/sci/ - Science & Math

and most importantly, if it is true should people really care? are the consequences really that bad?

>>15273279
Why don't we just ban co2?

>>15273279
yes, it's real
the reasons it's pushed are partially because people don't want the world to end up like a shitty copy of venus while everyone dies, and partially because it means rich assholes can push for funding, tax breaks, etc for whatever their fake do nothing initiative is.
if everyone got on board about actually reversing damage we'd be planting trees fucking everywhere, rushing to reduce personal vehicle usage for mass transit, swapping as much of our power generation infrastructure to nuclear as fast as we can, and researching more efficient carbon recapturing methods. unfortunately, that would cost money and reduce income of wealthy people who have extreme control over society and national objectives, and they don't want that, so instead we diddle our thumbs and huff and puff about carbon tax credits and shit

>>15273405
well an increase of 2C doesnt seem that bad, I dont care if some places get slightly hotter and the sea rises some cm

>>15273364
Given that it is being taxed, it will not be banned. What country ever banned something they were earning billions in taxes from?

Daily reminder to ignore AGW threads. The more you seethe and reply, the more these "people" get paid.

>>15273429
2C is global average.
3/4 of globe is sea, which is cooler, so land areas will go way more than 2C.
places like north america will end up 8C warmer

>>15273279
It's real and we caused it willingly. Fuck this gay planet and everything that lives on it.

>>15273279
It's not real but I fucking wish it was. For my entire fucking life (40 years, yeah...) they've been promising me that by year Now+5 winter would be warm and snow-free. Well here I am decades later and Summer 2022 wasn't any hotter than any other year, Winter 2023 was just as fucking cold, all those killer hurricanes and tornados and blizzards never happened, Al Gore's fake satellite maps with half of Florida underwater never fucking happened, and all the billionaires are still flying between their oceanfront properties on their private jets telling me how I'm the problem. If I thought I could turn the thermostat up on the planet just by buying a big SUV and all it would cost was some polar bears and coral reefs then I fucking would in a second, but that's clearly not how shit actually works.

On a semi-related note, the same scam artists also told me killer bees would try and eat my face but it'd be okay because it would've already melted off from acid rain. None of that shit ever happened either.

(Below this line: some zoomer who literally hasn't lived long enough to realize it's all a scam starts spamming charts to try and convince me I didn't just spend the last three months exactly as cold and miserable as every other winter in my fucking life)
------------------------------------------------

>>15273279
So far as we can tell. Global temperatures have been increasing at an accelerating rate, and decades-to-centuries patterns of weather (i.e. climate) have been changing. No other model proposed (e.g. solar & orbital) adequately explains or predicts these changes, so the observed increase in CO2 bearing the isotopic signature of fossil fuel consumption and the greenhouse effect remain our best explanation. As for shilled fixes, it varies depending on the group. Scientists typically propose decent fixes like (the original version of) carbon credits, that costs in the externality to the market and allows the market to organically seek an efficient solution. Politicians are constrained by game theory to produce less useful solutions: anything effective (i.e. pricing out fossil fuels) will earn ire because people will think the problem was never real, and anything ineffective will earn ire (but at a much later date) for not having prevented disaster. Since there is easy money and political wins to be made in the short term with do-nothing actions like banning straws and taxing bags, they will be liable to do that. Nuclear is stuck because incumbents don't want to lose profits and the public have been spooked by flashy disasters. Self-declared environmentalist groups typically lack a coherent vision and advocate for retarded things. The WEF are opportunists who see a dying man and salivate at all the ways they can extort him.
>Maybe it’s not black and white, in that case which parts are true and which aren’t?
The popular media reporting only loosely coincides with the climate science, which is why shills tend to post headlines instead of contextualised quotes and papers. Many things you might have heard may be either false (non-climate scientists giving predictions), miscommunicated (tipping points being a doomsday), or given inappropriate significance (cold-fusion-tier contentious papers). The IPCC is good enough for world leaders, and good enough for you.

>>15273716
>The IPCC is good enough for world leaders, and good enough for you.
Who the hell even types a sentence like this? "World leaders" - more generally politicians of any description - are the single least trustworthy class of people on planet earth including marketing executives and literal psychopaths.

>>15273723
>Who the hell even types a sentence like this?
Nonsentient normalniggers who got 4 shots and glowshills.

>>15273716
>headlines instead of contextualised quotes and papers. Many things you might have heard may be either false (non-climate scientists giving predictions), miscommunicated (tipping points being a doomsday), or given inappropriate significance (cold-fusion-tier contentious papers).
So you're saying there's a massive disinformation problem in climate journalism and activism? I wonder when governments and social media will start cracking down on irrational climate alarmism.

i live in Milan italt fuck god fuck italy fuck the mator faggot

this retard banned all cars under a given euro classification for pollution from circulation in "area B" aka all of fucking Milan and all of the fucking periphery of it, I cant go to work, I can even go to the fucking train station to go to work because its inside too, so I should take a bus then 2 trains then another bus and take 2 hours when in car it takes 40 mins max, so much for muh public transport, spoiler it sucks shit.
I'm looking for all ways to evade this retarded shit and thinking of what I could concretely do to fight it institutionally and make them change the rule, retards did protests, as if they are of any use waving cardboard.

new cars are expensive as shit, and even if you can afford them lead times are high, used cars are expensive too since alot of old ones are outlawed too and there's been a rise in demand due to new cars being so expensive, so you will pay 5k for a piece of shit with 200k km on it

>>15273429
Other anon covered temperature (although his wording is kinda sus, the gist is right), so I'll do sea level. The threat with sea level is that there's a lot of ice on land that is at risk of collapsing, because the way it melts fucks up the structural stability and causes it to crumble instead of doing the polite thing. When (not if, sadly) the ice sheet collapses, it will seriously increase the ocean's volume. Unless tectonic movements keep pace to deepen the sea (possible, happens right now but very slowly), the volume increase will lead to a rise in sea level of about a meter per century IIRC. That's enough to cause many billions in property damage and cause mass migration even within the continental US. The meter per century thing is a median estimate less than a solid prediction (we're learning as we go!). Indeed, we've been very fortunate with the arctic because we've found the way it looses mass preferentially retains extent, so its effect on global albedo has lasted a lot longer than feared. Maybe the ice sheets will keep it together much better than we estimate, and the full 60m of ocean locked up in ice will take a very long time to release. Nevertheless, it would have been better if we never gave ourselves this problem, because even if it takes a long time in the best case, it WILL happen until the temperature is brought down.

>>15273279
As someone that studied Meteorology in college and sat down to read proper research on it...
Yes climate change is 100% real, but also incredibly overblown and exagerrated by most mainstream media.

Human development did increase carbon emmissions and other gases that lead to a thicker atmosphere that holds the heat in our planet longer.

Climate change means the extremes get worse, cold gets colder, hot gets hotter, etc because the global climate is a fluid that is always trying to balance itself, so it keeps swinging from hot to cold, with the swing being less "noticeable" closer to the equator.

BUT the immediate changes wouldn't be as big of a problem if countries just used some of that production they harnessed through burning that carbon emitting fuel to create a more robust infra-structure or adapt to the new changing climate. Humans can adapt really well to changes and as long as we add some "clean" energy, at least for the common consumer level, we'll stabilize on the next few decades.

BUT BUT that would require proper planning, resource allocations, it doesn't take in account that most factories and industries aren't producing stuff that is "good" for the whole population, so the pro/con balance isn't that great, etc.

