/sci/ - Science & Math

Completely ignoring the point you were just making. Why the fuck would you pull an analogy out of your ass and then explain it? It seems like the explanation it's self would have sufficed.

>>2086735
Well seeing as you couldn't get something as simple as 'itself' right, I felt that I should explain it to the sci community here.

"-ists"

What the fuck are you niggers doing?

Still no warmists on here have found an opposition to my argument?

>>2087001
your correlation doesn't equal causation, and honestly the mechanism for CO2 forcing is well understood and entirely undisputed.

It isn't that your argument can't be disproved, it's just that it really isn't worth the bother. Childish would be the word.

>>2087007
big words that mean so much, yet say so litt.e So you resort to calling me childish, wow really mature.

>>2087026
That's the problem with morons, you think you can discuss technical ideas without technical language.

The fact that you don't understand basic words should clue you in to the fact that you're not understanding basic ideas.

Yes, quite childish. though no worse than me for messing with you. I can't resist poking at the retards though.

this is a bump, it is made of GREAT JUSTICE

94% of scientists say climate change is real.
84% ofscientists say it is human caused.

97% of scientists say evolution is real
87% of scientists say it is by unguided natural selection.

Scientists are just as sure as human caused global warming as atheistic evolution.

Pic related. The next pic is related too.

Oh, and source: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

>>2087769

Next related pic.

Rage away, science deniers.

Troll away, trolls.

Because you two are indistinguishable.

>>2087769
Did you know that 1000 years ago, Scientists believed the Earth was... dundundun... FLAT.

>>2087783

Did you know 1000 years ago there wasn't a system of peer review collaboration and publication?

>>2087769
>87% of scientists say it is by unguided natural selection.
>your picture says the opposite

>>2087799

Learning to read would be a good start.

Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below - in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.

1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring [18] (taken from the Conservapedia homepage). This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic.
2. Simply deny global warming is happening[19] - and maintain that no action is necessary - an increasingly uncommon position.
3. Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity - so we don’t have to do anything.
4. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity. So we don't have to do anything.
5. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing[20] - so we don’t have to do anything.
6. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China isn’t doing anything - so we don’t have to do anything.
7. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China does something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us money - so we don’t have to do anything.
8. (There is an hypothesized eighth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something, but it's too late now")

When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above - otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them.

>>2087783
Total bullshit. By the middle ages, no reputable scholar, philosopher or soothe-sayer supported the notion of the flat Earth.

By the 14th century, not only was the academic community totally onboard with a spherical earth, but belief in a flat Earth amongst people with an education was essentially nonexistent.

But even if this was true, what of it? The scientific method did not exist until far later, and we have very strong evidence to suggest that climate change is happening and is caused by humans. Unless you care to refute that evidence, you can shut your whore mouth.

By your idiotic non-logic, everything currently believed to be true by scientists is wrong, because they were wrong in the past. If that's the case, I'm sure you won't mind sticking your hands on live wires, because electricity is just something that those wacky scientists believe in.

>>2087007

>your correlation doesn't equal causation

Irony. Irony everywhere.

>>2087791

>a system of peer review collaboration and publication?

Circle Jerk. Circle Jerk everywhere

>>2087822

>1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring [18] (taken from the Conservapedia homepage). This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic.

Someone should tell the facts, because they are getting it all wrong

>>2087827

I believe you are looking for The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov.

To claim the earth is a sphere is wrong. It is also wrong to claim it is flat. It is in fact an oblate spheroid. However a sphere is far closer to the truth. Science converges on the truth, each theory a better approximation.

Importantly, never has a good explanation been replaced with a worse one, nor a natural explanation by a supernatural.

>>2087822

I'm number 9.

Global Warming is occuring. It's caused by humans and I don't give a shit.

>cut down forests
>pollute environment
>have PHAs, CFCs and other GHGs pumped into the air
>slowly running out of resources with no method to sustain itself

>imokwiththis.jpg

Just secures my employment as an environmental engineer. Thanks capitalism and unbridled consumption!

>>2087853

Unbridled consumption is not the problem.

unsustainable unbridled consumption is.

Through high technology we will build a green utopia with a fantastic standard of living.

And if we cant do it on earth due to the political system, there are enough people to organize a settlement on mars.

>>2087860

>he doesn't know what unbridled means
>he thinks technology can save us

>hahaohwow.jpg

Ever read Frankenstein? Ever read about IPAT? Material efficiency?

If I think that there is a 90% chance that SOME of the current climate change is caused by humans (meaning there is a 10% chance that NONE of it is caused by humans)

Does that make me a sceptic/denier?

>>2087822

>5. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing[20] - so we don’t have to do anything.


This isn't denial, arguing about what should be done is not denial you idiot.

In regards to depending on technology to save us is the same mindset as a Christian, where Jesus will be resurrected and save us from our sins, or, that when we die, we will go to heaven.

Utopia will never happen with our current mindset. Our economic system is unrealistic, as economic growth is the sign of a "healthy economy" when in reality, you cannot continue economic growth without also impacting the environment.

>>2087882
No, just arbitrary and foolish.

>>2087899

Well, its the IPCC official position...

>>2087899

Son, you don't know how science is done.

90% CL of a partial anthropogenic cause to climate change = 10% chance none of it is human caused. Its the official scientific stance on the issue.

