/sci/ - Science & Math

I have no idea what goes on in their heads

How could they possibly not believe more educated people (scientist) than them? How could they believe in a retarded worldwide conspiracy or a massive error in many publications and researches?

>>7088448
Let them have their opinions. Dictating what people can or cannot think is the epitome of fascism.

That is to say, I think they're idiots, but people should be allowed to be idiots.

>>7088456
I once got into a debate about it with a relative but all I got was meme responses.

>>7088448

This thread is a great /pol/ attractor so inb4 all the shitposting:

People are retarded OP, they will always blame things on satan, corporations, karma, etc. and never themselves.

I've never seen them criticizing the basic science behind it, i.e. the greenhouse effect and how the atmosphere works. With a simple understanding of these it's quite easy to see that at least we are doing something dangerous. I also remember how many years ago they were outright denying there was warming altogether and now they just deny it's anthropogenic, I wonder if in 10 years they will just justify it for some reason.

One of them showed me a TIME cover from 25 years ago about an upcoming ice age. What's up with that? Can anyone explain?

>>7088474
a Few years ago some reachrs was done and the scients doing it, and the time sience the last one is about to goo in cycle

>>7088461
they should be allowed to be idiots, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt recognize the problem and try to understand why they are idiots. then maybe we can educate people so they dont become idiots.

also we might find a way to convince the idiots.

>>7088504
>also we might find a way to convince the idiots.
Oh the curse of the optimism...

>>7088506
hey man, dont bring me down!

It requires a complex science to understand it. All the debate around the issues has been horrible with both sides failing to come close to the level of sophistication required to effectively communicate or approximate this highly emergent science. There are many parallel phenomena and cross-discipline parameters involved in order to execute deductive reasoning all of which largely fall by the wayside in favor of what appears to be rehearsed and closed-minded tactics. Rather than talk about particular pieces of evidence, I'd like to know more of the science behind what all gets considered. The 2 key things that have idly caught my interest are Milankovitch cycles and temperature of other planets and the sun, or rather just any and all astronomical activity. The Milankovitch cycles seem super interesting for tangential purposes because there's also some really interesting ancient history that shows mankind has known about these really obscure facts of the earth's motion for a long time. I think this convergence of history and modern times would really capture more people's interest in (the) science to begin with and then lead into these wider and more active dialogues the liberal scientists (if we're to be honest about the meta) claim to want to have.

have seen too many vids like this to believe it's real or man-made.

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

>>7088576
what on earth do you mean?

>>7088579
I think I made myself pretty clear. Moast of the stuff out there, like the vid I linked to, is just ridiculous. Doesn't make me accept at all that humans are responsible for this thing that's not even then real.

>>7088587
still dont know what you are talking about

someone took a video of a defective cone so you dont believe in global warming?

>>7088590
well, duh. the cone was obviously just like that - not because of human activitys.

>>7088593
you mean naturally? the cone is naturally defective.... are you literally insane?

My stance is that we don't have enough long term data on it to get an accurate picture seeing as how the Earth goes through changes that take tens of thousands of years (as we know from geological data)

>>7088598
well how else did it getting like that? what are you, some weirdo conspiracie theorist?

>>7088456

Those scientists rely on government funding, which depends on how serious the problem is perceived to be. The amount of government dollars going to climate change research is huge. Those dollars are controlled by scientists who have a financial interest in keeping the dollars flowing, etc.

>>7088603
it obviously happened by accident at the factory. its not a fucking natural phenomenon

god im getting trolled :(((

>>7088598
It does look like a pretty dodgy video. Surely not enough to turn someone into a CC denier, though?

>>7088609
>happened by accident at the factory
oh right! so why woudln't they throw it away like with a defecting baby?

>>7088614
why would they throw it out? it still serves the function of a traffic cone.

>>7088614
>defecting baby
>throw it away

whoops forgot you were trolling

>>7088616
but it's like on the sidewalk? not goingto block traffic there?

>>7088531
>It requires a complex science to understand it.

This isn't really true. The most influential and well-known studies aren't really controlled science, they are statistical analysis of historical temperature and other data and require very little atmospheric science knowledge.

>>7088608
>The amount of government dollars going to climate change research is huge.
How much? Do you have a source? Are you implying they are keeping the money for themselves or that they are just securing funding?

>>7088636
i think he is implying that their continued employment depends on the continued state of their work being perceived as useful

Filthy heretics! They should know, i predicted the weather 6 weeks ahead using my 6 year old computer 6 days ago.

Anyone that pays attention knows that weather manipulation using systems like haarp are to blame for odd weather patterns, don't play into the disinfo shills trying to convince you that hur durr automobiles are causing this, we were running gross poluting, uncatalyzed, gas guzzlers for years without any detriment to the environment.

Friendly reminder there's nothing any western country can do to stop global warming
Friendly reminder that even if western Europe and the United States went back to a 1700s style economy with zero emissions The People's Republic of China would still pump out enough pollution to literally choke its citizens and block out the sun
Friendly reminder that the Republic of India is only two steps behind the People's Republic of China
Friendly reminder there is no point in throwing yourself on this economic sword to "try to save the planet"

>>7088448
CC deniers are generally more researched than anti-vaccers, but in the worst kind of ways -- like truthers. The cherry picking, goal-post moving, and lack of understanding in science perpetuates a poor understanding of the real world.

From what I've seen, they also have this weird idea that science has an Achilles heel; if they can find one thing an internet goer cannot explain, or one moment where the data requires a robust understanding of climate to explain (meaning they cannot understand it), that the whole "conspiracy" is blown wide open and all of the legitimate data and science tested in the history of the subject is suddenly irrelevant. This is like how creationists point to a "gap" in fossil records, say that evolution can't account for the gap, and therefor, everything collected on evolution thus far is all wrong. When the gap is filled, creationists simply point to a different spot.

At the end of the day, it's either poorly educated bros who don't trust the government, or republicans who listen to their peers. They're not malicious in intent, just dumb.

>>7088636
It's a lot

>>7088636
I don't think they are keeping it. Unless by "keeping it" you mean getting an above average salary, buying the occasional and unnecessary laptop, or using a conference as a way to launder a nice vacation.

an army of /pol/acks approaches!!! brace yourselves!

>>7088576
that is a troll, pic related

>>7088474
bait detected
for anyone wondering the actual reason for that cover, there were a few studies predicting cooling IF aerosol emissions weren't cut. and then of course _science reporting_ got ahold of that...

The earth hasn't warmed since 1997.

>>7088576
>>7088579
>>7088587
>>7088590
>>7088593
>>7088598
>>7088603
>>7088609
>>7088612
>>7088614
>>7088616
>>7088618
>>7088619
are you all retarded trolls? its not defective someone just took a broken cone and put it on top of another cone

>>7088797
Oh no, scientists lead average middle class lives!!!!

>>7088638
Which is quite a meaningful incentive considering the shit job market in science right now.

>>7088873
yeah. that sounds plausible. (not. whadda shill)

I would say in terms of most retarded to least retarded

1. evolution deniers
2. anti vaxxers
3. holocaust deniers
4. 9/11 conspiracy theorists
5. global warming deniers
6. moon landing deniers

>>7088893
...which is a huge step up from the welfare line or flipping burgers. Arguably a bigger step up in life than the difference from comfortably middle-class to a millionaire.

Most of them would lose their jobs, and have a very difficult time finding new ones, if the threat of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was discredited. Not only would the funding for climate research be drastically cut, but training in climate science and experience as a climate scientist would be more of an embarassment than an asset on the resume. They'd be seen as the gaggle of incompetents who threatened to destroy the world economy over bullshit.

This is one of the problems with big science. By definition, big science involves a lot of money and a large number of people employed as professional scientists. The primary incentive is toward producing evidence and convincing argument that the flow of funding should continue, and producing evidence or convincing argument to the contrary is not only self-harming, but harmful to all of one's colleagues, and so can be seen as immoral or unethical even if true.

Scientists aren't special people, above normal human motivations. That's why a "consensus of the experts" that is equal to a claim that the work of the experts is important, makes a very poor basis for decision-making. Scientific specialists with research budgets are supposed to be in the business of finding objective evidence which can be evaluated by intelligent non-specialists with small or no budgets.

>>7088893
yeah. for making garbage. how is vid related of use to frigging anyone?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=388BSaIonLU

>>7088959
>Most of them would lose their jobs, and have a very difficult time finding new ones, if the threat of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was discredited.