Climate change is an issue that could be perfectly solved with just appropriate management of emission and more investment in enery research. Hell, if we figure out nuclear fusion as we seem to be getting closer to, all this problem will become moot.

Bottom line, the reason why some countries and people are so hardlined in favor or against it is because anything that gets political ends up becoming radicalized one way or the other because any resource spent on preventing climate change are resources people may judge to be better used for other things and then it becomes a competition and a fight, which leads to people exagerating in both sides to make their side have better chances of "winning".

>>15273776
ok but if you need to reduce emissions why not use nuclear to produce electricity instead of retarded renewables like solar or wind that are very situational and can be used only in some countries, but even countries that aren't suited to use them still for it, and why shill electric cars when they still use electricity produced with polluting electricity generation?
why ban cars that are older and more polluting and create a massive problem for alot or people to gain a microscopic improvement?
why not instead use economic incentives in a non retarded way and tax externalities and maybe subsidize investment in research for tech that either helps reduce emissions from economic processes or absorb existing emissions? (while instead the retards in the government here in Italy gave gibs of like 200k to remake your house bc muh energy efficient homes and people refitted their homes for free, or give gibs to buy electric cars and fucking bicycles and electric scooters)

>>15273723
It used less characters than my first draft with "world governments". But that's besides the point; you're right. They're scum unfit for the job. Nevertheless, we generally afford them the best tools if only by virtue of their position, not character. Well respected scientists are better to advise these idiots than randoms. The IPCC is the climate scientific community's tard wranglers - observe the difference between their reports to scientists and their reports intended for politicians! There's no more authoritative source of findings and proposals.

>>15273754
When they start cracking down on all the other misinfo they perpetuate. It's on record that the mainstream press lies or misleads on about everything, and from both """sides""". Fox and CNN are both liars. That said, I find it unlikely this will ever happen (arguably a net good). Free speech is to be protected, and it would be potentially dystopian if news organisations were forbidden from reporting their choice of public statements and valid publications or making honest mistakes. You're salty about Covid, but it was far from the Orwellian nightmare a real crackdown would be like. Facebook and Google's actions were voluntary, and Fox was very happily pushing the antivaxx side. Hell, a real crackdown would have punished CNN and its ilk for their very many mistakes! Regardless, it lends one no credibility to pull their arguments from journalists instead of journals.

>>15273755
What would you have suggested he do instead? The writing has been on the wall for decades, and plenty of vehicles have been made in that period with emissions targets in mind.

>>15273788
Those are political issues, not scientific ones. I know Italy government also sucks on general, so I can't help you with that. Decisions about how to develop a nation's power grid is beyond my knowledge as a non-graduated meteorologist.

>>15273791
>Nevertheless, we generally afford them the best tools if only by virtue of their position
It's truly mindboggling that a human being can still form this thought. Maybe 60-70 years ago that would have been a deeply misguided and native but human thought. With everything we know now, this is drone drivel. You have no spark of humanity.

>>15273791
>What would you have suggested he do instead
nothing

>>15273795
well ok most are political but what about electric cars?
they dont seem so environmentally friendly as they say

also why do businesses and the news shill for this stuff? like what it ernest do the news have to make alarmist claims and shill climate change? and why do businesses put all those stupid labels on their stuff? do people really care about those?

>>15273709
>they've been promising
Who? Specifically.
>all those killer hurricanes and tornados and blizzards never happened
But they literally have? They've been getting more frequent and intense IIRC.
>Al Gore's fake satellite maps with half of Florida underwater never fucking happened
All I find on this is that he said it would be "in the near future". I think 100 years is near for that kind of madness, but ymmv.
>telling me how I'm the problem.
>I'm upset because rich people want to shift the blame so they can profit even more
No shit.
>the same scam artists also told me killer bees would try and eat my face
And they have - there's been a fair number of deaths attributed to them, and pic rel implies there is a good bit of room for that number to grow.
>acid rain.
Was a problem that actually got solved for once. Unlike CC, it doesn't have much inertia. Putting catalytic converters in all cars and other exhaust systems pretty much eliminated the responsible emissions. There's still a few areas that experience the phenomenon, but they're in Europe IIRC. Also, you were never in danger of having your face melted off. What put that fool idea into your head? Lemon juice is more than acidic enough to wreck havoc on forests and stonework, but you wouldn't consider this acid dangerous.
>it's all a scam
Always that word...
>starts spamming charts
This is /sci/.

>>15273798
Usually when talking about carbon emissions, we talk about overall carbon emission from production to the product's time of use.

Both a fossil fueled car and a electric car will require factories to be built to make them and the amount of power used in industry mostly required to burn fuel to make.

>Factory production+ fossil fuel car = Emissions when you make the car and when the car is used
>Factory production + electric car = Emissions only when making the car.

So the overall carbon emission is still lower with an electric car if the car's electricity comes from a clean power source, like from solar panels or hydro power.

The reason why the "shilling" is increasing it's because of zoomers noticing that issue and getting worried because if climate change gets worse, they'll be the ones fucked over by it and the perception that boomers are fucking everything up and we got a generational fight prone for exploiting by everybody, from media to companies selling themselves as being enviroment friendly.

>>15273796
Conspiracy theories belong on >>>/x/

>>15273797
So the correct response to an impending catastrophe that will very severely impact your part of the world is to do nothing? Or are you saying that he should act in ways counter to his beliefs, evidence, and responsibilities because it doesn't fit your specific worldview? Also nice name. It suits you.

>>15273825
Conspiracy denial belongs on corporate platforms.

>>15273825
>So the correct response to an impending catastrophe that will very severely impact your part of the world is to do nothing?
we can prevent the impending catastrophe by using extreme violence against green shills

>>15273828
Falsifiable model with evidence or GTFO. Neither the evidence nor the game theory bear out a global conspiracy.

>>15273831
Power fantasies belong on >>>/pol/

>>15273836
Conspiracy denialism is a known and documented clinical mental illness. Back to your corporate platform.

>>15273813
>>Factory production+ fossil fuel car = Emissions when you make the car and when the car is used
>>Factory production + electric car = Emissions only when making the car.
the electric car uses electricity which produces emissions when generated, dont be dishonest
>zoomers noticing that issue and getting worried because if climate change gets worse, they'll be the ones fucked over by it and the perception that boomers are fucking everything up and we got a generational fight
reddit tier post
btw young people who are concerned with climate change are 99% either normies that repeat things they heard online on Instagram without being able to articulate their argument, or the same thing but leftists that buy in on the package deal of their ideology, so they also care about vegetarianism, inclusion, discrimination etc

>>15273840
>Conspiracy denialism is a known and documented clinical mental illness. Back to your corporate platform.
this. conspiracy denialism has no place on 4chan

>>15273840
Falsifiable model with evidence or GTFO. This is the standard for scientific knowledge. Go to >>>/x/ or >>>/pol/ if you want people to "listen and believe".

>>15273825
>So the correct response to an impending catastrophe that will very severely impact your part of the world is to do nothing? Or are you saying that he should act in ways counter to his beliefs, evidence, and responsibilities because it doesn't fit your specific worldview?
you speak exactly in the way the "shills" you put in quotes speak, hyperbolically and demeaning of those who aren't completely aligned with you, I say he shouldn't have done anything because this measure will do extremely little for reducing pollution, in a country that itself is a microscopic contributor to emissions, while creating a massive cost for this very small benefit

>>15273855
Falsifiable model with evidence for what? I'm not making any claims about the climate. I'm just reminding you that your government-issued political narrative doesn't belong here.

