/sci/ - Science & Math

It sure is!

I have heard legitimate PHD scientist on both sides of the spectrum, I understand there is a lot of money for lobbying both sides of the argument so I really dont know what to believe.

>>7049327

Believe the proof.

Randall Carlson is a good start

>>7049331
>sacred geometric

Nice try /lit/.

>>7049261

Who the fuck still cares about that shit?

>>7049261
This is a troll.

>>7049327
>I have heard legitimate PHD scientist on both sides of the spectrum, I understand there is a lot of money for lobbying both sides of the argument so I really dont know what to believe.

There is fuckload more funding in oil than in environmentalism, and a LOT more publishing scientists acknowledge anthropomorphic climate change than those who deny it. The devil is in the details.

>>7049374
So, it's a popularity contest then.

>>7049378

What would not be a "popularity contest?"

>>7049374
Yeah, the Federal Government which will make $Billions off Carbon Taxes funds AGW to the tune of $79 Billion so far.

No conflict of interest there!

>>7049394

Is this b8? Global warming costs the government money like everyone else.

>>7049401
Not bait, fact. Federal Government has spent $79 billion since 1989 on AGW research, policy etc. The decisions as to which "scientists" get research funding are made by government paid scientists at the National Science Foundation, etc. They are, without exception, all believers in AGW.

This means that the government takes taxpayers money and uses it to pay scientists who believe in AGW. (It is almost impossible to get a grant if you don't.) In turn, these scientists create "the sky is falling" scenarios. Which have to be solved by the eventually implementing $Carbon $Taxes and vast regulations. This gives government vastly more money and power.

If you think that greed and power is only for oil companies, you're incredibly naive. There is nothing more power hungry than a politician or high ranking bureaucrat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

>>7049420

It's also impossible to get funding as an astronomer is you don't believe in the moon.

>>7049261
>>7049292
>>7049327
Hi /pol/, how ya doing?

>>7049420
You'll have a hard time becoming a doctor if you're "skeptical" about the link between HIV and AIDS. Does that mean that AIDS is a gigantic conspiracy to shovel money into the pockets of evil doctors and big pharma?

>There is nothing more power hungry than a politician or high ranking bureaucrat.
Creating a "grass roots" anti-science pro-FREEDOM ideology that plays on emotional appeal and puts on the clothes of reasoned arguments is a great way to get elected. If a politician has to doubt climate change, evolution, or science as a whole in order to squeeze out a few more votes, that's exactly what they'll do. This injects doubt into the public discussion on these topics, despite the fact that the professional debate is already done and over with.

>>7049442
BTFO.

I can't tell who's baiting in this thread, and who's just retarded. Come to think of it, that applies to about 95% of /sci/.

>>7049442
>>7049445
inb4 the inevitable "/sci/ circlejerk why are you picking on me? keep sucking the gubment cock" when backed into a corner.

>>7049445
Would you believe a doctor who made failed diagnosis, after failed diagnosis, after failed diagnosis?
>antarctic sea ice melting FAIL
>significant temperature increase in the past decade FAIL
>arctic sea ice melted by 2014 FAIL
>hot spot in the troposphere over the equator FAIL
> "snow a thing of the past" FAIL
> CO2 drives temps FAIL, temps always rise first or don't correlate at all.

The doctor analogy is as absurd as it is false. Any doctor this bad would lose his license.

>>7049442
Ridiculous and false analogy
>>7049466

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/

>>7049445
>Creating a "grass roots" anti-science pro-FREEDOM ideology
How can AGW be "science," when its unfalsifiable?

>>7049466
Oh goodie. I'd love to take those point by point. Do you have any references on hand for
>antarctic sea ice melting
>arctic sea ice melted by 2014
I should be able to find the others on my own. And speaking of,
>"snow a thing of the past"
Was writen by an author for The Independent, not a scientist. I would love to read the full interview or context for the quote from the scientist quoted, Dr. David Viner, but I haven't come across it yet. To extend your doctor analogy, why should a doctor lose his license because a sci-fi writer wrote something about the common cold being cured in 2012?

