/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4978541
because there is literally 0 evidence for it besides "LOOK GUYS CO2 UP, HEAT UP"

What the fuck happened to "correlation does not imply causation"

>no poll numbers for US

>>4978544

>What the fuck happened to "correlation does not imply causation"

It got introduced to a mainstream media in love with fear-mongering by way of Al Gore.

>>4978541
>Why do the vast majority of Americans still deny it?

because there is no scientific consensus yet

>>4978554
95+% of climate experts agree

>>4978553

the only way for science to predict and claim "causation" is via correlation

there is no other method of analysis lol, it's just repeated correlation

the last study funded by oil tychoons (koch brothers) with the lead scientist a climate sketpic turned out to support man made global warming and the lead scientist also changed his stance

pretty much every competent study and 97% of scientists working on the issue agree

>>4978541
>>4978541
>>4978541
>>4978541
>>4978541

>>4978554

>no scientific consensus yet

is this what the shitty mainstream american media is teaching you?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

educate yourself

>>4978560
>it's just repeated correlation
The problem is we don't have repeated correlation because this is the only heating period in which we've recorded shit like this.

The earth has had other heating periods without the burning of fossil fules

Because a lot of very wealthy people who got incredibly wealthy from the burning of fossil fuels make goddamn sure that people in the US are confused about the issue by paying unscrupulous news reporters a shit ton of money to lie.

>>4978562


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html

Isn't the data of the last 15 or so years showing average global temperatures haven't moved in either direction much at all?

I work for an insurance company and in the last 10 years all our statistics are showing that claim payouts in the winters are going down while claim payouts in the summers are increasing significantly

we've had massive forest fires aggravated by excessive heat+dryness that ended up destroying entire towns

this is just anecdotal, the 10yr time horizon is too short, but there are tons of studies supporting global warming anyway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf

sigh, once again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&index=1&feature=plpp_
video

the scary thing is that if we continue to have economic growth at 2% per year gdp, we'll be totally fucked in 100-150 years.

we're already fucked the path of disaster has started and theres no reversing it now, it's just a matter of minimizing losses and not making it worse

>>4978567
As if people like Al Gore don't stand to make as much off of their little carbon-finance schemes.

I don't trust these fuckers at all.

pretty sure all of sci understands the concrete science supporting man made global warming

its just that a few /pol/ tards come here and spout rubbish

>>4978573
average global temperatures have been rising faster than predicted, and are a cause for further concern.

>>4978563
know you

http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

>>4978565
Yes but there were other events that caused that.

Are you trying to deny global warming or something? It's very clear it exists. It's not exactly the most dangerous thing though.

If you're not denying it, then your argument is just unnecessary..

First result from Google:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/45431/global-warming-skepticism-higher-in-u-s-and-britain-than-canad
a/

>Overall, practically three-in-five Canadians (58%) say that that global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. Only 43 per cent of Britons and 42 per cent of Americans agree with this assessment.
>One-in-five respondents in Canada (20%) and the United States (21%) believe that global warming is a fact, and is mostly caused by natural changes—a view shared by 27 per cent of Britons. Finally, whereas 21 per cent of both Americans and Britons think that global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven, only 14 per cent of Canadians agree with this notion.

>>4978584
Oh wow! You got me there!

AL GORE IS NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST.

Climate scientists are the ones you're arguing against, not Al Gore.

It has been a very cool August in Ontario Canada.

>>4978610
What about the percentage of Canadians who are LOVING it.

I've never used my pool so much this year! Thanks Alberta!

>>4978619
Just this last week.

I just wish that everytime al gore said "scientists" the movie had a little caption telling us the study.

I just don't care

'Environmentalism' as it stands today is a 44 billion dollar plus global industry. My concern is not increasing efficiency and reducing pollutant emissions of all types of industry, but how the 'Green' movement is treated like some kind of sacred cow all the way to the bank.

>>4978774

the movement isn't relevant to this discussion

the scientific fact of Global warming and the repercussions we face as a race are.

>>4978774

the anti-cancer, anti-aids, anti-poverty movements are also billion dollar industires, sacred cows, and so forth--who gives a fuck??

why is that a concern? it's an idiotic concern
you are concerned with the opinion people hold about some institution more than the state of our environment and our future lol---how silly

Whether solely anthropogenic or not, this is a problem that needs fixing.

Worst-case scenario: the methane (a much-stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) concentrations in arctic ice are as high and deep as has been estimated based on cores, such that when those layers start melting, warming accelerates beyond the current predictions and Florida gets submerged in 30 years.

