/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14820743
Aint that the thing that you got blown out on just few days ago where the list is filled with dead people, car salesmen and unrelated middle managers?

>>14820757
>“Looking at the list of signatories, there are a lot of engineers, medical doctors, and petroleum geologists and almost no actual climate scientists,” said Zeke Hausfather, a longtime research scientist at Berkeley Earth, a non-partisan nonprofit that specializes in analyzing climate data, and the former director of climate and energy programs at the Breakthrough Institute, another independent environmental research firm.
>In fact, Ivar Giaever, who has been promoted as a kind of poster child for the declaration in what some believe is meant to give it credibility, won his Nobel with another scientist in 1973 for their discovery of electron tunneling in superconductors, not for anything remotely related to the study of global warming.

>>14820763
Yes, I just looked at the archives it was what I thought it was
Here's the best of the best they name first, everyone else is even less relevant or more dead.

>1. solid state physicist, born 1929
>2. "is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry, and as a professor" - i shit you not, born 1940
>3. retired physicist, born 1936
>4. retired geophysicist (seismology), terminated for islamophobic blog posts, didn't find his age, but graduated in 1967
>lawyer and ex-politician, born 1940
>wine industry leader and politician, born 1928 died 2022
>the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition coal industry group
>Another dead guy (1948-2022), philosopher
>JENS MORTON HANSEN (born 1947, he's young) Professor for natural philosophy lmao
> LÁSZIÓ SZARKA
>Actually has a typo in his name, it's LASZLO, not laszio. Born in 1953, what a baby. He's not even 70. also, historian

>>14820769
not a denier or anything but
>OLD SCIENTISTS BAD
yawn
also the dead ones you posted died in 2022 while the book was published in 2021 and probably was written before that so I don't know what you're trying to say other than old bad or old stupid or something

>>14820743
>adaptation works whatever the causes are
Not true. Humans are good at adapting to cold, you just add layers and you're fine.
It's much harder to adapt to extreme heat, with not much choice other than spending massive amounts of energy on air conditioning

>>14820775
It's perfectly valid reasoning to counter appeal to authority by pointing out that the "authority" in fact has no authority on the subject. When the argument is that here's a list of people who agree then seeing what those people are is very important, anyone can round up some geriatrics, give em fancy tittles and put them on a list but doesn't mean their opinions are worth anything. None of them have any expertise on the field so why should their opinion matter unless you are some kind scientist worshiper and in that case there are lot more scientists on the other side so you lose anyhow.

>>14820783
>It's perfectly valid reasoning to counter appeal to authority by pointing out that the "authority" in fact has no authority on the subject
>None of them have any expertise on the field

I mean yeah your argument is valid but you can say the same thing for the other side, for example when Al Gore spread scientific inaccuracies (and lies) in his documentary and if I remember correctly some of the scientists involved in the documentary didn't have a lot of expertise on the subject
The best thing you can do is trying to gather as much informations as you can on both sides and make your own opinion I guess but not a lot of people do that
Following a consensus is very appealing but I think we should keep in mind that most people (including scientists) at one point believe that the Sun orbited around the Earth and just because they were a majority doesn't mean they were right

pardon my esl grammar

>>14820783
so what you're saying is that you didn't approach the topic objectively, but that you instead decided to try and disprove it without considering the nature and quality of the content because you're only concern on this topic is its political implications and that you are a political partisan with no objective interest in science or nature whatsoever, your only interest in is creating arguments which justify your selfish political goals and that you've come to /sci/ from /pol/ to turn every topic into a political argument because, once again, you have no objective interest in learning the truth, you only want to try and control and manipulate others in order to achieve entirely self centered goals.

>>14820806
>but you can say the same thing for the other side
But you can't because you can actually link the papers they have made on the subject on the other side. I challenge you to post a single climate change article of the top 10 members named here.

>Al Gore
Isn't a scientist, but feel free to link his papers on the subject where he made these claims.

>gather as much informations as you can on both sides
So can you link their papers then? Because name dropping them isn't a valid argument and doesn't make them a valid "side"

>>14820818
Feel free to link their papers if you want an objective review of their ideas.

>>14820743
those fucking names. thanks for the laugh, mate.

>>14820783
>>14820775
Also old people soon to die no matter what they say and think have less incentive to care for the future of the planet; in theory they would burn down every Forrest and kill every other kid if it meant they could afford a few more rich weeks of life on earth

I still don't understand the motivation for people to deny climate change

>>14820838
Oil, coal, lack of freedom (being told what you can and can't do, by leftist liberals, no less), don't mind pollution, don't care or think about anything

>>14820835
It's also very bad form to use a dead persons name on what is a glorified signature list because those people can't be reached anymore for comment, it's like having dead people vote, sure they might have held beliefs that support party X but not only can you not confirm that but also their opinion is irrelevant being dead and all. Not to mention when you get a name from someone on their death bed it's not exactly most reliable, like I said I bet I could in few days gather 1000 names for pretty much anything just by touring retirement homes.

>>14820838
It's pretty evident if you actually look where most of these "scientists" are getting their money from. I mean it's filled with oil and coal industry experts.

>>14820743
>Over 1,100 of the most respected named in science
Half of them isn't even in science, and none of them has any clue about climatology. As >>14820769 pointed out, there are some literal fossil fuel shills and almost every single one of them is a fossil themselves.

