/sci/ - Science & Math

It's a scam by the liberal media to promote their socialist secularist agenda.

>nice debate
>4chan

>>4126177
You forgot the Jews and Illuminati.
Also, David Icke.

>>4126165
Global warming is real. It isn't fucking debated anymore (except by fucking retards). Shit is pretty trival know, and is excepted by 99.99% of all scienists and anyone who isn't fucking stupid.

>>4126177
FUCKING RETARD

\thread

>>4126188
The Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Just a few decades ago the liberals were trying to scare people that a second ice age was coming. And now they're suddenly trying to say that the humans are causing the planet to heat up? Please.

Climate change is a fact of life. However I believe humans have little if any impact on it at all.

>>4126165
I'm a republican, I don't believe in science, evidence, facts, or history. I believe in magic instead. I think it is just a coindidence that science "seems" to work. It is actually all magic done by me talking to the magic sky wizard!

MAGIC!

That picture is so very very silly.
I WISH it were true, but sadly no where near 50% of the world is covered in newyork-esque cities.
Closer to 0.0001%

>>4126202
winter: OMFG WE ARE CAUSING A NEW ICE AGE GUYS!
summer: OMFG WE ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING GUYS!

>>4126225
>1000BC
>winter: OMFG WE ARE CAUSING A NEW ICE AGE GUYS! BETTER SACRIFICE SOME GOATS TO APPEASE THE SKY GODS.
>summer: OMFG WE ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING GUYS! BETTER SACRIFICE SOME GOATS TO APPEASE THE SKY GODS.

2010CE
winter: OMFG WE ARE CAUSING A NEW ICE AGE GUYS! BETTER SACRIFICE SOME MONEY TO APPEASE OUR GOD AL GORE
summer: OMFG WE ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING GUYS! BETTER SACRIFICE SOME MONEY TO APPEASE OUR GOD AL GORE

>>4126223
It's not supposed to be exact, It's just a representation that we are going crazy on ripping down forests, and are destroying the environment for a a larger population.

>>4126223
It's just a loading screen, dude.

Last time I checked cities often have trees lining the streets and parks and gardens everywhere.
Silly hippies

>>4126240
>Last time I checked cities often have trees lining the streets and parks and gardens everywhere.
THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!!

The earth has been warming. This has been measured, and validated. There has also been increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, so it is likely responsible for some of the warming. It probably cannot account for all of it, and any model based on that is is likely going to overestimate the rate of warming.

>>4126188
This. All of it. But with more insults and swearwords.

>Specifically, the consensus about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
>the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
>the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
>the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
>if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
>a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing. Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

There's no debate about whether it's true or not.
What there is debate about is whether it will be catastrophic or devastatingly catastrophic.

>>4126242
>>4126240
I see you've been to Portland.

>>4126267
Except now we have humans to do intelligent things, yay! We can move species north and south, when typically species aren't very north-south mobile. In fact, we can transport seeds from isolated biome to isolated biome. We've got construction techniques, and we thrive everywhere from colder climates to the warmest ones. WE are not likely to die, as a species, and neither are the species we take care of.

>>4126285
No, as a species, we're unlikely to die.
The more drastic changes might kill off a few billion people though. Famine, disease and civil unrest.

You're right that it's too late to do anything about the warming now, but I'm sure people who resisted doing anything about it when it could have helped WILL bawwwwwwwwww about how their lives will be affected.

And when they do, I'm going to kick them in the mouth.

>>4126272
Madison too.

>>4126188
You can't even spell and you're calling other people retarded...

>>4126165
I neither know nor care if anthropogenic climate change is a real physical phenomenon, its certainly a real and very important political phenomenon, and this completely obfuscates the physical reality. There is much too much politics going on in the area to really trust any science related to it, too much money is changing hands and there is too much to gain for members of either side of the divide.

The political phenomenon is much more important anyway as I see it, and will have a much more immediate impact than any climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) could hope to affect. As far as the politics go I have a tendency to prefer the 'skeptic' agenda, as it seems to me that this will be much less detrimental to human development, but I'm quite industrially minded.

>>4126305
I'm gonna love hearing you cry when your industry is being bled white to mitigate the effects of climate change.

>>4126267
>co2 rich, warm, wet environments caused mass extinction of land plants!

>>4126301
Maybe the dust bowl will become better-irrigated.

Dichotomies are killing cultures.
That is all.

>>4126311
Excess CO2 doesn't help most plants.
Warm environments are good only for plants adapted to it.
Same with excess moisture.

Seems like you haven't heard of plant diseases, for example?

Many crops tend to fail due to rot if the temperature and humidity rises.
>hurrdurr that don't matter
Your bread now costs three times more.

Oops, the lakes you depend on for your tapwater are getting contaminated by flooding and overgrowth, making tapwater five times more expensive, when the system isn't being purged of bacteria.

Your electricity too is getting more expensive, since the power companies have to make up the losses caused by increased storms.

These are not even fantasy, these are things that have already happened and are happening.

Global warming is real. The thing to debate is if we are having enough of an effect to change it's course or if we are simply bystanders to what the world has always done.

Mars has an atmosphere of 97% CO2 but is very cold. logic shows co2 doesnt increase temperature so AGW doesn't exist

>>4126317
Maybe it will. Doesn't help much if the rest of the agricultural land gets desiccated.

>>4126340
LOL Mars has an incredibly thin atmosphere, as well... In the end it has way less CO2.

>>4126337
We could change it's course, but USA, China and Russia again resisted doing even the least possible thing.

>>4126321
If we stop dichotomies, we save society. If we let them persist, society will crumble about us. Think of the society.

>>4126359
Well a large amount of Americans don't believe in it at all which to me shows how fucking idiotic they can be, New Scientist had a recent headline of "Unscientific America".

China argue that they need to produce that much energy because of their current economic state and try to justify themselves by saying "We have a larger population so per head we're doing fine, which is outrageous.

Russia's defiance is just what they love doing and it will always be hard to persuade them to do something they aren't leading.

Let all of the faggot liberal socialist democratic countries worry about it.

