that the earth was actually habitable?

>>14658473
The natural cycle exists regardless of humans, that is the whole point. We aren't influential.

>>14658472
So, you're saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and you're saying that humans emit a lot of CO2. Then why are you denying anthropogenic climate change?

>>14658481
It's not a natural cycle though, retard. The straight line up at the very left is the steepest part of that plot.

>>14658483
Because there is no evidence that it is warming the planet in any meaningful way. We have a spike in co2 but no corresponding spike in temperature, not even a lagging one. Correlation is not causation.

>>14658487
It's just as steep as elsewhere, and even if it WERE steeper than normal (it isn't) that still wouldn't be evidence of anything beyond correlation with our existence and the higher end of the natural cycle.

>>14657205

>>14658495

>>14658500
they're practically the same graph

>>14658493
>Because there is no evidence that it is warming the planet in any meaningful way.
Only if you close your eyes. The first evidence that human CO2 contributes to warming was published in 1942.
>but no corresponding spike in temperature,
We do
> not even a lagging one.
It's not lagging
> Correlation is not causation.
Topkek you knew you were lying, so you already prepared for the proof that shows a corresponding spike in temperature. "Just because it's a corresponding spike that matches, doesn't mean it's causation, could be correlation"

And I bet when people post the papers that show it's causation and not correlation, you say something like "they wrote this because they were forced to" or some schizo shit. Who is it this time? Mole people? Soros? Bolsheviki?

>>14658495
>>14658500
>>14658504
Dann, I was a bit too late to call it: >>14658506
For real though, the program is always the same. Can't the Kremlin give you some more creative freedom in the order that you bring bullshit arguments that were refuted a billion times?

how do they know what temperature it was 408 thousand years ago?

>>14658506
See
>>14658067
There is absolutely no sign of the temperature bucking the trend. The spike simply does not exist.

>>14658521
>There is absolutely no sign of the temperature bucking the trend.
Not if you zoom out you clown.
>There's absolutely no sign of your dick

>>14658547
Moron

>>14658662
No you

>>14658061
>Co2 causes higher temperatures
>Is given a plot about higher co2 in the past
>REEEEEEE THAT ISNT TEMPERATURE
This is your brain on climate alarmism. Top kek

>>14658887
Co2 doesn't cause higher temperatures. Correlation is not causation.

this is what climate schizos are worried about

>>14658966
>Correlation is not causation
You keep saying that, but correlation is also not ¬causation.
Also, correlation is not causation, but a strong hint at it. If it's not just correlation, but you can also support the causation hypothesis with facts such as the greenhouse effect, then the hypothesis of causation is getting stronger and stronger.
Look, you're doubting basic science. All climate change denialism is retarded, but you're flat-earth level of retarded if you actually don't believe in the greenhouse effect.

>>14658968
What does this plot show?

>>14658990
change in temperature by year according to the instrumental record.

>>14658887
sad, replying to the wrong side.
timeline

anti-global warming
>>14658046
pro
>>14658057
anti
>>14658061
then you, anti.

the fact is, according to the graphs, both c02 and temperature are at an all-time high. and they correlate(not necessarily causal, of course).
some questions. One is, where did the data from so far in the past come from, how are we measuring current data?(Can't be weather, must be climate, and can't be too short term for the same reason that it can't be weather), and are the experiments that come up with these results repeatable and conclusive?

>>14658997
What temperature? Local? Where? What's the baseline?

>>14658181
>>14658236
older eras smooth curves via averaging. that large spike in the modern era has a much higher precision. if you're going to argue that the slope is highest in the modern era, you're being dishonest, because the long-time smoothing of the old era curves necessarily reduces the slope. given that despite the smoothing, the slopes are still rather large in the older eras, it's not that much a leap to suggest that older eras had steeper slopes of temperature change.

i mean, think about it. you're gonna tell me a fucking meteor strike 60 million years ago caused a slower increase in temperature than today? if so, i can only call you a clinical imbecile.

>>14657199
Humans emitting CO2 with specific isotopic signatures = causation
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GB006170

>>14657581
>So, increasing CO2 right now won't make any difference.
Proof?

>>14659001
so you don't know what the instrumental record is. lmao!

