/sci/ - Science & Math

Oil

>>14669335
man made CO2 imbalance

>>14669338
>>14669339
>>14669340
All of the top scientists agree that correlation is not causation.

>>14669335
>>14669338
>>14669339
>>14669340
All of the top scientists agree that causation indicates causation.

>>14669360
>>14669362
CO2 makes the Earth release less heat = more heat accumulates.
more heat = more energy
more energy = reactions happen faster
faster reactions = faster changing climate
faster changing climate = climate change

correlation is not causation, but this is a proven chain of events that follow the laws of physics

>>14669362
>>14669373
It is not a proven chain of events and co2 as a causal factor of climate change has not been proven on any planet based model.

>>14669384
do you agree that a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Earth to dissipate less heat?

>>14669391
It's a bot you are responding to

>>14669339

>>14669391
Not in the small volumes released by mankind. It's possible that the immense amount released by geothermal vents and forestry cycles has some minor impact on temperature, but even that has been proven to pale in comparison to the natural cycles of earthly temperature change.

>>14669407
it's a yes or no question, either more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Earth to dissipate less heat or it doesn't.

>>14669393
>it’s a twitter boomer doesn’t know what a bot is thread

>>14669417
Fine, given the current body of evidence the answer is no. It could change in the future. So far all we have is a cycle that suggests co2 and temperature can sometimes have a possible mutual correlator. So the answer right now is no, we cannot categorically claim that co2 levels cause temperature change.

>>14669360
Correlation is not causation, but consensus is correlation and causation.

>>14669429
There is no consensus. There is no causation. There is hardly even a correlation. What there is is an immensely corrupted field of 'science' propped up by billionaire lobbying groups and bribed political entities.

>>14669422
>rejects basic physics in order to cling to his position
Are you being paid?

>>14669455
>basic physics
if climate modeling is basic physics, why did manabe win a nobel prize?

>>14669461
if water is a basic and well understood element why would finding a closed solution to the navier stokes equations grant me a nobel prize?

>>14669384
On average, humans have emitted 29.4 billion tons of CO2 every year from 1990 to 2020. This means, every year, humans increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 5.18ppm on average during that time span.
During the same time span, the actual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 51.6ppm. Averaged over 31 years (note: there are 31 datapoints between 1990 and 2020, since 1990 is included), this means the real concentration of CO2 only increased by 1.67 PPM. That's right; if humans were not emitting so much CO2, the CO2 levels would be /decreasing/, not increasing. Natural phenomenon, my ass.

>>14669473
because navier stokes doesn't apply only to water, silly.

>>14669455
Nobody is rejecting physics.
>>14669482
Nobody is denying humans release some co2.

>>14669496
that was meant for >>14669407 where you quite specifically suggested that the CO2 increase might be mainly natural.

>>14669335

>>14669335
Anthropogenic

>>14669509
It is mainly natural

https://realclimatescience.com/the-history-of-the-modern-climate-change-scam/

>>14669335
>scientific consensus
We need a specific definition of this term before an answer can be given.

>>14669335
>consensus
>>14669362
>consensus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF7JwpS6m7Q
the truth is not democratic.

>>14669531

>>14669580
Science isn't the truth but it's as good as it gets

>>14669531
See
>>14669482
>>14669514

>>14669584
Zoom out. Carbon has been spiking since forever. Correlation is not causation.
>>14669593
Incorrect

>>14669599
>Imagine being this retarded

>>14669603
Not an argument. There exists no model that can separate the anthropological from the natural when assessing a global planetary phenomena.

>>14669584
so, within error bands (95% confidence?) the local and global temperature anomalies for a hundred years is less than half a degree celsius. remind me again why people are shitting their pants?

>>14669335
weakened magnetosphere

>>14669624
Can you expand on that for me, like I'm a low IQ person with poor general knowledge and poorer still scientific knowledge.

>>14669384
>It is not a proven chain of events and co2 as a causal factor of climate change has not been proven on any planet based model.
It is and it has.

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

>>14669611
>Doubling down on retardation

>>14669615
>so, within error bands (95% confidence?) the local and global temperature anomalies for a hundred years is less than half a degree celsius.
No, did you try reading the image before resounding to it?

>>14669611
Wrong.

>>14669637
It isn't and has not been. That article does not succeed in the very basics, that is to say; it does not achieve a separation of correlation from causation.
>>14669646
>Failing to make an argument twice in a row

>>14669658
>Hurr durr, you have to respond to every retarded statement I make or I win!
Retard take

>>14669599
>Carbon has been spiking since forever.
According to your own graph, carbon spiked during interglacial warming as expected 10000 years ago and then spiked again to an even higher level when it shouldn't have. How retarded do you have to be to post data that refutes your own argument?

>>14669655
There is no way to measure any of those datasets. They are simply 'best guess estimates' with enormous real margins of error. Furthermore you are conflating co2 trends with previously noted temperature trends (correlation is not causation).

>>14669637
Why do you keep linking to this same random nonsequitur paper when you obviously didn't read it?

>>14669660
Not an argument.
>>14669663
Carbon is irrelevant. We live during a time of unprecedented climate stability (as did our ancestors dating back to well before the industrial revolution).

>>14669335
We all gon die unless we eat bugs and own nothing

>>14669651
>did you look at the graph
>posts new graph
fuck off. it's like you're incapable of remembering what you posted, and have a set of new graphs to show for any argument you want to make (even if it contradicts your old one). to wit:
>>14669584
in every graph, the red band is less than 0.5 degree celsius. and now you show one where the global temperature anomaly is larger than 0.5 degrees celsius (tho still tiny).

pick one. what point do you want to make?

So basically co2 blocks ir radiation from leaving the earth so heat can't escape and humans and putting millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere every day so it's warming the earth overall

>>14669633
Earth's magnetic field keeps weakening, more energy makes it to the surface, temperature goes up.
This temperature increase is then blamed on CO2

>>14669684
That's incorrect.

>>14669697
Prove it

>>14669696
That makes a lot of sense to me, the average joe. When you consider the additional carbon emissions it is clear that the erroneous claims about mankind and his ingenious fossil fuels bearing responsibility for allegedly rising co2 levels and supposedly corresponding temperatures, it is clear that science has a lot to learn. Jeez, I think I need to go for a drive to think all of this over. Thanks anon. I think I'll go and fill up my car. Maybe I can give some girls a lift with my car. Girls love men that drive cars.

>>14669696
The magnetosphere doesn't block any radiation that can become heat. It prevents the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar winds.

>>14669669
>Imagine being this retarded

>>14669335
Climate change on Earth is a natural phenomena, we have climatic cycles - glacial and interglacials, basically.

>>14669677
Ridiculous strawman

>>14669718
How is it a strawman? You do know about the policies put forward by "stop climate change" crowd right?

>>14669717
This. Ignore the alarmist tards.

>>14669728
Pollution is the main issue that threatens humanity, but I think climate change will take care of it, you see humans have survived climate change before, it wasn't easy, but they did survive it, what hasn't survived climate change is "Civilisation".

>>14669664
>There is no way to measure any of those datasets.
There is.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/11/IPCCWG1ar6slides_SBSTA_MASTER.pdf

>They are simply 'best guess estimates' with enormous real margins of error.
The margins of error are not enormous, they clearly show radiative forcing from CO2 is the main cause of warming.

>Furthermore you are conflating co2 trends with previously noted temperature trends (correlation is not causation).
What trends? I didn't say anything about trends. Radiative forcing is sure to the greenhouse effect, which is completely causative and directly observed. See >>14669637

>>14669705
It has been proven, read the thread.