>>7049434
im kinda baffled at this video. Carter shows us some climate history and says "look at these patterns, they're going to repeat, there's no measurable change in temperature in the last couple hundred years".

That's nice, but how does is that counter to global warming? He's just saying that global warming isn't measurable right now right? Does that refute it or does it just mean that it will eventually happen?

>>7049471

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA

But heat is energy. What's so bad about having an energy surplus? You don't want that energy to go to waste by bouncing off back into space do you? What ever happened to conservation?

>>7049471

and btw: your blog cite is repeating a meme started by a journalist named Christopher Booker. FWIW - Booker also rejects the scientific consensus on evolution, DDT, secondhand smoke, asbestos, and mad cow disease. Call it ad hominem all you want, it still casts a certain amount of doubt on his credibility, and the credibility of anyone who'd repeat something he wrote, without looking at it pretty critically first.

>>7051081
REKT

>>7049466
does this nigger want me to go cherry pick my own data now?

Keeping filling our air with shit, everything will be fine.

>>7051104
>Muh polar bears.
interesting that a species with recovering numbers are muh global warming representative.

It's like showing pictures of wilted plants and try to associate it with CO2.

>>7051128
Yeah, fuck those polar bears. They think they're special walking around on that stupid piece of ice.

>>7049261
/pol/fag detected

>>7051100
> Failed predictions are just cherry picking
Learn to Science

>>7049466
>Would you believe a doctor who made failed diagnosis, after failed diagnosis, after failed diagnosis?

I remember when people used to mock Hansen for his "West Side Highway will be underwater" remark.

>>7051087
Actually, the Surgeon General had to change government standards to get secondhand smoke listed as a carcinogen. Also, scientific consensus means nothing.

>>7051081
>"Drops in temperature are a sign of a problem"
If that isn't the most specious piece of crap reasoning, what is?

Why are all the corrections inevitably made in a way that increases the rate of warming? BTW, instrument changes were often from old fashioned mercury thermometers to electronic thermometers which read HOTTER, not colder.

So lets see, if temps go down, BAD DATA, temps go up GOOD DATA! Why wasn't the Urban Heat Island effect accounted for?

>"Why would NOAA tamper adjust data to making heating look worse that it is?"
To keep their jobs.

Lots of adjustments, PIC related.

>>7051221
Hansen's (1989) prediction failed miserably. The actual scenario that occurred is Scenario C, an increase in CO2 output. The closest Scenario to his prediction is Scenario A. That scenario was assumed that there would be a massive stopping of CO2 output. Needless to say, that didn't happen. Hansen failed. Pic Related.

So since the prediction failed, AGW has been falsified, right? Wait, I forgot the AGW is a secular religion.

Concerning your picture, I suppose that there was no flooding before the use of SUVs?

>global warming = climate change

>>7049473
it actually is falsifiable... get the fuck out of here

>>7051087
>scientific consensus...
Never heard that term before AGW. Which is a HUGE red flag. Before then, no one said that science was settle by popularity or authority. But I guess the huge list of failed predictions, such as those given here:
>>7049466
Made it necessary to appeal to popularity and authority to keep the government funding going.

>>7051233
>"Drops in temperature are a sign of a problem"
It's outliers that don't agree with other measurements you disingenuous shithead.

>Why are all the corrections inevitably made in a way that increases the rate of warming? BTW, instrument changes were often from old fashioned mercury thermometers to electronic thermometers which read HOTTER, not colder.
That's fucking nonsense and has nothing to do with outliers.

>To keep their jobs.
So let me get this straight, the difference between keeping and losing their job is a 3% increase in the warming trend that the data showed anyway? Get the fuck out you delusional retard.

>>7051252
Then give a plausible falsifiability criterion. It must distinguish from normal climate variation.

Non-falsifiability criteria:
CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Nobody says it isn't.
Stratosphere not cooling. It hasn't cooled for 20 years, pic related.

>>7051255

Oh boy, continuous verbal abuse and ad hominem. People tend to act this way when their religious beliefs are threatened.

BTW, show me significant temperature data "corrections" that made the rate of warming smaller.

You can't. Pic related.

Overpopulation on the other hand is definitely caused by humans and no one seems to care...

