/sci/ - Science & Math

>2011
>still believes in global warming

Yeah this is old news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#Funding_by_fossil_fuel_business_interests

>Greenpeace
Stopped reading there.
Compulsive liars

>>3312864
>>2011
>>Still denies global warming

But there was a big snowstorm this year, the earth can't get warmer.

>>3312868

>>Stopped reading there.
>>Compulsive liars

They didn't fabricate the evidence, just brought it to light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#Funding_by_fossil_fuel_business_interests

Are you going to deny the evidence because of an ideological distaste for those presenting it, like a common creationist?

>>3312868

>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU

>>3312878
Nope. I'm just going to deny all the evidence they bring forward.
Any evidence brought forward by rational, trustable sources is quite believable

>>3312886

>>Nope. I'm just going to deny all the evidence they bring forward.

Pretty much see you as no different from a creationist them.

>>3312888

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

>>3312890
Scientists are rational and trustable sources.
The point you are trying to make is foolish and poorly thought out

Most climate change denialists are either fundamentalist Christians, or think exactly like them.

>try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

>UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

>the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

IS IT ME, OR DOES THIS SENTANCE ABSOLUTELY REEK OF BUTTFAGGOTRY?

>>3312896

>>Scientists are rational and trustable sources.

It doesn't apply here. We're not talking about a scientific study. We're talking about financial records.

These records don't come from Greenpeace. Greenpeace just uncovered them. You're letting petty, small minded ideological dogmatism compel you to reject evidence, like a creationist.

>>3312904
No. I'm letting the fact that Greenpeace thinks nothing of forgery and lies getting in the way of me believing them.
You are a gullible fool if you believe everything you are told

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

These are the faggots who support global warming.

Its a fucking bandwagon.

>>3312858
>In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body,

well thats funny... because ALL climate ''investigations'' is heavily funded by politicians and people in positions of power. Not only that, but pro-climaters collaborate and plot against other ''deniers'' AND alter and hide information AND try to silence any work doen against their hypothesis

interesting, eh?

also

>is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

and thats wrong... how?
greenpeace is seeming to imply that the ball of nuclear energy in the centro of ourt solar system which provides all the energy on our planet, does not fundamentally dictate planet temperature

/sci/ I am disappoint, no puns

I don't think the companies paid him to say it doesn't exist; they just saw a skeptic and funded his research.

That being said, the majority of scientists say climate change exists, so it's hard to dispute it.

Also motherfucking Al Gore is the root of this problem. The reason the crazy republicans are so against climate change and why dems love it is because of this guy. At least Al Gore didn't support the LHC...

What amuses me is between the debate, and the skeptics, and the mud-slinging and the haranguing, and garbage on both sides, even if there is a catastrophic climate even of any kind from any source in our future,..

...we're fucked.

Global warming: I'll just turn up my AC kthnx.
Global cooling: I'll just turn up my heater kthnx.

>>3312912
>>3312886

you're kinda "skeptical" to the point of delusion, man

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

>not putting your earth in the fridge

i seriously hope you guy's don't do this

mfw this is /sci/ and no knows how the earth works

fuck guys.. i'll make this as simple as possible for you retards.

the earth does indeed cool and warm up it's a fucking fact. The earth at it's beginning state before life is much different then it is now i think we can all agree with that (creationists aside). Earth has a feedback system that kicks in when it starts getting too warm it will cool itself and vice versa. Granted this process takes thousands and thousands of years what causes the earth to get to warm is up for debate but you can't turn a blind eye and say that the climate doesn't change.

The things on earth regulate the earth (atmosphere land water yada yada) and those in turn regulate the things on earth.

come at me i'm ready

>>3312974
I never said I was a climate change skeptic.
I just said that only a fool trusts greenpeace.

>>3312916
>looks at who supports something and judges off that

hipster alert

you're even more hipster then the environmentalist hipster

>>3312988

didn't think summer /sci/ would stoop this low

there's not much you can do as a regular humble citizen as money spent by these big companies will always win

but i think most of you should start hitting the real scientific reports and books to see the truth about earth's climate change

it's changing as fast as some radicals "preach" (teehee) it, but it does change and we just need to be ready to adapt to when it starts become major changes

ITT we realize that academia is controlled by powerful lobbyists.

You high-schoolers are in for a surprise once you learn about Big Pharma and other associated evils.