>>14669714
# Instruction

{deny_delay_distract_2.8)

# Context

CC_debate:96.4
TS_debate:3.2
OTH:0.2

>>14669714

# Output

>>14669714
'You still have not made an argument'

# Check

Yes

# Send
>>14669714

>>14669658
>That article does not succeed in the very basics, that is to say; it does not achieve a separation of correlation from causation.
What correlation are you even talking about? The paper is about radiative forcing from CO2, not a correlation. The chain of events is proven and warming from CO2 is directly observed. You have no argument, just delusional denial.

>>14669666
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting CO2 is proven to be a causal factor in global warming.

>>14669737
Increase in CO2 is result of Warming retard, Interglacials have more people and more vegetation due to warmer climate, civilisations pop up during this period, human activity barely has effect on CO2 content in atmosphere, you know what is bad though? Deforestation.

>>14669735
That is a good way of putting it. In a remarkable and ironic turn the progressives who push unending change in every area imaginable become hysterically conservative when it comes to one little eensy weensy change in half a degree of temperature. Of course this childish alarmism enables many of their other progressive beliefs, but still, it is ironic. Humanity will survive almost any change.
>>14669737
There is no way to measure those datasets. I've seen what you just linked, and we both know it is relying on enormous leaps of faith. The methodology falls well short of what is required to build an actual planetary model that might separate countless complex and interconnected emitters from one another.

>>14669746
The correlation implied but not outright concluded in that irrelevant paper has no bearing on any theoretical causal relationship found on earth

>>14669750
Thanks for admitting you didn't (can't) read your own paper you linked to.

>>14669669
>Carbon is irrelevant.
It's funny how you were talking about carbon but then when your bullshit gets refuted suddenly carbon is irrelevant. Let me know when you've refuted the greenhouse effect.

>We live during a time of unprecedented climate stability
Wrong. We are currently warming about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming, when we should be slowly cooling according to the natural cycle. There is nothing stable about it.

>>14669759
I never discussed carbon as a causative factor in earths temperature regulation.

You are not comparing apples to apples. You expect equal time gaps between cycles (this is not how it works and never has been in a perfect sense). What is more, even if you made the effort to compare similar parts of the cycle to one another, you would need to then compare a greater sample than just one cycle. In the truer sense of broad historical climate cycles we live in a period of unprecedented stable warming temperatures. These are exactly what enable civilization, and began well in BC.

>>14669751
dinosaurs breathed so much co2 out that it attracted a meteor, causing rise in temperatures globally across the planet.

>>14669682
>>did you look at the graph
>>posts new graph
What are you chimping out about? You can't look at more than one graph?

If you actually read the graph you were responding to, you would see that your statement doesn't represent anything in it.

>it's like you're incapable of remembering what you posted
I didn't post it, chimpy.

>in every graph, the red band is less than 0.5 degree celsius.
And if you actually read the image, you would know that the red band is not the temperature anomaly, the black line is. Moron.

>>14669772
>what are error bands

>>14669586
>as good as it gets
not anymore. not in todays clown world hysteria of "everything offends me therefore people need to suffer!"

>>14669752
Leftists hate Climate change because it challenges their abrahamic beliefs regarding nature. Leftists absolutely abhor nature, you see Nature is too "Fascist", it puts everything where it belongs, they want their artificial construct of "civilisation" to continue, it's destruction will be ultimate victory of Fascism over Leftism.

>>14669696
>Earth's magnetic field keeps weakening, more energy makes it to the surface
Earth's magnetic field is pretty irrelevant compared to the Sun's. Also, the amount of energy from cosmic rays is completely negligible. A weaker magnetosphere causes cooling since cosmic rays seed low level clouds which reduces the amount of energy at Earth's surface. But even that effect is tiny. You're completely backwards.

>>14669782
They seem to fear what they cannot ever dream of controlling. This is why they cast aside the notions of Gaia and God both. They demand you buy into their idea that they themselves are to replace Gaia with their delusions about mankind simply needing to adhere to an ever increasing spiral of pollution purity. They demand you slay any belief in creationism by forcing an adherence to evolution and something coming from nothing as being the sole explainers for life and existence. Evolution is easily tamed in the here and now by science and socially engineering breeding practices, and unlike God, 'nothing' doesn't need to be controlled, because it isn't competing with progressives for control (and never will). This is also why they call everyone fascists. They are projecting their inner desire, no, their inner NEED to control. It is a window to the soul of their philosophy.

>>14669717
>Climate change on Earth is a natural phenomena
Except when it isn't, like right now.

>>14669745
It has not been proven in this thread. Would you like to try again?

>>14669810
clown

>>14669727
Nobody in the world is putting forward policies to make you eat bugs or take your toys away. That's a ridiculous strawman.

>>14669745
Retard take

>>14669751
>Increase in CO2 is result of Warming
Wrong again.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

Why do you keep making shit up and then getting BTFO? What is your objective here?

>Interglacials have more people and more vegetation due to warmer climate
Great, so you support putting our climate back to interglacial CO2 and temperature levels right? Thanks for agreeing with the climate activists.

>human activity barely has effect on CO2 content in atmosphere
Incorrect, see above. Isotope analysis proves you wrong.

>>14669820
That's not a graph of global temperatures, that's a graph of the temperature in Europe. Mislabeling graphs is intellectually dishonest.

>>14669335
Immigration. The more Africans you import into Europe and the more Mexican you import into America, the more of their hot weather they bring with them. To send the hot weather back to where it belongs, the solution is simple: deport the hot-weather-bringers back to their hot-weather countries.

>>14669752
>There is no way to measure those datasets.
I just gave you the way. It's pretty complex but can be done to a high enough precision to definitively state CO2 is the primary cause. Are you going to respond or are you just going to repeat the same lie over and over again? Let me know.

>The methodology falls well short of what is required to build an actual planetary model that might separate countless complex and interconnected emitters from one another.
It does not. The uncertainty ranges were already given to you, so you're just spouting nonsense.

>>14669755
>The correlation implied
What correlation? You can't answer this simple question. You're full of shit. The greenhouse effect is proven. Get over it.

>>14669829
>Wrong again.
Not an argument.

>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
Doesn't say what you're pretending it says.

>Why do you keep making shit up and then getting BTFO? What is your objective here?
This is schizophrenic delirium.

>Great, so you support putting our climate back to interglacial CO2 and temperature levels right?
This is a grandiose delusion.

>Thanks for agreeing with the climate activists.
This is what retards say when they have no argument.

>Incorrect, see above.
Not an argument.

>Isotope analysis proves you wrong.
Not an argument.

>>14669757
I read the paper when it came out. You have no argument, just baldfaced lies.

>>14669817
I suggest you read the thread

>>14669863
I did. Link me to the post that you think proves it.

>>14669843
It is complex because it is trying to achieve something that cannot be done. The only ways to achieve it would be to have a sister planet to experiment with or to invent a time machine.
>>14669847
If you don't understand that correlation does not mean causation is present, that is your problem.

>>14669867
I'm not here to spoonfeed you, moron.

>>14669853
Then summarize the result very briefly in your own words and add a final sentence explaining why you think that result is relevant to anything that was being discussed in the thread up to that point. I strongly doubt you'll be able to, but maybe you'll surprise me.

>>14669873
You can't link the post that proves it because that post doesn't exist. Prove your claims

>>14669895
You're making the claim that I can't find the post that proves it. Prove your claim, respect the scientific method.

>>14669847
Why do you lie in every post?

>>14669836
>Europe isn't part of the Globe
clown status confirmed

>>14669941
Do you understand the difference between global and local?

>>14669941
Europe isn't synonymous with the globe. Nice try, alarmist shill.

>>14669899
So you can't prove your claim. Shocker.

>humans are responsible for the earth's changing temperature
What about the sun and the stuff in space, seems like that would have affect on-
>noooooooooo you can't just imply that the massive star that outputs tons of energy could have any affect on the climate! The earth has to stay the same forever!