>>15273847
Anon, I just added the caveat about where the electricity comes from right below that part.

And your point doesn't disprove mybpoint about the younger generation being thr main impetus for the increase of climate change as a mainstream topic. Even if they don't know the specifics, they are the ones pushing the topic.

Stop being a reactionary retard, fucktard.

>>15273847
>the electric car uses electricity which produces emissions when generated
NTA, but not in my part of the world or several others. Some places actually do provide green energy.

>>15273856
>I say he shouldn't have done anything because this measure will do extremely little for reducing pollution
You moved the goalpost. I was inviting you to suggest something that he could have done *instead*, perhaps a more effective measure, because I was interested in debating the merits or political possibility of the move. In general I agree politicians are inept and believe game theory forces them to pick mediocre solutions.
>in a country that itself is a microscopic contributor to emissions
This logic is misleading. Getting your products from countries that use polluting methods funds and perpetuates that pollution. Italy is a very rich, developed country. On paper, you guys are in a better position than Russia even before the sanctions. This is also a self-destructive stance. If everyone carves out exceptions for themselves, then no collective action can be taken. It's the prisoner's dilemma, the coordination problem. Everyone has to suck it up.
>while creating a massive cost for this very small benefit
You have a far superior public transport than my own country. Cheaper, more pervasive. When would the cost have been sufficiently small?

>>15273857
On your claim that "the best tools (IPCC)" are not "afforded to them (world governments)" "if only by virtue of their position". Or will you actually speak directly instead of slithering about?

>>15273890
>On your claim that "the best tools (IPCC)" are not "afforded to them (world governments)" "if only by virtue of their position".
I wasn't making any claim about it. You made that claim. I just noticed how profoundly delusional normalniggers like you are.

>>15273894
So if I said you were delusional in believing climate change is a hoax, I would not be claiming that climate change isn't a hoax? You said
>With everything we know now, this is drone drivel.
in the context of
>Maybe 60-70 years ago that would have been a deeply misguided and native (sic) but human thought.
for my claim that
>we generally afford them (world governments) the best tools (IPCC) if only by virtue of their position
If I have misread, it is only because you refuse to be forthright. For a (likely) /pol/tard, this is behaviour is very much the stereotype for Jews.

>>15273709
I'm the same age as you, anon. Winters are much milder now than they used to be, at least here in Europe.

>>15273890
I dont care I dont want to use public transportation, I want to use a car and go where I want not use government public shit that takes triple the time and sucks, while also having to pay for it after being taxed at 50%, and I dont propose anything to be done instead bc i dont want anything to be done, and it is true we buy stuff from other cunts that pollute and finance them but my point is that sanctions on stuff on our own soil do shit bc the pollution isn't happening here mainly

>>15273909
Don't care about your mentally ill drivel. Still waiting for a rational explanation of why government-funded, politically-motivated "science" should be taken at face value. Notice how you are foaming at the mouth right now trying to find a way out of this question.

>starting another denial thread after getting btfo on the other one

>>15273754
How about they focus of misinformation by the oil industry? You should get in that because if you’re shillings climate denial on 4chan for free it’s pretty sad

>>15273939
The "oil industry" doesn't exist. The energy sector has been funding green screeching for several decades.

>>15273941
I think he means american oil industry. The oil industry in most other countries, including the oil sheiks, have been working and researching green alternatives for a good while now.

>>15273941
Yo should really get new lines from them. They’ve been caught repeatedly spreading propaganda against observational evidence of climate change

>>15273947
>I think he means american oil industry.
It doesn't exist as an independent sector with its own interests. It's a subsector of the energy industry, owned by the same people who are pushing green scams and climate alarmism as they make enormous profits from carbon trading and other policies implemented thanks to their """environmental""" lobbyists.

>>15273953
Your entire reality is artificially constructed by the people you think you're standing up against. Hope someone puts you out of your misery soon.

>>15273954
>American companies don't have personal interests.
>Any industry in the planet is this monolith with a single decision
Whatever you say anon.

>>15273959
You think Blackrock cares about what happens to the oil industry? It's promoting corporate ESG and a million green scams while profiteering off of coal and oil.

>>15273958
>>15273954
All of the evidence of their money funding people like you is public record. Including silencing their own internal scientists who modeled anthropogenic warming.

>>15273963
Yup yup. No point in arguing then, you win.

>>15273969
You are mentally ill and delusional. Meanwhile the agenda is out in the open: the people you think you're standing up against publicly and openly fund climate hysteria and lobby for green scams.

>>15273963
>collection of /pol/ buzzwords
Ok dude

>>15273972
Glad you finally understand there's no point in arguing when your primitive mind is too simple and your knowledge is virtually nonexistent.

>>15273981
>ummmm ok m-m-m-my guy
Seethe harder while I continue to bludgeon you with reality.

>>15273976
>they’re funding policy and generating public distrust that ensures they ultimately are not held responsible or made to reduce emissions
Yeah sounds like them even if they cover it in greenwashed aesthetic.

>>15273993
>i am mentally ill
Ok. It's still true that the same people you think you're standing up against are funding climate hysteria, promoting useless green technologies and lobbying for green regulation scams. You are a pround enabler.

>>15273279
Yes it’s very real, observationally proven and quantified to be caused by increasing greenhouse forcing

>>15274002
Imagine being so subhuman you think people will miss the fact that you are OP.

>>15274005
>>15273996
Imagine if you actually didn’t stood out so much as being an oil industry shill who’s been posting nonstop denier thread ls for months using the same retarded claims.
They’ve been caught time and time again funding misinformation that ensures that they get to keep their profits

>>15274018
Imagine if you knew how to samefag properly. Imagine if you knew that everyone here knows you start these threads every day pretending to be different people.

>>15273914
>Still waiting for a rational explanation of why government-funded, politically-motivated "science" should be taken at face value.
You've literally not asked that question until now. And I do not claim this.
>government-funded
This is the norm in science, and there's plenty of privately funded research too. Some of the oldest was from oil companies themselves. Typically, research from companies is less trustworthy than from the public, but this should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If you're referring to the IPCC itself, it's a trust fund where member states contribute voluntarily. The budget is public. They're paid pennies (Heartland Institute, a literally who thinktank got about the same in funding) and everyone but the secretariat has what looks like a reasonable budget. The climate scientists could be earn the same batting for the other "team", so attributing monetary motivation for their reports is pretty weak.
>politically-motivated
If everything is political, then all action is politically motivated. Pithy tautologies aside, the consequences of global warming (famine, mass migration, property destruction) and the solutions (collective action) are necessarily political. The IPCC in particular doesn't perform original research, but collates the results of the field into an even-handed approximation of the "scientific consensus". You would need to accuse every climate scientist of being politically motivated, which would imply that either honest people don't become scientists, or only your bogeyman can into science. As shown earlier, the funding is out there for counter-narratives.
>face value
This is /sci/. Claims are evaluated on their merits. If you guys had a real argument, you'd be waving that around instead.

>>15273963
>promoting corporate ESG and a million green scams while profiteering off of coal and oil.
Doesn't this strike you as odd? It's as if companies have no coherent position beyond maximising revenue for shareholders.