As long as the oil is down there and cheap to produce, someone will use it. Better us than them.

>>4126388

>>4126384
It's pretty heavily politicized, for science.

>>4126398
Atheism is pretty heavily politicized for a truth.

>>4126384
> New Scientist
UK Based Rag Mag...

Yeah, they wouldn't say anything bad about America, now would they?

>>4126406
Say that all you want but I'm just providing evidence to support what I'm saying.

You on the other hand obviously don't know what you're talking about, and I'm assuming you're American so there's no surprise there.

>>4126388
You and all the people like you are the problem.
Sort it out.

>>4126424
So you're not American and talking shit about Americans? Not a surprise either.

>>4126432

You are the problem. But hey, you are free to reduce your carbon footprint to zero.

Fist step should be unplugging your computer, you fucking hypocrite.

>>4126435
That's true I'm not American and I hope you've figured out I'm English, but I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't.

I'm not talking shit about Americans, everything I said was correct.

>>4126447
I'm clearly trying to have a bigger effect than unplugging my computer. Explain how I was hypocritical as I'm obviously blind with ignorance and you're not.

>>4126202
> Just a few decades ago the liberals were trying to scare people that a second ice age was coming.

If by "liberals" you mean "a handful of fringe scientists", sure. But they weren't politicians, let alone liberal ones, so why you consider them such is a mystery to me. It remains a fact that the ice age theory was fringe and that a majority supported warming even at that time, which undermines your point.

Something can be real, and also be used as an excuse to try and scam people/make money. They are not mutually exclusive.

>>4126335
>Excess CO2 doesn't help most plants.
HAHAHAHAHAHA OH WOW
Are you fucking joking!? Plants can't get enough co2 you stupid motherfucker!

>Warm environments are good only for plants adapted to it.
No. Hot environments require meaningful adaptation(it should be noted that plants also benefit more from from co2 with increasing temperatures). But we're not talking about a Hot Earth, merely an end to the Ice Age.

>overgrowth
Caused by mass extinction?

>STUFF WILL COST MORE! PANIC!
I wasn't aware that counts as a mass extinction

>>4126464
Good point. Many companies are now offering free installations of renewables in the right circumstances. Obvious government funding but still it's a step in the right direction.

>>4126188
The mans got a point

PS - Suess effect, nough said
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/SFMGSuessEffectSlide.jpg

Global climate change- is it happening? Yes.

Is it happening due to human practices? Only on the most minute of levels, and not from the typical places that you would believe. (Cow herders produce more greenhouse gasses than power plants, and it's not because of their F150s).

Do I care enough to do anything about it? No. Quite the opposite, in fact. I care so little about it that I drive a car that uses the planets resources simply to sound better every time I change gear. I don't believe that I'm contributing to global warming even 1/100th as much as prius-drivers believe me to be, so I'll keep on redlining my Audi everywhere like an asshole, tailgating people and setting it so that every time I pull the right paddle to shift up, it fires a drop of gasoline into the exhaust to burp in the face of all the slow hybrids trying to keep up. My enjoyment is worth more to me than a predicted future that may or may not be of concern to me.

>>4126650
Were you lying on the first part?
No.

Were you lying on the second one?
Yes, but that's probably due to ignorance.

The third part is where you're on your most honest, and it paints you with a rather selfish and shitty attitude.

Am I going to post evidence? No, because I've already done that in this thread and the previous, and unless you're extremely lazy, you can check it yourself.

>>4126494
>Plants can't get enough co2..!
Yet this graph implies otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The numbers don't lie:
>CO2 from fossil fuel burning alone: 21.3 Gt/yr (5.8 Gt/yr of carbon), and rising.
>Atmospheric CO2 rate of increase: 10.65 Gt/yr (2.9 Gt/yr of carbon), and rising.
>Carbon in Earth's non-microbial biomass: 560 Gt
>Biological (non-microbial) carbon turnover: ~100 Gt/yr
>Dissolved oceanic CO2: ~150,000 Gt (~40,000 Gt C)
>Oceanic surface CO2 turnover: 330 Gt/yr (90 Gt/yr C)
>Net oceanic CO2 absorption: ~10 Gt/yr (~2.5 Gt/yr C)
So, HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING:
>Mankind is taking LOTS of old organic matter from underground and reacting it with oxygen to release CO2
>Equilibrium is shifted, causing oceans to absorb/dissolve some (about half) of this CO2
>Biological mechanisms possibly doing the same at a much slower rate
There are still some unanswered questions, though, which are very critical to how we should act:
>Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere directly proportional to the amount we produce, or to the RATE at which we produce it? The exponential nature of CO2 production rates makes this difficult to determine.
>How will the biosphere respond to the changing CO2 concentrations and temperatures? Will THEY help the atmosphere find a new equilibrium if we stabilize (but not stop) our CO2 production?
>Are there any CREDIBLE catastrophic positive feedback mechanisms imminent?

i may be retarded but, wouldn't a warmer climate create larger tropical zones and thus create more plants which would then consume more carbon dioxide and the like, thus reducing emission and balancing the problem out? I mean i sorta get the feeling from everything I've learned that the earth has some safeguards against the whole thing going to shit because of atmospheric changes. i mean the whole ice age thing didn't fucking murder everything did it?

>>4126786
The ice age didn't murder everything(it did off some things, though), but here we have a rate of change about fifty times faster than what is usually seen in nature.

The only times when the rate of change has been this high were when the great extinctions of prehistory happened.

Sure, living things adapt, but they don't do it that fast.

And while people are correct when they say that some species will flourish in a changed climate, they always neglect that the environment is a complex interconnected system where you can't just take out stuff without affecting the whole.

Okay, so in a given place, potatoes don't grow right anymore, let's switch to grain. Oh shit, the changes in a bordering territory experienced fluctuations that first pushed mice to breed like crazy and then displaced them. Now 90% of your food crops got turned into even more mice.

Or a couple of maggot-eating insects vanish, the trees on the side of the river get eaten, die off and fall into the river. Now your nutrients are quickly flowing from the fields to the river and the ten lakes downriver become choked with algae and the fish farms collapse.