>>14820743
>no goy, dumping CO2 is actually beneficial!

please

The six points plus commentary from the archives:

>The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are expe riencing a period of warming.
Moronic because the little ice age wasn't global and they can't even list a single natural cause and its impact.
>The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
They don't say which prediction, so it's hard to prove.
>Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
None of them has ever built a model. That's the equivalent of my dad yelling at the TV that he'd play better football than whoever is placing.
>CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Strawman argument. No one doubts this.
>There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2mitigation measures are as damag ing as they are costly.
Muh moneyz, also I only believe you once it's too late
>There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
That's not even a point.

>>14820743
>whatever the causes are.
How can they seriously claim to be climate experts if they're not even offering an alternative explanation to the very obvious climate fluctuations/warming we've observed even in the past 5 years? They obviously acknowledge that some form of mitigation to the increasing droughts and such is needed, but where they acknowledge the droughts nowhere do they say why they're happening, it's like some kind of mental block.

>>14820743
Globohomo propaganda is no science.
We have had enough of COVID "science".

>>14820743
cool but this doesn't really need to be posted, everyone already knows climate alarmism is bullshit

>>14820917
>How can they seriously claim to be climate experts
That's the joke: they don't even, and shills like OP suck it up nevertheless.

>>14820917
>>14821029
I certainly believe in climate change and protecting the environment is one of my primary political concerns, but in order to dispute or even falsify a claim, there is not need to propose an alternative explanation. You can provide counter-evidence to or counter-argument without taking a position yourself. One does not logically follow from the other. In order to dispute creationism, you don't need to propose modern biology as an alternative, for instance. There were many atheists and skeptics throughout history, even before the emergence of modern science. They were able to dispute religious claims, without being able to offer modern science as an alternative. You see the same thing all the time. Even in scholarly literature. You can critique someone else's theory without offering one of your own. This is especially true, for example, in controversial subjects like consciousness research. Dan Dennett, for instance, often criticizes other proposed "theories" of consciousness without himself offering one. You can have criticisms of other people's knowledge claims without claiming to know everything yourself.

>>14820838
Its rooted in death denial, just scaled up a little bit. Being subject to our environment and the possibility of an uninhabitable planet challenges a lot people right in their comfort zones.

>>14820743
>THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
The emergency is the public is tired of the scam and not buying it anymore, so the rich 1% elite are in a panic their go-to scare tactic is not working now.

>>14821662
belief in global warming is the same as any other "end of the world" doom mythology, the believers are drawn in by their own narcissistic messiah complex tendencies. the people who feel content with producing nothing of value to anyone, but who also want to feel as if they're doing good in the world are all happy to screech about any old cause as long as it makes them look good, they'll never lift a finger to do anything about any real issues, but if you want them to screech for virtue signaling points then they're willing and able, because they're not tied down doing anything of genuine value or importance. where would greta be if she couldn't cry and moan about global warming? she never even graduated high school and she is too ugly to marry

>>14821690
>belief in global warming is the same as any other "end of the world" doom mythology, the believers are drawn in by their own narcissistic messiah complex tendencies. the people who feel content with producing nothing of value to anyone, but who also want to feel as if they're doing good in the world are all happy to screech about any old cause as long as it makes them look good, they'll never lift a finger to do anything about any real issues, but if you want them to screech for virtue signaling points then they're willing and able
thread/

>>14820743
Climate emergency or not, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that all those dirty gases which come from fossil fuels being in the air and all the plastic trash we have being on the ground and strewn around nature is not something desirable.

It doesn't matter if there's a climate emergency or not to me because either way I'm still going to recycle, properly dispose of trash and refrain from emitting pollutants when I can.

>>14822295
the air quality where i live is just fine, i'd rather scientist stop incessantly creating lies and false pretenses in order to demand soience gibes "for mother nature", i'd rather have the soience faggots do something of legitimate value to earn their exorbitant salaries instead of endlessly relying on manipulative greedy lies to justify getting money.
plastic recycling came to a halt half a decade ago, nobody wants to buy our plastic waste anymore, overseas shipping became too expensive and there are no domestic facilities to do the job, air pollution laws make domestic plastic recycling economically unfeasible, it all goes to the landfills these days. still have to pay the recycling fees to get your garbage collected, tho.

>>14822295
cool. btw you owe shlomo $5m in green taxes and you will be eating bugs from now on

>>14822335
If paying all those taxes means I don't have to worry about getting smoker's lung in the future from all the smog that will build up without any dedicated efforts to prevent it from happening, then I'm fine with paying more and even if I did have something against the handling of these environmental funds, that wouldn't stop me from recycling when I can and not throwing trash on the fucking sidewalk.

>>14821667
>actual pronouncements
>not a single source
You fossil fuel shills are barely trying anymore. What's wrong, did the carbon tax lead to budget cuts?

>>14821690
>belief in global warming is the same as any other "end of the world" doom mythology
Because you say so? It's not the end of the world in the sense that no single human will survive, but it will suck big time. And unlike "other end of the world" mythologies, it's scientifically proven and preventable.

>>14822392
No, because it's the same as it always was in the past. Millenarians and 1970s Global Ice Age proponents had the same dogmas. The modern warming cult was instructed in colleges by the cooling cult of the 70s, and the next cult will be instructed by Michael Mann and his ilk.