>>15274024
Still waiting for a rational explanation of why government-funded, politically-motivated "science" should be taken at face value.

>>15273913
>I dont care I dont want to use public transportation
Then you should have bought a car that was forward-compliant, or found a less precarious situation. Everyone's had plenty of warning that this was going to happen.
>that takes triple the time
Yeah, I agree it sucks when public transport doesn't align well with your route.
>while also having to pay for it after being taxed at 50%
A quick search implies you likely make more than 100k€, and while your rate is higher than in my cunt (uk), you guys have better healthcare, schooling, public transport, and public works to justify the cost.
>that sanctions on stuff on our own soil do shit bc the pollution isn't happening here mainly
Yeah, that sucks when it's legitimately mistargeted. You guys have a better political system than us, so pitch a fit and get these changes in. Meloni's pretty based IIRC.

>>15274031
>Then you should have bought a car that was forward-compliant
He should buy a gun and wait until your handlers push too far so he can take part in what you have coming.

>>15274028
It should not be taken at face value. Who here is taking it at face value?

>>15274033
Wow you’re so edgy

>>15274036
>It should not be taken at face value
Okay. Then I am fully justified in rejecting all of your "evidence" on account of your admission that I have no reason to take any of it at face value.

>>15274042
>the empirical and observational data are fake because I say so :(
That’s a retarded flat earth tier argument

>>15274043
You just told me I don't have to take anything at face value. Now I'm supposed to just take some government-funded crony's say-so that his data and interpretation are valid?

>>15274031
public services in Italy are shit and taxes in Italy are mostly "hidden" and not shown on your monthly payment card or whatever it's called bc they're "payed by the employer" which doesnt mean shit, the thing the cost of labour is double the net income you receive, because there's 20% income tax, 10% pension tax, then another 20% pension tax "paid by the employer" then regional and communal tax that are approx 2 to 3%, then you pay taxes on the garbage collection services if you got a house, then you pay 50% taxes on gasoline, then you pay taxes on owning a car, then you pay 22% VAT

is it enough?

>>15274042
>I am fully justified in rejecting all of your "evidence"
>(because) I have no reason to take any of it at face value.
This doesn't follow.

>>15274046
Wong anon.

>>15274042
Do you have any arguments about methodology? Because otherwise you’re just spouting nonsense. The greenhouse effect is a measured intrinsic property of CO2 that has been directly measured to cause more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.

>>15274059
>>15274060
>being this mentally ill
how many jabs?

>>15274048
Then you should stop seething in a science board, join a political party and fight for lower taxes. You are just complaining about things we can't help with and are not even related to climate change at all.

>>15274072
Answer the question and don’t deflect

>>15274048
>public services in Italy
Are you in the south or something? I know people in Italy and their story is very different unless you're referring to the slow pace. As for the tax, that's all fairly typical of Europe? The only thing that looks exceptional is the 50% gas tax. My council tax looks very similar for collection and police etc. and I'm a rentcuck! Move to the states or light a fire under your politicians' ass if you honestly don't like this setup.

>>15274072
Accusing people of samefagging is both boring and mentally ill. Please tell me how your logic about rejecting things because you can't take them at face value follows.

>>15274088
The argument is that you will never be able to provide a rational argument for why I should believe anything your handlers shit out.

>>15274089
>tell me how your logic about rejecting things because you can't take them at face value follows.
If I don't know whether something is true or false, I can't rely on it. Are you literally subhuman?

>>15274093
>provide a rational argument for why I should believe anything
Read the papers. They ARE the rational argument for why you should believe them. That's the whole point.
>your handlers
Who?

>>15274099
See >>15274105 I guess. The point of the papers is to provide a way for you to determine whether you should tryst the conclusions of the authors. All the science is published in papers.

>>15274093
Answer the question. Do you have any arguments against any specific methodology? Because otherwise you might argue the earth is flat because you perceive it as such.

>>15274105
>>15274116
>muh papers
How do I know what they claim in the paper is true?

>>15274124
>measurements of a gas’s properties are fake because uuuuuuh

>>15274124
You read the paper and follow if the logic makes sense, if the citations they used are solid, if the numbers make sense, etc.

It's the whole point of the peer review process and why papers are published to the academic world, to be check and assessed.

>>15274139
>You read the paper and follow if the logic makes sense
Sorry, I'm not a climatology expert, so I can't verify if it actually makes sense or only appears to make sense. I also have no way to validate the data they present. So how do I know any of it is true?

>>15274141
>I can't verify if it actually makes sense or only appears to make sense
Ok, so then it's just the regular problem of trust. I trust the field in general because it doesn't make logical sense for them to lie, and as the most educated on the subject, theirs is most likely the correct assessment on topics related to climate. It also helps that the other "party" uses dishonest tactics which implies a weak confidence in their conclusions. To disclaim: I understand the fundamental science of the greenhouse effect and recognise some measurements (retreating glaciers, worse heat waves) as being trivially verifiable, so my confidence in the matter is two-fold.
>I also have no way to validate the data they present.
Data is gathered by many independent organisations from different nations. I can trust that it is unlikely that all these organisations are colluding to lie, and therefore I can trust any individual or novel measurement set if it is in agreement with the whole.

>>15274164
>I trust
I don't trust. Still waiting for you to give me any rational reason to become cattle like you.

>>15274176
We all trust. You trust the builders who made your home. You trust the water companies (bottle or tap!) that it's safe to drink. You trust the filter manufacturer if you're based enough to walk the schizo talk. You trust the scientists, manufacturers, and doctors of any medicine you've ever taken or given. You trust the electricians, engineers, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies that the electricity you interact with is safe as instructed. You trust the local farmer that the raw milk is correctly filtered, the cooking wisdom that parasites actually die. There's so much bloody trust in society, because society is the product OF trust - both informed and naive. In /pol/ish, high trust is white.

>>15274205
>you trust X therefore you should trust my handlers also
Fucking what? Still waiting for you to give me any rational reason to become cattle like you.

>>15273405
Basically this. You pretty much summarized my thoughts on it exactly. I hate how climate change has become this thing politicians/businessmen have decided we can only consume our way out of.

>>15274237
>I hate how climate change has become this thing politicians/businessmen
It was a political/business thing literally from day 1.

I used to think maybe there was a possibility we could peacefully transition to carbonless future, I was wrong. No I'm not saying "your car will be taken at gunpoint" to all the idiots who got that from that sentence.

No, humanity will strangle itself into nothingness from famine, water wars, natural disasters, diseases, etc. There will be no "energy transition", only a modern collapse. Sure it may not happen in the next year, or even the next decade, but it's clear that it will happen. It's becoming clear that the devil with climate change isnt the hotter temps alone, but all the black swan events it will create with extreme weather which negatively affect humanity. The destroyer of empires was never foreign armies, but extreme weather and pestilence, we know this. Sure, we're in an arms race with technology to mitigate the effects of drought and other events, but it's a losing battle. One day there will be a drought so long, a hurricane so intense that no amount of human tech can beat it. That will be the end.

>>15274266
Cool story. None of your doomsday prophecy will happen, but I wish it did, because your degenerate value system needs to fade from this world and the hordes of mindless cattle like you need to die.

Notice that at no point deniers actually talk about data and are rambling about cattle and being schizos

>>15274277
There is no relevant data, schizo. Your handlers pumping fake numbers doesn't prove anything.