>>7049487
Lack of Snow:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

Example of melting snow:
The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

>>7049487

Melting Arctic:

“In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

Al Gore said it would be melted by 2014 (or 2013)
“Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years” (December 2008)
>nb4 he's not a scientist!
If he had been right, that would be PROOF of AGW!

By 2015 (extremely unlikely as the Arctic Ice is about 1 standard deviation from the mean)
Dr Maslowski’s model, along with his claim that the Arctic sea ice is in a “death spiral”, were controversial but Prof Wadhams, a leading authority on the polar regions, said the calculations had him “pretty much persuaded.”
Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.
“It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that’s when it will happen.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/8877491/Arctic-sea-ice-to-melt-by-2015.html

>>7049487
Antarctic Sea Ice Melting. Here are some scientific references that we're supposed to pretend never happened:

Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

>>7049347
How the fuck did they even manage to forecast that?

>>7051244

No longer able to simply dismiss reality, the denialists retreat into statistical arcana.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/

>>7049466

The missing "hot spot" in the troposphere over the equator.

>>7049466
Temperature increasing before CO2 increasing. Pic related.

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.
Global and Planetary Change, August 30, 2012.
Conclusion: Changes in temperatures are seen to take place 9-12 months before corresponding changes in atmospheric CO2.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5

>>7051334

>Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean

>Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model

Looks like they held up pretty good.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X13005797

>>7051343
You are the Denier, Denying the failed predictions of AGW such as Hansen's and the models.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

>>7051351
>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php

You've got to be kidding me. Purposefully trying to rewrite predictions of melting SEA ICE, by talking about land ice/snow. Pic related. Green area is new SEA ICE, red areas are missing SEA ICE.

And all that "missing LAND ice," largely replaced with LAND snow. No big deal. And the glacier ice melting is due to geothermic events.

Antarctic Thwaites glacier, considered the key to evaluating rising sea levels, is "actively melting in response to geothermal flux" from volcanoes' magma, a new study from the Institute for Geophysics at University of Texas, Austin finds.Researchers found that areas where the glacier showed greatest geothermal flux corresponded with "magmatic migration and volcanism."Unfortunately for global warming enthusiasts, geothermal warming is nature's handiwork.This study found under the glacier a "minimum average geothermal heat flow [of]... about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter." Contrast that with the earth's continents, that have an "average heat flow... less than 65 milliwatts per square meter"

Again, thanks for trying to be tricky and rewriting predictions about SEA ICE into land ice, without saying it.

>>7051353
It's funny that the measurements diverge from the model RIGHT AT 1993. You know what happened in 1993? MOUNT FUCKING PINATUBO EXPLODED is what, and it knocked down global temperatures by a couple degrees.
protip: climatologists don't account for volcanism except in the aggregate

also, that much-bandied graph only shows measurements in the mid-troposphere of the tropics. way to cherry-pick one set where the models were relatively inaccurate, rather than considering the data on larger systems

>>7051348
nice unlabeled graph, fag.
what am I supposed to abstract from that figure?

Pumping out 40 billion tons of CO2 a year doesn't affect the atmosphere at all, haha carry on good citizens

>>7051361
You're ignoring the extremely strong and NATURAL El Nino of 1998. Prior to that, there was just about no warming at all.

And a little education on AGW theory. Warming is predicted to be Strongest and show up Earliest in the troposphere. The "cherry-picking" is done to HELP the theory by looking for the strongest signal.

>>7051366
The data source is right on the graph. And the scientific paper which describes the result is references. The graph shows that temperatures go up about 1 year before CO2 goes up.

>>7051372

All the graphs on the right side are cherry-picked to start at about 1970. Right when the period of cooling from about 1940 ended and things started to warm up again.

As importantly, the graphs on the left ignore all the warming and cooling of the past. Instead, they are cherry-picked to start near the end of The Little Ice Age

The Medieval Warming period
The Roman Warming period
etc.

>>7051386
>Prior to [1998], there was just about no warming at all.
confirmed for retard
Also, seriously? You DO know that the sudden increase in frequency and strength of El Nino conditions is the result of warming trends in the ocean, right?