>>14822521
That is objectively wrong and sounds psychotic.
Are you aware that "perhaps the earth could cool" was nowhere nearly as strong of a consensus as global warming? Are you aware that we can measure the warming and rising sealevels for many years now, while "could happen" was never measured? You can see global warming with your own eyes if you look at glaciers. How can you think this is a cult?

global warming is fake

>>14822541
A robot posted this.

>>14822532
>Are you aware that we can measure the warming and rising sealevels for many years now
Pure lies

>>14822551
Denial is a really unhealthy coping mechanism.

>>14822551
How do you cope with plots like this? "It ain't happening" or "it ain't us"? Or are you already at "it's us but we can't do anything about it anymore"?

>>14820769
>JENS MORTON HANSEN (born 1947, he's young) Professor for natural philosophy lmao
While the list is indeed full of irrelevant people, 'natural philosophy' is just an old-fashioned word for science. Hansen worked as a geologist, mostly working on micro-fossils, including their use as proxies for past climate reconstruction. He's one of the more relevant people on the list.

Thanks OP. Of course the media didn’t even talk about this here

>>14822602
What value do you see in their points?

global warming is fake

>>14822557
>b-b-but muh lines and dots on a jpeg
anyone can put lines and dots on a jpeg, lines and dots on a jpeg are not meaningful in any way

>>14822557
Posting images without any explanation won't instill me with fear. Extra water in the desert? OK. In the rainforest? OK. 6 cm rise? Where? I can not see that at the beach where I go for vacation every year.

>>14822555
In the early 20th century those glaciers were gone, then re-emerged by the 70s. Stop coping.

>>14820743
> CO2 is plant food
Such an NPC statement, literally everybody knows this. But the real world is more complex then "muh plant food". Your entire post has been discarded without being read due to this single statement.

>>14822614
So you're still at "I don't understand it so it's fake". An IQ of 120 should be necessary to vote in order to filter out people like you.

>>14822675
That is a lie and you know it.
>>14822636
>6 cm rise? Where? I can not see that
Is that what your first girlfriend said? But seriously, you don't see 3.2mm per year, but you can measure it:
https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/maritime_atlas/#lang=EN;p=w;bkgd=5;theme=128:0.8;c=-370267.75941552967,6456059.780637495;z=2

>>14822611
Oh look, it's this shit again, only this time even uglier. Seriously, back in 1998 I've made better graphics for school. I count 11 different font styles. But okay, we're not here to criticize what you did with that graph, but the actual message you're trying to convey with it.
First of all, Hubert Lamb died in 1997, so I don't think that this graph was published like this by him, especially not in 1990 when it clearly extends beyond the year 2000.
Let's look at the IPCC version:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
It's figure 7.1c, and in contrast to your sketch it doesn't contain a temperature scale. So where did that actually come from?
Luckily, this graph has been posted so much by denialists that people have made the effort to look into that. PDFrel comes to the conclusion
>In summary, we show that the curve used by IPCC (1990) was locally representative (nominally of Central England) and not global, and was referred to at the time with the word ‘schematic’.
Others who have looked into it:
https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=60&&n=185

Then a few more remarks:
>is now proven fraud
Proven how? Because you say so? That's not how it works.
>The recent court judgement in Canada in which Michael Mann lost his libel against Tim Ball for refusing...
That's completely wild. It has nothing to do with providing evidence to a court. He didn't lose. Tim Ball's lawyer motioned the court to dismiss the case. The judge agreed that too long was taken and so the case was dismissed without judgement. The judge made no ruling on the validity of either person's case.
Just like the rest of your picture, this statement is 90% made up with a true core of 10% that's misrepresented. Can you deniers really not come up with a single point that is not based on lies?

>>14822736
So you're still at "I don't understand it so it's fake". An IQ of 120 should be necessary to vote in order to filter out people like you.

>>14823100
Explain to me how it's fake. Ideally try to explain observations that might seemingly disagree with your explanation.

co2 is brain poison, but i suppose that's not a huge concern to retards anyway

MOON-HOAXIN',
LEAD-SUPPLEMENTIN',
HORSEPASTE-EATIN',
COLLOIDAL SILVER-DRINKIN',
BALL-SUNBATHIN',
VINEGAR-SIPPIN',
CLIMATE CHANGE-DENYIN',
RAW MILK-SNORTIN',
SISTER-FUCKIN',
SPACE-IS-FAKIN',
CRYSTAL-HEALIN'
FLATTARD RETARDS

>>14822675
>In the early 20th century those glaciers were gone, then re-emerged by the 70s. Stop coping.
That's why leftists keep trying to erase history and rewrite it. Ministry of Truth

>>14821690
>>14821667
>>14821662
>>14820917

Actual Earth Scientist here. Let me explain some history for you people. Yes, there were some papers in the 1970s claiming an ice age may be imminent. This was caused by something called 'Global Dimming'. There were two known polluting factors occurring at the same time throughout the 20th century that could cause the climate to change. Particulates in the atmosphere which lower temperature and gases in the atmosphere which raise temperature. Both were well known to scientists of the 20th century. The argument was which one would outpace the other.

Particulate matter, in other words soot, is primarily from burning coal and wood. It stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, sometimes even years, and reflects sunlight. Ever see images from Los Angeles in the 1960s? Or many parts of China today? You can hardly see the sun. If this process continued it could seriously lower global temperature. However two things happened.