>>14658985
correlation is not causation. there is no evidence that mankind is causing climate change. cope seethe.

>>14658968
>>14658181
>>14658176
>>14657388
>>14658067
its unreal how hard these pics btfo climate change believers holy shit

>>14658999
>where did the data from so far in the past come from
Depends on the time scale. Up to 800,000 years, you can use ice cores. The ice is deposited in layers and has microscopic air bubbles embedded. You can measure the CO2 concentration in the air bubbles. You can reconstruct the temperature from istope ratios of oxygen, for example (quite the natural choice for ice). Water molecules with different oxygen isotopes have slightly different dewpoints. So you can reconstruct the local temperature from the oxygen isotope ratios.
That gives you the history of average temperatures at the place where you found the ice. In other parts of the world, you use things like fossil leaves, pollen, or stalagmites, as they all are sensitive to CO2 and temperature. From these data points spread around the globe you then reconstruct a global mean temperature.
I hope you're not one of these "hurrdurr I deny climate change to troll /sci/ le funny xD rofl" morons, because then I would have wasted my time.

>>14658181
>The entire schizo movement of moronic climate change believers can be debunked (in the eyes of observers, but never in the eyes of the climate afflicted) by the simple demand that they zoom their graphs the fuck out.
Which graphs refute the greenhouse effect?

>>14659036
this graph is just of sea levels. i should make a set of them for all the climate predictions with runaway modeling.

>>14659051
Show us a model why the sealevels would go back down. Even your right plot shows them rising and actually at an accelerated rate.

>>14658176
Which cycle? Natural Milankovich cycles say we should be cooling not rapidly warming.

>>14659061
>he doesn't know what a runaway model is

>>14658493
>Because there is no evidence that it is warming the planet in any meaningful way
Argument from ignorance.

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

>We have a spike in co2 but no corresponding spike in temperature
Why are you lying?

>It's just as steep as elsewhere
No.

>that still wouldn't be evidence of anything beyond correlation with our existence and the higher end of the natural cycle.
What natural cycle?

>>14659051

>>14659010
>a meteor strike caused faster climate change than today
>therefore current warming is OK
Is this really what you wanted to argue?

>>14659094
not my argument. cute try though. i was debunking your (very easy to debunk, btw) claim that the modern era has the steepest slope in the timeline. in the graph, maybe by eye that's what it looks like. i explained to you why that's obviously false. admit you made an error.

>>14659094
>falling out of an airplane from 5000 meters up will kill you
>therefore falling 5 meters onto a pillow will kill you
does not follow. if X is more extreme than Y, it does not imply anything about the extremity of Y. in fact, Y could be a nothingburger. for example, the quadruple bypass burger at the heartattack grill has more calories in it than a single egg.

It's hydrothermal vents. Stop arguing you pseud faggots

>>14659063
The natural cycle that has been going for hundreds of millions of years lmao it gets warm it gets cool. Get with the program you fucking retard!

>>14659049
Look here
>>14658067
The carbon spikes from humanity, but the temperature doesn't follow. Correlation is not causation. Greenhouse is pseudshit.

>>14657195
Climate change is code for depopulation.

>>14659117
>it gets warm it gets cool
Yeah, but why does it get warm now when it should get cool according to the cycle?

>>14657195
Nobody believes this except retarded right wing sheep who are reaction brains that must do the opposite of whatever they think the left does. Then they go out and look for bullshit stories pushed by oil company funded media pundits.

>>14659168
Ironic becauss only retards believe it. Real smart people know the truth, which has nothing to do with what you retarded fags have spent 8 years arguing over

>>14659102
>not my argument
Then what is your point?

>i was debunking your (very easy to debunk, btw) claim that the modern era has the steepest slope in the timeline
Not my claim, but your own graph shows that.

>>14659172
>Real smart people know the truth
Yeah, the people on /pol/ are the real smart people, not the scientists who dig out kilometers of ice cores, send countless satellites around the world to gather data, dedicate decades to testing and improving their computational models. But the NEET who saw a graph on facebook with some embedded text that tells him what to think is the real free thinker.

>>14659178
I never mentioned pol you dumb fucking resentment fueled Mongoloid lmao.