They seem pretty smart. They could probably get jobs designing and building dykes, levees and emergency pumping equipment.

>>7088957
>9/11 conspiracy theorists
But 9/11 was allowed to happen for all of the political benefits it gave to Bush's party.

>>7088608
>Those dollars are controlled by scientists who have a financial interest in keeping the dollars flowing, etc.

Indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

>>7088959
you're retarded
anyone with a PhD can spend three years in law school, join the patent bar, and start at $150k per year.
If law is too stressful they can teach in a private school starting at $70k, or go abroad and start at $100k in an expat IB school.
Those are the -basement- options available to any STEM PhD who has totally run out of ideas and is leaving science behind entirely. The argument in >>7088959 is only possible because you don't know any PhDs and you don't know how science is actually practiced

>>7088448
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose

>>7089006

I know several PhDs who had a terrible time finding jobs after their lab lost funding. Law school isn't nearly the sure thing it used to be, and comes with a ton of debt. Your private school starting salary is way off.

>>7089004

One guy gets some corporate funding and it's a scandal. A thousand other guys get far more from government as long as they toe the "critical threat to our planet" party line and it's pure unadulterated science. How naive do you have to be to buy this?

>>7088786
That's why we need to invest in mitigation.

>>7089006
>anyone with a PhD can spend three years in law school, join the patent bar, and start at $150k per year.
Believe it or not, there is not an unlimited demand for lawyers. Even if it's true that any one person with a PhD in climate science could do so now, it's certainly not true that they all could.

>If law is too stressful they can teach in a private school starting at $70k,
Again, not a field with unlimited job opportunities.

>or go abroad and start at $100k in an expat IB school.
Uproot their whole lives and move to another country? For many people, this is worse than indefinite unemployment.

>Those are the -basement- options available to any STEM PhD who has totally run out of ideas and is leaving science behind entirely. The argument in >>7088959 is only possible because you don't know any PhDs and you don't know how science is actually practiced
I think you're a STEM student who has bought the hype about the value of education ("Any job I want, $300k starting."), and has no experience of the actual job market, especially for older workers with a house and a family.

>CO2 is unarguably a greenhouse gas
>CO2 ppm by itself is unarguably increasing at the fastest rate in geological history

There's literally no argument against man-made climate change. The argument is how severe the effects are, and at that point we defer to the thousands upon thousands of scientists across the globe in near absolute agreement.

>>7089046
lalalalalalala not listening lalalalalalala

>>7089046
>There's literally no argument against man-made climate change.
Agree.

>>The argument is how severe the effects are,
Agree.

>> and at that point we defer to the thousands upon thousands of scientists across the globe in near absolute agreement.

LOL. 2 out of 3 not bad.

>>7089046
>CO2 is unarguably a greenhouse gas
Meaningless by itself. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gas could result in a net decrease in temperature, because the weather is not a simple linear system.

>CO2 ppm by itself is unarguably increasing at the fastest rate in geological history
We don't have the fine-grained historical data to make that judgement. We do have a clear record of times when the carbon dioxide concentration was both higher and rising, and the Earth cooled anyway.

Historically, CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around, and while it might be a positive feedback factor, it obviously hasn't been a primary driver of temperature change.

>There's literally no argument against man-made climate change. The argument is how severe the effects are
...and what they are at all, whether they're something we want or don't want.

>>7088957
Anti vaxxers are the most dangerous. That shit can cause real public health hazards. The rest are just harmless tinhats.

>>7088957

>holocaust deniers

The truth does not fear investigation. Simple as that. If you have nothing to hide, people should be let to look and question all they want. There is no such thing as censure being acceptable.

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

They're a rough time. The pull little data from everywhere, and since they typically don't understand a lot of chemistry, biology, geology, etc, they interpret it however they want to and convince themselves they're tright.

It's often more beneficial for people to appear or feel like they know what's what and are good ppl than to actually be such.

This applies equally to the more and less informed, on any topic.

Mostly by chance some people happen to be correct, and feel smug and satisfied with themselves despite in reality being no different to the others since everyone is working with numerous nested uncertain assumptions and fuzzy logic.

>>7088461
who I feel sorry for are those people who legitimately question the scientific consensus but are drowned out by the sea of retards.

>>7089061
>weather is not a simple linear system.
You're right. But CLIMATE is. and climate =/= weather. If you put more energy into a system, it will increase in temperature. Period.

>>7089164
>You're right. But CLIMATE is. and climate =/= weather. If you put more energy into a system, it will increase in temperature. Period.
Not really. Climate is an incredibly complex system and anything but linear. Also, CO2 is not equal to "putting more energy into a system", which is probably the only linear factor to climate.

I'm not even a cc-doubter, but that post was just shit.

>>7089173
>CO2 is not equal to "putting more energy into a system"

But it is equal to "not letting as much energy escape a system".

>>7089173
>>7089164
Climate is just that portion of the patterns of weather which are seen as changing slowly enough to seem permanent in our ordinary experience.

There is very little support for the notion that climate change is actually more predictable than weather, particularly when there is strong support for the notion that climate change can be driven by the effects of weather (for instance, a drought can create a desert, a flood can create a lake or wetland, and these landscape features change the climate).

It wasn't obvious that weather wasn't going to be predictable. It had to be discovered through experience, many cycles of attempting prediction and failing, that weather is an inherently chaotic system full of feedbacks which are impossible to account for, limiting weather predictions to the short term and limited accuracy even then.

With climate change, particularly global climate change, we have no way of accumulating such experience. So the study of climate change is a field which can't mature quickly, no matter how many resources are thrown at it. This maturation is more likely to produce awareness of an inherent inability to predict, than to justify confidence in long-range predictions.

>>7088576
This is so dumb. When do plastic, man-made may I add, traffic cones even come up in this debate?

>>7089196
CO2 prevents some infrared radiation from escaping. More CO2 prevents more infrared radiation from escaping. The incoming radiation from the sun remains constant.

The system is not in balance and must increase in temperature unless more carbon sinks emerge. There's no reason to believe there are magically more carbon sinks. The complexity of climate is not the issue here. That helps explains short-term variation. I don't see how the basic mechanism of global warming can be refuted.

>>7089203
I think it's an interesting video. That said, it has next to nothing to do with climate change.

>>7089207
>I don't see how the basic mechanism of global warming can be refuted.
Feedbacks.

>CO2 prevents some infrared radiation from escaping. More CO2 prevents more infrared radiation from escaping. The incoming radiation from the sun remains constant.
>The system is not in balance and must increase in temperature
Sure, as long as air doesn't move, clouds don't form, snow doesn't fall on things and make them white so they reflect light back into space, plants don't grow and pull water out of the ground and have it evaporate into the air to make clouds, plants don't die and leave deserts of light-colored sand, etc. As long as you pretend these things don't happen, it's all very simple and there's no room for doubt.

See, water is Earth's main greenhouse gas. It's much more powerful than CO2, which is a trace gas and a fairly weak greenhouse gas. But water makes clouds and snow, which are reflective, and when it sits in pools on the ground, it's pretty shiny, too.

Higher temperature differences drive more convection, which reduces temperature differences.

It's a system full of feedbacks. You have to dig into the details to see what effects will come from an input. Most of the details are too deep to dig into.

>unless more carbon sinks emerge. There's no reason to believe there are magically more carbon sink
Both longer growing seasons and higher CO2 levels promote plant growth, which increases carbon sinking.

>The complexity of climate is not the issue here.
It's the whole issue.

>>7088448
CC deniers say that climat doesn't change at all, or that it's not caused by men? If latter, aren't they right?

>>7089218
>both longer growing seasons and higher CO2 levels promote plant growth, which increases carbon sinking

And yet carbon in the atmosphere is still increasing

The fact that there is a strong portion of climate change denial on this board shows that it's the shittest science forum on the internet. I can't think of any other community where this is remotely controversial.

>>7089225
>If latter, aren't they right?

Not according the the vast majority of relevant science.

Climate change skepticism is good. That's science. Denial, is NOT.

>>7088474

Maybe focus less on magazine covers from decades ago and more on what climate science is saying today.

>>7089264
Especially recently. I think the when moot trolled /pol/, a lot discovered /sci/ and have had a stronger presence since.

>>7089256
So?

Global warming has not had an overall adverse effect so far, yet increased CO2 concentrations have improved crop yields.

Back in the 80s and 90s, they were telling us the disaster would be here by now. But there's no disaster to be seen, just more food, to help feed our growing population.