1. There was an international effort to lower particulate matter in the atmosphere. First, there was the EPA in the United States which was created in the 1970s and one of their main goals was to reduce airborne pollution. Second, Sweden sued England for pollution in international court. Their argument was that England's industrial pollution was killing trees in Scandinavia. They were right. England and many other European countries vowed to reduce airborne pollution.
2. We moved away from coal powered and toward petroleum powered electrical plants. While both coal and petroleum add CO2, coal is the primary cause of particulate matter in the atmosphere. This particulate matter is the primary cause of global dimming.

So the debate in the 70s was not whether CO2 could cause climate change nor whether humans could cause climate change. It was which side would win out. Most scientists agreed that CO2 would be the dominant climate pollutant and that we would have global warming however a handful of climate scientists did argue for the case of dimming

>>14824212
So stop with the conspiracy shit that science doesn't know anything or can't make up their mind. They are scientists, they make predictions, check data, then reform their predictions. The prediction that the climate would rise because of CO2 eventually won out because the evidence has been clear. The prediction that the climate would lower has died out because the evidence against it is clear. Stop posting bullshit you hardly understand.

>>14824217
>prediction that the climate would rise because of CO2 eventually won out because the evidence has been clear.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA no. Now go pray to your cult religion in an attempt to fill whatever void is in your life.

>>14821667
ftfy

>>14824226
It's directly observed: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14824234
>whiterose.ac.uk
KEK! You think that is a legit source? Go read the Sun and tabloids if that is your level of "science".

>>14824230
wow, that is just sad and pathetic. you have no life eh mate?

I don't see how anyone can be concerned over inanimate chemicals in the air when Harambe was shot dead by racists six years ago and there still has been no justice delivered.

>>14824248
Didn't they have riots about that a couple years ago in Wisconsin and Oregon?

there was a video on youtube, i don't know if it has been scrubbed, it was titled "climate change debunked in 5 minutes" or something close to that. It was one guy, black hair i think, he basically said about the roman warm period and this data was missing from the data sets they use.
It had millions of views.
I can't find it anywhere now, does anyone else remember it. can anyone find it / link it here?

>>14824248
>inanimate chemicals
Micro plastics are inanimate chemicals as are a lot of shit we worry about. Now inanimate yourself you bag of chemicals.

>>14824217
The originator of the cooling scam was the graduate advisor of Michael Mann, the originator of the warming scam. Does that not seem even slightly suspicious to you?

Does the fact that the hockey stick is a trade secret he refuses to reveal the data for not tickle your brain even slightly?

>>14824260
youtube would have scrubbed that video probably, since youtube is owned by the rich elite who are pushing "climate change" great reset scams.

>>14824261
if you don't care about harambe then you're a disgusting racist

>>14824265
I don't give 1 fucking shit. I follow the evidence and the evidence is beyond clear that man made climate change is real.

>>14824308
>I follow the evidence and the evidence is beyond clear that man made climate change is real.

>>14824308
You haven't seen any of the evidence yourself. You see papers made by useful idiots using data given to them by frauds.

>>14824247
>wow, that is just sad and pathetic.
Agreed, it's sad and pathetic that you keep posting a cartoon full of lies.

>>14824244
>KEK! You think that is a legit source?
Yes. What is wrong with it?

>>14824265
>Does the fact that the hockey stick is a trade secret he refuses to reveal the data for not tickle your brain even slightly?
Why do you lie? The data has been public for more than a decade:

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

>>14824491
So why did he fail in his lawsuit because he kept it hidden? If it was that easy to obtain all his sources, why would he refuse to disclose them and allow his suit against a "defamer" to be dismissed with prejudice?

>>14824495
>So why did he fail in his lawsuit because he kept it hidden?
Why do you think he kept it hidden? Because some blog told you so? LOL.

>If it was that easy to obtain all his sources, why would he refuse to disclose them
He didn't.

None of you can comprehend how badly climate change is stressing human civilization at this moment. The US agriculture industry is straight up getting destroyed by drought at the moment. It's literally just a year or two away from collapse. We're talking agricultural yields getting pushed back to the levels of the 1970s from farmers just giving up and destroying their fields.

The world is entering a long term economic depression from climate change, a sort of transition to permanent stunted growth or even negative growth.

I predict the most stressful period in human history will be in the next 3-4 years.

>>14824265
>the originator of the warming scam
Global warming has been predicted in the late 1800s, first been proven in 1942 by a German guy and widely accepted in the field in the late 1970s. Stop trying to construct such a personal story that it's all the doing of one twisted person or so. The guy you're so angry at published that graph people hate him for in 1999, over 100 years too late to be "the originator". If you look a little bit into the details, it gets so sad how this effect that's longer known than quantum physics or relativity is being doubted. Here's a picture from 1912, two years before world war 1 broke out. The year the titanic sank. The year the discovery of the South Pole was announced. Do people really think that some Canadian dude who's still alive is "the originator" of anything? Global warming has been known decades before the wright brothers experimented with heavier-than-air flight. I hope this gives you a perspective of just how crazy you sound. Darwin's theory of evolution and Freud's psychoanalysis are younger.