>>2087911

The IPCC is notoriously conservative compared to the actual scientific literature and real life observations

CO2 concentrations are rising as fast as the most pessimistic projection (SRES A1FI)

Global temperatures are rising as fast as the most pessimistic projection

Sea level rise is occurring one-third faster than the most pessimistic projection

Summer sea ice extent of the Arctic is three times faster than the most pessimistic projection (CHAAAAAAAAAAR)

Makes sense, considering that the IPCC needed to by signed off by the UN and thus required the agreement of the US (under the Bush administration when the last report was released), Russia, Canada, Australia, Saudi Petrostates, etc. which all have a vested interest in seeing a tame and un-alarming IPCC report.

Then you have the submission process for articles, of which the cut-off date was 2005. Peer review can add months or even years to article publication, so the articles were actually written in early 2005 at the latest, or as early as 2003. Add the time it takes to actually conduct the research necessary to write the article: usually about a year.

So the most recent IPCC report relied on years-old data and had their hands tied by major fossil fuel interests, and so we got a very tame report.

>>2087944

Summer sea ice extent of the Arctic is melting three times faster*

>>2087921
>>2087911

Based on the latest scientific literature I would think that the probability of global warming being entirely driven by natural factors alone is now less than 1%

The greenhouse properties of CO2 has been well established by laboratory experiments. Direct measurement of solar irradiance indicates that the Sun is not getting any warmer. Carbon dioxide has increased in concentration in the atmosphere. Satellites have detected the EM signature of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to excess carbon. Ground measurements corroborate the same. The tropopause is rising, the thermosphere shrinking, and the stratosphere is cooling. Nights are warming faster than days, and the temperature gap between nights and days is closing. All of the above is consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and inconsistent with solar or cosmic forcing. Isotopic ratios of atmospheric carbon indicates anthropogenic origin. This isotopic signature has been corroborated by recent studies conducted on coral proxies. The oxygen concentration is declining, suggesting singlet carbon molecules bonding with O2 to form CO2. Changes in CO2 concentrations are occurring faster than at any point in at least the past 15 million years, but could well be faster than any point in the past 65 million years. Needless to say there is no known natural process that can cause outgassing of CO2 at this rate.

>>2087991
The IPCC data is free, it has been summarized so any idiot can understand it, and it is entirely convincing to anyone except oil executives:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm

Seriously, look at the graph of CO2 in the air and tell me you think that's a good idea. And keep in mind that the halflife for CO2 to be cycled by the oceans is on the order of 5000 years.

You global warming deniers will be known for thousands of years as the douchebags who killed 90% of the species on the planet and drove nations into permanent war over diminishing energy supplies.

>>2087822
I really do care about this and I vote (and always will) a straight democratic ticket because of this issue alone.

Nevertheless, I think I fall into
8. Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something, but it's too late now

It'll take 10 terawatts--the same figure as all the energy currently being produced--to change CO2 emissions in the next 100 years. 100 trillion dollars. And if we do nothing emissions will be four times higher than today (conservatively!)

I just don't think we're capable of this. People are too stupid. To get something meaningful done citizens would all have to agree that warming is as big a threat as nazis were. feelsbadman.jpg

Thanks guys for the well staged thread.

I knew the millions we pay our propagandists are worth it.

Also thanks from my buddies Blood & Gore (David and Al that is).

vicini curneis

>>2088939

Two things

1) Pauchauri, like everyone else who worked on the IPCC, got paid $0 for their time

2) Pauchauri was investigated by the KPMG and was cleared of wrongdoing. His financial records are spotless.

In b4 THE KPMG IS ALSO PART OF THE CONSPIRACY

>>2086727

9/10

Solid trolling, keep up the good work.

Too late for damage control, dude, much too late.

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society – an important moment in science history

In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity ... This is not science; other forces are at work. - Hal Lewis

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

shortan Second

>>2088317

The IEA estimated that $45 trillion would need to be invested over 50 years to stabilize carbon dioxide under 450 ppm

So that's about $1000 per year per First Worlder, which is quite doable. Hell, letting the Bush tax cuts expire could pay for a chunk of that. Also keep in mind that energy efficiency, reduced fuel consumption, efficient land use, etc. saves money, so the net cost may not actually be 45 trillion. There's also reduced air pollution and smog, which will save tens of billions in health care costs. On the other hand, unmitigated global warming will have impacts that could cost 1280 trillion dollars, and that's based on very conservative and unrealistically optimistic assumptions. Based on this simple cost-benefit analysis the choice should be obvious.

You are right about the Nazi thing though. A big complicated problem like global warming, where there is no evil bad guy, means the psychological barriers to action are extremely strong. People WANT to believe denialist memes because it's comforting to them. Lomborg can say things like "WELL MAYBE WE SHOULD SPEND MORE MONEY ON AIDS CURES" when the people who trumpet his words couldn't give a shit about that either. Compared to the scientists, the propagandists have a much easier task. They don't have to tell the truth or be logically consistent. People are also vulnerable to things like this:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

>>2089555

Did you know who Hal Lewis was before he resigned from the APS?

What school did he graduate from? Where does he teach at now? Is he retired? What's his specialty? What papers has he published? Has he published ANYTHING on climate science?

Did you know that ANY physics student can sign up to be part of the APS? They have tens of thousands of members. So the fact that you're willing to take one guy, who no one has ever heard of, who is suddenly now famous specifically because he's a vocal climate skeptic, yet has never worked in any related field, and use him as an example of how ALL climate science is pure fraud, shows you to be gullible as fuck. Furthermore, he had no scientific criticism at all, he just ragequitted without saying anything other than "climategateclimategateclimategateclimategate"

Stop reading WattsUpWithThat, shit rots your brain.

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/09/14/life-on-this-earth-just-changed-the-north-atlantic-current
-is-gone/

We shall all welcome the new ice age