So now they're saying the disaster will arrive after we're all dead and gone, but it's a really real disaster, and there's no way our descendents with a century of new technology will be able to cope, so the time to cut our economic throats is now, now, now!

It's super cereal, guys.

>>7089034
>One guy gets some corporate funding and it's a scandal.

>One guy

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

>>7089288
"This ad has been approved by some oil billionaire squishing his fat ass down onto a pile o' cash. Now here's some sport!"

>muh natural cycle

why do non climate/environmental scientists think they have a valid opinion on AGW?

your babby integrals and .999=1 have no value here

>>7088448
they are /pol/tards

>>7089288
>Global warming has not had an overall adverse effect so far, yet increased CO2 concentrations have improved crop yields.

There's a reason why the CO2 is plant food troll pic shows a pine tree and not a field of wheat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15720649

>>7088466
this nigga gets it...... gas the kikes race war right now

>>7089294
Billionaires diversify. There are lots of things to do with oil other than burn it. It's poor people that have to live with an insufficiency of energy and food.

I'm all for solar power. We're only about ten or twenty years from it being ready to fully replace fossil fuels, not because we're worried about the environment, but because there's just so much more energy available, and it's available in so many places.

Then people are going to start harvesting atmospheric CO2 using their cheap solar energy, to make hydrocarbons and carbohydrates and feed their 3d printers and expand their homes into sprawling and towering supermansions full of gorgeous synthetic wood and leather, and things we can't even imagine.

And then the environmental problem will be how to burn enough coal and sequester enough lime to keep the CO2 levels at reasonable levels to support the biosphere, with all of these selfish people pulling it out of the air for their private consumption.

Anthropogenic Climate change deniers are probably wrong, but this conclusion shouldnt just come from a "majority rules" system, it should come from the fact that they cannot put forth acceptable explanations/theory that increased CO2 output does not significantly affect the average world temperature.

Im not an ACC denier but I dont like seeing others constantly crowing about how stupid a vocal minority is just out of insecurity. It reminds me of how people will never shut up about evolution deniers because it makes them feel smarter to know someone out there doesnt accept a commonly held scientific consensus.

>>7089264
You can either engage them in debate, and be the change you want to be in the world, or go to r/science and circlejerk about how much smarter you are then those ebil cc deniers without changing a thing.

>>7088470
>the greenhouse effect and how the atmosphere works
Is it possible that you don't actually understand what the majority of global warming skeptics are arguing?

>>7089292

That study is hilariously awful. For one, it isn't about research funding, it's about funding of non-profit conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation. More importantly, the dollar figures are the total donations to these groups, even though only a small part of their advocacy deals with climate.

Climate activists put out lies like this and expect people to take them seriously?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

>>7089324
>We're only about ten or twenty years from it being ready to fully replace fossil fuels

Maximum Keke

>>7089333
The point of his post was to point out that it wasn't only one man, and he successfully delivered the point.

>>7089340
We're really close now to rooftop solar being cheaper than coal electricity, kilowatt for kilowatt. Those lines should cross sometime next year, and solar power will just keep getting cheaper. We already know that a solar collector can be as cheap as leaves, which blanket the earth and pay for themselves several times per season. The day will come when a high-efficiency, long-life solar panel pays for itself in under a year.

Battery technology is similarly advancing by leaps and bounds. Not in capacity for weight or volume, but in cost for capacity.

>>7089333
>dwarf-warming-denier-research
Is this a thing?

>>7088965
what are you talking about?

>>7089061
Here's the thing, anon. There's no reason to think that anything but CO2 levels are causing the current trends in increased temperature. The milankovich cycle isn't lined up to encourage temperature increase, and even if it was, it would not account for this fast of a temperature increase. You say yourself that CO2 could be a positive feedback loop. Well all the evidence suggests it is. And the scientific community would be receptive to some other fucking explanation, but there isn't one.

>>7089333
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

>James Taylor

>Heartland Institute

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-confirms-it-mistakenly-emailed-internal-documents

>>7089378
>There's no reason to think that anything but CO2 levels are causing the current trends in increased temperature.
What current trends in increased temperature?

The trend appeared when we started systematic surface thermometer measurements (and appears in that record or doesn't depending on statistical jiggery-pokery, due to the difficulty of analysing such diverse, low-quality data and accounting for factors like local land-usage-driven warming and changing standards of site grooming) and then disappeared ("the pause") when we started high quality, consistent global measurements using satellites.

The longer-term proxies don't agree with each other, or the instrumental data, and have had to be doctored and cherry-picked to make it appear as if they did (i.e. "hide the decline"). Key proxies like tree ring data respond directly to CO2 level in a way that is difficult to distinguish from temperature.

Global temperature is hard to meaningfully define, let alone measure.

>>7089387

What does this have to do with the analysis at the linked article? The SciAm article is bullshit.

>>7089406
Anon, whether you do so intentionally or not, you're implying that there's a massive global conspiracy in the scientific field involving thousands upon thousands of researchers. Do you honestly think this is the case?

>>7089295
How many times are debunked hockey-stick graphs going to be posted?
Low resolution, low correlation proxies = little change
High Resolution (usually instrumental) data = high change
Tack on the high resolution data at the end of the low resolution data and *surprise*
a hockey stick.

Oh and then they have to "hide the decline" when the proxies fail. Pic related.
Anyone who takes these hockey stick graphs seriously needs to read,
"The Hockey Stick Illusion"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358

>>7089430

Everyone believes phlogiston theory of combustion:
>massive global conspiracy in the scientific field involving thousands upon thousands of researchers

Everyone believes atoms are the smallest part of matter:
>massive global conspiracy in the scientific field involving thousands upon thousands of researchers

Everyone believes that light is a wave, not a particle (photon):
>massive global conspiracy in the scientific field involving thousands upon thousands of researchers

Everyone believes that the positions of the continents are fixed, they don't drift:
>massive global conspiracy in the scientific field involving thousands upon thousands of researchers

Are you scitards totally ignoring the fact that weather manipulation is a thing, or what?

>>7089432
This "hide the decline" bullshit is completely incoherent, you do realize that right? I guess memes are more important than arguments for you retards.

How people still can believe it's real when it's cold as fuck outside is beyond me.

Can't wait for this retarded, jewish, SJW fedorastic pseudo-science meme to die down.

>>7089430
>you're implying that there's a massive global conspiracy
There doesn't need to be a massive conspiracy for a bunch of people to be wrong together. First of all, most of these guys are trusting each other and building on each other's results, trying to build the tiniest incremental improvement onto the existing theory, not attacking each other's assumptions and data sources and trying to find fraud or extraordinary incompetence. So a little individual sloppiness or dishonesty goes a long way.

There was a scientific consensus among geologists that the continents didn't move, until a meteorologist proved they did (though this was not accepted before he was accused of all sorts of incompetence and intellectual dishonesty).

Or remember the Millikan experiment, where they initially got the charge of the electron wrong, and people who reproduced it progressed only in small steps toward the true answer, being biased toward agreeing with previous results. No conspiracy, just enough respect for other researchers that they'd unconsciously fudge their experiments toward agreement, looking hard at their experiment when it produced results that disagreed strongly with past results, and rushing out to publish when it produced results that were close to previous ones.

Or that whole silly thing with miscounting chromosomes, or the Martian canals. Independent reproduction has "confirmed" bad results many times.

Depending on their character, groups can have a tendency toward consensus in the absence of adequate evidence. Do you go into climate science if you don't believe in global warming in the first place? Once you've gotten into it, how motivated are you to dig hard toward evidence that your field is not very important and its major conclusions have been wrong?

When there's a common bias and a common motive, there's no need for a conspiracy.

>>7089438
Ah. So you're just ahead of the curve, eh? A real trend-setter.

>>7089432
>Anyone who doesn't believe my conspiracy theory needs to read this book someone wrote about it!
Should I even mention the number of books about 9/11 conspiracies and lizard-men Illuminati?

If you task people to read your fringe conspiracy book, then you should task yourself with reading the vast volumes of data collected by researches. Hell, they even condense it for you in the IPCC report.

>There are more deniers posting ITT at this very moment than there are rational adults

/sci/ is dead. long live /pol/.

>>7089451
Yeah, that graph showing how the proxies are being hidden is complete BS because SimpletonScience says so. Everyone knows how honest Mikey Mann is. Never lies, never deceives and most of all, never resorts to viscous ad hominem against people who disagree with him.

Pic related. The hidden data... Showing a significant proxy "temperature" decline.