>a scapegoat for investing and profiting off refined tech
yeah, the market had to find something to dump its money in after the dot . com boom. now sheep are convinced they are part if the solution for following market trends when they purchase an electric car or install useless solar panels.

>>14824540
They'll claim it's not happening. Or that it's normal. That those who spent their lives in laboratories to understand what's going on are actually evil minions of whatever boogeyman wants them to eat bugs or drive a Prius. They are completely self-centred and in absolute denial. They literally eat up any lie that absolves them of their contribution to global warming. Insulate my house? Why when this Facebook post tells me that the originator of global warming (which was rebranded as climate change by George W. Bush because it "sounds less frightening") lost in court and therefore everything is not true?

>>14824631
What an odd thing to say when the solution to global warming is not more consoom but actually less? Who's this "the market" and why does it work against itself?

>>14824637
>solution to global warming is not more consoom but actually less? Who's this "the market" and why does it work against itself?
Global warming doesn't exist. It is a hoax to get money out of dumb people.
Now you understand the scam.

>>14824540
>None of you can comprehend how badly climate change is stressing human civilization at this moment.
KEK! Good! Fuck you and your "civilizations".

>>14824540
>I predict the most stressful period in human history will be in the next 3-4 years.
Excellent! Fuck your kind. You deserve to suffer.

>>14824481
>>KEK! You think that is a legit source?
>Yes. What is wrong with it?
^ Wow, stupidity on display. It doesn't even know what is wrong with its "source". KEK!

Just buy a Chinese battery powered car all you climate deniers! Sending money to China will solve evaythang!

>>14824685
How exactly do "they" get my money if I take my bicycle to work?

>>14824691
>a Chinese battery powered car
Isn't the most renowned brand American? Don't almost all European brands offer electric models? I've never seen a cubes car in the streets in Europe.

>>14820867
Greenhouses do it.

More like:

>No goy, we need to tax you for breathing!

>>14824694
all of those cars are made in china, exported and then they put the finishing touches on in the "domestically produced in europe/usa" destination location and then they call that a domestically produced vehicle.

>>14824694
>>a Chinese battery
>>14824694
>Isn't the most renowned brand American? Don't almost all European brands offer electric models? I've never seen a cubes car in the streets in Europe.

You even quoted the important part, yet failed to understand what you quoted. See, that is why you don't understand shit and how the world works. FFS there was even a picture of the African kid mining the precious metals for China's batteries that dominate the market. You are too dumb. KEK!

>>14824692
you can't afford to own a car because you've been ritually robbed of your income by a million and one savior complex schemers, thats why you're so jealous of people who own automobiles.
automobile owners are not the people who've been robbing you, they are forced to contribute to all the same swindles that you are.

>>14824692
>How exactly do "they" get my money if I take my bicycle to work?
work? Called Taxes. Inflation. Gov Spending. You must be a real retard. Go ride your tricycle to WalMart to round up carts and greet people.

>>14824700
That sounds like an American problem to me, European cars for the European market are produced in Europe.

Wait… does /sci/ actually believe the climate scam? Or are these just green shills??

>>14824703
I could though. I'm saving about 2k per month, that's more than plenty, especially if a car would replace my national train ticket which costs about half as much as a car (thus halving the additional cost I'd have to pay if I were to switch).
>thats why you're so jealous of people who own automobiles
But I'm not. I enjoy working, sleeping or shitposting on that one-hour train trip to my girlfriend that would take 1.5-2 hours by car.

>>14824709
>european is massively fragile and exquisitely image conscious
par for the course

>>14824706
>greeting people at Walmart
That's so fucking weird that Walmart went bankrupt here, but that's a different story. You do realise that this is /sci/ and I'm working as a scientist? I don't know why you think that non-scientists lurk here, but I have a feeling that you're actually not a scientist yourself.

>>14824724
non-scientists post here all the time
>t. former non scientist

>>14824724
>You do realise that this is /sci/ and I'm working as a scientist? I don't know why you think that non-scientists lurk here, but I have a feeling that you're actually not a scientist yourself.
cool starry brah

>>14824709
>European cars for the European market are produced in Europe.
Check the label on the battery retard. kek

>>14824741
>On noes, some things come from China
He wrote from his Chinese computer, typing on a Chinese keyboard, using his Chinese mouse to click "post" while his Chinese telephone rests in his pocket.

Also, my bicycle was made in Austria, not China. I don't even have an electric car.

>>14824756
> retard noises and now lost from the topic due to retardation.

>>14824773
>they rob you
I'm not missing anything
>you can't afford it
I can
>it's Chinese
I don't own it
>well... in that case you're a stoopidman. I did it, sisters! I won! Global warming isn't real!

>>14824777
>cope
>cope
>moar cope
the calling card of your kind

>>14820763
>"Looking at the list of signatories, there are a lot of very smart people and almost no people who sip on the kool aid for a living"

fixed

>>14823140
>HORSEPASTE-EATIN'
used it once as a kid for worms
>VINEGAR-SIPPIN'
vinegar tastes good in sauces
>RAW MILK-SNORTIN'
i buy raw milk from my farmer's market; it tastes better that way

>>14824717
Shills mostly.

>>14824540
>The US agriculture industry is straight up getting destroyed by drought at the moment. It's literally just a year or two away from collapse. We're talking agricultural yields getting pushed back to the levels of the 1970s from farmers just giving up and destroying their fields.
Lest you forget, your demented leader started a war with the superpower that makes nearly half the world's fertilizer. So no shit farmers are being hit hard, but it's not due to the climate.