>>4126650
Ive noticed many of you blame the switching temperatures between hot and cold periods, but this data proves the existence of global warming. It was also funded by the Koch Brothers who hired a skeptist to fight for their anti climate-change agenda. How much will you destroy, how far will you go to fuel your vanity project?

>>4126713
The graph implies they can have too much TEMPERATURE, not too much CO2.

>>4126825
oooh look a 200 year chart to prove the nonrelavance of something that occurs over thousands of years

>>4126165
Fuck you and your dichotomy. There are real people, like ambulance chasers, who try to make money off of other people's disposition. It's not a either or, it's a both, because people are fucking vultures.

question here: how do we know that this is happening any faster than say the entrance into the jurassic period and such?

>>4126831
very well... what do you say of THIS graph?

>>4126836
What exactly occurs over thousands of years?

>>4126848
We know because the granularity of most geologic evidence is 1000's of years, so if we see the same leap in a few decades, we know we're fucked.

What is the likely-hood of energy storage becoming reliable enough for alternatives to be cost-efficient?

>>4126882
Cost efficient is a human concept. If we trusted the evidence, whatever we do would be cost efficient.

Dear anyone who says "Excess CO2 is good for plants":

Chlorophyl's carbon fixing molecule rubisco bonds more favorably to oxygen than CO2 in higher temperatures. This is why most plants (except C4 and CAM plants that fix carbon differently) die in hot weather no matter how much you water them. So a climate shift would make most plants grow more poorly or not at all, as they would effectively suffocate on no CO2, even if it made up a much higher percent of the atmosphere because they can't use it in high temperatures.

>>4126904
Science is subject to scarcity.

At the current rate of population growth isn't optimistic to think that we will be able to produce enough energy with alternative means with the number of people we'll have. Even with Moore's law in full effect.

>>4126882
It already is. Pumped-storage hydroelectric is probably the MOST efficient and reliable method currently in usage, but there are others as well that are already well-proven.

You see, it isn't the STORAGE that's making intermittent renewables (namely wind and solar) so expensive. It's the moronic, wasteful approach they're using for the manufacture of renewable generating stations. Wind turbines are being manufactured with an absurd emphasis on performance and efficiency, making HUGE compromises on cost in the process (when you could toss together a zillion large-diameter, low-efficiency soft-sail windmills for the same dough and still produce more energy). Solar is becoming overwhelmingly dominated by photovoltaic arrays, despite the fact that solar-thermal is both more efficient AND cheaper. Nobody's interested in a 'green' solution unless it's visibly 'elegant' and 'sophisticated,' and so the quick & dirty solutions go completely unacknowledged.

>>4126913
>Implying the entire planet is the same temperature

>>4126952
>Applying Moore's law to power production

>>4126952
Scarcity only works when there is actual limited or no mateirals.

Your mcdonalds happy meals toys are not going to exist in a world concerned about natural resource depletion.

>>4126968

It does in solar power.

>>4126999
HURR DURRR

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-app
ly-to-solar-cells/

>>4126851
>/Sci/duck 1: Plants can't get enough co2
>Retard: Yet this graph implies otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>/Sci/duck 2: The graph implies they can have too much TEMPERATURE, not too much CO2.
>Retard: But what about this unrelated graph!1!!

I understand Global Warming is real and such, and we need to work for the sake of humanity now.

But What are the odds you say it will kill a lot of our generation?

Will I likely reach old age?

>>4127162
it's not going to directly kill anyone.

what it's going to do is contribute to the depletion of resources at a time when we can't afford to lose those resources.

this is going to happen either way, warming just makes it worse. It is already happening.

you'll grow old in a world where nations go to war over oil, water and food. Some of these nations have nuclear weapons. They may or may not eventually use them. It can't be avoided, barring world communism or a return of the black plague.

>>4127184
>World communism would stop war
Good one.

>>4127162

Your personal odds are not good. My personal odds are not good. Deniers personal odds are not good.

I have a real bead feeling about this and not thinking about it is the ONLY way I get up in the morning.

I'm an oldfag. There is something youngfags don't know about the world and that is the phenomenon of the shifting baseline. Your generation just can't grasp whats already been lost because it was lost before you were born. In a real, visceral way you cannot understand losses that were incurred before your time without an act of deep imagination. A lot of people fought hard to save, for example, the Rhinos. The people around today that remember a time when Rhinos were actually out there living in the wild have a deep knowing of what it meant for there to be Rhinos. Kids born today won't ever experience that, and they won't have the same deep feelings about it.

It makes sense to listen to the old people, the people like James Lovelock. They see an arc of history you do not. When an 89 year old scientist is warning you about something you should listen because that guy is on death's door and has nothing to gain from lying to you.

Deniers are all a bunch of corrupt scum. You can read the selfish, self-interested ignorance. Its in their words, their tone, their turn of phrase. Great evil and destruction descends on every age of man. Its always been this way. Only now, its amplified by our technology, just 100 years of it. Its unfair but we're going to pay for their ignorance. Consider that these governments, these corporations, and much of the dominant views are the views of LAST century. There are a lot of people who are responsible that have no emotional reason to take responsibility, because they profited from it.

>>4126820
>The ice age didn't
Current ice age

>The only times when the rate of change has been this high were when the great extinctions of prehistory happened.
No. Only the O-S and the Late D mass extinctions are believed to possibly have been causally linked with climate change, both of which involved cooling not warming.

>Sure, living things adapt, but they don't do it that fast.
They don't need to evolve, only move. A trivial task of the rate of warming.

>they always neglect that the environment is a complex interconnected system where you can't just take out stuff without affecting the whole.
The options aren't 'current climate' vs 'warmer climate', the options are 'warmer climate' vs '100,000 years of frozen misery'. As a poster in an early thread said "we should now be in a cooling period" conveniently forgetting to mention that that "cooling period" is a fucking glacial period and would doom a goodly portion of life on earth.

