/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15562748
They attribute the excessively high measured temperature to CO2

>>15562748
>Posting propaganda spread by a German blog sourced from a blogger paid by the Heartland Institute

>>15562763
>propaganda
you're saying that it isn't a picture of a weather station located on gravel next to a hot air conditioner? why not just put the weather station somewhere that it would get an accurate measure of temperature instead on intentionally locating it where it will read higher than the surrounding area? the windspeed reading is going to be messed up by being next to a building too

>>15563003
Yes, the Heartland Institute is known for publishing propaganda and cherry picked studies. This is no exception.

This one is located right next to rooftop vents.

>>15563010
So is the photograph made by AI or something? Is this not a real place?

Another one directly in front of a vent

>>15563056
This one station is irrelevant and is being falsely extolled as the average case without any evidence of the effect that that air conditioner might have from 10 ft away. It's made to convince stupid people that something untoward is happening and coordinated at a large scale.

>>15563075
But the report had hundreds of stations, comprising a substantial proportion of temperatures. And NOAA quietly closed many of them because they were caught.

>>15563084
>Hundreds of cherry picked stations out of thousands
Exactly.

>>15563093
lmao this is pottery

NOAA does not collect data from "enemies" of the United States, which means it has no data from the largest countries in the world (Russia) nor does it have data from the third largest country in the world (China). Most stations in Africa stopped reporting before the turn of the century. Brazil and Australia however, are well covered.

>>15563121
Australia was recently in trouble for using thermometers that consistently reported too high compared to calibrated mercury.

>>15563099
You should get new material. Cherry picked studies that have already been debunked is insufficient.

>>15563121
>>15563123
Nonsense

>>15563129
Read a newspaper lol this is a huge scandal. A group of concerned scientists sued for freedom of information to get the mercury measurements and compared them to the reported probe temperatures, finding that probes over-reported high temperatures by a huge margin that the government was trying to cover up for years.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/04/australia-wide-assessment-climate-change-or-instrument-change/

>>15562763
And instead I ought to post propaganda created by people funded by taxation, yes?

Climate change does not matter. Humans will carry on regardless. Government is the menace.

>>15563093
you're willing to concede that hundreds of stations were "accidentally" constructed in ways that would lead them to report higher temperatures but yet refuse to entertain that this might be an indictment on the entire field of research. interesting.

>>15563143
>jennifermarohasy.com

>>15563154
Any set with variation can have a small number of samples cherry picked to "prove" whatever a bad actor wants to "prove". It does not speak to the reliability of those stations or the data as a whole.

>>15563150
Complete nonsense.

>>15563256
There's nothing to prove any station's reliability.

>>15563254
Are you upset that the scientist who did the analysis posted the synopsis on her personal website? You're allowed to be, if you want. But you still have to contend with the data.

>>15563093
You are embarrassing, I would fire you if I was your boss. Saving this thread for posterity.

>>15563265
>scientist

>>15563286
If you didn't have an argument you should have just said so from the start. Thank you for bowing out gracefully.

>>15563260
>>15563284
There's nothing to disprove the reliability of these stations. Cope harder.

>>15563288
She's used to be a biologist and now she's a blogger that gets paid by oil companies.

>>15563296
>its a conspiracy
Take your meds and come back when you can formulate a response to the data.

So much science in this thread very smart smart SMART! Its all just cherypicking when it attacks my beliefs! This thread is really convincing me to TRUST THE SCIENCE!

not even including satellite data

>>15563121
>which means it has no data from the largest countries in the world
Is Canada an enemy of the USA? It's the second largest country.

>>15563298
Come back when you have something other than a shill's blog.

>>15563365
why do you come in here and call everyone else a shill in every single thread?

>>15563370
Why do you only post things presented to you by shills? What else do you call someone who gets paid by a company to blog about their interests?

>>15562748
Belief in global warming is highly correlated with vaccination status.
Just wait a bit, the trash is taking itself out.

>>15563380
Why do you pretend random blogs are paid for propaganda funded by giant corporations, but not all the actual propaganda actually being pushed by actual corporations in the actual media?

>>15563405
Midwits are highly submissive to any perceived authoritative figure, and internalise the dominant zeitgeist.

>>15563405
Because I know how to use google and can easily see where her funding comes from, retard. Do you have anything that wasn't paid for by oil companies?

What the hell happened to this thread? OP and >>15563143 posted real verified information and then some fag just spammed them down. /sci/ is fucking dead.

>>15563485
prove it then

>>15563405
>>15563414
>>15563494
For reference

https://www.desmog.com/jennifer-marohasy/
Jennifer J. Marohasy is Senior Fellow at the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs, “with responsibilities for Climate Change in the Research Program”, according to the group’s website.

Her initial tenure at IPA coincided with a $40,000 contribution made to the organization from Murray Irrigation Limited, Australia’s largest irrigation company. [4], [30]

According to Don Henry, the Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation:[5]

“The IPA has variously claimed that the Murray River is fine and doesn’t need protection and that the Great Barrier Reef is not being polluted by fertilizer run-off – despite both federal and state governments saying to the contrary. I think in most cases the IPA presents an anti-environment perspective.” [5]

Marohasy was a founding director of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), first appointed in 2005 according to documents filed with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The filings also show that AEF worked directly out of the offices of the IPA. Peter Ridd is also listed as a founding director of AEF in the filings, while Marohasy served as a director until 2008. [5], [6], [31]

In 2008, the AEF launched a subsidiary group entitled the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) with an advisory board comprised of some of the country’s most prominent climate change deniers. [32]

The IPA is an Australian think-tank that has received funding from petroleum, mining, logging, and tobacco concerns. In 2018, DeSmog confirmed mining magnate and climate change denier Gina Rinehart was a key backer of IPA, providing between a third and a half of the group’s entire income via her company Hancock Prospecting Proprietary Ltd (HPPL). [13]