>>15274237
>Still waiting for you to give me any rational reason to become cattle like you.
That is not what you originally asked. It was:
>The argument is that you will never be able to provide a rational argument for why I should believe anything your handlers shit out.
And assuming "your handlers" (you never specified who) means the IPCC, then the answer was already given: it's the papers themselves. That you are unable to parse them is your own problem. If you want to know why to trust the climate science when you can't verify yourself, I also already gave the answer: it makes no logical sense for them to lie. You did not dispute this, and instead implied one should not trust at all. I demonstrated how yes, you probably do actually trust quite a lot of people. You appear to accept this and go on to imply that climate scientists are exceptional. Now we are here. Question: why are climate scientists exceptional with regards to not being trustworthy? As for your question, I have no intention of making you cattle or like myself in the abstract. I just want to have fun teasing out these logic puzzles. I will also point out that so long as you pay taxes, you too probably fit the definition of cattle in your warped lexicon.

>>15274282
Can you show us some real numbers, then?

>>15274285
>the answer was already given: it's the papers themselves
You've already conceded I have no reason to assume whatever your shit papers say is true, except for trust. Still waiting for you to explain why I should trust your handlers.

>>15274288
I don't need to show you anything. I'm not the one making insane claims about climate doomsday.

>>15274285
>why are climate scientists exceptional with regards to not being trustworthy?
They're not "exceptional" in any way. Why should anyone trust government-funded cretins?

>>15274289
>You've already conceded I have no reason to assume whatever your shit papers say is true, except for trust.
Uh. You may not realize this but you've just admitted you don't know how to evaluate the relevant literature. You, uh... you sure showed him...?

>>15274300
>you've just admitted you don't know how to evaluate the relevant literature.
No one is in a position to "evaluate" it except for climate experts with access to independent data sources. Even if we pretend you are in such a position, it doesn't challenge my point in any way. I still have no reason to trust your papers.

>>15274309
>No one is in a position to "evaluate" it except for climate experts with access to independent data sources
Which are publicly available. From multiple nations. Even in numerous localities verifiable in contrast with hobbyists and so on. If you mean satellites that data has various conversions also available publicly if you want to check the logic and math behind validity checking. On and on it goes.
>Even if we pretend you are in such a position, it doesn't challenge my point in any way.
You are too. You just won't/can't do the work.
>I still have no reason to trust your papers.
If "a whole lot of millions more relevant people in the relevant field smarter than me have already checked it" is not a reason to "trust" (whatever that means) the results, you've got bigger problems. Namely narcissism.

>>15274314
>You just won't/can't do the work.
Same goes for you and the overwhelming majority of the population. Why should anyone trust your toilet papers?

>>15274316
>Same goes for you and the overwhelming majority of the population.
No, that does not go for me.
>Why should anyone trust your toilet papers?
Why do you trust your building isn't going to fall on your head? Same reason. Pretending otherwise is just special pleading.

>>15274319
>, that does not go for me.
It does go for you, despite your delusions of competence, which only diminish your credibility. In any case, it makes no difference to my point.

>Why do you trust your building isn't going to fall on your head? Same reason
What reason is that? Elaborate on that reason. Do you feel your blood pressure raising as you realize you can't answer this question?

>>15274325
>What reason is that? Elaborate on that reason. Do you feel your blood pressure raising as you realize you can't answer this question?
Given the point of the question was to prompt reflection on your part, given only you can answer that for yourself, no. It's going about how I expected.
>It does go for you, despite your delusions of competence
Someone's upset he can't do math.

>>15274334
So you can't explain what the reason is?

>>15274336
>So you can't explain what the reason is?

>>15274340
Notice how you and your retarded buddies are forced to keep alluding to some mysterious reason you can never spell out? Religious doomsday mongrels.

>>15274342
Ummm sweaty? You need to discover the power of faith within yourself. I was just inviting you to look inside. Do it before it's too late. The end is neigh!

>>15274342
>Notice how you and your retarded buddies are forced to keep alluding to some mysterious reason you can never spell out?
I'm pretty sure it's really obvious that I can't read your mind. Soooo....

>>15274350
I'm not asking you to read my mind, cretinous mongrel. Is the reason you trust your climate handlers the same reason you trust that your house won't collapse? Can you tell me what reason that is? Or is that kind of "reasoning" only applicable to me?

>>15274357
>Is the reason you trust your climate handlers the same reason you trust that your house won't collapse?
In effect, yes.
>Can you tell me what reason that is?
I assume you're currently trusting your indoor location for effectively the same reason that I am.

>>15274370
>I assume you're currently trusting your indoor location for effectively the same reason that I am.
Which is? Notice how easily I'm forcing you shit out dozens upon dozens of posts of deflection.

>all this shit
Wew, slow down lads. Let's keep the conversation quality.

>>15274289
We're circling. I gave you the reason you should trust the greater scientific community in absence of personal literacy right here:
>it makes no logical sense for them to lie
Do you wish to dispute this? Also, who are these handler people?

>>15274291
What's the insane claim? To put it in /pol/ish, but sides of the holocaust argument make prima-facie insane claims, yet /pol/ says you should trust them that it's a hoax because they've got the numbers & maths. Here, you expect to be believed because your normalcy bias (ironic for /pol/) says it's less absurd to claim what? That climate changes won't collapse this civilisation like it has many others in the past? That the trivially measurable changes in weather patterns aren't happening? That the measurement data is all fake? And all without any numbers or logic to back it up? Please try harder - (You)r handlers are overpaying you (assuming you don't do it for free, lmao).

>>15274299
Because they have no reason to lie? There's more money spent on science by business than government, and there exists plenty of funding for climate skepticism e.g. from the Heartland Institute. Why would they lie when there's no personal benefit? And what even is the ontology here? Do only crooks go into climate science, or is there an epidemic of climate science dropouts, or do all climate scientific institutions around the world have a secret method of indoctrination that works nowhere else? Where's the motivation?

>>15274380
>Which is?
Well, aren't you indoors? Don't you know?
>Notice how easily I'm forcing you shit out dozens upon dozens of posts of deflection.
lol

>>15274394
>I gave you the reason you should trust the greater scientific communit
What's a """greater scientific community""" and why should I trust it?

>it makes no logical sense for them to lie
Prove it.

>>15274397
Thanks for demonstrating why the life of a green shill has no moral value. It's impossible for any bodily harm against you to be immoral because you have no internal monologue, no first person perspective, no qualia, no sentience of any form.

>>15274404
he mad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

>>15274414
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsentient

Not sure if I want to go back and dispute anon in that slapfight w/ other anon. If there's anything you want my >opinion on, tag this post pls tyvm.

>>15274400
>What's a """greater scientific community"""
The whole of the scientific community, a group of people with shared interest in science.
>why should I trust it?
The dynamics at play work to maximise correctness at a systemic level. The topic of interest is objective truth, which by definition exists independently and can be arrived at independently. Any liars can therefore be disproved using independent experiments. Findings are published transparently, so any subterfuge is visible for the world to see. Pay is weak and barrier to entry is high, so the only people doing it long-term are the dedicated. The fact that it is spread across all nationalities, religions, political factions, etc. means that any political bullshit is sniped by someone from a different faction. While it's possible for there to be bursts of corruption, the march towards Truth is inevitable.
>Prove it.
By a-priori logic: any lies spun can be demonstrated to be false, therefore lying is not an effective strategy
By a-posteriori logic: the international scientific community has been in broad agreement on climate, if scientists were lying, you would expect widespread disagreement
By observation: IPCC predictions have tracked with reality on easily verifiable measures like heat waves
>By negative: the oil shills have been engaged in dishonest tactics and lying. If theirs was the more truthful position, they would not need to engage in these tactics.