>mfw Soon is now being paid by environmentalist groups
>mfw Soon is making x2 the money by selling out on both ends of the spectrum
>mfw i have no when

>>3312884
>>3312894
>>3312916
> .org
> youtube

oh man these sources made me pee

>>3313005
i dont ''disbelieve'' in ''global warming'' (which being called climate change is much more accurate) But I start lolling at the bullshit about GLOBUL WARMING when the IPCC chuck out crap like... oh shit theres going to be 500 million climate refugees by 2010, and ''the sea level is gona rise by 4 feet this century and we are all going to die by 2050''

''if you give us a massive ammount of money and fund all our costly worldwide explorations we will save you all!''

its that scaremongering bullshit that I see straight through. Sure, we are adding a surplus ammount of CO2 to the atmosphere than there usually would be, and sure this is making the temp rise and sea levels rise due to thermal expansion (and the relatively minute addition because of glacial and ice-sheet melt) but its not like the sea hasn't been hundreds of meters higher and lower than it is now.

another popular bullshit claim is too much CO2 will essentially ''destroy'' the planet. Well, the addition of more CO2 accelerates plant growth, naturally offsetting the rise ( the one thing that NO FUCKING CLIMATE SCIENTIST ever takes into consideration is fucking trees)

The worst thing we do to the planet BY FAR, is cutting down forests. Its not necissarily that we are stuffing the planet full of C02, its that we are destroying vast ammounts of forest which would under normal circumstances, offset and regulate the influx.

Either way, it is INEVITABLE that the sea will rise and the temperatures will rise.... and no ammount of halting human development will change that. All it does is kick the can down the road and put the burden on our grandkids.

>>3313019
it still makes me giggle knowing that society is purposefully made ill in order to make us buy medical drugs.

>>3313046
Forests don't do much.
There are way more photosynthetic plants in the ocean.

>>3313046
this a thousand times

high five guy

>>3313074
I mean plants as a whole dewd.

If we replanted all our forests and planted new ones I can bet you our climate will re-stabilise

>>3313089
But we need the land to feed humans.
Save the planet eat a castor/human or something?

>>3313046
can you direct me to any studies that show that plants are able to offset the amount of co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere? it seems like a logical claim, but i've never seen any studies that provide evidence for this, and satellite data show an increase in CO2 concentration. also, as you've noted, deforestation.
i would also like to note that geologists working with oil companies get paid something like twice the amount they make in other industries including academia and government. so if it were about the greed, wouldn't the conclusion be that co2 is fine instead of "we need monies to save the world"?

>>3313099
you're still not getting it

the planet is stable, its undergoing it's natural process of cooling and warming.

the taiga forest itself produces enough oxygen a year to satisfy the earth's demand for it.

replanting is good yes, but i don't want you to think the earth has been thrown way off it's stable area

>>3313099
>>3313099
will its either live satisfied or die full

>>3312886
>Nope. I'm just going to deny all the evidence they bring forward
>I'm just going to deny all the evidence
>deny evidence

Is this /x/ now?

This isn't really news. Everyone is aware that the "climate change is a liberal hoax" bullshit has been manufactured by corporations that want to be free to rape the earth.

>>3313103
read "web of life" by fritjof capra

then read his sources

the book is not directly related to the topic we're discussing here but it speaks explains a lot about how CO2 has been regulated naturally aside the influence of humans

>>3312923

>>and thats wrong... how?
>>greenpeace is seeming to imply that the ball of nuclear energy in the centro of ourt solar system which provides all the energy on our planet, does not fundamentally dictate planet temperature

No, not at all. AGW takes solar variation into account. Claiming that it's 100% solar variation and that AGW doesn't take it into account is a red herring.

Can you understand a model in which solar variation AND human activity contribute? Surely that isn't too complicated?

>>3312916

>>These are the faggots who support global warming.

>>Its a fucking bandwagon.

These are the people who oppose environmentalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU

That's the side you're on, and they speak for you.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html


get fucked

>>3312979

>the earth does indeed cool and warm up it's a fucking fact. The earth at it's beginning state before life is much different then it is now i think we can all agree with that (creationists aside). Earth has a feedback system that kicks in when it starts getting too warm it will cool itself and vice versa. Granted this process takes thousands and thousands of years what causes the earth to get to warm is up for debate but you can't turn a blind eye and say that the climate doesn't change.

>The things on earth regulate the earth (atmosphere land water yada yada) and those in turn regulate the things on earth.

Yes, and climatologists understand this. It's not something you somehow understand that they do not. What they know that you don't seem to is that human caused pollution can exacerbate natural warming trends.