>>14659183
Ok, who are the real smart people?

>>14659164
zoom out a few hundred million years retard

>>14659187
Probably the scientists who have studied and admitted that hydrothermal vents are responsible for the regulation of the earth's temperatures. You dumb niggers cry about coal when it pales in comparison to the shit expunged from the oceans. God damn you're all so fucking dumb

>>14659109
>>falling out of an airplane from 5000 meters up will kill you
>>therefore falling 5 meters onto a pillow will kill you
I never said current warming will have the same effect as a meteor strike. Try again

>>14659115
Proof?

>>14659192
>An image for ants
Kys

>>14657195
>she still trusts the eugenicist psychopath billionaires and their minions of bought-and-paid-for experts
I don't care what your "science" says. It's inherently inadmissible to a rational man's decisionmaking process.

>>14659188
> a few hundred million years
Why would it change NOW? Why are the time scales of a few hundred million years relevant for something that happened over the last 150 years?
A few hundred million years ago we didn't even have animals that lived on land. That's such a retarded comparison.

>>14659190
>hydrothermal vents
And have there been any recent activities?

>>14659117
>The natural cycle that has been going for hundreds of millions of years
That's the cycle of ice ages and greenhouse periods. That cycle occurs due to continental drift changing the flow of warm water to the poles. What continental drift has occurred over the last few hundred years.

>>14659210
Shut the fuck up nigger. I have told you the answer and you still seek out an argument. Literally just Google "hydrothermal vents global warming" and you will get thousands of academic shit from as recently as last year to over a decade ago detailing that this is the driving force of climate change. But you dumb fucking niggers would seek to make this political
>muh poltards
>muh libtards
You're all fucking full blown retards, useful trained malcontents. There is absolutely nothing we can do.

>>14659125
>The carbon spikes from humanity, but the temperature doesn't follow
That's because temperature data from ice cores ends in the 1800s. You really need to understand what you're talking about before you start talking. Also this doesn't answer my question. Which graphs refute the greenhouse effect?

>>14659190
>Probably the scientists who have studied and admitted that hydrothermal vents are responsible for the regulation of the earth's temperatures
Source?

>>14659201
Do you need glasses? Not an argument. Try again.

>>14659208
its changing all the time. no cycle is a perfect repeat. a tiny uptick in temperatures a tiny bit earlier does not mean your correlation is causal.

>>14659240
Nobody can read that pixelated shit moron.

>>14659224
>I have told you the answer
You have dropped a name. That doesn't explain what they did during the past 150 years. Yes, with continental drift, hydrothermal vents undergo a lot of changes. But have we passed this millimeter that made a difference 100 years ago? Did I miss something?
>Literally just Google "hydrothermal vents global warming" and you will get thousands of academic shit from as recently as last year to over a decade ago detailing that this is the driving force of climate change.
Change on extremely large timescales. Not the change of the past 150 years, moron.

>>14659230
So you admit there is no evidence of a similarly scaled spike in temperatures? I accept your concession.

>>14659242
So you don't even present any correlation. You just state something and expect people to believe you? Where's the data that it's due now? Where's the data that this increase now has the same effect?

>>14659218
>Muh continental drift
The continents are always moving retard. Climate change is fake.

>>14659255
>The continents are always moving retard.
And why hasn't their moving caused any change in temperature, methane or CO2 during the past million years? And where's the evidence that something is different now? Coincidentally changing at the same point in time when humans start burning fossil fuels. Curious.
Oh, and how come we don't see any of the methane from HVs? How come, the additional CO2 in our atmosphere is exactly the amount that we pumped into it?

>>14659264
It did cause all of those, just not enough to satisfy your butthurt delusions. There is no coincidence, there is nothing unusual. It's simply nature.

>>14659253
I'm not making any claim. I'm pointing out there is insufficient evidence for any explanation that strays from the natural cycles.