>>7051392
Let's proceed for a moment under the condition that I've graduated a year and a half ago from one of the finest institutes of higher learning in the world with a B.S. in geoscience (100% true), but that my alumni status means I can no longer get the full paper for free. Can you tell me what the UNITS are? Because those units look pretty smallish to me, but I can't tell because there are no fucking labels of axes or trendlines.

MORE to the point:
temperature DOES drive CO2, but secondarily so. Higher temperatures result in faster decomposition and melting of permafrost, putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. However, the instigator of our sudden warming trend is (according to the vast majority of the evidence) human activity, from fossil fuel exploitation to land use. So why do we see the signature of the weaker signal and not that of the stronger signal, at a fine scale? Because the stronger signal doesn't have as much year-to-year variation. Human activity is 'smoother'.

>>7051403
ho ho ho

data sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png#Data_Sources

>>7051403
Um, 5 of the 6 graphs on the right start before 1960. Who taught you how to read?

Also, you may be interested to know that data based on human measurements kind of depend on the presence of civilizations capable of making measurements and leaving records. THAT is why those records only go back so far.

You wanna talk about cherry-picking? Talk about the graph you posted just now. Look at the scale. Look at the title. Heck, even look at the names watermarked on it.
That's not a global temperature record. That is a motherfucking LOCAL PROXY.

>>7051322
“...a very rare and exciting event”
It's fucking nothing. This is why you need context or a full quote. Depending on what those might be, I see no reason to make a stink about this quote. There's no reason to assume the quote is about '-within 15 years.'

“In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Again. What issue do you have with this?

"The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Once again. Increased global temperatures mess with the conditions necessary for snow and snowstorms. I assume you have to be reading these all as "There will be no snow come 2012 or I'll eat my hat." These are all broad quotes about the effect of warming on snowfall. And since the last one, we've had the benefit of 15 years of observation and better modeling. Are you reaching back into the past and winging on about the past failures of 1999 era climate models because it's harder to find recent stuff that you disagree with?

Since 1999, it's been found that increased temperatures mess with the conditions needed for snow. It's also been found that in colder, more northern areas, the increased moisture leads to more snowfall and more extreme weather events. Science is a self correcting process like that. You're like a creationist whining about how science always changes and therefore it's wrong.

>>7051332
First quote is basically the second quote of the previous post. Same comment as before. It's fine as it is, there's no timeframe on it yet you're acting like it's a failed prediction.

>nb4 he's not a scientist!
He's not a scientist. He also got a lot of stuff wrong. If all arctic ice melted this summer, I couldn't give two shits about Al Gore and neither should you, because the fucking arctic melted. There would be bigger issues at hand.

Dr Maslowski’s model and so on. I'll give you this one. But note what you're doing. You're quoting something about a controversial, extreme model and a prediction based on it, that your quote even lampshades, and using that to cast doubt on climate change and the research on it as a whole. Congratulations.

>>7051334
Predictions in 1991 and 1992 got it wrong. Are you unaware how this all works?
A layman's understanding of gravity is that heavy objects fall faster. Cannonballs drop and feathers drift. When it was discovered that barring air resistance, all objects accelerate and fall the same, gravity as a whole was not disproven. Gravity was not found to be falsifiable. Models changed based on the new information gained from failed predictions.

>>7051551
unfalsifiable. And sage.

The government is putting fluoride in the tap water!

>>7051564
Yes. They are.

>christian uses Bible written by Christians as proof of their faith
>/sci/ laughs at them and asks for an unbiased source

>scientist uses government funded research as proof for a thing which can get the government a lot more money
>/sci/ scolded and ridicules anyone who disagrees
KEK
E
K

>>7051616
Conspiracy theories belong on /pol/
If you don't like science, fuck off.

>>7051616
Hey everyone! These two things have some tenuous connection that doesn't hold up under the slightest bit of scrutiny! Let's gloss over that, pretend they are equivalent, and feel superior for doing so!