>>4126301
Yes, I'm sure the greening of the Sahara, the thawing of the barren north, and milder weather world-wide will be absolutely catastrophic.

>>4127205
so much wrong.

>Only the O-S and the Late D mass extinctions are believed to possibly have been causally linked with climate change, both of which involved cooling not warming.

all of the mass extinctions have been linked to climate change, though as you note cooling is implicated in all of them except possibly the P-T and Eocene thermal max.

>They don't need to evolve, only move. A trivial task of the rate of warming.

except of course for coral reefs which have a limited choice of where to live and extremely limited ability to move in less than a century. Oh yes, they'll move, but until they do our coastal fisheries are fucked.

>The options aren't 'current climate' vs 'warmer climate', the options are 'warmer climate' vs '100,000 years of frozen misery'. As a poster in an early thread said "we should now be in a cooling period" conveniently forgetting to mention that that "cooling period" is a fucking glacial period and would doom a goodly portion of life on earth.

Except the next glacial event is expected in ~5000 years.

>>4126913
>as they would effectively suffocate on no CO2, even if it made up a much higher percent of the atmosphere because they can't use it in high temperatures
See: http://images.4chan.org/sci/src/1323581010142.jpg

>>4127232
lol
you honestly don't see how that chart demonstrates the anon's point?

Temp goes above 37C, photosynthesis drops even in CO2 enriched atmosphere.

if I'm understanding your 'buthatswrongyoufuckingretard.jpg' then its you that's the fucking retard here.

>>4126882
>What is the likely-hood of energy storage becoming reliable enough for alternatives to be cost-efficient?
0%

>>4126955
>Pumped-storage hydroelectric
PSH works for peak-load demand because it can reliably re-up at night, it only needs to smooth a single days load. Solar/wind are not just variable minute-to-minute and hour-to-hour, but day-to-day, month-to-month and even year-to-year. The capacity necessary to smooth this out would be astronomical, I wouldn't be surprised if even with literally free solar panels/wind turbines this would still be uncompetitive, given the enormity of water you'd need to store.

>>4127246
>Temp goes above 37*C
There's something very significant you're missing here. CO2 concentration is globally constant. Temperature is not. Even if SOME part of the world passes the optimal temperature, there's still going to be SOME other part that's below the optimal temperature and SOME other part that is going to be sitting right on the optimum, happily chugging away and thriving on the ample atmospheric CO2.

>>4127265
true, but I don't really have a side in this argument.

I just thought it was funny that the anon calls the other anon wrong while posting a chart that proves their point.

>>4127261
>PSH works for peak-load demand because it can reliably re-up at night, it only needs to smooth a single days load. Solar/wind are not just variable minute-to-minute and hour-to-hour, but day-to-day, month-to-month and even year-to-year. The capacity necessary to smooth this out would be astronomical, I wouldn't be surprised if even with literally free solar panels/wind turbines this would still be uncompetitive, given the enormity of water you'd need to store.
You're a fucking idiot if you think month-to-month or year-to-year variations wouldn't be accounted for by building a surplus of baseline production power and distributing supply across different methods and locations instead of "DERP, BETTER STORE UP MY ENERGY FOR DA WINTER."

>>4127268
I'm also mildly amused nobody itt has hit on the real problems with enriching CO2 for plants...

increased consumption of soil nutrients and paradoxical nutrient dilution in food crops... making our food less nutritious and also forcing us to use more fertilizers which are either mined and running out or made with energy- primarily fossil fuels.

natural gas feeds almost half the world's population. Adding more CO2 or reducing our use of gas means people can't be fed. This is a problem, but one we don't like to talk about.

>>4127216
Mandatory viewing for everyone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Not directly global warming related, but about our consumption of resources and why it would be wise to be a bit more moderate.

>>4126165
I think Global Warming is a load of bull to justify outrageous taxation on our fuel and gas when we are not allowed chimneys in our homes anymore and we are not allowed cheap electric cars. Also if global warming was real then WHY IS IT SO DAMN COLD OUTSIDE!??? BRRRRR ITS FREEZING

>>4127286
if you live in the US you have some of the lowest taxes (and prices) on fuel in the world.

>>4127275
Food crops are a relatively small part of the equation. They will always be approximately proportional to population (by demand), and not necessarily to CO2 output (certainly not to CO2 concentration). This problem is ultimately tangential to the issue of global warming, if that.

>>4127288
Not trying to insult you but Turkmenistan has the lowest pump prices at about 6cents a litre

>>4127290
utter bullshit to a starving person.
yep, people are starving, always have been and always will be.

westerners aren't in much danger, but we feed more than just the west.

Anyways, it is perhaps tangential in the grand scheme of global warming, but in the big picture warming isn't that big of a deal either. It's the environmental stresses it adds to our current predicament that're a problem.

it's not like raising the temperature 6-8 degrees is going to outright kill people.

>>4127294
That's why I said "some of" rather than "the" lowest.

>>4127282
So it's all hinging on the fact that population is currently growing exponentially?

We know that it can't go on like that forever. We know there's a finite amount of resources on this planet, and that they can only sustain a certain population. There are laws of nature which do - which have ALWAYS governed this though, and are well understood in the world of biology. Do you ever see an animal population modeled exponentially in the long term? No. You figure out which factor (be it competition over resources or territory or what have you) will limit the population, and you write a logistic growth model instead.

The same will apply to humanity. It's inevitable.