>>7089461
How about an actual counter-argument to justify your ridiculous conspiracy theory argument.

>>7089464
So this email never occurred?

What the fuck is up with the deniers being very active right now? Did they get out of school or something?

>>7089464
So the comments in this software code never occurred? (Climategate had software code as well as emails.)

>>7089506
> Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

>>7089464
>anything that debunks climate change is a conspiracy theory!!!!
How long will you continue your pathetic ad hominem?
The books dissects the deeply flawed statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" graph.

Is statistical analysis a conspiracy theory?

Lets do the "is it a religion?" check here...
1. Dogmatic! Climate change is true! Deniers are stupid conspiracy nuts. Check.
2. Unfalsifiable! More snow, less snow! Higher temps, flat temps! Hot spot proves climate change, but no hot spot is OK! Check
3. Unbelievers are evil! They are deniers, just like holocaust deniers. Check.
Conclusion: Climate Change is a secular religion.

>>7089513
>SimpletonScience paraphrase
The trick is to "hide the decline" of the temperature proxies.
>>7089501
They are not "graphed along side." The are covered up and clipped short at about 1960

Why is this extremely important? Because the failure of the proxies shows that the proxies don't REALIABLY demonstrate temperature change. Therefore the entire temperature graph is suspect.

>>7089432

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

>>7089543
Oh boy, a wildly out of context simpleton science graph. Complete with deceptive line drawing.
Do you know that Wiki AGW entries were completely controlled by a couple of warmist editors. To this day, nothing that violates the sacred dogma stays around for long....

Read The Actual Emails
http://coalitionoffreedom.com/climategate-emails
Pic related: discussing altering the temperature record.
and look at this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
>nb4 evil denier newspaper.
Prove that the article is false.

>>7089543
Here is the actual graph from the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change AR4.
The temps are updated. Notice the HUGE confidence intervals. Notice how the temps drop below even those gigantic confidence intervals.

Yup, even the UN IPCC says SimpletonScience is full of crap.

>>7089288
>increased CO2 concentrations have improved crop yields.

>>7089218
>higher CO2 levels promote plant growth

I can't believe some of the stupid shit I hear on this board for allegedly being about science.

CO2 is not remotely a significant bottleneck for plant growth. Plants are starved for nitrates and phosphates far more than for CO2, which is why we bombard them with fertilizer, not CO2. There is far more CO2 in the atmosphere than plants could ever use.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1990.tb01087.x/abstract

>Available data suggest that plants do not fully realize the potential increases in productivity associated with increased atmospheric CO2

>>7089288
>Global warming has not had an overall adverse effect so far

>overall

You don't understand this subject very well. While the "overall" (as in global average temperatures) have raised less than one degree celsius, it's the disruption and localized effects, particularly in key areas such as the outskirts of the Sahara or zones of glacial growth.

>>7089457

Are people like you real?

You're just a troll, right?

>>7089508

They've always been here.

The reason why is because sci is linked to right next to /pol/ and, well, it's 4chan in the first place. 4chan is notorious for its boards to be the worst boards on its respective subjects. Can't speak for many other boards but /o/ for instance is comically terrible when it comes to parroted hearsay and misconceptions and stumbling through the technicalities of cars.

>>7089602
>Do you know that Wiki AGW entries were completely controlled by a couple of warmist editors. To this day, nothing that violates the sacred dogma stays around for long....

You're not doing much to cover up the fact that your arguments are based on global-scale conspiracy theories that all credible institutions would be in on.

>>7089543
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
Damage control mode: overdrive.

>Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Eight bodies with a vested interest were organized to deny the obvious and call it impartial investigation.

>"There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists"
In other words: "There's clear misbehavior here, but it's okay because he's not worse than other climate scientists."

This is the kind of standard they applied.

>"very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians."
...but not really a problem. This is quibbling and equivocating designed to soothe over the cognitive dissonance of global warming believers as they look at the leaked emails and see the problems. "The problems are real," they say, "but not very important. They just look bad, and that's the real concern here. We need to improve appearances." And people ate it up. This is how easy it is to lie to the public, to lie even to highly intelligent specialists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem
"Hide the decline" and "Mike's nature trick" refers to cherrypicking data to conceal the "divergence problem", treating the tree ring data as if it were trustworthy until it stops showing warming (and declines), and then pretending the inconvenient portion of the tree ring data doesn't exist.

It's absolutely blatant research fraud. They got caught deliberately cherrypicking data to fabricate support for their claim.

>>7089641
No, my arguments are based on people's desire to keep their jobs, and maintain their social respectability. The case of Mr. Connolly is documented. Therefore no paranoid ideation is needed. And this anon provides a great explanation:
>>7089460
Remember: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
- Upton Sinclair

On the other hand you believe that every failed scientific theory was actually a huge conspiracy. Speaking of Paranoid Ideation, you think the the Oil Companies and the Koch brothers are all out to get you and your fellow warmists. Even though they give much more money to 'Clean Energy' and 'Environmentalist' types than to evil deniers.

- 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.

>>7089651
>Eight bodies with a vested interest were organized to deny the obvious and call it impartial investigation.

That's the ticket, isn't it, I've noticed this with all conspiracy theorists - any credible bodies that disagree with the conspiracy theory are "in on it." It's an easy way to hand-wave evidence against your claims.

It's a good thing that random science-illiterate 4chan posters can punch through the facade of this global-scale conspiracy upheld by every credible science institution!

>>7089651
>>Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
>Eight bodies with a vested interest were organized to deny the obvious and call it impartial investigation.

Yup, every single person on those committees was a warmist. Most had a direct or indirect financial interest in Climate Change. There was NOT one single skeptic on those committees. Kind of like the fox investigating what happened to the hen house.

>>7089625
>it's the disruption and localized effects
There aren't any seriously bad ones clearly attributable to global warming, though. That's the point.

It was supposed to be a global disaster by now, with drastically reduced food production, and coastal cities underwater. People were saying this and being taken very seriously.

In the global warming tripod (warming is happening, humans are causing it, it's a catastrophe), the catastrophe leg is the weakest, and it's one that largely depended on warming happening very quickly, so we couldn't adapt to it and it would be disruptive, even though in the long term, a warmer planet would clearly be one with more life and more places that are comfortable for humans (tropical animals) to live in. Yet instead of the rate of warming going up and up, faster and faster, the warming stopped. CO2 emissions jumped up as China developed, but the warming stopped.

Now the doom-and-gloom predictions are based on very slow warming, gradually becoming noticeable over decades and arguably inconvenient after a century or more, with very weak arguments for this being bad, which always seem to assume that technology won't advance at all. Only the tone of how horrible this will be, and how important it is to prevent it hasn't changed, while the substance of the predictions has become practically unrecognizable compared to the sort of extreme alarmism that made climate science into such a big, well-funded field.

>>7088959
>Scientists aren't special people, above normal human motivations.
I know I shouldn't be responding, since you're either trolling or suffering from a serious mental handicap, but that's exactly WHY such a conspiracy is improbable.

Ever met a scientist who does research as their main job? Especially one reliant on public funding? They're all competing for fame and glory (in the long run) and grant money (in the short run). No conspiracy of more than 3 people could last any appreciable length of time without one guy turning on his co-conspirators. Imagine the amount of metaphorical pussy the guy who blew the lid off the hoax would get! He'd get grants left and right, his name would be in the textbooks, and he'd be a household name!
And yet somehow, the vast majority of scientists come to similar conclusions regarding climate, and none of them have come forward with any evidence of such a conspiracy. Instead we get a few people who allege a conspiracy but have no evidence either of its existence or of inaccuracy on the part of mainstream climatology. Hmm.

>>7089667
How many skeptics were on those committees? ZERO.
No conspiracy theory needed just self-interest and collegialitiy.

Seriously, why do some of you anons get so obsessed with the conspiracy theory meme? I guess the pain of witnessing a failed pseudo-science is just to unpleasant to deal with.

Could you give us a detailed explanation of the "fixed continents" conspiracy theory?
Please explain the "phlogiston" conspiracy theory?
How about explaining the "atoms are the smallest piece of matter" conspiracy theory?
And how about the defense of constant space and time by "100 authors against Einstein." That was some serious conspiring there!

>>7089666
>On the other hand you believe that every failed scientific theory was actually a huge conspiracy.

Nope, you're not going to successfully turn this around because it's quite the false equivalence.