>>14659248
>>14659237
Actual dumb nigger retards. Keep arguing about coal even though we already know the answer. Trained malcontents

>>14659255
>>14659242
>>14659224
>>14659202
>>14659201
>>14659190
>>14659188
>>14659183
>>14659156
>>14659125
>>14659117
>>14659115
>>14659102
>>14659274
>>14659272
>>14659279
Sometimes I really wonder if you think other people are this stupid to believe this, or if you are actually this stupid. You're all Mandlbaur tier schizos, either larping or really mentally ill. Do you never stop and consider "Maybe it's not the whole world that has gone mad to believe in climate change, maybe I'm the retard".
And in case you were only pretending to be retarded, see picrel.

Climatology, Oceanography, And Manabe (COAM) are all fake, collective hysteria. Global temperatures are not rising at a rate of 12000 rpm. Seethe and cope, COAMlets

>>14659286
Not an argument. Correlation is not causation.

>>14659286
My posts admit climate change is real you fucking resentment fueled retard. How fucking dumb are you you desperately need to feel smart by parroting what propagandic labcoats are telling you, doesn't make you smart sadly. Just makes you pathetic.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hydrothermal+vents+and+climate+change&oq=&aqs=chrome.0.69i59i450l15.-1j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

>>14659286
You sound like a literal bot and the mass reply confirms that you indeed are one.

>>14659286
>He still hasn't learned 4chan is a bunch of trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

>>14659303
>t. bot shilling bots

>>14659291
Actually, you're one of those who are closest to Mandlabaur. You saw a bit of information, take it completely out of context and create an image in your head that feels like a groundbreaking realization, when it's just your own delusion.
Not one, not a single scientist says that HVs are the cause of the current change. They do play a role in the bigger picture. Not within 100 years. But just like Mandlbaur refuses to take friction and drag into account, you don't want to see that you are wrong, fucking phoneposter.

>>14659311
>actually lemme reiterate how much of a dumb nigger I am
Have fun. You clearly don't know what you are talking about because plenty of scientists say it is not only the current cause, but the only cause, of climate change.

You can also just use your fucking head. How would the earth regulate climate cycles BEFORE man-made climate change. This board is just pseud central holy shit

>>14659311
Holy shit you are such a retard

>>14659326
>plenty of scientists say

>>14659326
>regulate
You keep using that word and either don't understand it or are even more retarded than I though.
Using the n-word makes you sound more like Terry Davis though. Maybe Terry's temper with John's intellect?

>>14659336
Nothing wrong with following the science when it actually makes sense and that same science isn't being used to justify taxing the everloving fuck out of the average citizen. No proponent of hydrothermal vents driven climate change has ever suggested a carbon tax to alleviate the issue

>>14659340
My IQ is 143. Sorry but no matter how much you sperg or seethe I am not retarded and have a greater capacity to understand this shit than you do. You are welcome to refute my statements but we both already know you cannot which is why you are incorrectly trying to sperg about a word

>>14659346
>My IQ is 143
John Mandlbaur also posts his Mensa member card as if this makes him more right. Schizophrenia is an illness that can affect even smart people

>>14659255
>The continents are always moving retard.
Yeah, but what continental drift occurred in the last few hundred years to change the flow of warm water to the poles? You're saying this cycle somehow caused rapid warming over a short time period. How?

>>14659349
>continues to sperg as predicted
>doesn't engage with the content as predicted
Heh, seems you are well out of your depth but your ego is forcing you to continue trying

>>14659350
It's not particularly rapid actually. It's normal.

>>14657195
No, but certainly the graph itself is influenced by humans.

>>14659341
>Nothing wrong with following the science
You know you're dealing with a mindless drone when someone sharts out this nonsensical phrase.

>>14659373
The graph is an egregore.

>>14659379
Do you think hydrothermal vents are fake anon... I'm confused

>>14659390
Seems like your programming is shorting out because I clearly wasn't saying anything about hydrothermal vents, but only commenting on your irrational cultlike mantras.

>>14659394
Huh what the fuck are you sperging about anon

>>14659368
Wrong and doesn't answer my question. Are you just making shit up?

>>14659249
>So you admit there is no evidence of a similarly scaled spike in temperatures?
What? Nothing I said implied that. Of curse there is plenty of evidence for a spike. See >>14659085. You just ignore it and post graphs that don't show modern temperatures. And you again failed to answer my question. What graphs refute the greenhouse effect?