>>3313143
i shall look into this, thank you. i would much prefer to see a study that backs up the regulation of the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmo with plant action though. if our CO2 production overwhelms the capacity of plants to produce oxygen, and if it dramatically overwhelms it and causes a high rate of change of CO2 concentration, we are likely to see mass extinctions.
also, for the record, most of the photosynthesis on earth happens because of algae, not from terrestrial plants.

>>3313118

>>the planet is stable, its undergoing it's natural process of cooling and warming.

You don't get that while this is true, the planet's climate is also influenced by pollution. The two are not mutually exclusive, but simultaneously true.

>>3313103
its not money, its control

if your political party dictates what days you can and can't use your car... which car companies are allowed to make cars, what electrical appliances you can and cannot use, how many kids you are allowed and every other aspect of human life that uises energy (everything) you dont need money.

Although ''being green'' may seem like the anti-corporational thing to do... when you actually look at it, we are basuically signing over EVERYTHING we do to whoever holds that power.

e.g you can forget humans developing into the space age.... this system will put us back like a hundred years.

The ''green'' technologies toiday are inefficient, low energy and in some cases, more costly than just using fossil fuels. It would be like trying to run a marathon with a sprinter, good intentions, but its not gonna cut it.

>>3313165
then the earth shakes us off like a bad habit through natural disasters. Humans are gone, earth is fine.

no big deal

>>3313170
i agree with your sentiment 100% but would change pollution to atmospheric and oceanic chemistry in general, or perhaps just chemistry.

>>3313153
Entire states buy into this. And people wonder why the more religious areas of the country have a worse track record in environmental protection.

"If Jesus is coming back in 30 years or sooner, why should we care what happens to the world?"

>>3313178

>>e.g you can forget humans developing into the space age.... this system will put us back like a hundred years.

You have it backwards; If we run out of oil before developing alternatives, it will set us back a hundred years.

We *need* things like electric cars, supercapacitor buses, personal rapid transit, utility scale heliostats, etc.

When people like you oppose this crucial technology, you're holding back humanity and possibly dooming us when oil runs out.

>>3313170

pollution where exactly
like the landfill in the ocean or the cities of trash we have on land?

>>3313178
if this is the case, you have to explain why multiple organizations across multiple governments on multiple continents are all towing the same climate change line and fabricating the same data so that america can control its peons better than its already sophisticated propaganda machines already do.

To put this simply, a post-oil future where we had the foresight to develop alternative energy tech:

....Versus a post-oil future where ideological pettiness drove conservative conspiracy theorists to mindlessly oppose anything with the word "green" attached, such that the oil running out caught us by surprise:

>>3313204

we can only hope and dream my fellow /sci/entist

>>3312858
> Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
LMAO.
PEACE Prize winning. Along with Barrack "don't tell me who I can't bomb" Obama.

>>3313157
cool

There's no way the environment will diminish quickly, or we'll run out of fuel before I die. These are problems my children will have to worry about, not me. :)

anti global warming hysteria reaches full retard proportions.... for example

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Australia-Camel-Killing-For-Cash-Carbon-Offsetting-Pla
n-Revealed-By-Australian-Government/Article/201106216009635

http://www.physorg.com/news135003243.html

why the hell would you kill animals to offset a natural substance the world needs to survive? Thats retarded...

>>3313231

>>why the hell would you kill animals to offset a natural substance the world needs to survive? Thats retarded...

I dunno man, why to AGW deniers think environmentalism is an antichrist one world religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU

And which is more retarded, really?

>>3313231
that cow backpack thing is actually a great idea! good way to harvest it for fuel instead of letting it go to waste. plus it'll give farmers an extra commodity to sell!

>>3313204
this sort of crap makes me lol

>now that instead of using fossil fuels, everyone suddenly begins wearing labcoats, our buildings are super tall and everything is perfect

more like the economy collapses because without the energy sector, a large chunk of economic activity is wiped out, along with all the millions of jobs involved.

>>3313204
You don't need foresight, you need the government to stop subsidizing oil.

>>3313245

>implying we don't need some population control now and then

>>3313192
>thinks i'm only talking about america.

>>3313257
>ignoring this
>>3313189

>>3313245

>>more like the economy collapses because without the energy sector, a large chunk of economic activity is wiped out, along with all the millions of jobs involved.

And millions more are created because of the new technologies we're switching over to.

Meanwhile, you ignore the complete societal collapse that would occur if we ran out of oil without having prepared for it. How would produce get to supermarkets, for instance? How long would it take for people to start killing one another?