>>4127299
These countries all have lower gas prices than the US: = 103 Romania: 0.75
= 103 Ethiopia: 0.75
= 103 Bangladesh: 0.75
= 106 Moldova: 0.74
= 106 Tajikistan: 0.74
= 106 Jordan: 0.74
= 109 Kyrgyzstan: 0.72
= 109 Syria: 0.72
# 111 Uzbekistan: 0.7
# 112 Botswana: 0.69
# 113 Belarus: 0.68
# 114 Laos: 0.67
# 115 China: 0.66
= 116 Thailand: 0.64
= 116 Trinidad and Tobago: 0.64
= 118 Mongolia: 0.62
= 118 Vietnam: 0.62
= 120 Philippines: 0.61
= 120 Ukraine: 0.61
# 122 Kazakhstan: 0.59
# 123 Russia: 0.54
= 124 Oman: 0.51
= 124 Ecuador: 0.51
# 126 Angola: 0.49
= 127 Sudan: 0.46
= 127 Malaysia: 0.46
= 129 Algeria: 0.44
= 129 Nigeria: 0.44
# 131 Egypt: 0.43
= 132 Libya: 0.41
= 132 United Arab Emirates: 0.41
# 134 Saudi Arabia: 0.39
# 135 Kuwait: 0.34
# 136 Ghana: 0.33
# 137 Indonesia: 0.28
# 138 Venezuela: 0.2
# 139 Iran: 0.08
# 140 Iraq: 0.05
# 141 Turkmenistan:

>>4127310
holy shit, someone more autistic than myself.

good luck with that.

>>4127305
the problem is, that we could do something about it to make things less bad in the future AND go easy on the planet. However, we don't.

>>4127319
I just figure nothing's going to get done until it has to, we react to catastrophes far better than we avoid them.

in order to hurry things along I drive a fleet of full-size pickups, leave all my lights on at night, browse 4chan all day, keep my house at 80 degrees F in the winter, and have a saltwater aquarium that uses more electricity in a week than most people's entire homes do in a month. I also like to fly to various parts of the world two or three times a year.

somebody's going to use those resources, it might as well be me and we ought to get it over with.

>>4126494
>>4127232

ATTN: Anybody who buys into the simplistic "more CO2 is always good for plants" argument should be aware that the graphs that are bandied about are often based on old, carefully controlled experiments, not indicative what actually happens in nature.

See here for more research-based info:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

>>4127205
>>4127220
I said "rate of change", I didn't say anything about whether the change was towards warmer or colder, since that's irrelevant.

What I was talking about was that the rate of change alone can drive species to extinction, when they can't adapt to the changes fast enough.

Also, a lot of the world's biodiversity is on islands, from which it's damn difficult for thousands of species to migrate.

Also trees and other large plants are difficult to reliably transplant or raise from seeds or seedlings, especially the ones that reproduce in several-year cycles. And again there's the problem of complex interconnections that we might not even know about.

I know the economically motivated will now go "we just need to keep a few species to feed ourselves, fuck the rest", which is more telling about the ignorance of said people than about the subject at hand.

>>4127378
>I know the economically motivated will now go "we just need to keep a few species to feed ourselves, fuck the rest", which is more telling about the ignorance of said people than about the subject at hand.

I blame all the biology-mocking morons on this board. Now you got these clowns who think they understand the entire biosphere and can confidently predict what will happen to it under any conceivable warming scenario.

>>4127378
>I know the economically motivated will now go "we just need to keep a few species to feed ourselves, fuck the rest"

way ahead of you

actually we're planning on our wealth keeping us safe and alive while the rest of the human population eats each other mitigating the entire problem.

>>4127349
Pretty weak reasoning on that page there.
>Question: Isn't CO2 good for plants?
>Response:
>Well, SOME studies indicate that CO2 added to a controlled greenhouse environments stimulates plants considerably, but THIS open-air study presented the same result to a lesser extent, therefore the whole result is invalid.
>Also, if we look at a type of carbon fixation used by only 5% of plants worldwide, we can see that there ARE some plants that don't benefit at all from more CO2.
>THEREFORE, our findings are that this is not a sound conclusion to draw.
Yeah... no. On the whole, more CO2's still going to stimulate plant growth.

>>4127386
And you know this to be true because your gut feeling is closer to your heart than a cold scientific paper.

Credentials and peer-reviewed studies that refute the conclusions, please.

Sorry, but I'm afraid we're going to have to take you in, you're just too uneducated to be practicing science.

>>4127220
>all of the mass extinctions have been linked to climate change
CAUSAL LINK. Unless you're postulating that warm weather causes asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions?

>and Eocene thermal max
Not an extinction event (pic related, PETM was 55mya, the big spike on the right is K-T at 65mya)

>except of course for coral reefs which have a limited choice of where to live and extremely limited ability to move in less than a century. Oh yes, they'll move, but until they do our coastal fisheries are fucked.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/12/1131.short
>We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2. However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all. . .Whatever the specific mechanism(s) involved, our results suggest that the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on marine calcification is more varied than previously thought.

>Except the next glacial event is expected in ~5000 years.
No.
>"We're at a very favorable state right now for increased glaciation," says Kutzbach. "Nature is favoring it at this time in orbital cycles, and if humans weren't in the picture it would probably be happening today."
http://newswise.com/articles/view/547541/

>>4127386
historically I believe you're entirely correct.

plant productivity has always increased during times of elevated CO2. Same goes for other photosynthetic organisms such as planktonic foraminifera.

however if you're the anon that was previously discounting the impact of nutrient dilution on food supplies I don't know that being right has done you any good.

plants are essential to almost all life on Earth, and fucking with their food value will reshape life in ways you haven't begun to imagine.

>>4127386

You're not getting the point. I'll try to break it down for you:

1. All the OMG CO2 IS AWSUM graphs that you've seen posted here are invalid wrt. AGW.

2. Whether more CO2 will stimulate plant growth depends on various circumstances (location, plant type, pests etc.)

3. Even if net effect of CO2 alone is positive, there is no guarantee that it will overcome the adverse effects of drought, heat stress, soil degradation, etc.

Better?

>>4127393
lol
I've found my idiot again.

I'm a bit sleepy to educate you on paleontology this evening. You don't grasp basic concepts such as causality anyways. Nor is your information current... or in the case of your last source, even science.

you disappoint me anon, and I'm sick of your shit. Declare your victory and fuck off.

>>4127393
See >>4127378
>Global temperatures rose by about 6 °C (11 °F) over a period of approximately 20,000 years.
Now contrast that with the change we're expecting, a rise in temperature of 2.9 - 6.4Cº in one century.

Again, I wasn't talking about how high or low the temperatures got, but the rate of change.