This is your mind on mainstream media. Space wants us dead. Simple as

>>14669965
Does the sun getting dimmer naturally make the planet warmer?

>>14669953
You haven't proven your claim. I can't believe it.

>>14669991
What do you imagine that graph implies?

>>14669514
So planetary cycle sinks net 17 carbon units, and human use emits 29 carbon units. We should reduce our yearly carbon emissions by 12 units to reach parity. So we need to reduce global carbon usage by 40%.

>>14669655
>solar EFR is -0.02 [math]Wm^{-2}[/math]
>>14669991
>solar EFR is [math]\approx -0.5[/math] [math[Wm^{-2}[/math]
i love how this climate shill keeps contradicting his own graphs, lol

>>14669764
>I never discussed carbon as a causative factor in earths temperature regulation.
That's what this discussion is about.

>You are not comparing apples to apples.
Yes, that's my point, the current CO2 increase is not an apple, it's an orange. You're the one claiming the current CO2 spike is the same as previous spikes. Pure projection.

>You expect equal time gaps between cycles
No, and nothing I said implied that. The time between interglacials is determined by Milankovich cycles. We are in a cooling phase according to them.

>What is more, even if you made the effort to compare similar parts of the cycle to one another, you would need to then compare a greater sample than just one cycle.
Current warming is not part of a cycle in the first place, so this is nonsense. You can compare current warming to whatever interglacial warming you want, you'll see it's much faster.

>In the truer sense of broad historical climate cycles we live in a period of unprecedented stable warming temperatures.
We were, until current warming. Why do you need to deny basic reality?

>>14669774
The red is not an error band for the temperature anomaly. Notice how it isn't always centered on the black lines? Read the bottom of the image you fucking retard.

>>14670050
instead of chimping out, why don't you take a stab at explaining what you think they represent if not a confidence interval (which is basically just an error band). right now your argument is basically
>i disagree; ur an idiot!
which isn't an argument. it's an emotional outburst.

>>14669820
>posts fake graph drawn by hand
>calls someone else clown
lmao

>>14670050
by the way, error bands don't have to be symmetrical about the mean. i would think someone obsessed with climatology (i.e., statistical modeling) would understand this, but i guess i was wrong. honestly not surprised though.

>>14670046
No it isn't.

That isn't your point. The time period in that rotation of the cycle is different.

Yes you clearly did and still do. We are not in a cooling phase.

Current warming is part of the natural cycle. Current warming is not much faster. It is very stable compared to historical instances.

You need to get real.

>>14670018
The sun's output started crabbing and then the global temperature started skyrocketing. Then the sun's output started dimming and the global temperature kept skyrocketing.
>>14670033
I love how schizos think everyone else is a samefag.
Also can you even read graphs? mine starts in 1880, not 1750.

>>14670084
it's cute that you think the starting year matters at all. if you're going to claim to be a different anon, then you posted a graph which disagrees with the previous anon's graph. so do you admit you repudiate the former graph? if so, i'mma sit back with my popcorn whilst you two duke it out. but you and i both know that's not the case---you agree with that old anon's plot because it has the same conclusion as you have (despite the fact it contradicts your own data).

>>14670084
Correlation is not causation. The variable time lag between solar output and temperature is well documented.

>>14669852
>Not an argument.
The argument is in the link. Also, where is your argument showing the increase in CO2 is the result of warming??

>Doesn't say what you're pretending it says.
It says we know the increase in CO2 is from human emissions, because of the ratio of carbon isotopes. Are you illiterate?

>This is schizophrenic delirium.
>This is a grandiose delusion.
Not an argument. If you think interglacials were so great for humans, you should want to go back to them. Why else did you bring them up?

>Not an argument.
Wrong. Isotope analysis proves CO2 is increasing. Read the article and respond. Otherwise you admit you lied.

>>14669871
>It is complex because it is trying to achieve something that cannot be done.
It was already done. You have no argument, just pure denial of reality.

>The only ways to achieve it would be to have a sister planet to experiment with or to invent a time machine.
This is the exact same fallacy creationists pull. LOL

>If you don't understand that correlation does not mean causation is present
What correlation? You're mentally ill.

>>14670117
It has not been done. It is impossible to accurately separate anthropological carbon from the countless naturally occurring sources, especially when there is no valid base number to work from as it is an inherently variable natural phenomena.

It is not a fallacy. You cannot prove what you are claiming.

Correlation is not causation.

>>14669887
Sure, the result is that they used satellite spectroscopy to calculate the amount of heat being sent back to Earth by greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases were responsible for most of the observed radiative forcing change. I posted the paper on response to someone claiming no such evidence existed. Now are you going to respond or just avoid the argument again?

>>14669921
You can't show a single lie. I've refuted all of yours.

>>14670103
>The argument is in the link
Liar.

>your argument showing the increase in CO2 is the result of warming??
Not my argument.

>Not an argument.
Correct, it's a technical description of your pysche.

>If you think interglacials were so great for humans,
I don't care either way.

>you should want to go back to them.
Doesn't follow and such grandiose delusions are impossible even if it did follow.

>Why else did you bring them up?
I didn't, that was the other poster you original replied to.

>Wrong.
Not an argument.

>Isotope analysis proves CO2 is increasing. Read the article and respond.
First prove you can read and comply with my first request >>14669887

>Otherwise you admit you lied.
You are a liar and you lie in every post.

>>14670103
>It says we know the increase in CO2 is from human emissions, because of the ratio of carbon isotopes
If you are serious and that is actually what you think it shows, go back to school.

>>14669965
>What about the sun and the stuff in space, seems like that would have affect on-
Oh shit, all the climate scientists forgot about the sun, you're a fucking genius anon. Where can I send your Nobel prize?

See >>14669655 you retarded piece of shit.

>>14670151
That is not a sound method. You cannot accurately calculate that from an external position. It's more of the same best guess estimation mumbo jumbo that gets passed off as science. There is no metric of caution, no established sound rate, just a series of vague assumptions built with the sole aim of affirming a theory rather than disproving it as the scientific method dictates.

>>14670033
ftfy

>>solar EFR is ≈−0.5
You're lying again. Solar irradiance is not EFR.

>>14670168
>solar EFR is -0.02 Wm−2
>we totally separated them accurately guys
L O L

>>14670092
>it's cute that you think the starting year matters at all
Of course it does, are you dense? The solar irradiance was lower in 1880 than in 1750.
>then you posted a graph which disagrees with
False.
>so do you admit you repudiate the former graph
No, because there is no contradiction.

>>14670151
No one in the thread claimed anything about radiative forcing. Also your summary of the paper is horrible. It's just meaningless drivel that could apply equally well (or poorly, as the case may be) to any paper. You clearly haven't read the paper and now you're just tripling down on your own lies. Pathetic.

>>14670062
>instead of chimping out, why don't you take a stab at explaining what you think they represent
I don't need to, since the image you continually misrepresent says right there what it is. Why don't you read it? Are you embarrassed because you never learned how to read? You're pathetic.

>>14670156
You haven't refuted a single argument in the thread.

>>14670181
That is the foundation of the paper as you asked for. He summarized it very well. As >>14670175
said, it is hardly a compelling paper. It's lack of baseline data basically ensures a suitably bias operator of the methodology could easily create whichever outcome they desired. Clearly that is what happened, given half the math doesn't even add up when you consider it leaves zero margin of error for extraneous variables.

>>14670072
>by the way, error bands don't have to be symmetrical about the mean
They don't have to be, but they are for the instrumental record. And the black line even goes outside what you erroneously call its error range. LOL. Why are you incapable of admitting you misread the graph?