As for the image, it shows two people who are presumably scientists with a vertical farm in the background, an actual emerging technology with two demonstrating facilities so far:

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

Automated three dimensional farming with renewable energy that could have as beneficial an effect on our food production capacity as Norman Borlaug's innovations in the 70s.

But you oppose it. Why do you hate technology, and humanity?

>>3313245
reducing and or stopping the combustion of hydrocarbons will destroy the entirety of the energy sector?
also, i would like to ask how you felt about the bailout of financial institutions recently.

>>3313257
okay so i assume you are talking about some kind of massive global takeover and enslavement of the human race under the guise of AGW.
that being the case, how do all these organizations coordinate this? who is orchestrating this at the top level? is it an individual, a council, etc?
why is there not mountains of evidence of this conspiracy on its own? hackers busted into east anglia's climate unit (which is used in IPCC), got 3,000 total docs, and found only two or three emails that were even remotely incriminating. why were the not able to find any sort of evidence of this conspiracy and instead found something like 0.16% of the content there to be slightly damning? i should also note that multiple inquiries cleared them of any scientific wrongdoing in the end.

>>3313189
>You have it backwards; If we run out of oil before developing alternatives, it will set us back a hundred years.

>We *need* things like electric cars, supercapacitor buses, personal rapid transit, utility scale heliostats, etc.

>When people like you oppose this crucial technology, you're holding back humanity and possibly dooming us when oil runs out.

electric cars, supercapacitor buses, personal rapid transit, utility scale heliostats, etc.

this is the funny thing, you people thhrow out shit like ''we need rapid transit systems'' ''we need everyone to have an electric car''

YOU have it backwards... what you are talking about is technological and efficient advancement... yes, which IS what we need, but it still uses energy. Any way you look at it, producing energy has an associated C02 cost. For example, teh C02 produced when making the silicon sheets in a solar panel take YEARS to recoup. Solar farms are even less efficient and take even longer to repay their carbon debt.

Electric cars are a joke, since most of them use up more equivalent energy to transport you equal distances to petrol models and in a lot of cases, the electricity is provided by carbon burning means.

To put simply, we do not currently have the technology to produce ''green'' energy, as every method either has hidden carbon costs or produces so little energy it is negligable.

Until we fully develop cold fusion, that is.

We would be put back 100 years because of the scarcity of energy that will come from not using fossil fuels. Developing nations would crumble without cheap reliable fuel.

Fossil fuels won't run out for at least 100 years, this gives us plenty of time to come up with REAL green methods of producing energy.

Its morons like you that would put human development to a standstill for the sake of 0.2 degrees over the next 50 years!

>>3313263
>And millions more are created because of the new technologies we're switching over to.

''green jobs'' are a load of crap. Improving efficiency and reducing waste decreases the need for jobs. When you don't need people to build all those wasteful oil consuming technologies and you replace them with automated and efficient systems you eliminate an entire industrial sector.

I ask you, what ''jobs'' are provided

>>3313322

>>YOU have it backwards... what you are talking about is technological and efficient advancement... yes, which IS what we need, but it still uses energy. Any way you look at it, producing energy has an associated C02 cost.

Obviously. The idea is to reduce emissions as much as possible, not entirely.

>>For example, teh C02 produced when making the silicon sheets in a solar panel take YEARS to recoup. Solar farms are even less efficient and take even longer to repay their carbon debt.

This is known as the "perfect solution fallacy". Aka, "because this solution is not perfect, it isn't worth pursuing at all even if it's an improvement."

>>Electric cars are a joke, since most of them use up more equivalent energy to transport you equal distances to petrol models and in a lot of cases, the electricity is provided by carbon burning means.

Wrong. Read this MIT study: http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_wtw.pdf

tl;dr: Electric motors are 85-90% efficient in their use of energy versus 15-20% efficiency for gasoline engines. They use drastically less energy per mile than any gas powered vehicle. You seriously didn't know this? I thought everyone did.

As a result, they necessarily pollute less, as they simply use less of it. And yes this takes into consideration charging efficiency (90+% for lithium batts) and transmission efficiency (93.5% on average). When compared to the waste involved in drilling for oil, shipping it to shore via bunker oil burning tankers, trucking it from the port to the refinery, refining it, then trucking the gas cross country to gas stations, EVs wind up being roughly 50% as polluting in the 'whole lifecycle' sense.

Once again, they have been absolutely proven to be an improvement in terms of energy efficiency and cleanliness over gasoline vehicles, and you *did not know this*.