>>14659279
So no source. Why did you lie about hydrothermal vents?

>>14659341
>Science supports lib = okay
>Science supports cons = not ok

>>14659246
I can read it easily. Cope.

>>14659395
There is no such thing as "following the science" and there is no such thing as "the science", you cattlebrained mongoloid.

>>14659417
Yes you did. You said the temp data ends in the 1800s, proving my point that there is no temperature spike that matches the co2 spike.

>>14657751
>Model clearly doesn't accurately depict reality for any individual/group
>for example were is, "goes on /sci/ and makes soience suckers buttblasted"
Into the trash it goes.

>>14659417
Also that graph is over a tiny period and shows a tiny spike that pales in comparison to the co2 spike. And it isn't even lagging, it's totally out of sync. Sorry pal, you lose, again. Correlation is not causation (and you've failed to even show correlation).

>>14659353
>doesn't engage with the content as predicted
I did, you fucktard, and you keep repeating the same wrong understanding. Mandlbaur also accuses people of dodging the question of 12,000rpm and feeling as superior as you do now. Every single denier here has its phrase. You with the HVs, there's the correlation/causation bot etc. I'm kinda missing the "the sun shines brighter" schizo today.

>>14659432
>the temp data ends in the 1800s,
Which retard doesn't believe that we didn't measure temperatures since the 1800s?

I used to believe in climate change, but I've noticed over the last 60 or so years it's become quite obviously a political tool, any public claims made are obscenely exaggerated and there is tons of junk science.
For example, just in this thread there were scientific papers talking about oil companies like they are evil cartoon villains, the people writing such papers clearly live in a bubble.
Likewise, the earth is not a greenhouse, so mentioning the greenhouse effect is misleading at best.

>>14659454
>scientific papers talking about oil companies like they are evil cartoon villains
Which one?

>>14659454
The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses, retard

>>14659454
>Likewise, the earth is not a greenhouse, so mentioning the greenhouse effect is misleading at best.
Oh holy shit, that level of bait.

>>14659467
>>14657751

>>14659434
t. astroturf

>>14659474
>scientific papers

>>14659432
>Yes you did. You said the temp data ends in the 1800s
I said temp data from ice cores ends in the 1800s, illiterate mong.

>>14659479
>>14659481
>from oxford handbook of climate change and society
>posted in this thread
>Motte-and-bailey in-progress

>>14659432
And you yet again failed to answer my question. What graphs refute the greenhouse effect?

>>14659485
>oxford handbook of climate change and society
That's not a paper, retard

>>14659452
>>14659484
>>14659487
Yes. You have still failed to provide evidence of a spike of any significance. You are continually trying to meld together a tiny spike in temperatures over a tiny time period with the massive spike in co2. Correlation is not causation, and you have neither.

>>14659437
>Also that graph is over a tiny period and shows a tiny spike that pales in comparison to the co2 spike.
Please explain, how did you compare temperature and CO2 concentration to determine that one spike is smaller than the other? They are different units.

>>14659522
I looked at the similarity in size of the respective previous spikes before human civilization. If anything human civilization is lowering temperatures.

>>14659437
>And it isn't even lagging, it's totally out of sync.
How so?

>and you've failed to even show correlation
Pic related is correlation. And link in >>14659085 is causation. You have no argument.


And you again failed to answer my question. What graphs refute the greenhouse effect?

>>14659566
It's been explained to you numerous times in this thread. That graph literally uses years that haven't happened yet and an arbitrary scale for temperature. And it's a joke of a timescale too. Hilarious. You have no causation. You have no correlation. Everyone knows climate change is fake. Those arguing for the greenhouse meme need to provide evidence, not those of us laughing at the lack thereof.

>>14659502
>You have still failed to provide evidence of a spike of any significance.
Lie. See >>14659085 and >>14659405

>You are continually trying to meld together a tiny spike in temperatures over a tiny time period with the massive spike in co2.
I'm not trying, the correlation has already been shown and the causation is directly observed. See >>14659085. You have no argument, just cope.

>>14659540
>I looked at the similarity in size of the respective previous spikes before human civilization
Where?

>If anything human civilization is lowering temperatures.
How so?