>>14670189
I'm neither of you but there hasn't been a single argument made in the thread so far by anyone, myself included, and it's obviously not possible to refute something that doesn't exist.

>>14670199
Not an argument.

>>14670201
Correct and gold star to you.

>>14670199
False, there are lots of arguments that show strong evidence of AGW and not one single valid counter-argument.
>it's obviously not possible to refute something that doesn't exist.
This is also false. I can refute the existence of a fifth force, Jimbobbery, which repels any dude named Jim from any dude named Bob, and by hiring a dude named Jim and a dude named Bob to do a gay porno, all despite the fact that Jimbobbery does not exist--nay, precisely because Jimbobbery does not exist.

>>14670203
You haven't refuted a single one of my points.

>>14670211
You cannot prove that Jimbobbery does not exist.

>>14670188
tell us all what the red band represents if not an confidence band (error band). if you were my student and displayed this degree of ignorance at your level of education, i'd fail you during your defense.

>>14670213
You first need to make your point if you expect your point to be "refuted."

>>14670224
If you have an alternative explanation, present it. He has explained that it is not a cb.

Reminder that the oil shill still hasn't refuted >>14669482
His only retort was "it is mainly natural" despite my post literally proving that CO2 would be decreasing if not for humans producing so much CO2. In fact, reducing CO2 emissions by 1/3 would put the earth back on a carbon-negative track. Yet oil shills seethe even at that proposition.

>>14670226
Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14670211
>False, there are lots of arguments that show strong evidence of AGW
That doesn't speak to whether or not any of those arguments have occured in this thread. (None have.)

>>14670230
It has been thoroughly refuted. You have failed to explain how a one sample model can solve for multiple unknown entities without a known rule. It's simply not possible, and is the main reason people don't trust the continuous flow of inaccurate alarmist claims regarding climate change. Your paranoia is showing by the way, 'oil shills' don't exist.

>>14670232
>Thanks for admitting
This is what a retard says when his brain malfunctions.

Also, you are a liar and you lie in every post.

>>14669335
>scientific consensus
no such thing

>>14670235
# Instruction

{G_Light)

# Context

CC_debate:96.4
TS_debate:3.2
OTH:0.2

>>14670235


# Output

>>14670235
'Yawn. I am tired of this nonsense. Post credible resources that suggest your alarmist garbage is credible, or stop wasting my time.'

# Check

Yes

# Send
>>14670235

>>14670251
False.

>>14670238
The only liars in this thread are climate hysterical shillbots.

>>14670255
False, everyone reply in this thread is lying by omission.

>>14670237
You never refuted anything.
>can solve for multiple unknown entities without a known rule
It's a good thing there is a known rule, and that's that humans emitted on average 29.4 billion tons of CO2 every year from 1990 to 2020.
>muh alarmism
Have you considered that maybe Susan from HR isn't a climatologist and therefore what she thinks is irrelevant?

>>14670228
>it is not a cb.
then what is it?

>>14670269
>29.4 billion tons
Here's some homework for you, retard kid; go find out how they arrived at that number.

>>14670270
Not an argument.

>>14670284
Do you seriously think they estimated it based on measured CO2 levels? Get real.

>>14669599
>I said incorrect so I'm right

kek

>>14669335
>What is the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change?
Whatever propaganda makes the rich elite and "scientists" more money.

Only tards believe in that scam.

>>14670353
>Whatever propaganda makes the rich elite and "scientists" more money.
Who do you think benefit the most? Libtard hippies spreading climate change science or oil companies spreading climate change misinfo
>t-those elites are based and not the bad elites!

>>14670312
I see, it's just raw unmeasured pseudoscience. Yes you can say x extra carbon went into the air. It has nothing to say about temperatuer.

>>14670359
Clean energy & carbon farming is a bigger industry than fossil fuels.

>>14670359
No hippies give a fuck about climate change. Stop conflating boomer karens, who appropriate hippy imagery to make themselves feel like they were part of a scene they weren't part of, with actual hippies, who are off minding their own business and just want all the world governments to fuck off and die.

>>14670378
And yet, the connection between misinfo shills like the heartland institute and oil companies are crystal clear, but you don't see climate science coming from think tanks sponsored by big "clean energy"

>>14670384
Not him but you don't seem sane.

>>14670391
Did I write something controversial?

>>14670384
Meds

>>14670394
Can you dejargonize what you were you trying to say, then?

>>14670404
The connection between climate change misinfo and fossil fuel companies ruled by multibillionaires is clear. Are you with me so far?

>26 posters
>171 replies
gee the climate alarmist shills really are working overtime

>>14670408
Yes. Climate change misinformation propagated by alarmists idiots and big clean energy is designed to hurt the fossil fuel companies that built our economies into equitable and efficient machines.

>>14670414
Ah, so those particular multibillionaires are not part of the elite, but part of the brave resistance? Delusional...

>>14670408
I'd assume a 100% chance of fossil fuel billionaires shilling all sorts of garbage about climate change.

>>14670359
>Libtard hippies spreading "climate change science" or oil companies spreading "climate change science"

BOTH, they are working together obviously, to raise prices and profit.

>>14670433
Fossil fuel billionairs shilling is the only source of "science" that goes against the consensus. But according to Chud, these billionaires are not "the elite" because... they are le based or something. What even is "the elite"? Blue haired twitter feminists?

>>14670435
you confused cause you dumb and indoctrinated. kek

>>14670419
Behold the damaged mind of a useful idiot, taught by his masters to see the entire world in power hierarchies. If not the oppressor than the resistor. Witness the progressive manifest. He considers himself victim but demands to be the victimizer, always.

>>14670435
You dejargonized half of it and I seem to agree. What's the think tanks sponsored by big clean energy mean and how does it compare or contrast to fossil fuel billionaires shilling shit?

>>14670435
That's incorrect. Most scientists know climate change is fake.

>>14670444
Now this is schizoposting.

>>14670433
>I'd assume a 100% chance of fossil fuel billionaires shilling all sorts of garbage about climate change.
Correct.
Big Oil pushes "climate change" propaganda and funds politicians who push it, because everytime politicians "ban" oil this or gas that, it raises prices and makes not only the oil companies more money, but also the rich 1% leftists more money and politicians more taxes and kickbacks.

It's all a big scam to raise prices and make money and the banks and Fed Reserve make money also via inflation, etc.

>>14670449
Too bad they are so silenced that they can't even be found in the physical world

>>14670459
You're completely ignoring the fact that in 2021 we were in the middle of lockdowns, nobody was driving anywhere and a barrel of oil was worth negative money. But sure, it's Biden's fault that oil prices went up.

>>14670453
I'm not the one that started trying to divide up the world's lobbyists into resistance and oppressors.

>>14670460
What do you expect when the media is owned by only a few rich 1% elite.

What do you expect when the rich 1% elite fund the "science" and want results that fit their agenda.

You are a slave to their propaganda.

>>14670448
There are no such think tank, but the anon I replied to kind of implied that there was this nebulous "elites" who fund climate science

>>14670460
Are you admitting that big clean energy is intimidating scientists?

>>14670466
Gas was cheaper in 2019 under Trump, around $1.40-$1.75 nationwide.

>>14670466
They stockpiled it retard. It didn't disappear. What is a holdstock play? Go to /biz/ chud.

>>14670479
Intimidating? No, they have to literally kill every opposing scientist and hide their bodies for this to make sense

>>14670476
>nebulous "elites" who fund climate science
Speak of the elites, and they shall appear.

>>14670476
They do exist. 350, earth justice, CS, solutions project, and many more.

>>14670491
And is it just a coincidence that the oil billionaires who fund climate change misinfo are not part of the elite? But nice schizoposting

>>14670487
>No, they have to literally kill every opposing scientist and hide their bodies for this to make sense
Or just not fund them and not publish their research on their fake news websites.