There are no so-called failed scientific theories. In their respective eras, each "failed" scientific theory was once the best explanation of the best method applied to the best data of the time. Like anthropomorphic climate change now. Theories don't "fail" until they are supplanted with better data and/or method. Right now the denialists are lacking the evidence to supplant anthropomorphic global warming.

Secondly, if you want to talk about people just doing what they can just to keep their jobs, you're on the wrong side of the debate. There is a LOT more money in fossil fuels than there is in environmentalism.

(thirdly that retarded picture you posted could only be put together by someone completely science-illiterate)

>>7089680
Get over the pathetic conspiracy theory meme to defend your cognitive dissonance.
Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable. I know that's a painful thing to hear, but you'll get over it eventually.
>>7089683

Honestly as much as I would like to blame them for being red state bible thumping hicks a lot of it as do due with the Al-Gore "Ice age coming in 30 yearsif you don't all buy hybrids!) types

>>7089501
so what you're saying is that it's wrong to clip the proxies even though direct readings (from modern times when we have thermometers and satellites and stuff) show that the proxies are wrong in those modern times.
It's one thing to say that we should discard those proxies entirely because they're unreliable in recent years. It's another thing to say that we should use proxies over direct measurements when the proxies are wrong.
Not science, most likely troll. Also, there's a difference between name-calling (which the other guy did) and argumentum ad hominem (which he didn't do). If you want to run with the big boys, you may want to know the meanings of terms before using them.

>>7089608
oh look, another retard who's never heard of Mount Pinatubo. you know, when a huge volcanic eruption spews shitloads of ash into the atmosphere, knocking down temperatures worldwide by a couple degrees for years on end, it tends to throw off climate models that had no way to account for it.

>>7089685
>each "failed" scientific theory was once the best explanation of the best method applied to the best data of the time. Like anthropomorphic climate change now. Theories don't "fail" until they are supplanted with better data

Better data supplantation has occurred. Pic related.

The TRUE equivalence of your ridiculous conspiracy ideation to the "previous scientific theories are also conspiracies" concept is easy to show. It is demonstrated by your inability to admit that Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable. That is EXACTLY the zealotry of of a true believer. One who would propose that only a crazy conspiracy theory could falsify whatever scientific theory they hold dear at the moment.

>>7089685
>anthropomorphic climate change
>anthropomorphic global warming
this nigga right here...

>>7089685
More data supplantation

The failed hot spot prediction

>>7089677
>It was supposed to be a global disaster by now, with drastically reduced food production, and coastal cities underwater. People were saying this and being taken very seriously.

By 2015? I don't know of much scientific support that was ever projecting gloom and doom by this time. Also, worst-case scenarios from the 60's and 70's would have been based on rates of future growth not considering the environmental regulations that were put in place around that time, and many of them had no way of figuring the development of developing countries in Africa and Asia and how much they would contribute (it's amazing that they curb pollution at all today considering their attitudes in the past).

>>7089685
More data supplantation.

The failed positive water vapor feedback.

>>7089686
>Get over the pathetic conspiracy theory meme

How about you stop asserting global-scale conspiracy theories instead of crying about people calling you out on it.

>>7089685

More data supplantation.
Increasing CO2
Flat temps

>>7089702
>Better data supplantation has occurred.

Better data as cherry-picked and method-tortured by retards on 4chan, yeah.

Better data that stands up to replicated scrutiny amongst the strongest scientific institutions, no.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the worst science forum on the internet is the one with the climate change denialists on it.

>>7089685
>There are no so-called failed scientific theories. In their respective eras, each "failed" scientific theory was once the best explanation of the best method applied to the best data of the time. Like anthropomorphic climate change now. Theories don't "fail" until they are supplanted with better data and/or method. Right now the denialists are lacking the evidence to supplant anthropomorphic global warming.
So what you're saying is that the geologists who thought that the continents didn't move were right, until they were proven wrong, and their consensus of experts should have been respected and not questioned from outside of their field. The meteorologist who proved them wrong actually was a ridiculous kook who should have been minding his own field, until he succeeded, at which point reality shifted.

This is all a little too postmodernist for my taste. Science is not about applying unlimited confidence to a hypothesis just because it's the "best explanation" of the "best method" applied to the "best data" of the time. That's bad science. Good science starts with respecting the limitations of what you know, having a sense of what level of confidence in a hypothesis is justified.

>There is a LOT more money in fossil fuels than there is in environmentalism.
Not for climate research. The fossil fuel industry is a bunch of people trying to make money, so they spend as little as they can get away with on keeping the industry running. Government is a bunch of people trying to maximize their power by spending more and more money, so they're just looking for excuses to shovel money directly into things that justify spending more money and exerting more control.

There's a LOT more money in government than in any one industry.

>>7089686
if the average temperature of the Earth assumed a downward or neutral trend in the absence of any obvious forcing, I'd have no choice but to conclude that human activity isn't causing the Earth to warm. That is, I'd fail to reject the H0 (that human activity has no effect on global climate) in favor of the Ha (that human activity causes a rise in average temperature across the globe).
I think every credible /sci/duck would be in agreement with such a situation. So it's perfectly falsifiable, sure. All you're doing is getting buttmad that the models can account for what you think is proof positive against AGW.

>>7089702
>>7089711
OH LOOK, MODELS THAT DIVERGE FROM MEASUREMENTS STARTING IN 1993!
I WONDER WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED IN 1993 TO CAUSE THAT???

>>7089729

How convenient to forget the monster El Nino in 1997. Which made things much warmer.

http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/
>; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

>>7089737
that would be a good argument except for one little thing:
DISRUPTIONS TO CLIMATE CAUSE STRONGER EL NINO/LA NINA EFFECTS*. DISRUPTIONS TO CLIMATE DO NOT CAUSE GREATER VOLCANISM.

*not proof positive yet, but there's some pretty strong evidence in favor of this effect

>>7089724
Then the theory has been falsified. Flat temps for 18 years.
>>7089715

Climate Change has been falsified.
There has been no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval).
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."


Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

>nb4 Santer said "30 years"
NO he said 17. Show the exact quote from his 2011 paper that says you MUST wait 30 years.
The confidence intervals are such that the measured RSS temperatures are outside the 95% window. Since a confidence interval is symmetric, this means will probability p < 0.025

Climate Change IS FALSE.

>>7088516
is that a boy or a girl?
do want

>>7089722
>So what you're saying is that the geologists who thought that the continents didn't move were right, until they were proven wrong

Of course not, retard. But at the time, since that was the best theory from the evidence available, there was no case to be made for it to be wrong, just as now there is no case for ACC to be wrong since it's currently the end result of the best and most complete evidence available.

>There's a LOT more money in government than in any one industry.

You're smart enough to know that a tiny fraction of government is related to environmental regulation, so this is a pretty disingenuine argument.

>>7088516
This gif is revolting.
Plain and simple.

>>7089754
I'd be convinced if that was a graph of the average temperature of the planet...but it's not. it's a graph of the temperature of the tropical upper troposphere. it's also almost entirely without reference, meaning that I've been unable to track it down to the source data. (the picture itself only appears on a few climate change denial blogs.)

the planet AS A WHOLE is warming. note also that the models of temperature change in the upper troposphere are QUITE accurate EXCEPT in the tropics, where there's quite a lot of variability and the models have, at times, fallen short.

>What's your opinion on climate change deniers?
They don't exist. There are actually just a lot of climate scientist who pretend to be climate change deniers, to create the illusion of a controversy and a justification for more research funding. Then they withhold all of the best evidence, do shifty-looking things like refuse to respond to requests for access to their data, and pad their papers with questionable reasoning and errors to make the existence of doubters seem plausible.

>>7089721

No bruh, 4chan really is the utmost authority on climate science. It's all of the world's academies and research institutions that are wrong.

>>7089798

I think OP means uneducated people, rather than professional shills.

>>7089794
>the planet AS A WHOLE is warming. note also that the models of temperature change in the upper troposphere are QUITE accurate EXCEPT in the tropics,
Data please. And what before-the-fact prediction? What before-the-fact-model? Not interested in all the back-fitting models. Not at all...

The original theory said that warming is strongest in the mid troposphere. Oh wait, the hot spot never appeared did it?
>>7089707
All you've done is move the goals posts to hide the fact that yes, Climate Change "Science" is unflasifiable. I am so not surprised.

And people wonder why I call Climate Change a pseudo-science.

>>7089789
>at the time, since [eternally stationary continents] was the best theory from the evidence available, there was no case to be made for it to be wrong
So prior to continental drift being accepted, there was no case to be made for it. Gotcha. Even though the evidence to show that continental drift was real was available, overlooking it was the best theory, using the best methods.