>>7051620
>>7051618
People who say that it is not possible for these saints in white lab coats to be corrupted by money are stupid

That was my point

I did not mention the validity or invalidity of climate change

If I wanted to say I thought climate change was bullshit I would have said I thought climate change is bullshit

>>7051628
The easiest way to make a name for yourself in science is to prove everyone wrong.
That you believe that all climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy shows you belong elsewhere.

>>7049327
If ya believe money and power are the motivators, then the answer is simple:

Which side has the money?

Which side has the power?

Which side has the most to lose?

In which case, the answer is rather obvious.

If, on the other hand, you believe the question to be more nuanced, then you've gotta can of worms to sort out.

But it is always frustrating to note just how far we've come in terms of pollution control in general (I mean things really used to be exponentially worse on the local level - London was covered in, literally, several feet of ash daily, back in the early industrial revolution.), and to realize that, in the past, that's always been because the only ones fighting against environmental reforms were a few moguls at the top - vs. the general public.

Now that the general public fights against environmental reforms on their behalf, I suspect we're going to start seeing a rapid backslide to all that progress, especially as more and more of the world industrializes.

But it's not gonna be the end of the world - just a lot more misery for the general public.

>>7051616
>scientist uses government funded research
>scientists can be corrupted by money

You're getting so close to making an actual claim but you're just skirting around it in the meantime. If you're claiming that scientists are being bought, I'd like some evidence backing up that claim. I'll save you time and say dig deeper than the climategate emails. They've already been thoroughly addressed.

>cosmic rays cause clouds to form
>the sun stifles cosmic rays with its magnetosphere

>sun activity goes up causing less cosmic rays to hit the earth during the modern maximum
>global temperature rises because of less cloud cover

>sun activity flatlines during maunder minimum
>more clouds form
>mini ice age

>>7049374
>anthropomorphic climate change

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Pic related

I think you meant anthropogenic

it's all just an agenda-driven Librul myth, ainnit?!

>>7049378
You're free to look at the evidence yourself.

Since you're probably too stupid to understand numbers bigger than 35 though, your best bet is to trust the idea that's more popular among the experts.

>>7051322
Do you have a learning disability?

>>7051733
>You're free to look at the evidence yourself.
>You're free to look at the evidence yourself.
What idealistic world do you live in where that works?

Yeah, good luck Googling that shit and getting a straight answer - especially given that Google tends to attempt give you results you'd like, based on political sites you've visited.

For controversial subjects, facts and evidence become rapidly meaningless, as you can selectively tailor them to paint any image you want, and the people who gather them all have agendas. If they were gathered and assembled by unbiased robots, they might be helpful, but sadly, they are gathered and assembled by biased human beings. Even if you check all their research, on such a subject, someone will always have some counter research.

Whether man is responsible for global warming or not shouldn't be an issue, however. We all know pollution is bad, and it seems more than a little self-destructive to fight pollution control efforts, regardless of which party is pushing for them, simply because they add some extra overhead.

>>7051342
"They" is just a pattern recognition algorithm.

>>7049420
So fucking wrong it hurts: http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

Here is a PHD scientist, and reasonable Anthropogenic Climate Change skeptic who, "has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE."

Seriously you people concocting conspiracies in your head based on 0 evidence need to learn that reality isn't whatever feeble thoughts your brain manages to have.

>>7049327

And who are these PhDs? My dad is an atmospheric scientist who has met hundreds of PhDs. Not a single one was a man-influenced climate change denier. You're literally retarded if you don't believe it.

Or how about the hundreds of scientific journals that risk their reputations by siding with man-influenced climate change? How about the dearth or nonexistence of journals who say otherwise?

>>7052707
My dad also was, just about everyone he knows is a AGW/ACC denier. You're literally retarded if you're beliefs are shaped by what your daddy told you.

How about the hundreds of scientists who have risked their reputations siding against it? Scientific journals mean shit, they're full of politics. Also, I don't know if you missed stats class the day they learned that causation doesn't equal correlation, but I know you were gone when they talked about majority opinion not equalling the truth.

>>7052732

As someone whose currently studying mathematics, are you telling me that the scientific journals peer-review and publication is not legitimate? I wouldn't like to take a holier-than-thou approach to this, but holy fuck, have you scientists no shame, absolutely fucking atrocious and a disgrace to the field.