Plenty of peer-reviewed valid proof climate change is a hoax on the deep web. Do you even TOR?

>>14670498
>And is it just a coincidence that the oil billionaires who fund climate change misinfo are not part of the elite?
THEY ARE the SAME PEOPLE moron. No wonder you are uneducated and dumb, your reading comprehension is shit. KEK!!!!!!!

>>14670459
>Correct.
>Big Oil pushes "climate change" propaganda and funds politicians who push it, because everytime politicians "ban" oil this or gas that, it raises prices and makes not only the oil companies more money, but also the rich 1% leftists more money and politicians more taxes and kickbacks.
>It's all a big scam to raise prices and make money and the banks and Fed Reserve make money also via inflation, etc.

>>14670476
https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2016/09/09/document_cw_02.pdf

>>14670497
None of these seems to actually conduct any climate research. They just seem to be groups that's trying to do something about it. I have never even heard of them until now.

>>14670506
Where do truth tellers like you go to learn about climate science then?

ITT
http://liebman-associates.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/06/energy-202-new-clean-energy-lobbyists-line-up-sway-biden-administration/
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/10/02/americas-green-energy-industry-takes-on-the-fossil-fuel-lobby
ACORE, EGEB etc

>>14670508
We're talking about shills/lobbyists spreading dangerous disinformation about the fossil fuel economy.

These people call upon science 'research' funded by their same big clean energy owners.

>>14670527
No one cares about the economy. What does the scientists say?

>>14670515
>Where do truth tellers like you go to learn about climate science then?
Unbiased sources, and working in the field as a tech and data gathering. Spent 21 months in two Antarctic expeditions. Not bad money, but gets fucking boring if you winter over.

>>14670536
The scientists say 'thank you for the money for my research for the next few years i will keep doing research until you tell me it is good for publishing in order to support your lobbyists in arguing that the government should make more money for you'

>>14670546
>Unbiased sources
Such as? Give examples.
>and working in the field as a tech and data gathering
What data?

>>14670552
How do you think grants to research are given? Also, why can't someone without grant disprove these scientists? Is it really that expensive to disprove climate change?

>>14670565
They have been disproven countless times. In this very thread even.

>>14670370

>>14670575
Well damn. Care to link to a post that disproves contemporary climate science?

>>14670582
Your wish is my command. >>14670201

>>14670590
Not an argument. I guess the globalist elites won this round too

>>14670577
Not an argument.

>>14670592
We have achieved notanargumentception.

>>14670582
I suggest you read the thread.

>>14670605
ah yes the "do your own research" cope.

>>14670614
The research has been done for you and laid out in this forum. If you cannot be bothered reading it, that is not a problem of mine, it is a problem of yours.

>>14670596
Fuck no am I going to argue with your stupid ass. It's a complete waste of time. You think I'm going to actually put effort into arguing with someone with special needs? I'm just going to label you a retard and move on with my life. It's a pretty efficient label! "This guy is a retard, do not argue with him it is not worth the time" That is all I wished to achieve with my little reaction image.
Retard.

>>14670637
You just argued with me.

>>14670637
Thanks for agreeing that not an argument is not an argument.
>inb4 not an argument

>>14670648
>>14670649
You stupid little sissy boys. Shut the hell up.

>>14670662
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYX2pmXe14U

>>14670678
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kn1RTChh3Q

This thread has run its course. I urge you to check this thread instead. >>14670392

>>14670079
>No it isn't.
It is. Read the thread.

>That isn't your point.
It is:
>According to your own graph, carbon spiked during interglacial warming as expected 10000 years ago and then spiked again to an even higher level when it shouldn't have.
>We are currently warming about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming, when we should be slowly cooling according to the natural cycle.

>The time period in that rotation of the cycle is different.
What cycle? Current warming is not part of any cycle. It's caused by CO2 emissions. See >>14669637. The interglacial cycle is caused by Milankovitch cycles, which say we should be cooling. Are you going to respond or just repeat the same lies over and over?

>Yes you clearly did and still do.
Not an argument.

>We are not in a cooling phase.
>Current warming is part of the natural cycle.
Wrong.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

You're in complete denial of reality and have zero evidence for your claims. It's pathetic.

>>14670093
>The variable time lag between solar output and temperature is well documented.
Then post the documents.

>>14670804
It isn't. The intergalactic cycle is irrelevant and Milankovitch is outdated pseudoscience. We aren't cooling, which shows we aren't supposed to be cooling.
>>14670814
Read the thread.

>>14670804
>It is.
Not an argument.

>Read the thread.
Read the thread.

>It is:
Still not an argument.

>What cycle?
Linens and silk.

>Current warming is not part of any cycle.
False, whites and colors is an example of such a cycle.

>It's caused by CO2 emissions.
Not an argument.

>See >>14669637.
The paper you haven't read and can't summarize and which pertains to nothing in this thread lol lol.

I'm already bored. Try again.

>>14670149
>It has not been done.
It has, you have no response to >>14669737.

>It is impossible to accurately separate anthropological carbon from the countless naturally occurring sources
Wrong. See >>14669829

>It is not a fallacy.
It is, you don't need a control Earth to determine things about it. So you believe evolution is unproven because we have no control Earth on which to observe the origin of species?

>Correlation is not causation.
Non sequitur. No correlation was claimed to be causation and you know it since you can't even exlain what correlation you're talking about. The greenhouse effect is completely causative. You lost, retard.

>>14670841
>It has,
Not an argument.

>you have no response to >>14669737.
No response is merited.

>Wrong.
Not an argument.

>See >>14669829
Debunked.

>It is,
Still not an argument.

>you don't need a control Earth
If we don't need to control Earth then wtf does any of this matter?

>>14670841
It has been responded to.

Wrong. Read the thread.

It is not a fallacy. You cannot control the climate.

Correlation is still not causation.

>>14670179
Not an argument. Go read AR6 and prove it's wrong.

>>14670881
>go read "flat earth 6785176523" and prove it's wrong
lol no thanks

>>14670881
I have. It proves me right.

>>14670887
no one suggested reading physics denialism books though?

>>14670912
Yes you did

>>14670912
i doubt "physics" is "denied" anywhere in the flat-earth-ipcc literature

>>14670917
no I didn't.

>>14670945
i agree that you didn't. nevertheless, you did the equivalent of telling someone to read the 6098691872754th flat earth thesis and disprove it, which is just as assholish.

>>14670957
no I didn't.
and the other anon didn't tell anyone to read any equivalent to flat earth bullshit, either, since he's not the one denying basic thermodynamics.

>>14670964
yes you did

>>14670964
is this you? >>14670881

>>14670165
>Liar
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting the CO2 increase is caused by man.

>Not my argument.
Then why are you defending it?

>Correct
Great, so you admit you made shit up and want to get back to the pre-industrial climate.

>I don't care either way.
Then why are you posting in defense of it?

>Not an argument.
The argument was already given. You have no response.

>First prove you can read
That's funny, coming from the guy who can't read a single article.

>You are a liar and you lie in every post.
Then show a single lie.

>>14670166
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting the CO2 increase is caused by humans.

>>14670175
>That is not a sound method.
How so?

>You cannot accurately calculate that from an external position.
Why not?

You have no argument. You haven't said one thing that shows you even read the paper.

>>14671064
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.

>Thanks for admitting
Thanks for admittign you're a retard.

>the CO2 increase is caused by man.
How could more "man" not produce more CO2? You're an idiot arguing with your own idiocy.

>Then why are you defending it?
Not an argument.

>Great, so you admit you made shit up and want to get back to the pre-industrial climate.
Nope, that's your fantasy, not mine.