>>14824844
>but it's not due to the climate.
No, it's definitely due to the climate.

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/05/crops-climate-drought-food/
I'm sorry it's behind a paywall, but there really is no other more comprehensive and unbiased news source than the WP.

>lake Powell at historic lows
>lake Mead too
>50% of crops in some places got followed this year (meaning they got left to wither because farmers couldn't get enough water)
>massive cattle sell offs in Cali and other states due to lack of water
Shit's fucked yo. You though the recent food inflation was bad? It's about to get much, much worse. Like unbelievably bad next year as this autumn's harvest comes in. Farming in Texas, Cali and the southwest was already unsustainable due to auquifur depletion, but this is on an entirely different level. Instead of agriculture slowly tapering off in these places, it's just an abrupt drought, which doesnt give time for the market to react.

>>14824844
He said US, not Russian.

>>14824844
>>14824869
Also I already know you're going to meme quote something like:
>WP
>Unbiased
/pol/ tards are so predictable. Literally just google "US drought" and click any article and the US megadrought we've been having for the past 3 years will become immediately apparent. The lake Powell water cut deadline passed without any US state taking a firm stance on water conservation, so in all likelihood states like Arizona, NM, socal, and most of Texas will probably be abandoned within the decade due to lack of water.

>>14824878
>>>/pol/

>>14824690
So there's nothing wrong with it. Why did you lie?

>>14824685
>Global warming doesn't exist
Lie.

>>14824624
>Do people really think that some Canadian dude who's still alive is "the originator" of anything?
Anon, people think Al Gore invented global warming.

>>14824844
>>>started the war

Anon i dont think thats how it went

>>14825322
I mean, people think that beer bottles can start forest fires, urine is sterile, and that the common cold is caused by cold air rather than viruses. I hate people so much.

>>14820763
>>In fact, Ivar Giaever, who has been promoted as a kind of poster child for the declaration in what some believe is meant to give it credibility, won his Nobel with another scientist in 1973 for their discovery of electron tunneling in superconductors, not for anything remotely related to the study of global warming.
Meanwhile, the climate boss used to be a railway engineer who had to leave thanks to "problematic" relationship with women.

>>14825308

>1 degree in 160 years
>after a period that was known as a Little Ice Age

>>14820769
Cicsero is the premier Norwegian climate research organisation, behold:
https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees
Pretty heavy on telephone sanitisers, let us look at the researchers:

https://cicero.oslo.no/no/om-oss/ansatte/125/ane-nordlie-johansen
She has one MRI paper:
https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/2441154?locale-attribute=no

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/133/anders-tonnesen
>human geographer

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/110/anne-sophie-daloz
More relevant

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/22/anton-orlov
>Interests: climate and energy policy, economic impacts of climate change, and economic modelling

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/14/asbjorn-torvanger
>I am an economist studying climate economics and policy, focusing on energy and climate.
Another economist.

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/152/ben-sanderson
>Can we achieve the Paris Agreement? How do we represent known unknowns in climate models? What is the cost of failure?
Looks like politics

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/113/birthe-marie-steensen
Sparse profile, considering she is a senior researcher

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/24/bjorn-hallvard-samset
>Regular newspaper columnist and science commentator, Norwegian media. Previously worked on particle physcis, with the ATLAS collaboration at CERN and the BRAHMS collaboration at RHIC. PhD in Nuclear Physics, University of Oslo (2006).
The complaints about Giaever are getting hilarious.

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/50/bob-van-oort
>Bob is a biologist working across the natural and social sciences.
I am not making this up.

https://cicero.oslo.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees/25/borgar-aamaas
Only the second one that may be relevant

I ran out of space. This is hysterical.

>>14826229

So, a warming tangent for the past 20,000 years or so. Because we've been exiting an ice age... ice on the polar caps isn't "normal".

>>14824927
>I have no response
>the post

>>14826238
>ice on the polar caps isn't "normal".
Says who?

>>14826496
You do realise that the data for the ice ages as well as the warm periods comes from ice cores? As in: the ice was also ice between the ice ages.

>>14826506
Meant for >>14826238

>>14824844
>Lest you forget, your demented leader started a war with the superpower that makes nearly half the world's fertilizer. So no shit farmers are being hit hard, but it's not due to the climate.
We got a bingo!
Food shortages and population reduction and decline are part of the WEF's "Great Reset" plan.

Climate Change is a scam to enrich themselves while pursuing those goals.

>>14826496
>>ice on the polar caps isn't "normal".
>Says who?
4.6 Billion years of Earth History. Ice caps have only existed for less than .1% of that time.

>>14826579
1/10th of 1 percent would = 46 million years. Polar Ice has not been around even that long. More like 1/100th of 1 percent. .01%

>>14826223
>durr 1 degree small!
It usually takes thousands of years for the climate to warm 1 degree, moron.

>after a period that was known as a Little Ice Age
So you think the Little Ice Age was cooling of 1 degree and this is just the rebound? Because that's false. Do you even have a point?

>>14826675
Modern times like shit done fast yo! We aintz got no time to be waiting for shit! Climate cults been predicting the end of the world for a century now. We ready for zombies!