How can anybody be legitimately informed if the people that are studying the phenomenon of the world aren't being truthful?

>>7052732
>Scientific journals mean shit, they're full of politics

>implying scientists care about money
>implying they're in the business of lying
>implying lack of peer review
>implying that these details of these studies are secret and can't be pulled up easily to be examined by everyone in academia

>>7052732
>How about the hundreds of scientists who have risked their reputations siding against it?
You get shit like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

>>7051413
>Prior to [1998], there was just about no warming at all.
>confirmed for retard
Obviously I meant within the time frame. Confirmed for resorting to ad hominem

> I've graduated a year and a half ago from one of the finest institutes of higher learning in the world with a B.S. in geoscience (100% true),
As long as we're bragging, I won three post-doctoral fellowships (yup three, yup 100% true) to one of the best technical universities in the world. I can tell you that scientists can be some of the most gullible people out there. For example, if something is labeled "science," they will swallow it hook, line and sinker. Especially younger scientists. But I digress. The units come from normalization of the data (mean = 0; presumably StdDev = 1). I"ve attached a similar figure from the paper. The graph is to illustrate the phase relationship between CO2 and temperatures.

>temperature DOES drive CO2, but secondarily so. Higher temperatures result in faster decomposition and melting of permafrost, putting more CO2 into the air
WTF?? Do you mean methane? (still not true, I've seen the data.) How would increased plant growth create more CO2? More like more O2.

>>7051415
Oh boy, a silly hockey stick graph. Take low variance data, low correlated data (that still represent "global temps") "proxies" and sew high variance data onto the end (usually instrumental data, e.g., thermometers). At the least, this is horrible statistical technique. Quite possibly deliberately deceptive.

See attached. A construction where proxies are not mixed with instrumental data, creating statistical meaning instead of statistical garbage.

>>7052646
He is the very rare exception to the rule. He kept his mouth shut as a NASA scientist. After that, he became a tenured professor at UAH. Having co-invented satellite "temperature taking" funding agencies could hardly deny him funding. Yes, if you are an extraordinarily accomplished skeptic, you can get funding. The bar is set much lower for AGW believers.

>>7051551
>science works by continually moving the goal posts every time their predictions fail.
Nonsense, you've described unfalsifiability.

You know, even if climate change is a hoax, I couldn't care less. Everything that is proposed to be done to prevent it is actually a great addition to human life. I just love the idea that there's finally something that slows humanity down a bit. Everybody wants more, faster, bigger, but nothing really gets better for humans. All that happened regarding human advancement in the last decade was that we got new gadgets and services, so we can work even more. I mean just chill the fuck out and think about what you are actually doing for a second. If it takes a giant science hoax to achieve that, I'm fine with. Might just as well be the best thing science has ever done for humanity.

>>7051536
>Since 1999, it's been found that increased temperatures mess with the conditions needed for snow. It's also been found that in colder, more northern areas, the increased moisture leads to more snowfall and more extreme weather events.

How convenient.
Less snow => Climate Change is True!
More snow => Climate Change is True!

>>7052990
my nigga

>>7051428
>That is a motherfucking LOCAL PROXY.
And you're naive enough to think that other graphs (like Mann's infamous hockey stick) aren't filled with cherry picked data? That they're are a statistically random sample of global proxies? Seriously who are you kidding? Amongst the countless flaws of Mann's hockey stick graph is the presence of two proxies of strip bark trees. Trees that suddenly overgrew because they were compensating for burn damage. The entire upward tilt of his graphis due to those trees (they then turn downward which is why he had to "hide the decline.")

BTW, Climate "Scientists" use a couple of Antarctic measurements for the entire CO2 history... (Or pre-history if you will.) Exactly how does that represent the entire globe?

>all scientists who disagree with me are getting bried

Just climate change denialists being climate change denialists.

>>7052990
I like this idea. I like how you said it too.

>>7052990
this guy gets it

>>7049420
>$79 billion since 1989
For any one of the major oil energy, that's not even the equivalent of a parking ticket.

Now imagine them all working together,

>>7049420
>$79 billion since 1989
For any one of the major energy companies, that's not even the equivalent of a parking ticket.