>>15563498
>>15563502
In 2010, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that about a quarter of IPA‘s $2 million in annual funding came from corporations with a direct stake in the climate change debate. Donors have included major corporations such as Visyboard, Telstra, Western Mining and BHP Billiton as well as the tobacco industry. [14]

In July 2012, executive director John Roskam told the Brisbane Times: “[T]he reason we don’t reveal our donors is because unfortunately our donors – and people who were believed to be our donors – have been intimidated because of their supposed support for us.” [15]

Marohasy left the Institute for Public Affairs in 2009 following a contract non-renewal and went on to work as an adjunct senior research fellow at Central Queensland University from 2011 and 2015. While working at the university, her work was funded by Bryant Macfie, an Australian philanthropist and former shareholder in Strike Resources Limited, an international mining corporation. [7], [8], [9]

The Australian reported that Marohasy’s funding at the university from Macfie had been channeled through the IPA. Clive McAlpine, a climate change expert at the university, expressed concerns about the funding: “It is important that the science is objective and that students are not subjected to restraints from donors,” Dr McAlpine said. [35]

Marohasy posted to her blog a lengthy dismissal of climate change as a primary catalyst of the Australian bushfires: [37]

“This has everything to do with our mismanagement of the landscape,” she wrote. “Blaming the recent fires on climate change is to rewrite our temperature history.” [37]

Marohasy dismissed the record of rising temperatures in Australia as an aberration of measuring methodologies: [37]

“recent summers have been hotter, but such claims would not pass scrutiny if assessed […]. This is because of all the changes to the way temperatures are now measured.” [37]

>>15563502
Sourcing all your allegations as "we said so" from the biggest pro-AGW shill site isn't helping your case. The owner of DeSmog, James Hoggan, is the head of a public relations corporation dedicated to promoting AGW issues which is funded solely to convince people AGW is real.

Should we believe scientists, or should we believe literal paid advertisers?

>>15563502
>>15563508
Marohasy’s claims of temperature manipulation, which have been repeatedly cited in News Corp publications, have been debunked. [38]

Marohasy co-authored a paper for the science journal GeoResJ with her husband, John Abbot, also with the Institute of Public Affairs, titled “The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change.” [22]

The paper claimed that climate change is largely the result of natural phenomena, which led other skeptics and conservative media outlets such as Breitbart and the Drudge Report to promote it. After review by climate scientists, however, the report was found to contain several obvious flaws and was recommended for redaction. [23]

Most notable was the selective use of only six data points out of nearly 700 to yield a predictive model that “proved” that temperature rise would have occurred much as it has even without any additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by industrial civilization. [23], [24]

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, suggested that the paper’s conclusions are the result of “what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work.” [23]

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) confirmed 2013 as the continent’s hottest year on record, prompting Marohasy to accuse the BOM of manipulating temperature data to fit the consensus view on anthropogenic climate change. [25], [26]

Mahorasy’s allegation was widely disseminated by other climate change science deniers and organizations, and was based on a critique of the homogenized data sets used by BOM to construct its temperature graphs (a method routinely used in peer-reviewed science journals). [26], [27]

>>15563502
>>15563508
I note that you have no answer to the findings reported in the article, which are taken directly from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Are you suggesting that the Australian government intentionally lied when they gave that data to her?

>>15563502
>>15563508
>>15563511
The fundamental flaw in Marohasy’s reasoning, as explained by BOM in an official response, was her failure to recognize homogenization as a necessary means by which to account for intermittent fluctuations recorded by temperature sensors as a result of changes in location, surrounding vegetation, or exposure to sunlight. [26], [27]

The BOM also pointed out that the raw, non-homogenized data was available for anyone to study and that this yielded an almost identical graph as the homogenized data. [26], [27], [28]

Marohasy published a document titled “Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment” as a “Backgrounder” for the Institute of Public Affairs. The report challenged widely held beliefs about the true causes of environmental degradation along the river and suggested that management of its waters for industrial irrigation purposes was sufficient for maintaining the river’s health. [3], [4]

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported in April of 2004 that around the same time as Marohasy’s report was published the IPA received a donation of $40,000 from Murray Irrigation Limited, Australia’s largest irrigation company. [30]

>>15563510
>"Prove it"
>"NOOO, YOU CAN'T JUST PROVE THAT SHE'S A SHILL JUST BECAUSE SHE TAKES MONEY TO PROMOTE THE FALSE NARRATIVES OF LARGE COMPANIES!!1"

>>15563519
What you posted isn't proof of anything. It's a copypasted gish gallop from a literal paid shill.

>>15563512
It's enough to prove that she's a shill. She cannot be trusted and the burden of proof is on you if you choose to trust her.

>>15563521
You're so stupid it hurts. I hate what this website has become.

>>15563520
Nonsense. You're just mad that it took 30 seconds to prove that she is in fact a shill.

>>15563519
>>15563521
no it isn't, it's just he said she said.

>>15563524
Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>15563525
You quoted a literal marketing firm paid to shill for AGW. He quoted an actual scientist who posted hard data which you have no argument against whatsoever. What you're doing isn't science and you should be ashamed for trying to peddle your bullshit to people.

>>15563527
Actually it's "she said because she was paid". That's what "shill" means.

>>15563531
>What you're doing isn't science and you should be ashamed for trying to peddle your bullshit to people.
Lol the irony. Do you read what you post?

>>15563532
The only relevant information in your wall of text is them saying they don't reveal who their donors are, and then a bunch of smearing from people who are openly AGW shills. Is your whole shtick trolling by being the shittiest shill imaginable? I really hope you're not serious

>>15562748
I wouldn't call that exhaust, but yeah condenser discharge air will be higher than ambient, shouldnt put a sensor near that.

>>15563542
She and the organizations she has worked for don't reveal their donors. That doesn't mean that they are unknown. Any other excuses?

>>15563074
That could be a fresh air intake.

>>15563544
Fuck off you blatant antisemite.

>>15563546
And they're known to be big oil because their enemies - who again, are literally openly paid shills - say so?
Prove it with proof. Actual employment connections to big oil

>>15563552
You WOULD think a regular old HVAC tech is an antisemite lol.