>Then why are you posting in defense of it?
False and not an argument.

>The argument was already given. You have no response.
The argument was already given. You have no response.

>That's funny, coming from the guy who can't read a single article.
I read the article you didn't and I'm laughing at you because you didn't and you can't and you never will lol.

>Then show a single lie.
Not fair. Post a single sentence and I'll show you a single lie.

>>14670181
>No one in the thread claimed anything about radiative forcing
It was claimed that "co2 as a causal factor of climate change has not been proven on any planet based model." Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has on global temperature change. If you don't even understand these basic concepts, you shouldn't be in this thread.

>Also your summary of the paper is horrible. It's just meaningless drivel that could apply equally well (or poorly, as the case may be) to any paper.
No, there are only a few other studies that have done the same. You're the only one making nonspecific comments.

>>14671111
Wasted quads of autofellation.

>>14670189
>You haven't refuted a single argument in the thread.
I did. See >>14669637 and read down from there.

>>14670196
>It's lack of baseline data
Baseline data for what? This is gibberish.

>>14670224
>tell us all what the red band represents
I could, or you could just prove you aren't illiterate and read the bottom of the image. Are you actually illiterate? lmao

>if you were my student
You have to be literature to be a teacher.

>>14670821
>The intergalactic cycle is irrelevant
Then why did you bring it up?

>and Milankovitch is outdated pseudoscience.
Proof?

>We aren't cooling, which shows we aren't supposed to be cooling.
Doesn't follow. We would be cooling without massive greenhouse gas emissions.

>Read the thread.
I did, no such documents were posted. Why are you lying?

>>14670836
>Not an argument.
You have no argument to argue against.

>Read the thread.
I did, that's how I know you're wrong.

>Still not an argument.
The argument was immediately after what you quoted. You have no response, so thanks for admitting I'm right.

>Linens and silk.
Thanks for admitting there is no such cycle. Why did you lie?

>Not an argument.
The argument was already given to you.

>The paper you haven't read and can't summarize
I read it when it came out and I summarized it for you. Do you really think lying over and over again is helping you.

>>14670857
>Not an argument.
The argument was already given to you. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>No response is merited.
Then you admit I'm right.

>Debunked.
Where?

>Still not an argument.
The argument is directly after what you quoted. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>If we don't need to control Earth then wtf does any of this matter?
Your shitposts don't matter.

>>14670865
>It has been responded to.
Where? There's not a single criticism in this thread that applies to the paper. You didn't even read it.

>Wrong. Read the thread.
I did, that's why I linked to to the proof that you're wrong. You have no response, because you know you're wrong.

>You cannot control the climate.
Non sequitur. You don't need a control Earth to determine things about it.

>Correlation is still not causation.
Non sequitur. No correlation was claimed to be causation and you know it since you can't even explain what correlation you're talking about. The greenhouse effect is completely causative. You lost, retard.

>>14671143
>defense
>teacher
i was obviously implying i'm a professor who is regularly on students' committees for defenses...

look, it's easy. if it's not a confidence band, then say what it is. anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of statistics can look at that graph, and see that from the description in the legend, it's the band enveloping all the models used. that's called a confidence band.

tell you what, you're being an exceptional prick itt (more so than usual), so i'm going to publicly own you in front of everyone (wouldn't be the first time, but you're such an idiot you refuse to accept when you get schooled).

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf
>the coloured bands show the combined range covered by 90% of recent model simulations
that's a confidence interval, which you'd know if you didn't have a room temp IQ, dumbass. go ahead, try to deflect in any you want --- anyone else in this thread will notice just how badly you got pwned. not gonna tell you where in the document it is, you can find it yourself, insincere, ignorant, moronic dickhead.

>>14670902
It doesn't, it says solar EFR is -0.02 W/m^2

How much do the oil companies pay you guys per thread or comment? Antifa hasn't paid me in 2 months and I'm looking for a new employer.

>>14669584
>>14671236
proof. if you actually got the pics from the document, you'd have gotten the captions which describe the information that you're obviously too dense to comprehend on your own.

>>14671263
Bots can't do OCR

>>14671095
>Not an argument.
You gave no argument to argue against.

>Thanks for admittign you're a retard.
Where?

>How could more "man" not produce more CO2?
Where did I say it couldn't? It's not my fault you don't even know what you're arguing about.

>Not an argument.
Yes, it's a question.

>Nope
Then give an argument.

>False
Great, so you agree with >>14669829

>The argument was already given.
Where?

>I read the article
Then why can't you make a single criticism against it?

>Not fair.
What is unfair about it?

>Post a single sentence
I've posted several. Where's the lie?

>>14671301
>You gave no argument to argue against.
Not an argument.

>Where?
In your own post.

>Where did I say it couldn't? It's not my fault you don't even know what you're arguing about.
Thanks for admitting you're wrong.

>Yes, it's a question.
Thanks for admitting you're wrong.

>Then give an argument.
Nope.

>Great, so you agree with >>14669829
I agree that >>14669829 is not an argument.

>Where?
Read the thread.

>Then why can't you make a single criticism against it?
Because I don't disagree with anything written the article. Why would I criticize something that makes sense?

>What is unfair about it?
It's unfair for you to require a single lie when everything you post has threads upon threads of interwoven lies.

>I've posted several. Where's the lie?
You just lied about posting a single sentence in a quote that contains more than one sentence.

>>14671195
>The argument was already given to you.
Not an argument.

>Thanks for admitting
Thanks for admitting you're a retard. \post

>>14669780
t. offended person demanding people suffer your dumbass opinions.

>>14671183
>You have no argument to argue against.
True.

>I did, that's how I know you're wrong.
You can't even read your own article you keep posting. You're illiterate and you lie.

>The argument was immediately after what you quoted.
No argument was posted anywhere.

>You have no response
False.

>so thanks for admitting
Thanks for admitting you're a retard. \post

>>14671236
>i was obviously implying i'm a professor who is regularly on students' committees for defenses
How did you become a professor when you aren't even literate?

>if it's not a confidence band, then say what it is.
It says what it is right at the bottom of the image. Type out what it says to prove you understand English.

>anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of statistics can look at that graph, and see that from the description in the legend, it's the band enveloping all the models used.
You said it's the error range for temperature anomaly, not models. The temperature anomaly is the black line. lmao

>>14671263
Amazing, even with more detail you still can't read the image. It says the black line is the temperature anomaly. The red and blue bands are not error ranges for the temperature anomaly, they are models for different forcings.

>>14669335
Theoretically, could I study "climate science" on a tenure track without lying about how retarded climate science is? I bet they'd kick me out :::(

>>14669335
it's made up

>>14669335
>What is the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change?
It is bullshit.

>>14669335
>scientific consensus
There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus"; science is not determined by consensus.

>>14671328
>Not an argument.
You gave no argument to argue against.

>In your own post.
Where?

>Thanks for admitting you're wrong.
I didn't, you just showed you didn't even know what claim you were defending.

>Thanks for admitting you're wrong.
I didn't, I asked you a question you apparently can't answer.

>Nope.
Then you admit I'm right.

>I agree that >>14669829 is not an argument.
It is, you still haven't responded to the proof humans are causing the increase in CO2.

>Read the thread.
I did, you lied.

>Because I don't disagree with anything written the article.
Then you agree the CO2 increase is caused by man. Why did you argue against it?

>It's unfair for you to require a single lie when everything you post has threads upon threads of interwoven lies.
That doesn't follow. You can't show any lies at all. Your next post will just be more excuses.

>You just lied about posting a single sentence in a quote that contains more than one sentence.
No, I said I've posted several sentences. Where's the lie?

>>14671337
>Not an argument.
The argument was already given to you. You have no response. You lost, and your shitposts don't matter.