You have got the most insane understanding of the scientific process ever.

A consensus of geologists being against continental drift was not a proud moment for science. It wasn't an inevitable step in the progress of an ideal process, it was the misjudgement of a particular group of individual people.

Just because people call themselves scientists doesn't make whatever they're doing science. Sometimes, professional scientists can be the most anti-science people around, promoting the unquestioning acceptance of dogma with appeals to authority and personal attacks.

>>7089794

And the quote from Santer et al. (2013) "We compare global‐scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower
troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes."

LOWER troposphere. How nice of you to rewrite the falsifiability conditions after the original condition has been met. Yup, Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable.

Model prediction works => Climate Change is TRUE!
Model prediction is wrong and Falsifiability condition is met => hurr, durr we need better models, but Climate Change is TRUE!

>>7089836
That's Santer et al, (2011)

>>7089792
Are you an engineer? Because I think you might be gay.

>>7089827
>Even though the evidence to show that continental drift was real was available

"Was available" is a pretty slippery, hindsighty way to look at past endeavors of science. Plenty of great discoveries were under our noses for quite a while before we finally made them. What matters is the best case to be made for these things, and the best case made at the time had not discovered continental drift.

>You have got the most insane understanding of the scientific process ever.

Irony overload? My grasp of the process comes to the same conclusions as the highest authorities on such matters, the fact that you make anachronistic hindsight arguments implies you're on the wrong side of the irony here.

>Just because people call themselves scientists doesn't make whatever they're doing science. Sometimes, professional scientists can be the most anti-science people around, promoting the unquestioning acceptance of dogma with appeals to authority and personal attacks.

"Consensus" doesn't just pertain to polls and public statements from academies, it typically also includes what evidence has survived scrutiny. The denialist spiel packed with shit method applied to cherry-picked data doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I don't care about how many of what title feels about any given subject. I care about the best method applied to the best and most complete data, which suggests that the climate is changing, warming overall, that humans are a significant contributor, and that it's problematic. Sorry about reality.

>>7089860

Not him, but I don't find it appealing because I'm not a pedophile.

>>7089836
what part of
>average temperature of the Earth
do you not understand?
OF THE EARTH, nigga, not OF THE TROPICAL UPPER TROPOSPHERE
goddamn, you are dense.

>>7089824
You moron, the presence of a hot spot isn't the predicted support for AGW. What the models DID predict was relatively more warming in the troposphere compared to the stratosphere, indicating that warming was the result of terrestrial radiation being bounced back to the surface rather than simply an increase in insolation.

This web page: http://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
has the explanation in more detail along with citations to actual papers with actual methodology. (A lot of the graphs you guys have been posting don't cite their sources properly.)

I don't know where you nutbars even got the whole thing about the hotspot from, as it's got next to no bearing on the topic. Talk about misinformed...

>>7089875
Are you suggesting that girl is pre-pubescent or do you just not know what pedophile means?

>>7089872
>What matters is the best case to be made for these things, and the best case made at the time had not discovered continental drift.
But that's wrong, you fucking moron.

The best case was in favor of continental drift, the truth. The consensus was against it because of bias and closed-mindedness among a particular group of individuals, who just didn't like the idea of continents moving.

A "consensus of experts" in a field isn't always there for a good reason. The consensus among homeopaths is that homeopathy works, and that they are scientists, and that this is a scientific conclusion. When a whole field has gone sour and unscientific, the correction is likely to come from outside of the field.

You can't just say that whatever has become popular among a group considered to be experts is justifiably so. Sometimes, you have to judge whether the experts are really experts, or a bunch of posers and frauds.

When geologists were going around telling people with certainty that the continents did not move, they were not experts on the subject, nor were they scientists. They were just presenting themselves as scientists and experts, while actually speaking from ignorance and dogmatic belief.

I think denying it outright is pretty silly.
I don't have a problem with people who say it's not man made or who argue that it's overblown and won't cause the apocalypse as extremists would like you to believe.

>>7089949
>extremists

Anon, the most conservative projection from the IPCC, assuming we cut CO2 emissions almost entirely in the next decade, still have an increase in global ocean levels of about an inch, which, which is still incredibly damaging to low-lying coastal countries, and, again, it's literally impossible to happen that way given the economic realities.

>>7089910
I'm gay

>>7089971
>an increase in global ocean levels of about an inch, which, which is still incredibly damaging to low-lying coastal countries
Why not just hold up a big flashing sign saying, "Don't take me seriously!"?

Next are you going to say that this inch won't be equally distributed over the ocean's surface, but actually means ten meters in some places?

The sun is the main cause of the changes in our climate. When it is more active it produces more energy, which creates a period of warming, and when the sun is less active the earth experiences periods of cooling.

>>7089999
not ten meters, but you're an absolute ignoramus if you think the ocean is all level. Clearly you have no understanding of the ocean current system, or the concept of tides and the impact storms have on them. Take the Maldives, a country with an average height of 4 ft, or Thailand, who is already suffering from serious coastal issues. Increased sea level coupled with increased ocean temperature is a big fucking deal.

But, again, you're refusing to even address the more important point that I made. 1 inch is what happens if we stop emitting all greenhouse gasses today. That's not happening. It's such an impossibility that the IPCC doesn't even bother projecting it anymore, and the 2013 report, the most recent one, only expresses the projections shown here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf

As you can see, the total projections range from .3 to over .6 meters. That's a huge fucking increase in sea level, m8, and no. the ocean doesn't all increase evenly. The idea that it would is literally retarded.

>>7090016
Try again.

Seriously. I hope to God that the non-idiots on /sci/ are just ignoring this thread, because if we have legitimately this large a number of deniers on the fucking science board, we're in bad shape.

>>7089457
>it's cold as fuck outside
>therefore AGW is a Librul Hoax
QED = Quod Erat Dumbfuck

>>7089357
First things first, carbon fuels are not only used for electricity generation. Will everyone make the switch to electric powered cars, and industry will somehow switch to electric as well?

>We already know that a solar collector can be as cheap as leaves

Im gonna need you to back that up with some evidence

>Battery technology
batteries (and also wiring to get the electricity to places where solar is intermittent) are expensive and require resources. Where are you gonna get the copper to connect every industrialized site in the world to an equatorial power plant?

>>7089949
>I don't have a problem with people who say it's not man made

I do because that means they don't understand the basics of the issue. Not even the remotely informed denialists (which is an oxymoron) contest that a shit-ton of CO2 is emitted by us. Otherwise there is a shit-ton of unaccounted-for CO2 in the atmosphere that appeared out of nowhere in the last 150 years.

>>7089185
>implying that's the only effect an increased CO2 level has on the system earth

>>7090045

The influx of /pol/ comes and goes. Though these threads are never good.

I'm glad that I'm a little older now and have been out in the real world and have real friends now. When I was total /r9k/ and mostly communicated through the internet, I was one of these idiots.

>>7089910

Please don't be one of those passionate ephebs.

>>7090073
I wouldn't even classify myself as one, let alone passionately, but I also couldn't deny that midteen is an attractive age.

>>7090063
>Implying any marginal increase in plant growth will be a big enough sink to offset CO2 level increase.

>>7090078
>but I also couldn't deny that midteen is an attractive age.

Midteen is deep into epheb territory.

Not to be that way, but when you make this argument, you give yourself away as either super young, or a straight-up pedo. Once you're 25 or so, even 18 starts to look super young, and the it becomes horrifying that there is so much defensiveness on the internet over being attracted to children.

>>7089683
>No conspiracy theory needed just self-interest and collegialitiy.

One of the reasons no one takes denialists seriously, other than their utter lack of comprehension of the science involved, is that they consider environmentalists to be the only people susceptible to self-interest, as if there isn't a lot more money on the other side of the issue, which there is.

All sides of any issue has its ulterior motives, so it normalizes out - this isn't an argument that does favors to any sides whatsoever since it applies to anyone involved - except the denialists have to deal with the fact that there is a lot more money in the denialist business than there is in environmentalism.

Secondly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no avoiding the implications of the conspiracy theory on behalf of the denialist - it is included in your claim that the vast majority of relevant science on the issue disagrees with you.

It's fucking hilarious that denialists consider being held to the same standards of scrutiny towards your arguments and their implications to be some unfair practice. You're the one saying that the vast majority of climate science is either in on it or blinded by self-interest, so you're the one who has to deal with the hole you dug in the first place.