>>15563553
If she is directly funded by abiotic and infinite oil companies, would it actually matter ?
Since she provide sourced data anyway ?
Isn't attacking her character automatically proves midwits are the main audience ?

>>15562748
Climate change is real. But it has nothing to do with raising temperatures. Global warming is and always was a scam.

>>15563553
>>15563557
Stay mad, fags. Next time don't get cherry picked information from a shill's blog.

>>15563566
Frankly, your argument is weak.
Arguably, it falls into invalidity.
Great show, my vaxxed friend.

>>15563576
I accept your concession. I wish I could say it was fun, but in fact it was trivial and boring.

>>15563581
Any bystander convinced by you.
Would no doubt be vaxxed.
Only have to wait, it's self-correcting.
Overall, yes it was fun.

>>15563593
Stay mad, fag.

>>15563594
>reduced to pretending you were trolling all along

>>15563594
Like it or not, no u
Only you are mad, here.
Liberate yourself, mad=heart attack.

>>15563599
>>15563601
>"I'm not mad, you're mad!"
Lol keep it up, fags.

>Lol keep it up, f-ACK!!

>>15563606
Know that it is ok.
Even though you are ashamed.
Keyboard-bashing is unneeded, you are anonymous.

>>15563608
>>15563609
Your tears are delicious. I love it when incompetent shills break down and try to to blend in. Are you still being paid, or are you just frustrated?

>Your tears are delicious. I love it when inc-ACK!!

>>15563633
Seethe harder, fag. Watching your meltdown is the part I enjoy.

>>15563638
Ironic post from the guy who tried to tank 3 good threads by spamming.

>Seethe harder, fag. Watching your meltd-ACK!!

>>15563639
>good threads
Lol none of those threads were good. Do you not get paid by the post? Did I cost you a paycheck? Do you need to have a little cry?

>>15563642
Let the butthurt flow through you. Your rage sustains me.

>Let the butthurt flow through you. Y-ACK!!

>>15563646
Give me more of your tears, puppet.

fortunately there's USCRN and UAH
unfortunately their datasets are too young to really draw trends
the apocalypse scammers would have a harder time if satellite records began even 20 years earlier

>>15563556
antisemitism is good, jews didn't get kicked out of 111 countries for no reason at all

>>15563738
Do they extract a little more hot water every day or how does placing a weather station there give the impression of global warming? Maybe the local temperature would be higher than a mile away, but it's not progressively getting warmer.

>>15563813
The impact was made when that site was added to the network and continues each time they add one of these temperature elevated sites. The placements are simply indefensible and it's silly that you're trying to contort things in a manner to dismiss the obvious flaws in placement of the data gathering instruments. You should revert back to 'well, it's only some of them' since that can sea lion those on the side of reality to need to show how many of these temperature elevated sites exist.

>>15562763
>post paid by the ADL paid by Satan
shieet

>>15563075
Smell that? it's a copium leak

>>15563093
>guy I only raped a hundred coma patients out of thousands I mean am I really a bad guy?
LMAO AT YOU BRO

GUISE I JUST SHIDDED AND FARTED NEXT TO MY CARBON DETECTOR IT'S THE END TIMES

>>15563925
Sounds like you're on to something very big there, anon. Can you back that with data? The data of these stations is public. Can you show that the old ones show a stable trend while the new ones are also stable but elevated, causing some "increasing average"?
It's certainly a possibility and the data are out there, but a photograph and a hypothesis don't prove anything. Looking into the data would easily verify or disprove the hypothesis.

>>15563304
TRUST THE FUCKING SCIENCE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE WE VILL RESCIND YOUR DEGREE

>>15563941
Not that anon but whether you’re being facetious or not is irrelevant. It is a good minority dissent against the placement of these site locations and the question of whether or not the data provided is valid should be at least investigated and funded to prove or disprove said “tampering”. If you don’t agree with that you’re a literal dumb shill.

Scientifically speaking, what are the implications of putting a weather station on the busiest airfield in northern Finland (Oulunsalo)

>>15563959
But the data is public. Near me there are three weather stations, and one is always about 1°C warmer than the other two. Consistently. The other two can differ by 0.1 or 0.2°C, maybe more if it's raining on one but not the other. But the offset is there. I'm sure that the meteorologists know and that the offset is incorporated in the models. The one with the higher temperature lies between the other two, but temperature maps generated from all the stations don't have a local jump in the middle.
>should be at least investigated
You could do that. The data are publicly available. You could do the same as me.
>and funded
It took me a few random observations and then a few hours to get large amounts of data and plot them. That's a Saturday afternoon if you have minimal experience with matplotlib. There's not much funding needed.
>If you don’t agree with that you’re a literal dumb shill.
I don't agree that sitting in your chair demanding funding is the way to tackle this. It's a quick exercise to do, so if it's important to you, do it. It was important to me to understand which weather station to trust, as I'm using the data to decide when to open or close the windows in summer. I agree that you should do it, but don't call others dumb if you're too dumb to do it yourself.

>>15563969
Scientifically speaking, weather stations at airports are a necessity for aviations safety. Every airfield has one.

Can you explain how they're faking satellite data smartass?

>>15563925
>>15563931
>>15563935
>>15563937
>>15563941
>>15563943
>>15563969
>>15564003
Wall to wall astroturf ITT. The night shift goes hard

>>15562748
No problem. Berkeley Earth will prove that this type of error can be easily corrected for, and in fact the temperature rise is worse than the original data.

>>15564025
Its not fake. Its selective data output. Much easier to do and to "justify".

>>15564528
>satellite
>data from literally the entire surface of the earth
>selectice

>>15562748
So, does being 10-20 feet away from an exhaust vent actually do anything? Pretty sure whatever the vent puts out dissipates before it hits the sensor, and they know this. At most it'd amount to peanuts.