>>4127390
That VERY SAME PAPER EXPLICITLY SAID that elevated CO2 concentration has been shown to stimulate growth in the most common types of plants (C3). But THEN they turned around and said "But this other study showed less of the same thing, so therefore we'll say it doesn't happen at all." That "cold scientific paper" is nothing of the sort; it's just as bad as the fucking AGW deniers in terms of logic and misusing scientific citations.

>>4127246
>month-to-month or year-to-year variations wouldn't be accounted for by building a surplus of baseline production power
Of course! We'll take an already uncompetitive form of power generation and DOUBLE OR TRIPLE our capacity, doubling or tripling our costs!

WE'LL LOSE MONEY PER KW.H, BUT WE'LL MAKE UP FOR IT IN VOLUME!

BRILLIANT!

>>4127405
>Needless to say, the combined effect of excess CO2 and excess O3 is complex, and as it has only recently been given attention it is an area that requires much further research.
Seems good to me.

>>4127246
>plants can't survive in >37c weather

>>4127423
>taking words out of context

>>4127397
>1. All the OMG CO2 IS AWSUM graphs that you've seen posted here are invalid wrt. AGW.
Not entirely; even if they are not numerically accurate with respect to real-world behavior, they're still plenty indicative of the general relationship.

And I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that CO2 is awesome. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that plants are almost certainly a source of negative feedback.

>2. Whether more CO2 will stimulate plant growth depends on various circumstances (location, plant type, pests etc.)
>3. Even if net effect of CO2 alone is positive, there is no guarantee that it will overcome the adverse effects of drought, heat stress, soil degradation, etc.
Still seems to be as big a case of grasping at straws as when the deniers try to claim that volcanos are dwarfing human CO2 output. Whether you look at them each individually or altogether, it's a very big stretch to say that these peripheral effects will overwhelm the immediate negative-feedback effect of increased CO2 concentration - ESPECIALLY when you look at geological records. If photosynthetic life did not provide a negative feedback throughout Earth's history, then it is very unlikely the atmosphere would have been oxygenated at all, let alone have managed to STAY at a low-CO2 composition for the last two billion years.

>>4127401
>ur rong lol, me climbtallgests!, me no ned post sorses!

>>4127434
>Not entirely; even if they are not numerically accurate with respect to real-world behavior, they're still plenty indicative of the general relationship.

No. Small, short-term studies on one species in a controlled environment tell us very little about the response of the whole biosphere. That's precisely why scientists are designing new, better studies right now.

>Still seems to be as big a case of grasping at straws as when the deniers try to claim that volcanos are dwarfing human CO2 output.

False comparison. Anyone who's not a complete moron can see that volcanoes are not what's causing the CO2 rise just by looking at the Keeling curve.

>ESPECIALLY when you look at geological records

Geological records are not that useful because there's no precedent of ~3c temperature rise in one century. There's also no past equivalent of our present agriculture to study either.

>>4127401
>or in the case of your last source, even science.

http://newswise.com/articles/view/547541/
>the idea first put forward by climatologist William F. Ruddiman
Lyell Medal Medalist William F. Ruddiman
>The Lyell Medal is a prestigious annual scientific medal given by the Geological Society of London, equal in status to the Murchison Medal

>>4127589
"A smart guy thinks it seems true" is not science. Sure, that's how ideas start. Now prove it.

>>4127605
Would you like to give a reason that we should reject it to out of hand as "not even science". Or perhaps you'd like to post a refutation of Vavrus, Kutzbach and Philippon's, or Ruddiman's works? Oh, I see. We should simply believe some random anonymous faggot over Lyell Medalist Ruddiman.

Gee, a debate on global warming on the Internet. How original.

Let me guess how it goes.
>Pro-global warming will cite evidence.
>Anti-s will say it's a conspiracy.
>Pro-s will cite 20+ years of references.
>Anti-s will just say, "Nuh uh."
>Stoners will claim that we can reverse global warming by growing pot, since marijuana absorbs CO2.
>???
>Profit!

>>4127733
>>Stoners will claim that we can reverse global warming by growing pot, since marijuana absorbs CO2.
O_o

Has someone actually said that?

>>4127733
>>4127753

We could use it for hemp production....then screw over those unemployed rectum thieves and use it for building materials and biodiesel

>Hemp is one of the faster growing biomasses known,[6] producing up to 25 tonnes of dry matter per hectare per year.[7] A normal average yield in large scale modern agriculture is about 2.5–3.5 t/ac (air dry stem yields of dry, retted stalks per acre at 12% moisture). Approximately, one tonne of bast fiber and 2–3 tonnes of core material can be decorticated from 3–4 tonnes of good quality, dry retted straw.[8][9]

Don't laugh, this might actually work, as long as we bury what we don't need and don't let people smoke the stuff.

>>4127763
Not cost-effective.
You'd have to spend 100 billion dollars every year to keep the stoners out.

>>4127763
Hemp also makes good paper, too bad the forestry lobbyists won't allow it.

>>4127763
You wouldn't waste any of it

Hemp is a good building material, you can make various insulations from it for example. What's left can then be processed into biodiesel*

*Though if you're from America you have the problem of everyone thinking its still the 1980s when it comes to diesel

>>4127774
>biodiesel

But we don't want biodiesel, that would send the carbon right back into the atmosphere. It's better than fossil fuels, but still...

>>4127771
Also true, even though it is impossible to get high off industrial hemp millions of those faggots will try

Henry Ford did have designs for a car made from Hemp plastic, it was very good and stronger than its steel rivals. Until banned, return to your homes etc

>>4127779
I know biodiesel isn't the answer. But it's better than invading the third world for gasoline.

Diesel is a lot more efficient than gasoline and produces less CO2, it gives off other harmful chemicals but those are rapidly being taken care of.

I'm eagerly awaiting the next generation of affordable electric cars

OP here,
Wow I read every post here. Some very valid points stated on both sides. I feel as if the argument on the side of agreeing with Global Warming had more valid statements though.

How about we use Jews as fuel?