Now imagine them all working together.

Take further into account, who owns those energy companies, and who also in turn owns the government, and it's pretty amazing that there's any climate change research at all.

>no one even bringing up c ppm
>hurr durr follow money

what a waste of a thread space.

>>7052977
Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I mean I can just say every single person who denies global warming is getting a paycheck from Exxon and guess what? My argument is equivalent to yours.

>>7049261
and? you just stated a fact

>>7053078
>>7053041
>>7053067

Piss off, samefag!

You are 10 years late for the climate change party.

So can anyone explain how countless numbers of climate scientists are convinced to publish knowingly wrong findings and theories in order to get grants without anyone exposing the conspiracy

>>7051546

Ah yes, the silly boyz at SkS. Where did they magically get that really old data? The pre-satellite era data? Oh its speculative. Got it.

Look at this, actual UN IPCC data. Showing significant melting in 1974 (top graph), then a huge uptick in about 1979. That's why almost all "the Arctic is Melting" graphs start at 1979 or so. But, Yeah this is real data. From the IPCC no less. And it looks a whole lot different from what the SkS kidz are saying.

>>7051546
And here's satellite data with mean and standard deviation since about 1980. Note the red line for 2014. Note how its not too far from the mean value.

>>7051546
What do you know?! The Arctic was melting in 1947!

And what's this from The Courier-Mail Monday 6 May 1940?
By far the largest number of local glaciers in north-east Greenland had receded very greatly during recent decades, and it would not be exaggerating to say that these glaciers were nearing a catastrophe.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/40934044?searchTerm=greenland%20%20melting&searchLimits=

>>7051546
The North Pole is getting 6 degrees warmer! In 1940.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/62428921

>>7049445
lol being this autistic. Terrible analogy.

>>7053242
>its not too far from the mean value
>all colored lines (2008-2014) are around 1 standard deviation below mean
>they're even lower in winter
lel

Global Warming is accelerated by mass human activity, that's for sure, but it certainly would still exist otherwise.

The real retard logic is
>Global Warming can't be real, we're having colder weather!

Is there even a point to posting anything on the internet? I mean half of the replies i'm going to get are going to be trolls and the other half are going to be from morons. None the less here goes, think what you will but the facts are undeniable. The hottest 10 years on record have all occurred since the year 2000. That includes surface and sea temp. 2014 was the single hottest year of all and 6 months out of said year were the individual hottest on record. Not to mention the fact that there is less ice at the Arctic and Antarctic then ever before. How much proof has to be shoved down your throat before you stop denying the truth. It has nothing to do with being a conservative or liberal. Don't by into either sides hype. Just look at the facts. More co2 equals hotter planet. Its pretty simple. Plus all the proposed changes benefit humanity anyway. Why on earth would anyone actually be opposed to cutting CO2 emissions? I mean are there people out there who love breathing in car and factory fumes?

>>7049394
Yes and the lobbyists representing global oil companies that make that in an operating week in revenue Have no interest in lying either. The fact that is over 90% of climatologists have consensus on human caused climate change. The remaining 10% have identifiable ties to big oil. The opinings of Geologists, neuroscientists or engineers, however well qualified have no validity - or would you let a physicist perform heart surgery on you?

>>7053306
>The fact that is over 90% of climatologists have consensus on human caused climate change. The remaining 10% have identifiable ties to big oil

[citation needed]

>>7053310
There you go. Consensus study on peer reviewed scientific papers by earth scientists - 97%
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

I think there is enough evidence to say humans are directly related to the increase in the global average temperature in the last 40ish years.

>>7053316
is that evidence supported by planetary variance?

>>7053315
where did the 10% big oil come from?

ya pull that out of your ass?

>>7053328
You'll have to do some research but the items listed here represent the 3% of papers that refute it.

Is there a global warming denial 50 cent brigade?

>>7049261
How did the last Ice Age end? What caused all of that ice and snow to melt back?

it's just a Librul myth, because BP says so

>>7049261
>global warming is caused by humans
Well it is.
Adjusting the instrumental data to agree with their opinion is not something machines do.