Also for each sensor in human settlements they have one in remote areas, so how do you explain that? This "scandal" feels so manufactured, you cant even say how it could affect the temperature. Also you do know they control for heat islanding right? They may be explicitly wanting to capture human settlement induced heat and compare it to remote areas.

>>15564544
>Also you do know they control for heat islanding right?
>error bars on the heat island effect correction an order of magnitude higher than the supposed "temperature rise" that they claim to have found

>>15564528
You can download the raw data and compile it yourself.

>>15564535
And how long have satellites existed? Can satellite data from today be compared to satellite data from the year 1023? Or is the data for 1023 calculated completely differently when declaring 2023 to be the hottest year ever?

>>15564708
>You can download the inaccurate raw data yourself and reach the same inaccurate conclusions "science" did.

>>15564535
>>data from literally the entire surface of the earth
Wait do you really believe that?

>>15564544
>Also you do know they control for heat islanding right?
Their control for the urban heat island is to increase modern temperatures by nearly 1C and reduce past temperatures by nearly 1C.

>>15564331
You don't know what astroturfing even means. Temperature sensors monitor the change in temperature not the actual temperature so vents and AC don't affect them.

>>15564544
>Pretty sure whatever the vent puts out dissipates before it hits the sensor
post your calculations
oh wait you can't because you can't do math or physics

>>15562763
most weather stations are in butt random places and you know it

>>15564800
Wait do you really believe that satellites only measure the parking lot in front of a Walmart in Phoenix

>>15564924
You literally think satellites measure the entire world's temperature. That's amazing.

>>15564736
The hypothesis was that the global mean temperature only increases because they build new stations near buildings. That would be incredibly easy to prove by looking at the data.

>>15564927
You're right, they always make a turn around the Bermuda Triangle. And they turn off their sensors when they fly over Quebec.

>>15564931
>That would be incredibly easy to prove by looking at the data.
And it is! Tony Heller produced accurate temperature charts using only stations which have been continuously active, and it shows a decline in temperatures. Search "unhide the decline" and you'll find his dataset.

>>15564934
Look we already acknowledged that you don't know how satellite temperatures are sampled. You don't have to keep digging by making a fool of yourself.

>>15564912
Exhaust dissipates into the air. I learned this in a course called advanced exhaust disaption for engineering technology.

>>15564996
so you can't do math or physics, thanks for letting us all know

>>15563258
Tell me whats wrong. What will happen if I don't let the government steal my car and money.

What will climate change do to destroy the humans, why do you feel morally superior by destroying the economy?

>>15564936
>Tony Heller
>first result
>hur dur look at all my qualifications
>not a single one actually related to climatology
Why exactly should I trust this faggot? At least compared to, I dunno, actual climate scientists from NOAA/NASA?

>>15565365
Because he lays out all the data and primary documents for you to check for yourself. He isn't asking you to believe him on credentials alone, he's giving proof for all his allegations.

>>15565366
>Because he lays out all the data and primary documents for you to check for yourself.
That's not an actual reason you should trust him mate.

>Oil shale research at Los Alamos National Labs
Ah and there it is.

>>15565367
So you're just fishing for reasons to distrust everyone except the actual proven shills lol

>>15565367
>That's not an actual reason you should trust him mate.
What are you on about, "mate?" That's the best way to earn trust. If you have all your cards on the table then you aren't relying on anyone's gullibility to prove your point, you're offering them the chance to understand for themselves why you're right. Transparency and replicability is the most truthful thing you can have in science.

It's really an indictment of climate scammers that they try so hard to hide their data and prevent people from seeing it. And once they do find the real data, they try to lie about it (see: >>15563143 scandal and the response).

>>15565369
"actual shills" LMAO says the dude saying we should trust the works done by ONE MAN, which hasn't been independently verified by ANYBODY with actual credentials. Is there ANY reason this conversation needs to continue?

>>15565374
>which hasn't been independently verified by ANYBODY with actual credentials
You could independently verify it yourself. The dataset is freely available, both from his own website and through links to the original sources if you don't trust him to give you the real data.

>>15565377
Yeah well I don't know anything about climate modeling, and if this Tony Heller faggot did I'm sure his work would get anywhere beyond "realclimatescience"

>>15565388
>Yeah well I don't know anything about climate modeling
That was obvious from your post history in this thread. But now that you admit you're unqualified to comment, why even bother? What do you gain from vomiting your idiotic and uninformed opinions on this website when people with real experience are talking?

>>15565374
>verified by ANYBODY with actual credentials
I wonder what kind of braindead cattle these kind of authoritative arguments work on.
Probably overlaps 1:1 with the 80% vaxxed.

>>15565475
Just like the fact that fewer than 50% of people believe in the climate scam, the number of vaxed is likely vastly overreported for political reasons.

>>15565374
What a gullible shill pretending to talk about cherry picking while committing non-stop adhom, appeal to authority, special pleading, appeal to the internet, google-fu, etc. Just neck bro. You are a complete moron and your precious immigrants will soon behead you.

>>15562748
>>15563050
>>15563074
>>15563738
>>15563969
Scientifically speaking, how will bugmen react when they learn that they turned their hives into unlivable concrete furnaces but everyone else is perfectly fine?

>>15563154
Some station were in fact plced 'accidently'. They measure for several years.
>place station under tree
>cut down tree 5 years later
>wtf, global warming

>>15565839
Cool it with the antisemitic remarks.

>>15565790
hopefully that never happens, cities should have walls around them to lock the urbanite trash in forever

>>15565839
Name one station where this happened and the temperature readings jumped due to cutting that tree. Can't? Oh you made that up?

>>15565475
>authoritative arguments
You're confusing the authority in this case. It's not authority as in "they said it on tv" or "it's the 45th president of the United States". The authority here comes in lifelong research and being an expert in the field. No, "he's an expert in something completely different, so he must be an expert in climate science" doesn't count either.
In that case, you'd need to be braindead to dismiss this "authoritative argument". Every alternative is arguably more retarded than listening to an expert. Doing your own research on Facebook? Retarded. Listening to an objectively worse authority? Retarded. Cherry-picking that one study that comes to a different result than the other 99? Retarded.