>>14826238
>So, a warming tangent for the past 20,000 years or so
That's called interglacial warming. It ended about 10,000 years ago and was much slower than current warming.

>Because we've been exiting an ice age
No, there's still ice at the poles. Interglacial warming occurs within ice ages, it doesn't take us out of them.

>ice on the polar caps isn't "normal".
Ah I forgot you're not human, you're some other species that existed millions of years ago and wants to return to your preferred climate. No thanks.

>>14826675
>It usually takes thousands of years for the climate to warm 1 degree, moron.
The Medieval Warm Period warmed the earth 5 degrees and it started and ended in only a couple hundred.

Kinda seems like you're just uneducated.

>>14826579
And how long have humans existed? Since we're not "normal" I guess it doesn't matter what happens to us. It's that what you wanted to say?

>>14826688
>>14826691
The poles were nearly ice-free within recorded history. Greenland was temperate.

>>14826506
>As in: the ice was also ice between the ice ages.
No, you're talking about glacial periods. The current ice age has lasted 2.5 million years.

>>14826686
This is the intellectual level of your typical climate change denier.

>>14826689
>The Medieval Warm Period warmed the earth 5 degrees
LOL, no. See >>14826675

>Kinda seems like you're just uneducated.
Amazing projection.

>>14826699
>racist remarks

>>14826693
>The poles were nearly ice-free within recorded history.
Wrong.

>Greenland was temperate.
You're taking about the Medieval warming period, correct? That occurred in the North Atlantic region, not at the poles. It's not even noticeable globally, unlike current warming.

>>14826704
I'm not particularly interested in your hockey stick fraud. I look at actual data from people who haven't had Retraction Watch articles written about them.

>>14826699
>>14826704
>>14826705
Worthless talentless college kiddies shut the fuck and don't disappoint your professors and do your homework.

>>14826574

>>14826710
>I'm not particularly interested in your hockey stick fraud.
Then I'm not particularly interested in your claims that not only have no data to support them, but actively ignore data. Thanks for admitting you lied.

>I look at actual data from people who haven't had Retraction Watch articles written about them.
You've probably only looked at cherrypicked examples that don't represent global climate, and you aren't even aware of the source of the reconstruction I posted if you think there are Retraction Watch articles about them. This should be entertaining.

>>14826711
Thanks for proving my point: >>14826699

>>14826574
>>14826712

It's cool here, +6°C. Not even warming.

>>14826579
Humans aren't normal either then. And polar ice has been around for much longer than humans.

>>14826693
>Greenland was temperate.
We have ice cores from Greenland. How is that possible when Greenland was temperate?

>>14826688
>was much slower than current warming.
I'm not sure that's true. A lot of the long term climate change graphs you see are smoothed, so they obscure the fact that, prior to the Holocene, there are a lot of sudden jumps and drops in temperature. At least locally in Europe, the transition into the Bolling interstadial in Europe 15,000 years ago seems to have involved temperatures rising several degrees in a few decades.

>>14827568
Anon apparently thinks that if it was warm enough to grow cabbages on the southern top of Greenland, there was almost no ice at the poles.

>>14827730
Especially since pointing out one particular location is an extremely poor indicator for global climate.

Every species which is unable to adapt to changing climates goes extinct, it has always been that way.

>>14827736
Every civilisation that overexploited its environment went extinct.

>>14827743
the rappa nui are still around to this day

>>14827743
Wrong. Most civilizations just migrate to a new environment.

>>14827716
>A lot of the long term climate change graphs you see are smoothed
Reconstructions of the last interglacial have resolutions less than a century. If there was a warming spike similar to current warming, smoothing would not remove it.

>so they obscure the fact that, prior to the Holocene, there are a lot of sudden jumps and drops in temperature
How do you know this is a fact if the reconstructions don't show it?

>At least locally in Europe
Non sequitur. We're talking about global temperature.

>>14828145
>How do you know this is a fact if the reconstructions don't show it?
They do, it depends which reconstruction you're looking at. Pic related is based on the Greenland ice core records.

>>14828187
That's Greenland temperature, not global.

>>14820769
>retired geophysicist (seismology), terminated for islamophobic blog posts
based

>>14825308
That's a model. There is no average temperature that can rise or fall. Similar to someone building the average between his deep-freezer an the cooking plates.

Further the scale is grossly manipulative. The total scale of earths temperature is about 160° (-80°C to +80°C) . Please rescale if you want to be taken serious.

A little more: Your "killer gas is a trace gas". 0.04% with nearly 100% spectral overlap with water vaper which is 100times more in atmosphere.

Climate church licks ass of power. Nearly everone has a brown halo around their mouth. Over here they have to take back a so called temperature record of all times because environment has changed (new street which heats sourrounding up. The did a 2 years after big newspaper promotion, in a sideline nearly nobody reads.

Before covid i trusted "science" as long as a rat can spit. Now I know they are not only parasites thei'r pests.

>>14828784
>There is no average temperature that can rise or fall.
Are you actually retarded?
>Similar to someone building the average between his deep-freezer an the cooking plates.
Yeah, if both rise by 10°, the average also rises. If one rises by 1° and the other by 3°, the average rises by 2° (assuming, they are the same size, which is less clearly defined than with the surface of the Earth).
>nearly 100% spectral overlap with water vaper
>vaper
kys. But also, that's wrong and/or misleading. If you look at the change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996, you see that the part in the CO2 spectrum that does not overlap clearly shows a difference.