>>14659615
Neither of those are spikes. There is no correlation and nor is there causation. There is only an industry full of corrupt liars. See >>14657608

>>14659622
On the graph >>14658067

And because the spike in temperature that normally correlates with the spike in co2 (pre human co2 emissions) is actually proportionately smaller now than before.

>>14659582
>It's been explained to you numerous times in this thread.
Where?

>That graph literally uses years that haven't happened yet
No it doesnt. You can't even read a simple graph correctly.

>and an arbitrary scale for temperature
lmao. the scale is degrees Celsius. All you can do is desperately make shit up and hope no one will notice you're lying.

>And it's a joke of a timescale too.
How so?

>You have no causation. You have no correlation.
Lie. The post you're replying to shows correlation and I already gave you direct observation of the causation.

>Everyone knows climate change is fake.
Then why are you incapable of arguing against it?

>Those arguing for the greenhouse meme need to provide evidence
I already did, you repeatedly ignored it.

>>14658358
Co2 spikes in direct correlation with increased human population. It doesn't matter if Correlation ≠ causation, because the reverse is true as well. Co2 has decreased as a result of human depopulation/decreased activity. You're the retard

>>14659630
>Neither of those are spikes
How so?

>There is no correlation and nor is there causation
I already proved both and you have no response. Repeating your lie over and over just makes you look deranged.

>>14659645
Read the thread. 2040 hasn't happened yet. It isn't whole degrees Celsius. It isn't tenths. It is specially chosen to best create a statistical anomaly. You aren't fooling anyone. The timescale is too small. It implies a spike but in totality it is nothing abnormal.

>>14659647
None of what you just said is relevant. Co2 has nothing to do with temperature.
>>14659652
They aren't big enough on a relevant timescale to be spikes.

>>14659635
>On the graph >>14658067 #
How does that show the current spike pales in comparison to the CO2 spike?

>And because the spike in temperature that normally correlates with the spike in co2 (pre human co2 emissions) is actually proportionately smaller now than before.
Right, because those are interglacial warming periods over thousands of years, not hundreds. So how does that show human civilization is lowering temperatures?

>>14659653
>Read the thread.
I did. No one explained what you claimed. Should be easy to point me to the post if you aren't lying. But you are.

>2040 hasn't happened yet.
There's no data for 2040 in the graph. I'm sorry you never passed elementary school and can't read a simple graph.

>It isn't whole degrees Celsius.
I didn't say it was whole, I said degrees Celsius.

>It is specially chosen to best create a statistical anomaly.
How did it create a statistical anomaly? You're not making any sense.

>The timescale is too small.
That's the timescale of the data. How is it too small?

>It implies a spike but in totality it is nothing abnormal.
It's very abnormal. Current warming is 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. You have no argument.

>>14659685
Look at the current time lol. The temperature should be bigger but instead it is smaller.

>>14659661
>Co2 has nothing to do with temperature.
Wrong.

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

>They aren't big enough on a relevant timescale to be spikes.
They are.

>>14659704
>The temperature should be bigger
Show your math.

>>14659711
Correlation is not causation. Don't spam irrelevant wiki articles (nice source lol). They aren't.
>>14659716
Just use your eyes retard. E very other spike in co2 had a big spike in temp. In those graphs it's the opposite as we head into modern eras.

>>14659630
>Neither of those are spikes
It's the same spike as in >>14658067
You just contradicted yourself.

>>14659734
That's my whole point, the temperature isn't spiking. The CO2 spikes as normal and the temperature doesn't. It's wild when you think about it. Scientists truly are retards lol.

>>14659723
>Correlation is not causation
The greenhouse effect is causation, so I have no idea what correlation you're talking about. Please explain.

>Just use your eyes retard.
You need a model to determine how much warming is caused by a change in CO2. Your eyes are useless.

>E very other spike in co2 had a big spike in temp.
You're confusing correlation with causation. Those spikes in temp were caused by changes in insolation due to Milankovich cycles. CO2 outgassed from the oceans in response, which caused further warming. Also, we haven't seen the full extent of warming caused by current emissions. It would take several hundred years to see the full effect. So you're not even comparing apples to apples.