>>7088448
way to bait the question, OP.

they are right for the most part, tho many of them for the wrong reasons.

we must fight lycanthropic global warming

>>7089702

>Better data supplantation has occurred. Pic related.

HAHAHAHAHA

>>7090382
Yeah but 40 year olds think 30 year olds are 'super young' if you know what I mean.
Plus we're talking about people who continually develop their faculties here, and at a high rate at that. If you're a 25 yr old who dropped out at 16 you might see the 18 year old different etc. etc.

>>7090395
>as if there isn't a lot more money on the other side of the issue, which there is.

just plain wrong.
the political establishment across the western world is supporting and pushing climate science.
the wealthiest people in the world are ALL supporting and pushing climate science.

>>7090655
>the political establishment across the western world is supporting and pushing climate science.
>the wealthiest people in the world are ALL supporting and pushing climate science.

"We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data."
"In reality, there is little science to support any connection between climate change and more frequent or extreme storms."
--Lamar Smith, chair of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the 114th Congress of the USA, arguably the most powerful country on the planet

See, that's the thing about you science denial types. When the facts don't support you, you make shit up.
>The average temperature isn't rising! The political establishment is pushing AGW! There's no clear consensus in the scientific community! Researchers who receive loads of funding from oil companies aren't facing any conflict of interest!

>>7090467
another example of that "mak[ing] shit up" I was just talking about. top kek.

>>7090395
>One of the reasons no one takes denialists seriously ... is that they consider environmentalists to be the only people susceptible to self-interest
Okay, so first any claim that there is fraud or sloppiness involved relies on a "global conspiracy", and now any claim that there is fraud or sloppiness involved on one side relies on the assumption that there's no possibility of fraud or sloppiness on the other side.

You're just throwing bad argument after bad argument here.

>>7090054
>>We already know that a solar collector can be as cheap as leaves
>Im gonna need you to back that up with some evidence
Existence proof: leaves. They are solar collectors. They are, by definition, as cheap as themselves.

Seriously, how stupid can you be?

Actual line:
>>Battery technology is similarly advancing by leaps and bounds. Not in capacity for weight or volume, but in cost for capacity.
Truncated to:
>>Battery technology
...and responded to with:
>batteries (and also wiring to get the electricity to places where solar is intermittent) are expensive and require resources.
...which can only be responded to with:
>>Battery technology is similarly advancing by leaps and bounds. Not in capacity for weight or volume, but in cost for capacity.
So why the fuck would you post this stupid shit?

>Where are you gonna get the copper to connect every industrialized site in the world to an equatorial power plant?
Oh my god, HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU BE? There's no need for all the solar collectors to be on the equator. There's no need to centralize a naturally decentralized power source like sunlight into one massive plant. There's no need to use copper for the transmission lines.

I am overwhelmed with the dumbness of your objections.

>>7091035
Are you that overwhelmed? If so take a second and let your boyfriend massage you back. It isn't wise to let yourself become overwhelmed.

>>7091002
>any claim that there is fraud or sloppiness involved relies on a "global conspiracy"

Any claim that 97% of global anything is in on a big conspiracy is inherently, literally a global conspiracy, yes. Also denialists aren't just saying "there is fraud and sloppiness" involved - don't sugarcoat it, the denialist claim is that 97% of climate scientists are wrong for one reason or another.

>and now any claim that there is fraud or sloppiness involved on one side relies on the assumption that there's no possibility of fraud or sloppiness on the other side.

I never implied this implicitly or explicitly, it seems more like an issue of comprehension on your part.

>>7090655

You are completely kidding yourself if you think there is more financial incentive to exaggerate AGW than there is in denying it.

The reason so many institutions "push" AGW as science is because it's fucking science.

I'm not going to take the time to read through this thread, so can someone please summarize a debunking of the idea that the climate models proving global warming turned out to be wrong? According to the recent numbers, there has been a much less significant correlation between CO2 production and concentration to actual warming. Also, scientists have admitted to "tweaking" past temperature data (mainly in the 30's) to make climate change seem like a bigger deal. Why am I wrong.

My opinion? What opinion is there? Check the facts, check THE ARCTIC METHANE PLUMES.

What about the arctic ice? And I thought polar bears were supposed to be extinct by now and Florida should be underwater. I mean if there was exaggeration in the beginning of the movement, who's to say it doesn't exist now? And how do you feel about the theory that agw is a way to test global governance? I mean the UN was created to eventually create a one world govt. and I'm not talking about conspiracy theories

>>7091452
The reason permafrost is melting: Higher, higher temperatures.

What methane does: Kills all aquatic life.

THEY'RE CURRENTLY MELTING.

THE OCEANS' TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN RISING. AND CONTINUE TO RISE.

THE LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED, MORE THAN 90% OF OCEANIC LIFE WENT

EXTINCT!!!!

NO MORE SUSHI ASSHOLES

>>7091452
Also, what is agw?

>>7091469
acronym for "anthropogenic global warming"
this is, of course, what we are reduced to, because the denialists are too stupid to understand the concepts involved. "global warming" used to be the usual term, but then idiots got confused because they thought that meant uniform warming across all regions, not average warming across the whole planet. so the preferred term became "climate change", because that's a more general term that better describes what's being seen at more regional scales. and then denialists said that climate changes naturally, so how is this any different, so we threw the word "anthropogenic" in there to indicate that human activity is the cause of the disruptions we're seeing. and now the usual response is "you guys keep changing the wording. what are you trying to hide???"
which shows that some people aren't very good at the whole thinking bit.

AGW: Anthropologic Global Warming. Man cause global warming based on the science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which when produced in excess by humans, will cause global temperatures to rise. However, while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the climate models which were the sole empirical evidence for AGW have proven to be not only exaggerated, but incorrect.

>>7091492
Fucking swipe keyboard... Did not mean anthropologic... Is that even a fucking word?

>>7088448
>What's your opinion on climate change deniers?

Any "scientist" that is a climate change denier appears to almost certainly be on payrolls of heavy polluters.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

>>7091505
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

>>7091505
all scientists are on someones payroll. what we need to do is kill all the politicians, let all workers own their factories, and fund all science with charitable donations only

>>7089794
>it's also almost entirely without reference, meaning that I've been unable to track it down to the source data

This is where it's from:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

This is how he tries to deceive you:

http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome#rcpinfo

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018/article#erl441194s3

>>7091512
>all scientists are on someones payroll
Okay.

>what we need to do is kill all the politicians, let all workers own their factories, and fund all science with charitable donations only
Don't understand this logical leap.

This is a "scientist" that has a background in aerospace engineering, and has not been funded by federal grants for original research in a decade. He relies almost entirely on funding from private energy companies, with which he called each of his papers "deliverables" to his sponsors.

These same papers are then used to try to show there is some scientific uncertainty about human generated climate change.

>>7091492
>models
>empirical evidence
Um, two COMPLETELY different things. Why am I not surprised that the guy arguing against the existence of AGW doesn't know the most basic of terms?

>>7091522
Im saying science that is funded needs to be abolished, science must work with out the constraints of money, the only way to do that is to create a socialist utopia

>>7091521

Since his results are very similar to the UN IPCC results:
>>7089608
Why was the UN International Panel on Climate Change trying to lie to us?

>>7090467

Gosh, why does that graph not agree with the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (AR4) predictions?

I'm mean climate change "scientists" never rewrite the past do they?

>>7091639
confirmed for retard
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html#q215

>>7090395
>All sides of any issue has its ulterior motives, so it normalizes out -

Are you kidding? Can Shell Oil put you in prison for not giving them your money? No.
Can FedGov, which will make $Billions from $Carbon $Taxes put you in prison for not giving you a significant part of your money? YES! It doesn't normalize out.

> except the denialists have to deal with the fact that there is a lot more money in the denialist business than there is in environmentalism.
The biggest enviromentalists are in Congress and at the Environmental Protection Agency.

FedGov has spent more than $79,000,000,000 on AGW.
FedGov takes in $3,500,000,000,000,000 in tax receipts a year of our hard earned money; under the threat of imprisonment.

To equate Oil companies to the power of FedGov and Western Governments in general is delusional thinking.

Stop the wishful thinking that power hungry politicians and bureaucrats only have our best interests in mind.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

>>7091648
Confirmed for idiocy. NASA always makes the warming rate higher! But that's OK, because they assure us that is OK. Your link is a non-explanation. No substance, just hand waving. Nothing to actually check.