>>15565971

>>15565971
Go vaxx, midwit.

>>15563521
>It's enough to prove that she's a shill.
ah. ad hominem spotted in the wild. I used to think nobody is this stupid.

>>15566151
Bad bot.

>>15564003
>I'm sure that the meteorologists know and that the offset is incorporated in the models.
a confession of faith if I ever saw one.

>>15564535
>satellite data
>why do we need terrestrial measurements at all
>erm, it's aggregated together
either satellite data is sufficient or it isn't. which variant are you preferring to lose the debate about?

>>15566189
>please don't make multiple measurements that help cross-check and verify your measurements. That makes it hard to dismiss your findings.

>>15565367
you either can verify that
+ he uses the official data, and
+ his procedure is correct
or you cannot. if you cannot, then get the fuck out of this thread.

>>15566193
you do not recognize 'we need to cross-check' as a case of 'insufficient'?
anyway, you are an obvious troll. go hang yourself.

>>15566200
What do you for a living?

>>15565790

>>15567518
kek

>>15563646
>>15563642
>>15563633
>>15563608
kinography

>>15566202
i eat picese of shit like you for breakfast

>>15568199
You're unemployed and uneducated? Who would've thunk?

>>15568203
Bot response.

>>15564006
Yes, but can you, scientifically speaking, accept CO2 global rising, solely based on a fact there is Boeing Airbus blowing its exhaust directly on a CO2 meter?

>>15568236
>solely based on a fact there is Boeing Airbus blowing its exhaust directly on a CO2 meter?
Show me the Boeing Airbus [sic!] blowing its exhaust directly on Mauna Loa.

>>15568264
You mean the active volcano erupting CO2 and sulfur dioxide directly into the monitoring station?

Anyone have the PDF about the fake digital thermometers they use that are programmed to read 0.7ºC above the actual temperature?

>>15569255
Can you tone it down with the antisemitism.

>>15565366
>I’ll just ignore that instrumentally measured warming is also recorded by fast accumulation proxies and satellite temperature measurements

>>15569807
>instrumentally measured warming
As we already proved, there is none. It's made up.

>>15563075
You glow

>>15569826
>no when the data doesn’t fit my conclusions it means it’s fake
Every single time with this bullshit

>>15569916
>no when the data doesn’t fit my conclusions
The data perfectly fits my conclusions (no warming), which is why unethical liars have to change it before they make their doomsday proclamations.

>>15562748
the climate soientists wouldn't need to cheat and lie like that if global warming were a genuine phenomenon

>>15570019
>tell me you don't understand how to read a chart without telling me you don't know how to read a chart
you see that red line on the right?
is it higher or lower than where it started?

>>15570212
Wait, you mean this seriously right? This isn't a troll?

>>15570019
You keep posting this as if no one can tell that’s a regional dataset and global raw temperatures overestimate warming before corrections

>>15570256
Source of your data? Who collected it?

>>15570256
>source: NASA, a government propaganda agency

>>15570272
>no arguments

>>15570276
>no arguments
correct, you have no arguments other than coming to 4chan to shill government propaganda, you can't do math or physics

>>15563751
Are you suggesting that satellite data shows no warming?

>>15570316
How many satellites did we have in 1850?

>>15570321
You can’t read a simple clearly labeled graph or are you just retarded?
Whether it’s satellite data or surface data the results are the same

>>15570327
satellite data shows warming because it begins in the late 70s after exiting a local nadir
other records fudge their curves where they can get away with it, and overfit to reliable records otherwise. whether that's global historic data to satellite data, or USHCN to USCRN, or whatever.
the methods used to homogenize and interpolate globally sparse mercury thermometer records to modern realtime thermistor records are mostly bullshit, and modern records are still pretty fucking sparse over vast swathes of the globe's land and sea
modern realtime thermistor records are mostly contaminated with urban heat island effects; USCRN is a notable exception

>>15570377
>modern realtime thermistor records are mostly contaminated with urban heat island effects; USCRN is a notable exception
They also dramatically overreport the temperature, as was proven in Australia. >>15563143

>>15570256
there is no such thing as an "uncorrected raw data" set over the period 1880 to 2020 for the globe.

>>15570386
instead what you have are multiple data sets made with disparate instruments, differing things measured, disparate station changes and heat island encroachments, ie apples and oranges crudely spliced together. the fact that a literal frankenstein's monster dataset shows higher temperatures than the same monster with some skin grafts is not demonstrative of anything valuable.

>>15570377
>claim that satellite measurements don't show warming
>get proven wrong and just state is was fake all along
Good arguments here

>>15570440
You have no rebuttal except insults, therefore I choose to believe his expertise and evidence instead.

>>15562748
whats to refute? this is the (((science)))

>>15563494

>>15570754
they should cut down some of those trees, that parking lot doesn't get enough sun

>>15571637
>>15570754
they should replace that asphalt with mirrors to collect sunlight from a wider area for a more accurate reading

Lets assume climate change is happening at a significantly higher rate than what believe has happened in the past.
Lets assume climate change is a result of human actions.

Please list the things you believe will happen as a result of climate change. Tell me which ones will impact humans. Tell me which of those negatively impact humans.

What negative things to humans will climate change create that you believe gives justification to use the state and policymakers to change human behavior?

I personally, so far, do not believe the government should be used to force people to change their behavior to alter the course of climate change.

>Please list the things you believe will happen as a result of climate change. Tell me which ones will impact humans. Tell me which of those negatively impact humans.
Read the IPCC report or ask ChatGPT to summarise it for you.