Pic related: it's the statue of Prometheus at Chernobyl. Against all objections of the gods, he saw it fit to give the knowledge of fire to humanity.
sauce: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter27.html

>>4978803

Hes just a disenchanted libertarian or something. Dont mind him. Hell grow out of it

I find it funny that people brag about certain countries "believing" in global-warming/climate-change in greater proportions than others, or some countries being more atheistic than others, etc...The people saying these things are implying that, because of these beliefs, one country is composed of more intelligent individuals, and the other less intelligent individuals...

The problem i have this is that the beliefs are cultural beliefs, and have nothing to do with the merit of the belief in and of itself.

More canadians believe in global warming, because culturally canadians are more "liberal" (american Democrat sense) and global warming is a liberal cause celebre.

It's akin to trying to point out that soviets are more intelligent than americans vs indians because one society is christian vs another atheistic vs another muslim...it's fallacious because neither belief is based on rational decisions but upon each society's respective pressure on its citizens to conform to a certain standard.

Tl;dr
>implying the vast majority of any country thinks rationally and bases their views on objective fact

I find it necessary, when discussing climate, to start out the conversation by separating the politics from the science. Climate change is first and foremost a scientific issue. That said, the majority of scientists agree that man-made climate change is a clear and present danger. Who honestly denies man-made climate change, let alone climate change?

>>4978928

The problem with saying "XX% of scientists believe in global climate change/warming" is that it implies that this isn't political, that the scientists are objective.

From all the scandals, and the fact that scientists are human beings and emotional, and that their careers are riding on billions of grant dollars which would only come if they can convince everyone of what they are saying, it is hard to believe in their objectivity, whether the objective reality of the situation is one way or the other.

I mean, a vast majority of academic PHD's ascribe to liberal views...does this mean liberal views are more "intelligent" or is it just a requirement of academic culture (peer pressure) to acribe to liberal views...chicken or the egg?

You can never really know.

>>4978942

I'm not using the mere fact that the majority of climate scientists agree as the sole support of my claims. It's just one. The data are out there for you to look at, read up on and of course form your own conclusions. I do, however, recognize that science of today isn't the same as the ''science'' that brought you such claims as smoking is good for you, etc.

The idea that because scientists are human, and therefore cannot be objective is a moot point. Scientists funded by both sides have came to the same conclusion, man-made climate change is real.

>>4978942

The answer the latter part of your question, is the egg.

>>4978544

Correlation DOES imply causation

Jesus fucking shitnipples, nobody on this fucking site knows what implications are

>>4978962

You're talking to someone from /pol/, have you visited /pol/?

>>4978957
>>4978958

I don't really care if climate change is real or not, I'm just arguing that people should skeptical of what they are told, especially from sources of authority, and to be careful of the numbers.

"Statistics are like women...mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or whores to use as one pleases."

-Hermione Granger

>>4978963

I choose not to.

It'd be like looking upon /b/ for the first time as a young boy - Horrifying, I presume.

>>4978962
>nobody on this fucking site knows what implications are
imply: 3) to involve as a necessary circumstance

This is the definition most used in discussions of logic and standards of evidence, and in the phrase, "correlation does not imply causation".

>>4978966

No one is suggesting to toss their hat in with a side without first reading and doing a bit of research, no one. There is a healthy amount of skepticism, tinfoil hat skepticism that the Sun hasn't risen in decades and it's really a light produced by HAARP and of course degrees in between the two extremes.

>>4978968

That's most likely for the better, it's basically a giant tumor. Seething racism, homophobia and climate denial because. What makes me quiver is these people will have children... maybe.

>>4978983

You're always better off erring on the side of tinfoil.

>>4978983
The case for global warming is EXTREMELY technical and involved.

Unless you've spent years formally studying the subject, your entire reason for believing it is, "Because experts said so." and your entire reason for believing they are experts is, "Because the experts all agree that they are experts together."

In the past, all too often a bunch of experts who all agreed together that they were experts and a certain fact was true turned out to be full of shit.

>>4978991

Also, we're arguing semantics at this point over ''correlation does not imply causation''. It doesn't automatically imply causation, but it two factors are related (this is where experimentation comes in) then it's implied by evidence.

>>4979002

Yes it is, but not all the literature is esoteric. I fully recognize the fact that I could be lied to, the same way I recognize the fact that I could be killed when driving through an intersection because I have no guarantee that the red light will stop someone.

I'm also not following what you're suggesting.

Me? I'm American, do I believe in climate change? Well, I'll believe it when I see it, but hey, the climate changes a little every year.