>>15274497
>a group of people with shared interest in science
So every retard with an "interest in science" is now a credible source on climate predictions?

>The dynamics at play work to maximise correctness at a systemic level
Prove it.

> any lies spun can be demonstrated to be false, therefore lying is not an effective strategy
Absolutely insane statement.

> if scientists were lying, you would expect widespread disagreement
Prove it.

>IPCC predictions have tracked with reality
Wrong.

>>15274501
>So every retard with an "interest in science" is now a credible source on climate predictions?
Nowhere did I say or imply any given individual is trustworthy. Btw, could you denounce the Torah or write God for me real quick? Your style of argumentation is making me wonder if /pol/ had a bar-mitzvah.
>Prove it.
I gave a logical proof in the following sentences. Would you like a paper? Or, if you anticipate not being about to follow a rigorous game theory analysis, would you care to specify what would constitute an acceptable proof?
>Absolutely insane statement.
Could you elaborate? Scientists aren't wizards capable of changing objective truth, and a lot of climate science can be done for (what companies would consider) pocket change. How could scientists, publishing open papers on objective truth, maintain a deception? Actually, I would *really* like an answer from you on that. How do you suppose they manage to lie?
>Prove it.
Sure: look at the field of nutrition. Companies tried to fund lies, and as a consequence, there were a ton of disagreeing papers.
>Wrong.
Give me an *IPCC* prediction that didn't track.

>>15274534
>Nowhere did I say or imply any given individual is trustworthy
Then who cares about what your """scientific community""" says when it's overwhelmingly composed (according to your criterion) of people whose opinions don't matter?

>I gave a logical proof in the following sentences.
You are completely delusional. Reiterating your fairytale is not a logical proof.

>Could you elaborate?
Elaborate on what? You are patently insane. You literally just told me people wouldn't lie because someone could expose their lies, as if that ever stopped anyone from lying.

>Sure: look at the field of nutrition.
What does nutrition have to do with anything? Are you mentally retarded?

>Give me an *IPCC* prediction that didn't track.
Nearly all of them have been wrong for decades. You are actually having a psychotic episode. I'm sure of it now.

>>15274548
You know, you're acting increasingly nervous. And strangely, didn't denounce the old book...
>when it's overwhelmingly composed (according to your criterion) of people whose opinions don't matter?
Nowhere did I state that, either. But to your actual point, you can trust masses more than individuals. It's the principle on which democracy works. It's the principle on which averaging multiple runs of an experiment works. Etc.
>Reiterating your fairytale is not a logical proof.
Ok, then answer my questions. Would you like a paper? If not, what would constitute appropriate proof for you?
>You literally just told me people wouldn't lie because someone could expose their lies, as if that ever stopped anyone from lying
But it has quite a bit! You'll notice that weasels like yourself don't tend to speak numbers and objective truths because you can be caught out. But you're right to a point: politicians exist. So what's the missing piece? Nobody cares if a politician lies, so it doesn't matter if they're caught out, and therefore it can be a winning strategy in this circumstance. My argument relies on people giving a shit about lies, which I hope you can excuse as being a reasonable assumption.
>What does nutrition have to do with anything?
You wanted proof that if scientists were lying, there'd be widespread disagreement. I gave an example where scientists were lying and there was widespread disagreement. Is climate science exceptional such that this situation is incomparable?
>Nearly all of them have been wrong for decades.
Ok, then it should be easy for you to give me one.

>>15274595
>you can trust masses more than individuals
Why would I trust masses of people whose opinions, by your own admission, have no weight or relevance?

>Would you like a paper?
A paper on what, you total psychotic? We have countless examples of scientific fraud, including high-profile, long-running scientific fraud. We have acknowledgment of systematic fraud by several editors of top-tier scientific journals. Your fairytale is demonstrably false.

> then it should be easy for you to give me one.
In 1990, the IPCC predicted a 0.3-0.34 C° increase in global temperature per decade if net GHG output remained the same. It's 2023, net GHG output has only increased, yet it's only 0.14 C° warmer. You got BTFO. Now dump your prepaid propaganda load of screeching and coping.

The simple explanation is that the Earth's ecosystem is an impossibly complex system that's basically impossible for us to model. You can generate any result you want given the right data and model.

I suppose the issue is that we're gambling, putting Earth's climate as our stake for ever more growth. Some people don't like that, but others don't like not making more money, so what can you do?

>>15274608
Seems like a good projection with the technology available in the 90s
Are you suggesting we should keep using outdated information?

>>15274628
>off by an order of magnitude
>Seems like a good projection
Thanks for demonstrating why there is no discussion to be had with you and why force is necessary.

>>15274614
Rapid warming is evident from instrumental data and the reality of the greenhouse effect.
You don’t need any models to reach those conclusions

>>15274638
Yeah it’s pretty good for a 30 year old model where they didn’t have the understanding of the climate sudo we have now.

>>15274497
I was trying to save everyone's time by using the simplest possible rubric, the concrete example of a house he undoubtedly trusts to live under. Explaining using more complex systems will absolutely not help given he's either trolling or truly that narcissistic.

>>15274646
>off by an order of magnitude
>it's pretty good
Thanks for demonstrating why force needs to be used against you. Either way, we have countless examples of scientific fraud, including high-profile, long-running scientific fraud. We have acknowledgment of systematic fraud by several editors of top-tier scientific journals. Your fairytale about the reliability of the """scientific community""" is demonstrably false.

>>15274650
>the concrete example of a house he undoubtedly trusts to live under
I trust the house I live under because people have been building reliable houses for millenia and I've never heard of a house spontaneously collapse anywhere I've lived. You trust it because you're a certified subhuman cattlebrain and the experts told you it's safe.

>>15274646
Forgot picture

>>15274651
>no arguments
>resorts to internet tough guy posturing and rambling
>>15274654

>>15274659
You should and will be killed in the coming decade. Thanks for demonstrating over and over again that your kind can't be reasoned with.

>>15274088
That diagram suggests the CO2 window is already pretty much closed.

>>15274653
Stop arguing about solipsism and engage with the data. Do you have any specific arguments about the methodology? Or are you going to continue making flat earth arguments here?

>give me one example of an IPCC prediction that failed
>>what about this one that's off by a whole order of magnitude
>it's a good prediction!!!!!!
These things aren't human.

>>15274662
So you’re just an edgy teenager? Makes sense you’re acting like a retard

>>15274669
You should and will be killed. More and more people are converging on this idea. No wonder your handlers are scrambling to censor the internet and criminalize dissent.

>>15274639
>Rapid warming is evident from instrumental data
Which we've had a hundred or so years of, whereas geological measurements suggest the temperature can happily swing up and down in potentially the same time frame. Is it natural? Is it man-made? Take your pick, depending on your policies.