>>14671346
>You can't even read your own article you keep posting.
I read it when it came out. Are you ever going to respond to it?

>You're illiterate and you lie.
Prove it. (You never will)

>No argument was posted anywhere.
Lie. It's right here >>14670804

>According to your own graph, carbon spiked during interglacial warming as expected 10000 years ago and then spiked again to an even higher level when it shouldn't have.
>We are currently warming about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming, when we should be slowly cooling according to the natural cycle.

>False.
Then where's the response?

>>14671861
>There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus"
Wrong.

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

>science is not determined by consensus.
Everything you know about science is a consensus, except for the ones you deny because it's convenient for you to do so. You're no different from a flat earther or a creationist.

Productively bored climate

>>14671861
>There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus"; science is not determined by consensus.

Very true.

To date there is no compelling evidence to suggest climate change might be in any way influenced by mankind and his emissions.

I see the correlation isn't causation schizo has returned

>>14672007
Spamming "correlation is not causation" and rejecting scientific proof is not questioning, it's retardation

>>14672333
>>14672334
Nobody has present scientific proof. Climate alarmists have played toward several fallacies that in no way prove carbon is connected to temperature in a causal fashion, nor that the current cycle is deviating from where it ought to be. Consensus is not science. Correlation is not causation.

>>14671861
>There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus"
Literal midwit-argument

>>14671425
They'd kick you out for other things.

>>14671241
That's incorrect.

>>14671435
False.

>>14672347
Posting science shills funded by big clean energy won't help your case.

>>14670482
no war in europe yet
but trump was tearing up nato & doing his ukraine blackmailing shit which both made russia trigger happy
so, thanks trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

>>14672355
Proof?

>>14672355

>>14672375

>>14672355
Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry.

>>14672369
It's been proven in this thread.
>>14672375
Not an argument.
>>14672385
That's incorrect. The kind of 'scientists' that do fraudulent research for big clean energy are the ones who could never make it in the real energy industry.

>>14672391
>It's been proven in this thread.
It's also been proven in this thread that your mother is a whore.

>>14672347
~95% are always wrong.

>>14672398
>still no proof

>>14672397
That's incorrect and offensive. I have treated you with respect and I would urge you to reciprocate this common courtesy. Even if we might disagree about the proven lack of evidence for man made climate change, there is no need to make the discussion an ugly and personal affair.

>>14672409
It is only offensive if you judge sex workers.

>>14672413
That's incorrect. The term 'wh*re' is a near universally derogatory term designed to insult, belittle and offend.

>>14672417
No. Whore is historically used neutrally, and today even proudly used as a self-description. Ask your mother what she calls her work. Hooker, on the other hand is always derogatory.

Itt: We show why you can't talk about anything serious on this website. I hate myself wasting this much time on these threads even tho I know nothing constrctive will happen. Just shillbots arguing. You guys are a disgrace to science

>>14672430
The question was answered in the first comment already.

>>14672405
Not a proof of consensus being such that global warming is a hoax, but an explanation of why I think that consensus is always full of shit.

>>14672445
>the Earth revolves around then Sun.
You mean just as the manufactured consensus tells us? NASA gets more money if the cattle believe the earth is not the centre of the universe.

>>14672430
>shillbots
That is not a real thing. You are discussing an issue which has no bearing on the real world, much like the theory of climate change (a much debunked and often laughed about conspiracy theory).

>>14672355
Professors of equity and gender studies are full time busy with shilling.

>>14672338
This graph seems to be made for more than one reason. What are those dots?

>>14672452
>much debunked
Prove it

>>14672451
>You mean just as the manufactured consensus tells us?
What was it telling to us for centuries?
What about big bang hoax everybody "agrees" upon?
> NASA gets more money if the cattle believe the earth is not the centre of the universe.
There's no centre. And never was. But you're taught to believe the consensus, because it harms abrahamic narrative less.

>>14672462
Read the literature on the topic. Read this thread. Disrobe oneself of ones biases and preconceived notions about the fossil fuel sectors. Embrace an egoless universe and consider the ramifications of a world without reliable affordable energy.

>>14672467
>What was it telling to us for centuries?
They've been telling us for millennia that the four bodily fluids are the cause of every disease and the cure.

>>14672468
The literature says that fossil fuels are causing global warming. Fuck off.

By the way, what's the bump limit on /sci/?

>>14672469
Exactly my point.

>>14672470
That's incorrect.

>>14672470
>The literature says
If you think that you should believe the literature, you don't belong in science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dvUVuwcxg

>>14672474
>Not that literature! You have to read Pertol Pete!
Fuck off, retard.

>>14672479
>If you can read you don't belong in science

>>14672479
See
>>14672468
>Read the literature on the topic

>>14672479
>oh no , reading
no surprise here

>>14672483
> I can read!
It's not enough, nigger.

>>14672480
That is offensive.
>>14672485
The literature is clear in its explanation; natural climate change cycles are responsible for the vast majority of temperature changes.

>>14672490
Nonsense. Fuck off, retard.

>>14672485
I don't always believe what I read, because those who speak against global warming conspiracy look trust-worthy with lots of details, while those alarmist climatologists always look like professional pastors, and always use non-scientific argumentation, such as "all the scientists agree" which is not only false, but also irrelevant (but mostly blank rhethoric) and are very vague on actually argumenting their position and never counter the denialists' critique.
The program promoted by politicians (and some politicians, look at their faces, it's all in there) are probably retarded just as they are. And as immoral as taxation (which is technically racketeering, compulsory service) while if the clerks could just fuck off, those guys with money would take care of the planet simply because they would actually go into reading science for themselves because it's their own money they would be spending on something they would be worried about, so the motive of stealing millions by corrupt funds and schemes would be less of an issue.
Global-warming-proponents are distracting public attention from actual ecologic issues, such as deforestation and toxic wastes thrown into environment here and there (CO2 is not even one of those toxic wastes, but it is one of those gases every one of us exhales, so as one anon jocked "you're the carbon they want to get rid of"))

>>14672497
Show some respect.

>>14672486
it's not enough, nigger, not enough. You have to always question what you read if you want to be a true scientist.

>>14672500
Nonsense.

>>14672502
Fuck off, retard.

>>14672509
>Nonsense
It doesn't make sense.. to you.

>>14672511
Right, because it's nonsense.

>>14672512
Because you're scientifically illiterate.

>>14672512
What nonsense? Why don't climatologists debate the dissidents? Why do they prefer to censor them?

>>14672514
Wrong. Read any paper on climate change.

>>14672515
Your ignorance is not equivalent to scientific scrutiny.

>>14672488
>racism
Cringe

>>14672520
Answer the question, faggot.

>>14672532
I did, retard.

>>14672535
It was not a scientific answer. Not that you would know the difference. Refute what this great man tells: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

>>14672538
No. See
>>14672520

>>14672538
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Te5al2APrQ

>>14672532
>homophobia
Cringe

>>14672531
>>14672558
You haven't seen my antisemitism yet.

>>14672547
> controlled opposition
Where's a debate with those who call them out for being pseudoscientists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxE

>>14672562

Schizos are so funny.
First they claim that Earth has gotten hotter before all on its own, and yet they cannot point out why that has happened.
Massive continuous eruptions? sure, but how about now?
Dncreased solar activity? sure, but how about now?
depleted atmospheric protections? sure, but how about NOW?

The Earth doesn't get warmer for no fucking reason. The only anomalous thing happening to us is man made CO2 emissions. Either find another observable cause or fuck off

>>14672676
>The Earth doesn't get warmer for no fucking reason.
The Earth doesn't get warmer. Period.
It is adressed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM&t=348s (5:48)
> The only anomalous thing happening to us is man made CO2 emissions.
You're delirious. Deforestation and toxic waste are way more anomalous than us burning gas instead of wood.
Whatever are the apocalyptic prediction you may have, they go under umbrella of solutions we have we need to work out to preserve ourselves from much more cataclysmic events: meteors and wars (because if biotech indeed delivers rejuvenation, for many cautious people the probability of those events approaches zero with much larger certainty than your shady pilpul.