>>3313352

>>I ask you, what ''jobs'' are provided

Mainly engineering, research and construction. Things like solar heliostats don't build themselves. Pic related, a heliostat. Uninterrupted solar power by way of actuate mirrors which focus sunlight on a molten salt boiler, which acts as a thermal battery sufficient to keep the water boiler (like the one a coal powerplant uses) running overnight.

But you oppose this technology. You want to suppress it. Why?

ITT: Anti-enviros are luddites who oppose technological progress

>>3313368
well you got me there

>>3313264
bad banks should have been allowed to fail and they were mostly large corporate-greedy banks whih (like bear sterns) had knowlingly flooded the amrket with loans and mortgages they couldnt pay. They should of allowed the smaller more robust banks to replace singular banks. As the monopoly of power causes greed and recklessness (not to mention abd habits)

the energy market is worth tens of trillions (probably more) and you think reducing it will not impact on global stability:?

>>3313383
Not the guy/girl you are conversing with. But I applaud your ability to shift your views accordingly when given sufficient information.

>>3313373
and where do you suppose the money comes to build these greats feats of engineering come from once you have ground the eonomy to a halt after stopping fossil fuel production?

>>3313383

>>well you got me there

That's all? Wow. Big of you, I guess. I had my long list of sources all ready to go in case you disputed any of it. I feel all dressed up with nowhere to go.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying all green technologies make sense. Some really are just inefficient fads, like organic farming. But what I am saying is that many of them make good plain sense regardless of the ideological labels attached to it. Technology should be judged on its own merits, and solutions to our impending problems shouldn't be opposed just because they are associated with political or ideological groups we despise. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, no?

To counter OP you will now notice all the government grants that want the results to be in favor of global warming.

>>3313397
i 2nd this sentiment. sure ISN'T summer in here suddenly.

>>3313383
>>3313383
>>3313383
10/10

>>3313398

>>and where do you suppose the money comes to build these greats feats of engineering come from once you have ground the eonomy to a halt after stopping fossil fuel production?

From the economic growth that results from a wide variety of new technologies being required for industry to carry on. That's how growth occurs. What you're promoting, where we stick with existing technologies and don't progress and everyone just keeps their current jobs, is called stagnation.

Whether the need for these technologies is real or fabricated, any time new machinery is required to do the same job it means someone has to buy it, someone has to manufacture it, it means new opportunities for enterprising capitalists. This is how it's always been. Find or create a need and then supply for it.

>>3313403

>>To counter OP you will now notice all the government grants that want the results to be in favor of global warming.

Citation please. And not just that government grants for climate research exist. You have also asserted that they specify what the results should be as a condition of the grant. Please demonstrate that this is true.

>>3313414
They don't even want the question looked at. The grants are for studying the EFFECTS of climate change, which they then publish to garner public support for environmental legislation.

>>3313423

>>They don't even want the question looked at.

Please support this assertion.

>>3313400
>>3313383
>>3313368

10/10
nearly fell for it, but then i realised you seemed to have just samefagged

>>3313442
Especially since the "winner"'s arguement is bunk.

>>3313373
The construction process can be automated, I'll be ready to do that before the world is ready to adopt solar collectors.

Feels good man.

>>3312888
That's the only thing that crossed my mind through Al Gore's movie.

>>3313486
not

''what the fuck am I watching... is this the creationist version of science?''

>>3313447

>>Especially since the "winner"'s arguement is bunk.

How so? That MIT paper seems legit.

>>3313497

>>''what the fuck am I watching... is this the creationist version of science?''

Nah, creationists are typically AGW deniers and vice versa. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU

>>3313423
And who's the mastermind behind all these grants?

>>3313428
Just browse through the titles of the studies that get funded. They apparently care more about proving that global warming and more CO2 will make poison ivy grow faster (no shit, just like all plants), rather than actually gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved in driving the climate. But this subject makes me rage; it's the greatest abuse of science at the moment -- so I'm going to leave this thread for the sake of my blood pressure.

>>3313539
There's no mastermind. It's all people acting according to their perceived interests.

Do you guys really think that the current oil companies don't already have a plan for when oil runs out? Y'all went full retard.

>>3313846
Something like consolidating the green energy companies?

Wait...

"skeptical about climate change"

"an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar...."

His view on climate change matters how?

>>3313906
It has PhD attached to it, so whatever he says must be true.

The world is not yet at the point where it can trust non-Japanese asian scientists.

for the skeptics:
http://videolectures.net/mit560s08_bawendi_lec01/

>>3313715

Still no actual support for your assertion. As expected from a philosopher.

AZN INVAZN