/sci/ - Science & Math

A better question is who cares?

but is it man-made global warming and how much super-powered international green police will we need to stop it?

>>3933621
>but is it man-made global warming

let's keep pumping out greenhouse gases untill we find out!

>>3935377

Everyone knows about global warming. But AGW is bullshit. The human contribution to climate change is too little to matter.

>>3938303
>but what if its all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing!

>such as the Koch Brothers

I don't care. Fuck your carbon tax. Fuck....your.....carbon.....tax.....

>>3938307
>what if we pour billions into heavily subsidized corn oil for nothing?
If something is based on corruption then it will yield corrupt results.

>>3938307

>TAX TAX TAX THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYONE WHO USES CENTRAL HEATING AND VEHICLES

>>3938303
yes. that's why 97% of climate scientists say that human acticity IS having an impact. This is outright denialism.

You'd advocate risking the livelihoods of millions just to spite some lefty environmentalists?
Fuck you're retarded.

>>3938551

Or to save money so we can spend it on something other than a complete drain.

It's a scientific consensus. If it were a scientific fact, they'd say it was, but they don't because they CAN'T!

As I recall, there was once a scientific consensus that blacks and women were phisiologically inferior, and that the world was flat.
We've only had 70 years of any environmental observation, so making claims based on that "evidence" is irresponsible and weak.

Face it, the environment is changed by so much more than how we effect it, and we can't prevent climate change. We're too insignificant.

I do encourage the development of an effective alternate energy source, like Solar or Wing, but as of right now the best we got is Nuclear...yet we complain about that too! We're always going to lose, why not lose with the softest blows?

Also, we'd have a better chance of survival if we developed technologies to create an artificial encapsulated environment of some sort than trying to preserve the entire planet. That way, when the Earth does unexpectedly go to shit, we'll have the technology to hide in our little biodomes, and sulk over the change no one could have prevented.

>>3938582
>confuse "scientific consensus" with "non-scientific consensus"
>go on to argue against a scientific argument with an emotional one : "we are too insignificant, it couldn't POSSIBLY be us!"
retard spotted

>>3938590

Words are cheap. Provide studies to shut that retard up.

Otherwise you're just as dumb as he is.

>An independent study

oh my..

>>3938595

How about the one in OP? You know, the one funded by the same big oil concerns whose interests he's busy defending?

>>3938590

He gave lots of good points. Although I know where he's coming from, not everyone would. I only wish he posted references and studies to support his claims.

Surprisingly enough, if you look close and impartial enough, you'll always only find facts, and facts don't change.

>>3938613

Where's the proof? All that's shown is the expectations of a young man in college.

And even so. IF they show the temperature is rising...they STILL haven't proven it's caused by humans, or can even be affected by them!

Try harder, bro. You're sounding desperate.

It's not caused by CO2 that's for sure.

Pic related.

>>3938662
Well, 2010 was warmer than 2005, so your graph is full of shit already.

>>3938690
If the CO2 is the sole reason for warming and ppm rises each year constantly then there should not have been any decrease in temperature. If on the other hand the solar activity is the cause the graph correlates well with the data. And name calling is an excellent argument against facts.

>>3938706

This is confirmed by Saul D. Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals."

If you can't attack the topic face to face...attack those projecting the image, and falsely imply incompetence in the argument entire.

99% of anon does this.

>>3938706
Of course there's gonna be variations in the temperature, a lot of effects can shift heat around, from the atmosphere to the oceans and to wind patterns and ocean currents.
Nobody has ever suggested that the temperature would ever need to rise consistently, that's just a stupid strawmen, only that it will rise, on average, over a long enough timespan

>>3938706
>>3938711
And what you do here is a prime example of reductio ad absurdum and strawmen.
No climate scientists has ever said that CO2 is the SOLE reason of climate variation, obviously, everybody knows that solar variance impacts the climate, tehy propose that CO2 is the single biggest component for the current rise, seeing as the sun, for example, didn't have an increase in solar output since ~1950, while the temperatures increased rapidly.

>>3938720
>>3938732
There wasn't an increase in the solar output but as I know the impact angle of the suns rays has changed due to the axial shift of the Earths rotation. And you have to consider that from the 1950-1970 the temperature was decreasing and people were warning of the so called little ice age. With an open system like that with some many variables it would be arrogance to say what is the actual cause because we know the climate temperature has been known for rapid changes in both extremes without any clear external or internal cause. To put it simply we do not have good enough data to say, if the causes of the climate change is man made due to the nature of the system.