>>4127393
>CAUSAL LINK. Unless you're postulating that warm weather causes asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions?
are you postulating that volcanic eruptions and bolide impacts cause extinctions?

because we know they don't. It would take a shitload of meteorites to smush every single dinosaur on the planet while sparing the smaller animals that live among them.
they may cause climate change that causes extinctions though.
what triggers the climate change doesn't much matter, and when you get down to brass tacks there isn't a single extinction event KNOWN to have been triggered by bolide impact... though the K-T and the Carnian-Norian are likely suspects. doesn't matter since there's no way a meteorite hit every single individual of every single species that went extinct.

>and Eocene thermal max
>Not an extinction event (pic related, PETM was 55mya, the big spike on the right is K-T at 65mya)

read more. There's been several hundred extinction events that you probably aren't aware of.

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/12/1131.short
>We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2....

what do calcification rates have to do with the relative inability of benthic invertebrates to move great distances quickly?

>"We're at a very favorable state right now for increased glaciation," says Kutzbach....

the opinion of one man, no matter how respected, isn't science. the fact that you don't understand why an argument from authority fails tells me you don't any science. You are in fact an idiot. As I said, you dissapoint me. Wiki knowledge is no substitute for actual knowledge.

>limited amount of carbon on earth

>homeostasis attained over thousands of years based on repetitive methods of exchange of carbon.

>Be large oil company

>pull billions of tons of carbon out of current phase of carbon exchange.

>Problem, nature?

>>4127785
>biodiesel [is] better than invading the third world for gasoline.

The low energy density is the major problem with biodiesel(and other energy crops).

We use about 30 Exajoules worth of oil for transportation.
Rapeseed produces about 31 Gigajoules/acre gross(hemp about 1/4 of this).

= 975 million acres, requiring about 40% of the total US(including Alaska), or about 106% of total farmland. And this is gross energy, net might be half that.

>>4129279
>It would take a shitload of meteorites to smush every single dinosaur on the planet
>doesn't matter since there's no way a meteorite hit every single individual of every single species that went extinct.
HOLY SHIT! Are you fucking kidding me? Massive dust cloud screwing with photosynthesis. You know, the accepted theory for the cause of the K-T event!

>here isn't a single extinction event KNOWN to have been triggered by bolide impact
There isn't a single extinction event WITH A KNOWN CAUSE, YOU DISINGENUOUS FUCKSTAIN!

>PETM was great for everything that matters, although there were minor die-offs in niches no one cares about
PANIC!

>what do calcification rates have to do with
Ocean acidification is a more serious threat, a threat that newer research indicates has been overblown.

>Observe phenomena > Formulate hypothesis > Test hypothesis
>fuckstain: That's not scienece!1! it's only science if it agrees with me!!1@!

>>4129874
>HOLY SHIT! Are you fucking kidding me? >Massive dust cloud screwing with photosynthesis. You know, the accepted theory for the cause of the K-T event!

would you say increased aerosol levels producing dimming and cooling would qualify as a change of climate?
Thus climate change is the cause of the extinction?
No? still think a meteorite killed the dinosaurs directly? that's why you're stupid.

>There isn't a single extinction event WITH A KNOWN CAUSE, YOU DISINGENUOUS FUCKSTAIN!

yet you claimed a causal link with volcanic activity and bolide impacts...
Climate change is the probable mechanism in every known extinction event except the current one.

>PETM was great for everything that matters, although there were minor die-offs in niches no one cares about
>PANIC!
I'm not saying we should panic, I'm saying you're wrong.

>Ocean acidification is a more serious threat, a threat that newer research indicates has been overblown.

agreed, but not at all what we were talking about, is it?

there's tons of science out there that doesn't agree with me, and tons that does. You didn't bring science though, you brought argument from authority... opinion.

we shall.

>>4126183
>>4126229
>>4126242
>>4126267
>>4126311
>>4126335
>>4126406
>>4126464
>>4126494
>>4126713
>>4126772
>>4126961
>>4126968
>>4127130
>>4127197
>>4127205
>>4127220
>>4127232
>>4127261
>>4127265
>>4127271
>>4127381
>>4127383
>>4127386
>>4127393
>>4127404
>>4127411
>>4127421
>>4127423
>>4127430
>>4127434
>>4127461
>>4127487
>>4127589
>>4127733
>>4127753
>>4127763
>>4127779
>>4129279
>>4129327
>>4129574
>>4129874
>>4129934

>>4129934
>would you say increased aerosol levels producing dimming and cooling would qualify as a change of climate?
The vast majority of paleontologists believe that K-T was caused by a massive dust cloud blotting out the sun and the subsequent mass extinction of photosynthesizing life(happening on the order of months or years). Your (apparent) belief that K-T was some gradual extinction driven by climate change is held only by fringe nut-jobs.

>50% reduction in sunlight and global sulfuric acid rain is Just Climate Change™
Cool story, bro!

>yet you claimed a causal link with volcanic activity and bolide impacts...
So we should reject mainstream paleontology as mere conjecture, while accepting your own suppositions, of which there's even less evidence to support?

>agreed, but not at all what we were talking about, is it?
We were talking about coral extinction, warming is the least of their worries.

>you brought argument from authority
No, I brought Science. Science which is supported by the evidence. Science which is supported by the climate models.

>>4130200
>The vast majority of paleontologists believe that K-T was caused by a massive dust cloud blotting out the sun and the subsequent mass extinction of photosynthesizing life(happening on the order of months or years).
argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority.
Also untrue since we see at least two K-T extinctions.
>Your (apparent) belief that K-T was some gradual extinction driven by climate change is held only by fringe nut-jobs.
argumentum ad hominem. There are a great number of highly respected K-T gradualists. also not what I believe due to false dichotomy.

>50% reduction in sunlight and global sulfuric acid rain is Just Climate Change
Absolutely

>So we should reject mainstream paleontology as mere conjecture, while accepting your own suppositions, of which there's even less evidence to support?
nope, you should read mainstream paleontology before speaking about it.

>We were talking about coral extinction, warming is the least of their worries.
we were talking about corals' ability to move to avoid toxic environments.