>>15274675
>The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness
>Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet

>>15274608
>he still hasn't denounced
I honestly didn't expect to be on the money, here. I wonder what the tie-in is? Jewish representation in the oil industry isn't all that big. Is the JIDF defending the oil economy? Was it just pure chance?
>by your own admission, have no weight or relevance?
Again, nowhere did I say they have no weight or relevance. You appear to be debating an opponent localised entirely within your own head. But that's again beside the point. The reason you can trust in masses over individuals boils down to the fact that the standard error on a sample mean decreases with sample size. If most people are trustworthy, then the mean behaviour will also be trustworthy to a certainty proportional to the inverse square root of population. There are exceptions to this simple model, but that is typically when individuals are not acting independently and therefore doesn't apply mathematically, either.
>that mental breakdown
Ok, so what about my other question? What would constitute an appropriate proof?
>We have countless examples of scientific fraud
And yet it isn't the average behaviour, which is my point. And in almost all of those cases, there was visible disagreement between results.
>It's 2023, net GHG output has only increased, yet it's only 0.14 C° warmer.
But my graph seems to disagree? IPCC looks to be right on track. I'd be curious to see an attribution to that 0.14 number; it's hard to trust them when you can't track down where they came from. It's why my graph has them clearly labelled.
>C°
Interesting that you put the degree after. What cunt are you from?

>>15274687
See >>15274686 and >>15274676

>>15274669
>Stop arguing about solipsism and engage with the data. Do you have any specific arguments about the methodology? Or are you going to continue making flat earth arguments here?
I'll try to refrain from further interjection on that point. Not my intention to ruin your fun. Just making sure you're aware that his so-called solipsism is situational and hypocritical. Case in point, he trusts cumulative history of successes for the products of science (engineering) yet will not in other fields. Probably by perpetually shifting the goalpost of what "success" means to avoid analogy to the house example.

I think I'm fully satisfied with my line of discourse so I'll try to refrain.

>>15274681
What was that? Because based on the highest resolution reconstructions we have the planet is warming more than 10x faster than in the onset of the interglacial periods going back 800k years. In the Cretaceous there was a completely different oceanic and continental configuration and the ecosystem grew and developed in those conditions. The geologic record also tells us how rapid climate change lead to most of the mass extinctions
>>15274060

>>15274686
>talking about psychology
>that means that spectral gas measurements or temperature measurements are not real

>>15274708
You should and will be killed. Your handlers are too late trying to criminalize dissent.

>>15274687
>graph starts during the 1800s mini ice age
errrrry single time
why are global warming proponents always such massive liars?
>reeeeeeee i can't afford to buy a car, so that means nobody should be allowed to own one
is this why? inferiority complex?

>>15274712
Yeah I’m so scared of edgy teenagers

>>15274715
The relevant data has already been posted
>>15274060

>>15274699
The current change could fit entirely within the error bars of the historical data.

>>15274715
Here ya go, have the holoscene. Certainly not the warmest Earth has ever been, but one of the fastest ever observed increases in temperature.

>>15274715
He claimed that the IPCC projection of 0.03c/yr is wrong. I posted a graph centered on y2k that shows 0.03c/yr warming. This has nothing to do with absolute temperature increase. Please address the arguments being made, not the ones that live in your head.

>>15274721
>The current change could fit entirely within the error bars of the historical data.
Uhhhh... that is not how measurement uncertainty works. I'm not even sure how to correct you because I have no idea what you think that means.

>>15274722
you were just caught lying in order to push the global warming narrative, so whatever else you post which supports that narrative is also going to be a lie.
all you're proving is that no honest person supports your narrative, even black soience man doesn't believe in it. he owns a nice car, do you own a car?

>>15274735
What's the lie? Are you going to keep posting irrelevant shit?

>>15274638
>he doesn't dispute the rise
The absolute state, lmao.

>>15274735
I'm not who you've been talking to. I just interjected because it was mind numbingly simple to show you how the 1800 cutoff is not dishonesty.

>>15274721
Do you or do you not see the differences in the rate of warming during the last interglacial as compared to now?

>>15274764
starting the graph in the mini ice age in order to intentionally mislead has been par for the course amongst you and your ilk going back to the 1980s. everyone knows you're lying, but you just don't care, you keep on pushing the same lie.

>>15274790
Please denounce the torah.

>>15274799
Jews are behind AGW.

>>15274803
You did not denounce the torah. Please denounce the torah.

>>15274790
Why do you keep ignoring the relevant data that predates the 1700s? The conclusions are exactly the same whether the data goes back 23k or 2k years

>>15274814
>"We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

>>15274811
So you and your ilk can report me for "racism" once I do?

>>15274790
And you think it is misleading because.... ?

>>15274822
Starting a graph at one of the lowest points in recent history (1800s, 1970) automatically makes an upward trend.

>>15274819
Denouncing the torah is not racist, it's atheist. Atheism is not prohibited on /sci/. Now please denounce the torah.

>>15274825
>Starting a graph at one of the lowest points in recent history (1800s, 1970) automatically makes an upward trend.
But as you were shown repeatedly that does not change even if you include the entire holoscene. So that is not a reason to declare it misleading.

>>15274815
The MWP is very well understood to be a regional phenomenon to the northern hemisphere. It doesn't show up in proxies outside of the region. The same study where >>15274814 comes from when broken down regionally shows the MWP.

>>15274837
>The MWP is very well understood to be a regional phenomenon to the northern hemisphere.
Lie.

>>15274840
Surely you have data to back that up. What specifically do you disagree with the methodology of the PAGES 2K study?
https://github.com/LinkedEarth/notebooks
Here are the python scripts. You should be able to direct me to where it's wrong

>>15274850
Climate scientists have already admitted to choosing proxies intentionally to get rid of the MWP from global heat trends. I don't have to do anything for you except give you their own words.

>>15274799
>>15274811
>>15274827
Wait why is this about the Torah and not the Talmud? Jews don't worship the Torah and haven't done so since the 2nd century AD. Why do you want people to denounce the Torah specifically?

>>15273279
>the world is coming to an end
every person who has ever made this claim in the past has been lying, why should anyone trust people in the present who are making the same claim? because they willfully produce and circulate intentionally misleading graphs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet

>>15274853
But the MWP is represented in that study based on the proxies of the region. Why do you lie?

>>15274865
And proxies from other regions were picked intentionally to downplay its global effect, which the people behind the IPCC gleefully admit. This is why you lie.

>>15273776

>>15274869
Show me in the linked code and the publication where this happens.
Surely you're not making things up?

>>15274858
Didn't know that. Thanks, I'll include the talmud next for good measure. I wonder if the reason anon can't denounce is because they're a bot and getting shut down by "safety" BS.

>>15274872
Cute ad-hom.

>>15274877
>Show me in the linked code and the publication where this happens.
>show me where they selected the proxies after they already did it
You're legitimately subhuman. 80 IQ or lower for sure.

>>15274878
>Didn't know that. Thanks, I'll include the talmud next for good measure. I wonder if the reason anon can't denounce is because they're a bot and getting shut down by "safety" BS.
I'm the same person. I didn't "denounce the Torah" because that doesn't offend the Jews. They don't believe in it at all.

>>15274880
The data literally includes the MWP when separated by region I already posted it for you. How embarrassing to get caught lying like that. and here I thought you had data to back up your claims

>>15274893
>How embarrassing to get caught lying like that.
Ironic projection coming from a Warmist.

>>15274872
Approximating IQ via situational language complexity is not a valid measurement of IQ. All you're doing is situationally measuring whether someone chose to use technical language, or complex subtlties. In other words, you're measuring how good he did at communicating at a level everyone can understand. That is why the measurement is not valid (it does not hit the target you intended).