Do I believe humans cause climate change? Well of course we do, hell humanity INVENTED the 'Mediterranean Climate' by massive local deforestation back in the Bronze/Iron Age.

Has it been hotter? Oh yes... will it get hotter? Oh yes. Should we let it get hotter? Hey, that's a judgement. Science does not make judgements, it analyses, it theorizes, but it cannot make judgements.

So then the question comes, can humanity survive it getting hotter? Well, humanity is the most adaptable species we know to have populated this planet. chances are, yes, it won't be comfortable, but we can. But then humanity as a species could have survived a nuclear war, can western civilization and the current runaway rate of technological advancement survive a harsh ecology. In theory, yes, but chances are that the dissruption of food due to ecological upheaval will take a toll on the human population.

Then again, adversity is the fuel of innovation, maybe a hundred years are more will see living in vaults or monolithic habitat archeolies eating gene-fixed vatbeef and Monsanto Standard Superfruits.,in between eons long sleeps in a cybernetic dreamworld.

Or maybe we'll be huddled around campfires cooking velocoraptors and 3 ft long centipedes as the tribe's young rut savagely in the woods out of sight.

Or both...

>>4979002

First, it's not the experts in the field agree with each other that they're experts in the field, but that experts from separate but related fields agree that they're experts in the field. That is, the person who tracks and the person who designs satellite sensors both agree that the person who is a climate scientist did data analysis with them in postdoc and knows their shit.

>In the past, all too often a bunch of experts ... turned out to be full of shit.

Compared to how many important times a bunch of experts turned out to be correct and prescient? There is a reason why scientists continue to get government grants, you know.

Guys guys... what if we like... take all the greenhous gasses and... like put them on mars?

>>4978541
Americans are fucking retarded

\thread

>>4978541

OP. Americans are starting to believe. It was all a media/political thing that the general public had no "fault" in. Just big corporations trying to stall the political reaction enough for them to change their ways and research how to raep the "green" market. Seriously, it's so fucked up that what I just said is true.

Pic related, Global warming is real because I can see it.

>>4979198

Pic also related. Save these for use in global warming skeptic threads. Hot off the press in pre-published atmospheric science journal articles.

>>4979064
The science can predict to some degree of accuracy what the results of letting it get hotter would be, in which case it isn't a particularly difficult bit of reasoning to decide if we should let that happen or not.

>>4979198

>>4979204

I like it. Even though this graph is dumbed down a lot and the fact that 2007 and 2012 are compared to the "average" to imply global warming is "getting worse" when really these were anomalously warm years from other factors besides global climate change.

I'm not being picky, I can just see the counter-arguments now and like to prepare for them ahead of time.

ITT

Let's say for a moment that climate scientists are wrong, that global warming is actually caused by, oh who knows, frogs.

What do we gain by following their advice? Less dependence of foreign oil. More reliance on alternative renewable energy. More environmental conservation.

What do we lose by following their advice? A bunch of fatass rich guys lose some money.

Now let's pretend climate scientists are right about global warming.

What do we gain by following their advice? In addition to everything mentioned before we also continue to make the world comfortable for future generations and more hospitable to species already in danger due to habitat loss and other environmental issues.

What do we lose if we don't follow their advice? Well, we're fucked. Global sea level rise forces coastline cities to use drastic measures to keep from being devastated by increased violent weather. Increased desertification of the planet with areas in Africa, Asia, and Central America suffering the most. Some billion people or more running low on drinkable water do to increased drought. War fought over decreased water availability. A bunch of wealthy assholes hide in shelters and buy all your water because they've got all the money and you're fucked. Not to mention species will be lost which are already in danger due to other environmental pressures such as loss of habitat.

>Why do the vast majority of Americans still deny it?
politics.
If it was introduced to the public differently and not through the political system, then it would have a counter attack which is purely politically motivated.
tl;dr
people hate al gore

>>4979346
wouldn't

>>4978544
>implying carbon dioxide hasn't been a known greenhouse gas for over a century
Do you even science?

Even if we are, who gives a fuck, the consequences aren't that harsh.

Sure, africans might die, but they do that already.

>>4979305
I'm with this guy

I find opinion on global warming irrelevant, even though hating the environment is the eddgy thing to do right now.

Reducing reliance on fossil fuels is better for the economy, dumping shit into our environment is bad for future fishing, accommodation, life, farming etc. Coal is awful all round and recycling is more effective than starting from scratch


tl;dr, go buy LED light 'bulbs'

>>4978541
Because they are bad people (mostly -- I shan't be too harsh). Certainly the ones in this thread are.