>No, I brought Science.
you brought more argument from authority in this comment.

>>4129574
Biodiesel has way better specific energy density than any other biofuel, and better volumetric energy density than even gasoline. Since it's a diesel fuel, it will be burned more efficiently than any spark-ignition fuel (INCLUDING alcohol). As a result, it offers almost no compromise in range for automobiles, unlike electric or hydrogen alternatives. It won't present a massive (and energy-intensive) weight penalty like battery-electric would, either. Unlike alcohol biofuels, it can be run in existing diesel engines with virtually no modification whatsoever. Initial costs will not be even remotely prohibitive like battery-electric would inevitably be. And of course, it is ultimately carbon-neuteral when derived from photosynthetic biomass.

The only thing wrong with biodiesel right now is not energy density, it's production. If we can figure out how to produce biodiesel practically at a large scale (i.e. cost- and resource-effectively, without competing too much with agriculture), then I see no reason at all why we should NOT immediately start phasing it in as the alternative of choice.

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that you people are just as fanatical and delusional as the skeptics.
>Fallacies, fallacies everywhere

>>4130299
>Theory has the greatest body of evidence and therefore the most support
>argumentum ad populum

>Sulfuric acid monsoon
>Just Climate Change™

>>4130949
>anon tells paleontologist what paleontologists think

I have no particular opinion on the K-T events.
However the trend over the last decade has been to question Alvarez et al.
Primarily because this:
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/Keller_et_al_%20EPSL_2007.pdf

and check the date on this, I read it a whole month ago:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111117141201.htm

your high-school knowledge is fun, but doesn't hold water in the real world. Right or wrong or somewhere in between, you're twenty years late to the debate.

just leaving this here..

>>4126248
>CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas
Also its a trace gas, very minutes amount exist in the atmosphere. The CO2 is probably just a product of the warming. My Astrophysics professor tolds us that other planets in the solar system are having higher avg temperatures he conclude that the sun is growing in intensity or going trough a phase.

To all the libs screaming humans are to blame. Consider this, an volcanic erruption releases much more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of our industries combine. Should we also shut down volcanoes?

>>4131698
can't tell if trolling or just stupid.

7/10 just in case.

>>4131691
Oh boy there's nothing better than a liberal comic!
Lets rip it to shreds shall we!

What this picture implies is that trough goverment regulation we could create an Utopia. This is so wrong. The goverment is run by corrupt politicians, giving them the powers needed to do all of this will just remove our liberties something which is morally and ethically wrong.

>>4131696
the beauty of tenure is that you can't be fired for being an idiot.

>>4131696
Except that they aren't getting warmer. I have been seeing this claim that other planets are also getting warmer a lot lately, but no one ever cites anything. It is just something some scientist that is never named told them [or that told their friend] is happening. Furthermore, solar output is within normal bounds for the ~11 year solar cycle and therefore claiming that the sun is causing the increase without an associated increase in energy output is silly.

>>4131701
>morally and ethically wrong.

this is /sci/, science and math.
/pol/itics is that way ->

>>4131702
>>4131699
Typical liberal using insults to silence the opposition.

>>4131706
and yet you keep speaking.

I understand.
science doesn't take you seriously so you shit up online science boards.

I do the same thing.

>>4131705
We are disusing AGW, this is more of a political problem than a scientific one. If this where a purely scientific issue you wont have people defending their position like if it where a religious dogma.

>>4131698
Is there an actual source for this? I mean, we liberate over 3 billion tons of CO2 from oil alone every year which is about 10 times what is released from annual forest fires.

>>4131699
>can't tell if trolling or just stupid.
So are you saying that humans generate more CO2 than volcanic erruptions? Think about what are you saying.

>>4131709
to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

you don't understand science, thus it must be politics.

>>4131713
I've googled this falsehood a few hundred times in the last ten years.

how bout you look it up and tell me what you find, moron?

>>4131716
I search that and the sources came from political news source and environmental greentards. They are not to be trusted.

>>4131717
>Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

unless of course you don't trust the USGS, in which case get the fuck out of the geology thread.

>>4131722
>2011
>trusting the goverment

>>4131729
>denying science on /sci/

how bout a sticky we can just send denialists/randtards to?

>>4132767
How about no.

Best suggestion I've seen on this entire thread.

My Opinion: AGW is likely but should be acted upon regardless to lessen the blow of peak oil, which I believe to be one of the primary reasons life never spreads from its planet of origin.

That's as concise as I can muster.

>>4130407

Completely agree with this. I've been running my diesel car on used cooking oil from the local takeaway (which I have to filter first) for over 2 years now. I put around a gallon of diesel in once a month, because it helps clean the fuel system out. I've saved a fortune. I'm really excited by the research in the biofuels field currently focused on treating sewage and other waste products with bacteria to create viable biofuel.

>mfw this thread has over 170 posts.
Let's keep it going /sci/.

>>4131629
>20 years out-of-date
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1214.short

>>4134439
>20 years out-of-date

>you're twenty years late to the debate.

lrn2read retard.

>>4134458
Cry moar, your tears are delicious.

>However the trend over the last decade has been to question Alvarez . . .your high-school knowledge is fun, but. . .you're twenty years late to the debate.

You didn't just >imply, you flat out asserted that the Chicxulub hypotheses is no longer accepted among paleontologists.

lrn2English, faggot.

>>4134458
Cry moar, your tears are delicious.

>However the trend over the last decade has been to question Alvarez . . .your high-school knowledge is fun, but. . .you're twenty years late to the debate.

You didn't just >imply, you flat out asserted that the Chicxulub hypothesis is no longer accepted among paleontologists.

lrn2English, faggot.

no scientist attacks global warming.

Only politicians and followers of those politicians.

therefore /thread this is /sci/

>>4134599
did you fail to understand the word "trend," or was it the word "question" that gave you trouble?

they're big words, I see how you could be confused.

by "confused" I of course mean "stupid."

>>4134668

On the contrary, I think the fact that these so-called skeptics are completely unable to present a coherent scientific argument for their position is something that should be brought up as often as possible.