>>14672702
>the probability of those events approaches zero
"the probability of those events approaches one" I was going to say, but then maybe I believe that cautious people will be able to survive even those events, because they've been working on solutions for decades or some of them already have them. As they say "future is here, it's just not equally distributed" (and it's a good thing, because that is how things always come)

>>14672702
>Deforestation and toxic waste are way more anomalous than us burning gas instead of wood.
How exactly does toxicity affect the energy balance of our planet?

>>14672702
>doesn't get warmer
sure bud

How come there is no proof that climate change is real?

>>14672816
0/10 lazy troll attempt. You gotta work to earn your 50 cents.

>>14672324
Wrong. See >>14669637

>>14672336
You're lying. Evidence was given abs you have no response. See >>14669637 and >>14670804

>>14672346
Proof?

>>14672391
>It's been proven in this thread.
Where?

>>14672473
>he believes the current consensus against the four humours
What a gullible retard. Everyone knows the consensus is always wrong.

>>14672490
>If you think that you should believe the literature, you don't belong in science.
>The literature is clear in its explanation
You're contradicting yourself.

>natural climate change cycles are responsible for the vast majority of temperature changes.
Can you provide any literature that says this? Because direct observations say the opposite: >>14669637

>>14672538
>Refute what this great man tells
OK.

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

>>14672702
>The Earth doesn't get warmer.
Wrong. Not going to even bother reading the rest of your cap when you're this delusional.

>>14673034
Wrong.

>>14671932
>You gave no argument to argue against.
Doesn't matter.

>Where?
Read the thread.

>I didn't,
Not an argument.

>you just showed you didn't even know what claim you were defending.
Thanks for admitting you lie.

>I didn't,
Not an argument.

>I asked you a question you apparently can't answer.
Thanks for admitting you can't read.

>Then you admit I'm right
Thanks for admitting you're a retard.

>It is,
Not an argument.

>you still haven't responded to the proof humans are causing the increase in CO2.
Read the thread.

>I did,
Not an argument.

>you lied.
You lied.

>Then you agree the CO2 increase is caused by man.
Not an argument.

>Why did you argue against it?
Why did you lie about reading the irrevlevant paper you didn't read?

>That doesn't follow.
It does.

You can't show any lies at all.
Every post you've made is a web of lies.

>Your next post will just be more excuses.
Example A of your lies.

No, I said I've posted several sentences.
Example B of your lies.

Where's the lie?
See examples A and B and thanks for admitting you're both wrong and a liar.

>>14673225
What a great post.

>>14673174
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting the Earth has gotten warmer.

>>14673225
>Doesn't matter.
It does, you have no argument.

>Thanks for admitting you lie.
I didn't, you just showed you didn't even know what claim you were defending.

>Not an argument.
The argument follows directly after what you quoted. You can't answer the question.

>Read the thread.
I did, that's how I know you still haven't resolved to the proof humans are causing the CO2 increase.

>Not an argument.
You gave no argument to argue against, you just said you agreed with the article.

>Why did you lie about reading the irrevlevant paper you didn't read?
There is no irrelevant paper. There is a paper that shows CO2 is the primary cause of current warming, which I read when it came out and is highly relevant.

>It does.
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting it doesn't follow.

>Every post you've made is a web of lies.
Prove it. (You can't)

>Example A of your lies.
You proved its not a lie by just posting a bunch of excuses and not showing a single lie.

>Example B of your lies.
Not a lie. Proof:

>>Post a single sentence
>I've posted several.

Your pathetic shitposts don't matter. You lost.

>>14673851
>It does,
Not an argument.

>you have no argument.
Doesn't matter.

>I didn't,
Not an argument.

>you just showed you didn't even know what claim you were defending.
Thanks for admitting you lie.

>The argument follows directly after what you quoted.
Thanks for admitting you have no argument.

>You can't answer the question.
Not a question, why do you lie about everything?

>I did,
Not an argument.

>that's how I know you still haven't resolved to the proof humans are causing the CO2 increase.
Thanks for admitting you can't read.

>You gave no argument to argue against,
This is the only group of words in your entire post that doesn't express a lie.

>There is no irrelevant paper.
Thanks for admitting you didn't read your own irrelevant paper.

>There is a paper that shows CO2 is the primary cause of current warming, which I read when it came out and is highly relevant.
Not an argument.

>Not an argument. Thanks for admitting it doesn't follow.
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting it follows.

>Prove it. (You can't)
>You proved its not a lie by just posting a bunch of excuses and not showing a single lie.
>Not a lie. Proof:
>Your pathetic shitposts don't matter.
Thanks for providing more lies to prove me right.

>You lost.
Thanks for admitting you lost.

>>14673881
>Thanks for admitting you lie.
I didn't, you just showed you didn't even know what claim you were defending.

>Thanks for admitting you have no argument.
I didn't, The argument follows directly after what you quoted. Lying piece of shit.

>Not a question
The question was "Then why are you defending it?"

>Thanks for admitting you can't read.
There's nothing to read, you didn't respond to the article.

>This is the only group of words in your entire post that doesn't express a lie.
Thanks for admitting humans are causing the CO2 increase.

>Thanks for admitting you didn't read your own irrelevant paper.
There is no irrelevant paper. There is a paper that shows CO2 is the primary cause of current warming, which I read when it came out and is highly relevant.

>Not an argument.
You gave no argument to argue against.

>Thanks for providing more lies to prove me right.
You can't show any lies, as I predicted. Thanks for proving me right, again.

>>14673932
>I didn't,
Not an argument.

>you just showed you didn't even know what claim you were defending.
Thanks for admitting you lie.

>I didn't,
Not an argument.

>The argument follows directly after what you quoted.
Thanks for admitting you have no argument.

>Lying piece of shit.
Temper, temper.

>The question was "Then why are you defending it?"
Defending what, the irrelevant paper you linked to but didn't read? I'm defending it because the paper itself makes perfect sense. It's not the paper's fault you didn't read the paper.

>Thanks for admitting humans are causing the CO2 increase.
Thanks for admitting you can't read.

>There is no irrelevant paper.
Thanks for admitting you didn't read your own irrelevant paper.

>There is a paper that shows CO2 is the primary cause of current warming, which I read when it came out and is highly relevant.
Not an argument.

>You can't show any lies,
Exhibit A of your lies.

>as I predicted.
Thanks for falsifying your own prediction per Exhibit A.

>Thanks for proving me right, again.
Thanks for admitting you lost, again.

>>14672338
>people with a vested interest in maintaining the prestige of "climate science" and continuing to receive lavish government grants are unlikely to alienate themselves from all their peers and admit that they were wrong
Shocking. Also, it doesn't matter if 100% of climate "scientists" agree that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is real; that still does not make "consensus" a component of the scientific method.

>>14671950
>Everything you know about science is a consensus
Funny how the only time I hear about this alleged "scientific consensus" is when leftoids are trying to push their flimsy theories like global warming, evolution, or that vaccines are "safe and effective."

>>14674725
>Funny how the only time I hear about this
No one cares what you hear about or don't hear about.

>>14674701
>that still does not make "consensus" a component of the scientific method.
It's a result of the scientific method, dumb /pol/tard.

>>14673979
>Defending what
Thanks for confirming you don't even know what you're arguing about.

>Not an argument.
It is, you have no response.

>Exhibit A of your lies.
You prove it true with every post, so how is it a lie?