>>14828784
>That's a model.
I suppose if you want to be pedantic, everything in science is a model since we don't experience anything directly. It's a spacial average of temperatures measured across the world.

>There is no average temperature that can rise or fall.
There are thermometers all over the world that measure local temperature. Agreed? We can average these temperatures over the surface of the Earth to get the average surface temperature and this can rise and fall over time. What do you mean there's no average temperature?

>Similar to someone building the average between his deep-freezer an the cooking plates.
OK, and what's wrong with that?

>Further the scale is grossly manipulative.
How so?

>The total scale of earths temperature is about 160° (-80°C to +80°C) .
Over what time frame? Certainly not the time frame of the instrumental record.

>A little more: Your "killer gas is a trace gas".
OK, and? The amount of other stuff in the atmosphere has little to do with the greenhouse effect from CO2.

>0.04% with nearly 100% spectral overlap with water vaper
Overlapping except for the part causing the warming, yes. Why does the rest matter?

>which is 100times more in atmosphere.
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by temperature. So it reacts to changes in temperature as a feedback loop, it isn't a radiative forcing. All you're doing is telling me how much water vapor amplifies the warming from CO2. Thanks?

>Over here they have to take back a so called temperature record of all times because environment has changed (new street which heats sourrounding up.
So you think making sure your temperature record represents changes in climate and not changes to the thermometer's location is bad? I don't get it.

>>14824217
>they make predictions
which use shoddy data and have never been right, not even close to being right. Computer scientist here, you people are too retarded and corrupt to make an accurate model

>>14828944
>which use shoddy data
Such as?

>have never been right
Why are you lying? Pic related.

>>14828944
>opinion
Opinions don't matter, facts do.

>>14828944
>The paper made a sensational claim, reported the Daily Mail this past weekend,
Aaaand in the trash it goes.

>>14828944
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science

>>14828987
This can stay.

>>14828966

>>14829000
>68 Model simulations from 13 models
Just written in red and bold. No notion which models, which assumptions etc. Also, no source.

>>14829000
https://www.nature com/articles s41558 -022-01313-9 (stupid spam filter)

>>14820763
>dude only people whose income and careers are dependent on less than honest science are allowed to be honest about the science they are paid to do

>>14829111
>dude trust those people who have no clue about it more than those who dedicate their life to that kind of research

>>14829000
Cherrypicked data.

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2021/04/no-global-warming-is-not-50-of-what.html?m=1

>>14829168
>Cherrypicked data.
>t. Michael mann's
psychological projection, just because you're willing to be dishonest and lie outright about this topic doesn't mean that the rest of us are.

>>14829184
What did I lie about? Read the article, it's all there. Your substanceless post indicates we've reached the limit of your intellectual ability.

>>14829184
Can you state a source for >>14829000 ?

You are responding to a bot, stop that.

>>14829273
The source is Roy Spencer, he frequently misrepresents climate science.

>>14829489

>>14829701
Wow, what a cogent counterargument. See >>14829168

bump

>>14829701
Is that a picture of Roy?

oh no!!! the planet is dying!!!!

>>14820763
>be climate scientist
>want to publish research showing individual failings of climate models, predictions, and the popular consensus
>receive no grant funding
>can no longer afford to be climate scientist
why does this happen

>>14820838
There is concern that anthropogenic global warming is little more than the Malthusian hoax with a new coat of paint. The end result of this worldview is a more authoritarian or even totalitarian existence where power and wealth and income inequalities between the general public and the top 0.01% increase even further and faster than the usual operation of capitalist forces has achieved today.

>>14820763
>health issues can be explained with climate change to further strengthen the narrative but medical doctors can't respond against it

>>14820763
>petroleum engineers can't reply against peak oil even though it's one of the basis of tthe climate change narrative because SCIENCE

>>14832459
>>want to publish research showing individual failings of climate models, predictions, and the popular consensus
>>receive no grant funding
I see the problem, you write out your conclusion in your grant proposal before actually doing the research to show it.

>>14828987
>>14828979
>>14828972
>>14828966
lmao @ this pseud seethe

>>14820769
>terminated for islamophobic blog posts
Based?

>>14820859
Ricardo Felicio is a climatologist and speaks against the narrative though

>>14832498
Isn't he the guy who thinks the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?

>>14832498
>Felício contesta o aquecimento global e por isso é considerado um negacionista climático.[10][11][12][13][14] Ele também é um aliado do agronegócio brasileiro, participando ativamente de eventos patrocinados por empresas e associações de ruralistas.[15][16]
Translation:
>he's a global warming denier and a corporate shill
>As polêmicas que desperta se devem ao fato de que para a comunidade científica os argumentos que ele defende não refletem ou distorcem os dados coletados em múltiplas pesquisas, contradizem leis básicas da física e são uma expressão do movimento de negacionismo climático, considerado uma pseudociência[39] e um conjunto de ideologias e crenças que se opõem ao conhecimento estabelecido pelo consenso dos especialistas nas ciências do clima.[40][41][42][43]
His schizobabble contradicts basic laws of physics :^)

>>14820743
How can I increase CO2 and my own carbon footprint?

>>14833053
Be rich. Be powerful. Fly on your private jet to climate conferences.