>>15571637
>>15571670
kek

>>15562748
This ignores the fact that we have multiple lines of evidence for man made climate change. Even if for some reason you threw out every single temperature monitoring station we would still have satellite temperature reading to prove climate change. Even if you through out every satellite reading we would still have global ice cover to prove climate change. Even if you threw out the global ice cover data we would still have Antarctic and Greenland ice core data proving climate change. Even if you threw out all the ice core data we would still have sea floor sediment core data proving man made climate change. Even if you threw out all the sea floor sediment core data we would still have plant and animal migration patterns proving climate change. Even if you threw out all the plant and animal migration patterns proving climate change we would still have photographs of glacial melt proving climate change.

Your single point of data about a single monitoring station taking temperature data is irrelevant compared to the insurmountable evidence against you.

>17 now
what has them so riled up?

>>15572066

Did humans also cause the medieval warming period?

I assert we are merely reversing the azolla event and global warming should be seen as a boon for life on earth.

I really don't give two shits if every home in Florida sinks.

The real ecological disasters are caused by habitat loss, and wetlands pollution
from pharmaceuticals and nitrates from factory farming. If you spent 1/4 the effort dealing with these issues nature would be just fine. Nature does not care very much about temperature rise, mostly it likes it.

>>15572353
People are questioning the government narrative so the shills have to come out to make people scared of globe le warming again.

>>15572694
>I really don't give two shits if every home in Florida sinks.
Don't threaten me with a good time.

can you shitskins finally go back to /pol/?
it's been long overdue

>>15563531
Why is an antivaxxer saying 'they're a scientist' as a reason to believe someone?

>>15572353
I don't climate change is itself what people are overly concerned about. Instead it is that activists want the government to force people to do things.

E.g. ban cars, eat bugs, live in the megacity etc.

Worse still is that activists hardly ever suggest action on the level of the individual. Which really enforces the idea that climate change is just being used as a tool to give the government even more power.

I think the government is a far greater threat to humanity's well-being. Most nations have government spending nearing or surpassed 50%. That is incredibly unhealthy, and it shows in the constant economic crises we have.

Those of you CC activists unconvinced, giving more power to the state will just stunt technological innovation. No need to think up a better machine when you can just breed more slaves.

>>15573168
>STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME

>>15562748
>how do climate scientists account for AC exhaust blowing over temperature monitoring stations?
They don't.

>>15563075
>This one station is irrelevant
Then why does it exist?

>uh just because you have photo evidence of multiple CRS units in inappropriate places that will obviously get way fucking hotter than the normal average temperature doesn't mean you can assume there are any more
>you have to assume that there aren't any more instead, that's valid

>>15573453
climate change isn't real
now go back and shit up your own board

>>15573485
No, I won't stop disagreeing with you

>>15573485
climate change is real
now go back and shit up your own board

>>15573561
>>15573485
>they don't know the earth has periods of cooling and heating itself and humanity is once again taking credit for having
nothing to do with it

Retards ahoy. Let the earth do what it will, stop listening to your favorite corporat- uh I mean politician telling you otherwise.

>>15573594

>>15570754
>>15562748
>>15563074
>>15563050
wow, global warming is a scam. if it were real there would be no reason to fake the data like that

>>15563289
>https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/04/australia-wide-assessment-climate-change-or-instrument-change/
except the constantly lying, misreporting data,changing their stories. It started with threatening an ice age. and the tax and control incentive of the government. Your default is to trust the government when you know it keeps lying to you. This is npc behavior.

>>15574702
>This is npc behavior.
Most people are NPCs, so NPC behavior should be expected to be commonplace. Those with IQ high enough to rise above being an NPC are a rare minority

>>15563154
He's agreeing with you in an entertaining and oblique manner, jesus christ, the IQ in this place.

>>15575626
Sarcasm and misdirection are for reddit. Here we value straightforward facts, not goofy word games.

>>15575090
Only low IQ people are tricked by global warming.

>>15563612>>15563638
>>15563644
>>15563650
so angry

>>15575090
>>15576238
NPCs are not people
they are a divergent species
there can be only one
choose yourself or choose them

>>15577180
I choose the vaxx.

Vaxxie *clap* vaxxie *clap* N. *clap* P. *clap* C.
Vaxxie *clap* vaxxie *clap* N. *clap* P. *clap* C.
Vaxxie *clap* vaxxie *clap* N. *clap* P. *clap* C.

>>15562748

Heres another official weather station, this one is in California, surrounded on three sides by asphalt

>>15578974
>surrounded on three sides by asphalt
how natural

>>15574702
>It started with threatening an ice age

>>15574539
> if it were real there would be no reason to fake the data like that
thats how you know its fake

>>15563050
More weather station pics?

>>15581423
There's a huge scientific report on them that these pictures come from. You can probably google it.

>>15581435

>>15583202
>source NOAA
a government propaganda agency, not a scientific organization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2013#Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Modernization_Act_of_2012
>the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 would allows U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.

>>15583231
Scientifically speaking, why did global warming become ubiquitous in the media the same year that propagandizing Americans became legal?

>>15583916
Your antisemitic remarks are quite problematic.

>>15583231
>a government propaganda agency, not a scientific organization
>posts unrelated Wikipedia article
What did he mean by this?

>>15583939
Oy vey.

>>15583939
Your problematic!

This is the PDF on the topic
https://files.catbox.moe/basedwod.pdf
39mb

>>15568199
>HEY LITTLE DONNIE, I just ate a piece of shit for breakfast, kinda made me think of you! How do you like them apples!?

>>15586035
That's a good Ron Perlman impression.

>>15585976
Thanks for the upload

Open question to everyone here I suppose.

A common argument for scientific bias is that within the scientific community there is pressure to agree with the norm, the accepted facts etc, and that disagreeing with it - even with good evidence- means you’ll get fired, or your papers won’t get published.

If that’s the case, how did climate change as a concept get accepted in academia in the first place? Wouldn’t the state before it’s acceptance be that there is no climate change? And that if a paper were to come out that would make claims of climate change, the response would be intense scrutiny?

Could it be that even after all that scrutiny scientists couldn’t find a way to disprove it?