>>14659723
>In those graphs it's the opposite as we head into modern eras.
The temperature graph doesn't even show modern temperatures. Go find the data source and you'll see I'm right.

>>14659742
>the temperature isn't spiking.
It is, at the same time as CO2 is spiking. And we know why. See >>14659085. You're just completely ignoring modern temperature and then saying there is no spike. You're literally in denial.

>>14659759
No it isn't. No they aren't. You are the one confusing causation with correlation. Post ANY source that proves climate change is even slightly likely to be manmade, I'll wait. Otherwise I gladly accept your concession.
>>14659761
I'm not going to do your work for you. If you retards are posting graphs without temperatures when you're trying to prove causation of temperature that's not my problem.

>>14659766
That isn't a spike. The timescale is too small to get any perspective.

>>14659769
>No it isn't.
How so? Explain what you think the greenhouse effect is and how it's a "correlation."

>No they aren't.
What are you referring to here?

>Post ANY source that proves climate change is even slightly likely to be manmade, I'll wait.
I already did and you repeatedly ignored it: >>14659085. I'm the one who's waiting.

>I'm not going to do your work for you
It's your work to understand the graph you're basing your argument on. Thanks for admitting you don't.

>>14659771
>That isn't a spike.
It is.

>The timescale is too small to get any perspective.
You were already given a larger timescale: >>14659405

>>14659790
If you need me to explain your own theory to you I guess I accept your concession of defeat.
>>14659798
It isn't. That isn't a large enough timescale either.

>>14659817
>If you need me to explain your own theory to you
I don't need you to explain my own theory, I need you to explain your theory and claim that it's a "correlation." Apparently you have no explanation, so this is just another one of your lies.

>It isn't.
It is.

>That isn't a large enough timescale either.
Then neither is >>14658067. You contradicted yourself again.

>>14659817
And you again ignored the evidence given to you that climate change is manmade. Thanks for conceding defeat.

>>14659832
I don't have a theory. I'm proofreading your shit theory and my criticism is simple; correlation does not imply causation.

They are different graphs. Are you simple?
>>14659839
I ignored nothing. There has been no compelling evidence put forward by the climate alarmists in this thread. I accept your concession that climate change is fake.

>>14659859
>I don't have a theory
Do you have any understanding of the greenhouse effect at all? Why did you claim it's a "correlation?" You keep avoiding the question. Do you really think you can lie and get away with it just by deflecting?

>I'm proofreading your shit theory and my criticism is simple; correlation does not imply causation.
How is this a criticism of the greenhouse effect? It's not a correlation.

>They are different graphs.
They both showing the interglacial warming spike. What exactly do you think one shows that makes it large enough that the other doesn't?

>I ignored nothing.
You ignored the paper I linked to, which is exactly what you asked for. Thanks for admitting climate change is manmade. When you have a response to the paper, let me know.

>>14659886
It's a correlation and nothing more. An erroneous conclusion from flawed logic.

>>14659895
>It's a correlation
You keep saying this but you've repeatedly failed to explain why. You lied. And you again ignored the paper, which you asked for. lmao. Thanks for admitting the greenhouse effect is causation and climate change is manmade. Even you know you lost, since you keep avoiding the argument.

>>14659903
It's been explained. Read the thread.

>>14659976
I already read the thread. You didn't explain it and you'll never link to any post explaining it. Another lie.

Thanks for admitting the greenhouse effect is causation and climate change is manmade. /thread

>>14659582
>>14659630
>>14659653
>>14659661
>>14659704
>>14659723
>>14659742
>>14659761
>>14659769
>>14659771
>>14659817
>>14659859
>>14659895
>>14659976
God, I will cheer when an ecofascist party is in charge and they put people like you against the wall. I will literally cum in my panties.

>>14660593
Be the change you want to see, anon. Put them against the wall. I will support you.

>>14657195
Evidently it’s being caused by humans, the problem is that it can’t be fixed by humans.
We’ve already fucked up beyond repair.
You can limit certain things, but if literally everything in modern society is causing it, nothing short of all humanity suddenly going Amish is going to fix anything.
Do you honestly expect humanity to agree to that?
We’re just fucked.