>>15274882
Ok, then you'll be happy to denounce the torah if not even Jews believe in it. Now please denounce the torah and preferably the talmud as well.

>>15274896
Where's the data to back up your claim?

>>15274822
because you're a liar, you willfully destroyed all of your credibility by repeatedly lying and getting caught. you're not even good at lying, high iq liars don't get caught, but you do.

>>15274900
>then you'll be happy to denounce the torah if not even Jews believe in it.
What do you think I am? A bot? A Jew? Make up your mind lol. Once you actually tell me what conspiracy theory you've cooked up then maybe I'll indulge you.

>>15274903
>because you're a liar, you willfully destroyed all of your credibility by repeatedly lying and getting caught.
Repeating that claim doesn't explain what you think the lie is. >>15274836
At this point you're just presupposing lying because you don't want to address evidence.

>>15274902
Emails leaked from the IPCC's leading climate scientists.

>>15274917
>evidence
you're a liar, you don't have "evidence", you only have lies. if you had true evidence then you would not need to bother with the lies.

>>15274916
I don't know. I speculated previously >>15274687 that you are maybe JIDF, since it is in Israel's political benefit for the oil economy to continue, and Israel is known to employ large internet troll brigades. I've also speculated you may be a bot >>15274878 because it's probably not the easiest to hire climate skeptic trolls, and even governments would get cucked by these AI safety fags. I don't believe there are any conspiracies involved here, just independent actors with a common goal. The only reason I've been pushing is because it's funny, and maybe useful /pol/ bait.

>>15273279
>Climate change
>Is it real?
Of course not.
Grow up and quit believing in pseudo-sciencey religions.

>>15274958
>since it is in Israel's political benefit for the oil economy to continue, and Israel is known to employ large internet troll brigades.
lol. The biggest funders of AGW propaganda are Jews and Israel.

>>15274929
>you're a liar, you don't have "evidence", you only have lies.
Feel free to bother explaining what leads you to conclude that. It has already been shown your claimed reason is not valid >>15274836
Ironically that makes you the liar.

>>15274972
Ok, so as a non-Israeli, you should be able to denounce the torah and also the talmud no sweat.

>>15275015
*crickets*
lol

>>15274919
>hey goys, the same organization that said saddam hussein was building nuclear weapons is also telling us that global warming is real

>>15277551
>Free-tier language model beats a conservative brain 1 to 0.

>>15278369
>I come to 4chan/sci in order to defend the ZOG political narrative
how organic

>>15278369
first article on CO2 & heat in 1856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#Scientific_career

>>15278461
also debunked in the 1800s.
if you're getting you science info from a roastie then that makes you even dumber than a roastie, rosties can do science at all to begin with, you're dumber than that.

>>15278701
>also debunked in the 1800s.
People give citations all you can do is go "nuh uh"

>>15273279
Of course its real. we only have two months left.

A top Climate change scientist said so.

>>15274394
>Goldberg
Cool it with the antisemitism.

>>15273279
the what change?
It is dark now but it was light before so what? I believe it gets light again and then all your worries was just gay.

The biggest change is the human population which has exploded in just under a century. Fuck them if they can't live in the mess they brought upon themselves.

>>15279343
>Fuck them if they can't live in the mess they brought upon themselves.
They are coming here unfortunately. And bringing their dysgenic DNA with them.

>>15273279
>Is it real?
Yes.
>Are the reasons true
Mostly.
>Are the shilled fixes true?
Mostly.
>Which parts and true and which aren't?
Anyone claiming to know how the world will change in response to climate change is a liar.
Overall, what the world is doing right now is fine. Start using less dirty fuels and shit like that, but don't go crazy for no reason. In the end even if we don't stop the ecosystems will adapt to new temperatures, it will just result in losing a lot of money.

>>15279312
tipping point happens before the disaster, retard

>>15273279
>Is it real?
Yes.
>If it is, are the reasons shilled for it true?
Some are, some not.
>Are the shilled fixes true?
No, absolutely no.

>>15279343
>the majority of the worlds population is in asia and africa
Really makes you think

>>15274237
I agree, they just want consumers to consume more to solve the problem. That's suspect.
I hear all the time how technology and business will solve the crisis, but technology is what started it to begin with.

>>15280623
>hey goys, throw your old car battery in the ocean, junk your whole car and go buy a brand new tesla, buy it on credit cause interest rates are way up right now
>this is going to improve the environment for sure, especially when we take you old car and resell it in the 3rd world
>cars in mexico don't produce co2, only white countries produce co2
meanwhile black soience man drives a massive gas hogging fancy town car. i didn't go to an ivy, so i'll defer to black soience man's judgment. if he thinks its ok to burn gas then it is

>>15280710
Based expert truster.

>>15281863
i'm a fukkin atheist, soience is muh religion, black soience man is muh god

>>15273405
Nuclear is the future. Just waiting for the stupid ass public to forget about meme energy sources.

>>15280585
Oh shit. Damn I'm sorry.

Of course youre right. Almost for a moment I thought that Gretas note was another attempt at scaring people shitless. But yes, the tipping point, well my my.

But uh.... which tipping point exactly was that O mighty one? O infuser of wisdom. O large prick? Do you know ? Please help, you know, Im just a retard. And scared one too.

And what tipping point would that be.

>>15282841
>And what tipping point would that be.

There have been quite a few tipping points through the years. And quite a few deadlines too. It’s all so tiresome.

>>15273279
ask any climate change believer what level of CO2 they would feel is ideal and why and they will have no clue. We are currently around 400ppm. At around 150ppm plants die off and then after we die off. We desperately need more CO2 in the air, not less. Think it is dangerous? Google CO2 ppm when drive with windows up and see for yourself. CO2 is the food for life and Climate Change freaks are actually the one putting us all at risk.

I'm old enough to remember back in 1989 when the father of climate science, Jim Hanson, told the world that if we didn't stop adding CO2 to the atmostphere within ten years, the world would end from global warming. We didn't and it didn't.
Here we are 34 years later watching Greta delete a tweet promising the world would end last year if we didn't stop adding CO2 six years ago. We didn't and it didn't.
The AGW scam continues to be a "science" because the average leftist has the memory of a goldfish and the reasoning skills of a fucking fruit-fly.

>>15284930
>The AGW scam continues to be a "science" because the average leftist has the memory of a goldfish and the reasoning skills of a fucking fruit-fly.
Thats not a bad assessment, but a lot of the reason for their idiocy has darker origins than innocent stupidity. For example, the hatred of people who drive cars always comes from those too poor to own their own vehicle. This jealousy is easily rationalized by saying "science says cars are ruining the planet" and the emotionally pleasing justification for the hate filled jealousy allows unquestioning belief in global warming via confirmation bias. Nobody wants to say "I hate cars because I am too lazy to earn enough money to own a car", not even to themselves and definitely not out loud, because that reveals too much unpleasant truth about the character saying it.
I'm not saying that stupidity isn't a large part of what goes into belief in global warming, just that other factors are necessary to understand the whole picture.

>>15284948
No the fight-the-climate-change people are rich enough to afford the rising costs of living that are the consequence of their favorite policy. They hate working the class people who complain about it.

>>15284976
Theres all sorts of people that buy into the global warming scam for different reasons, the post you replied to was only pointing out one example. There are definitely a lot of others with different reasons, no doubt some Rolls Royce owners who like global warming and want to leverage it to get all the other cars off the road are out there.