Keep in mind that scientists are not politicians and tend to keep to their area of study / expertise, so the answer “they wanted to initiate massive social change through authoritarian climate policy” isn’t valid

>>15587552
>A common argument for scientific bias is that within the scientific community there is pressure to agree with the norm, the accepted facts etc, and that disagreeing with it - even with good evidence- means you’ll get fired, or your papers won’t get published.
That's a complete lie. In fact, finding something that isn't the expected outcome is potentially revolutionary. That's what every scientist dreamscape of. In my field (and many others, I'm sure) we do blinded analyses. We don't look at the data (or at least the interesting region) until we finish our analysis and only then unblind. Otherwise there's always the risk that you subconsciously work in a direction to get some significance of some amazing new thing that isn't even there.
That being said, if you find something completely unexpected and new, you'll probably get tougher reviews, everything will be double- and triple-checked. But if it's there, you can show that your measurements were done properly, why should you get fired and silenced? We'd never have a single discovery again if that was the case.
The rest of the question is void.

>>15587573
Yes I agree with you, I am just saying that that is a common argument against climate change

>>15587552
>scientists are not politicians
they're the politicians' paid servants, politicians pay all the soientists' bills and the soientists get canceled if they don't behave the way the politicians desire
>and tend to keep to their area of study / expertise,
is that why black soience man was telling everyone about the importance of vaccines when he can't even publish research in his own field?

>>15587619
What do you want us to reply then?
>A common thing said by schizos is that the French King can't grow a beard, so I'm wondering, does his court even have a barber?
The whole premise is false, so everything after that is undefined.

>>15587713
Nice quote, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means

Scientists are funded by universities, public and private. Public universities are funded by federal grants yes. But this connection is not as straightforward as you’re claiming. Politicians do not pay scientists’ bills, that’s like saying since I pay taxes I’m in charge of what food people on food stamps get to buy. And they’re are not canceled if they ‘misbehave’- you do know of the concept of tenure right?

As for black science man, do you understand the meaning of the phrase “tend to”?

>>15587762
Good lord man, haven’t you ever heard of accepting something for the sake of argument?

I’m asking the people who make this argument to make sense of it if I try extending it back in time

>>15587552
A big motivating factor behind something like global warming being widely accepted is the "better safe than sorry" principle, just as how the idea of global cooling was being spoke about in the 1970s quite widely.

Also I think it is pretty clear that any scientist who questions the greater climate change narrative will basically be seen as a nutcase, there is immense pressure to agree with the norm

>>15587819
Why would a dissenting/skeptical scientist be seen as a nutcase?

>>15587552
>If that’s the case, how did climate change as a concept get accepted in academia in the first place? Wouldn’t the state before it’s acceptance be that there is no climate change?

There was no widespread focus on global warming at first until it got publicized. When they realized this topic became popular with the masses, scientists and businessmen began piling on the subject. This snowballed into new a trillion dollar green industry. They later changed "global warming" to "climate change" in the same way "Twitter" was changed to "X" to keep the topic fresh.

>>15587936
A lot of questions have been asked already. If the scientist asks questions that are already answered, he'd be seen as uneducated rather than skeptical. If he asks questions that are just dumb/easy to find answers to, he'd be seen as an idiot. If the questions are unanswered, not easy to answer and generally make sense, he wouldn't be seen as a nutcase.

>>15588010
Complete nonsense. I'd like to see you provide evidence of any of it. BTW it was Bush's administration that pushed the change from "global warming" to "climate change" as an attempt to downplay the threat.

>>15588010
>They later changed "global warming" to "climate change" in the same way "Twitter" was changed to "X" to keep the topic fresh.
Wrong. The Bush administration pushed the term "climate change" because "global warming" sounds too scary. They'd didn't want people questioning oil and complaining about Bush doing fuck all for the environment.
It's literally a conservative psyop, stop pretending that "scientists" or environmentalists are behind this.

>>15588032

>>15588063
What's that supposed to prove exactly?

>>15589139
Fuck off with your antisemitism.

>>15589160
Have you taken your meds?

>>15589166
What's with you bigot goyim always saying we're insane.

>>15589133
he lives better than i do.

>>15589480
>projection

>>15590695
Found you, schizobumper

The truth is that scientists have no idea what the consequences our continual output of co2 will do to the earth. By taking a stance of prudence they pretend that our actions are going to wildly destroy the planet so that normies will be scared into slowing down our output and buy time for the research to be done.
You are all deranged retards and have no idea how real science plays out on the main stage where consequences matter.

>>15591711
So we have gone from "never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to evil" to "just assume they're good ppl :DDDDD".
Seems kosher.

>>15563010
I don't get how there could even be one in a place like that. Is it that hard to move them 10 ft?

>>15592820
That air conditioner has no effect on the reading. Take a thermometer outside and see how close you need to get to your air conditioner before your thermometer reads any different.

>>15593228
>i don't understand thermodynamics
thanks for letting us all know

>>15587552

>Keep in mind that scientists are not politicians and tend to keep to their area of study / expertise

you don't know about critical theory?

>>15587552
>Wouldn’t the state before it’s acceptance be that there is no climate change?


no climate change, no funding. Scientists need to claim some ultra super duper serious thing is happening to get government funding. Why do you think many scientists falsify data to get the result they want?

>>15594130
Air conditioners don't magically raise the temperature of air 10 ft away. Take a thermometer and see how close you need to get to your air conditioner before you notice a difference in the reading.

>>15594397
>Air conditioners don't magically
Correct, they scientifically raise the temperature of air through their exhaust.

>>15563531
>hard data
>6 selected data points out of 700

>>15563925
Crazy how putting one weather station near a vent to a vent made the oceans get hotter

>>15571851
Yeah bro half the world running out of water and being turned into a desert isn’t a real problem make sure you cry about the liberals on four chan when your city is flooded by climate refugees

>>15597049
>Yeah bro half the world running out of water
How do you know the quantity of water supplied by nature has changed and it is not just a product of increased demand via increase in the population?

>being turned into a desert
Where? How do far do you expect the expansion of deserts to be?

>when your city is flooded by climate refugees
Won't be happening because there are safe countries between the source and the would-be host. Also we can shoot them.

>>15597448
>How do you know the quantity of water supplied by nature has changed
Do you understand what happens to water when it heats up? Do you understand what steam is? Are you dense?

>Where?
Everywhere there's a desert stupid. And yes, that includes the US so you can't just pretend it's a 'third world' problem that won't affect you.

>Won't be happening because there are safe countries between the source and the would-be host
are you stupid in real life

>>15588032
>>15588034
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1950&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=0

>>15597505
What do you think that demonstrates? The Bush administration didn't create the term, they pushed it's use to further an agenda.

>>15596430
The exhaust from air conditioners does not magically extend 10 ft, retard. Are you too poor to afford a thermometer?

>>15572353
Exxon missed their (already downgraded) earnings report by 54%.
Main causes, natgas being dirt cheap and refineries failing to turn a good profit.

The refineries in question? Gasoline producing.
Electric Cars are going to HEEM oil keks.
OPEC is too busy putting on their copium face.
The people/bots here are probably the same that post EV schizo threads on /o/.

That said, their is a lot of fuckery surrounding AGW, as pointed out in this thread.
And I generally find a lot “green” AGW-related stuff extremely grift-y and suspicious as fuck.
But I like EVs, so fuck oil jews.

>>15597513
Doesn't look like it.

>>15598008
What doesn't look like it? The Luntz memo?

>>15597490
You braindead retard, C3 plants need less water the more CO2.
You absolute retard, C3 plants are essentially all plants.
You moronic retard, leaf count, coverage, density just keep getting higher.
You mouthbreathing retard, deserts are already in the process of dying.

You perfect goylem, you need to go vaccinate, fully.

>>15597448
>Won't be happening because there are safe countries between the source and the would-be host. Also we can shoot them.

>>15598347
>C3 plants
>C3 plants cannot grow in very hot areas at today's atmospheric CO2 level (significantly depleted during hundreds of millions of years from above 5000 ppm) because RuBisCO incorporates more oxygen into RuBP as temperatures increase. This leads to photorespiration (also known as the oxidative photosynthetic carbon cycle, or C2 photosynthesis), which leads to a net loss of carbon and nitrogen from the plant and can therefore limit growth.
Hmm, I wonder how they will thrive as we heat the planet.

>>15562748
the hotter the better the funding

>>15597025
>hotter ocean surface equals hotter oceans
lmao

>>15599259
Ah yes, this global warming is made of global warming.

>>15563056
This post was posted by AI; To answer your dumb ass question, Show me a peer reviewed study with sources and citations that show there is some mass global conspiracy to plant weather stations around airconditioners to throw off their co2 count or even first show me proof that that DOES throw off their co2 count.

>>15599251
Scientist here. Where can I request stuff finding?

>>15563074
That isn't an AC

>>15563494
"Verified"

>>15599306
triggered

>>15597490
>Do you understand what happens to water when it heats up? Do you understand what steam is? Are you dense?
I see you have not understood what I am telling you. The cause of lack of water in an area could either be that the demand for the water has increased, or the supply has decreased. The demand for water would mostly increase from a higher population or more intense agriculture.
How can you be sure that any places you have been told experience a lack of water are such because of climate change and not population increases. Africa has many more people in it than it used to.

>Everywhere there's a desert stupid.
To what magnitude? What is the mechanism of action? Could the increased temperature not also increase water vapor transport and so counteract other desert expanding forces?

More importantly, what makes you believe state control is required?

>are you stupid in real life
What troubles you about that statement? There shouldn't even be any refugees in European now, as there are many countries between source nations and European host nations.

Instead of reacting like this when someone questions what you been raised to believe, try to understand what im asking of you.

>>15598403
It seems like a logical solution well within the usual practices of governments. Killing people is no stranger to the state, wars and taxation (theft) are their game. I am entirely sincere.

>>15598347
>>15598439
Here is a study claiming an increase in plant matter across the planet due to climate warming.
Considering the ppm CO2 and average temperature in earths history has been much higher than today, I suspect plants will be fine. Also consider rain forests are one of the greatest bio matter accumulators per land area on the planet, the increased temperature will likely increase crop yields.

>>15589139
That proves there's a whole industry profiting off of global warming funded by the government and private entities and the story of humble climate scientists fighting against evil corporations like David vs Goliath are just myths.

>>15563074
the concrete will be a bigger issue here.

>>15601200
>concerte emits heat

>>15600719
.... how?

>>15600122
>I suspect plants will be fine
Yeah, "plants" will be fine. So will "mammals". But individual species will go extinct. And even though I don't think that humans will go extinct, that's an extremely low bar. Things can be shit without extinction of humanity. The world wars were bad. The plague was bad. Global warming will be worse, but neither will be the end of humanity.

>>15600108
>he will not reply to this.

>>15601209
concrete absorbs heat during the day yes.
it will heat the air around it, this will have a noticeable effect on sensor readings.
architects consider thermal mass when designing homes to help with heat retention in the evenings.

>>15599259
Luckily scientists made the discovery that oceans have depth before you so the Argo floats are capable of diving to 2000m and measuring temperature. No Nobel prize for an observation that upturns a whole field for you yet.

>>15601245
>concrete absorbs heat during the day yes.
If it absorbs heat, there will be less heat in the air as a result.

>>15563143
>"Read a newspaper"
>No-name-litterally-who journal.

>>15601306
>No-name-litterally-who journal.
It's a personal blog. That's the same level of credulous as linking a comment on 4channel.

>>15563050
Is that even for temperature measurements? Looks more like air quality monitoring to me.

>>15601321
the replication crisis propaganda journals are an inferior source of information

>>15602609
Fuck off to /pol/, chud.

>>15601256
I'm sure the temperature would be around 4°C

>>15570455
>racism outside of /b/

>>15601350
>Looks more like air quality monitoring
no it doesn't

>>15601213
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!???