Question? Who will lose significant funding if temperatures don't continue to go up significantly?

Why Do All Adjustments Make the Rate of Warming Higher?

>>7091648
As long as were going, Confirmed Idiot, please explain the change in global temps. By NASA GISS.

>>7089129
>being so lonely that you have to debate yourself

>>7091648
As long as we're going, please explain the NOAA's change in temperatures.

>>7091663
>FedGov has spent more than $79,000,000,000 on AGW

Please link to a source.

>Can Shell Oil put you in prison for not giving them your money? No.

This is a retarded case to be made for comparing benefits of pushing agendas. Businesses make money from profits, not taxes, so it's nowhere near even a valid comparison.

>Can FedGov, which will make $Billions from $Carbon $Taxes put you in prison for not giving you a significant part of your money? YES!

I would love to see you define what carbon taxes are and how the revenues flow directly into the federal government.

>Stop the wishful thinking that power hungry politicians and bureaucrats only have our best interests in mind.

This almost as pretentious as "wake up sheeple!"

>In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

You're chopping the fuck out of her words. This is a severely disingenuous argument.

>former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev

Who gives a shit.

>IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

I'd like to see this quote in its full context.

>>7091667
>>7091677
I'd be more inclined to listen to you hassle atmospheric scientists about their methodology if you maybe had some education or background in the field. Basically what you're saying is this:
>They're not allowed to make adjustments based on how temperature measuring stations change in location over the course of decades! The corrected numbers disagree with my opinions!
If you think the data are being dishonestly altered, go through their methodology and show where they made some adjustment that's not justified by the actual relocation of measurement sites. Until then, you're just making wild accusations unsupported by the evidence.

>Why Do All Adjustments Make the Rate of Warming Higher?
Not All Adjustments Do, You Moron. It's A Simple Selection Bias Wherein The Ones That Don't Never Get Whined About By You Guys, And We Scientists Are Intelligent Enough To Understand The Rationale Behind Such Adjustments And As Such Don't Bring Them Up. Do You Always Type In Such A Moronic Fashion?

Finally, if NASA funding is tied to global temperature readings, how hot must it have been in the 1960s? Pic related.

>>7091682
>le unlabeled graph
Hmm, is it going to be a comparison of a local proxy to global measurements, or is it going to be a retroactive adjustment based on a change in the way temperatures were measured? I can hardly wait to see the source documents.

What is it with you guys and your pathological inability to cite source material anyway? You can't just link to a paper it seems; you must instead use MSPaint to hack two graphs together, removing the trendline and axis labels in the process, and spew it out at people sans citation and then expect them to take that unlabeled teratoma of a figure for granted.

>>7089754
>‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

>worried

freudian slip right here.

if climate change is a horrible tragedy of mankind's pollution that will have DEVASTATING consequences on our global climate and upset our way of life...

why would a climate scientist be 'worried' at the prospect of NOT finding evidence to support his theory?

in that quote he singularily demonstrates his EMOTIONAL requirement to be validated. he NEEDS the world to be doomed for his ego and for his integrity.


it's not that there is a conspiracy of scientists who know they are wrong. it's that there is a circlejerk of scientists who have all convinced each other they are right.

>>7091663
>Are you kidding? Can Shell Oil put you in prison for not giving them your money? No.

Well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

>>7091639
>I'm mean climate change "scientists" never rewrite the past do they?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

You should really stop getting your info from Steve Goddard.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html?spref=tw

They're crazy and don't understand the publishing process.

One of the most baller things you can do as a scientist is publish a paper proving that the major findings of another scientist are incorrect or that his method is false. Like that's some juicy shit right there and you get a lot of notoriety. If anyone were able to disprove climate change, it would have happened by now.

The majority opinion of climate change denial was that it didn't exist, but now that it's proved way beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist, the new majority opinion of the deniers is that it won't affect us or that humans aren't causing it. Both these are rapidly proving false. When the older generation fades out of view, climate change denial is going to die out with them.

>>7088786
Well I think we're trying to be good models for developing countries in the future.

>>7091452
>What about the arctic ice? And I thought polar bears were supposed to be extinct by now and Florida should be underwater.

Which climate scientist said shit like this? Wasn't this shitty tabloids and hysteria that put images like this in peoples minds.

>>7091719
>it's not that there is a conspiracy
... but the denialemmings claim there is indeed a conspiracy

>>7088576
IM CONVINCED!

>>7091692

Wrong analysis. Show the changes in funding for Climate Change. U.S funding doubled from 1993 to 2011. Sounds like the people are getting REAL SCARED!

Sauce:
Show me the money, Lisa Palmer, Nature Climate Change, 376–380 (2011)

Everything was fine until that retard Al Gore got involved. Then it became a political shitstorm.

>>7091692
>Not All Adjustments Do, You Moron. It's A Simple Selection Bias Wherein The Ones That Don't Never Get Whined About By You Guys, And We Scientists Are Intelligent Enough To Understand The Rationale Behind Such Adjustments And As Such Don't Bring Them Up. Do You Always Type In Such A Moronic Fashion?

Ad hominem substitute for a non-answer detected. Your angry is so telling.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

>defending the climate cartel after cablegate proved they were faking data with programs and telling each other how to hide conflicting evidence
lel, you faggots must really love taking it in the ass from richfags.

>>7091767
Most surface stations are contaminated with by the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). An analysis of clean surface stations (not urban, proper placement etc.) shows that about half of 20th century AGW is caused by UHI. Read it:
http://www.surfacestations.org/

>nb4 SimpletonScience Ad Hominem
Try a logical, fact an data based argument for once. And look at this peer-reviewed paper (yeah, I know, hurr durr evil deniers...)
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

>>7091963
B-but Obama said... And he's... but they...

>>7091719
Yup, and from the just fired (for sexual harassment) head of the UN IPCC, Pachauri said,
[global warming] 'is my religion and my dharma'.

Strangely, we are supposed to take these "scientists" seriously.

>>7088608
how do you think climate scientists are parts? the government has a huge vested incentive to inflate the danger of global warming because they profit from increased taxes and more government control over people's choices. the fact that this isn't acknowledged by a lot of people arguing for the danger of global warming is cause for the alarm bells to be run. Yes, I am a climate skeptic because climate changes is by and large exclusively funded by government.

>>7091700

Gosh, the graphs are labeled NOAA and HCN (Historical Climate Network; data on line), but I guess that pretending that there is no source makes it easier to bury the pain of the cognitive dissonance created by seeing grotesquely altered data; data that has been twisted to keep the funding going for a pseudo-science.

>>7091963
ummm... the UN said that they did nothing wrong. how can you deny science?

>>7091442
AGW is a science like econoimcs or gender studies is a science. based on data that can be corrupted. dont pretend that agw is a threat the size 'scientist', politicians, and activists, actually make it out to be

>>7091689
>I would love to see you define what carbon taxes are and how the revenues flow directly into the federal government.
youre fucking retarded. before climategate the UN was about to get taxes given directly to them by every government that decided they wanted to pay taxes. which was all the cuckolded governments that would let africa and china do whatever they wanted.

>>7092026
>>7091719

>We have some "gotchya!" moments by cherry-picking quotes from some public policy advisors,, so the entirety of this scientific discipline is obviously false!

I don't have a problem with people taking alternative stances on scientific issues, but my main problem with the vast majority of denialists is how they invariably have terrible argumentation.

Same shit in creationist debates - the creationist side pushes it as a conspiracy theory and tries to cherry-pick quotes from scientists, while the evolution side just shows the fucking science.

>>7092077

I would love to see you define what carbon taxes are and how the revenues flow directly into the federal government.

So far you've had nothing but adhoms. What you aren't portraying is actual comprehension of any of these issues or adequate evidence of your claims. You can't seem to actually connect the dots.

>>7092091
The only one pushing a conspiracy theory is you. Obviously if a politician is saying it in public, its not conspiring. It open to the public.

Get over your strawman arguments. The only conspiracy theorists are you, thinking that there's a Koch brother, or Oil company hiding around every corner.

>>7092091
>while the evolution side just shows the fucking science.
Unlike evolution, you only have a long list of failed predictions.

Name a single successful, substantive prediction that Climate Change has made.

prediction = stated/published before the fact
substantive = clearly differentiated from natural climate variation, causally connected to anthropogenic CO2

>>7092098
>I would love to see you define what carbon taxes
taxing any carbon emissions....you fucking retard.

>>7092091
UN IPCC Chief Rajendra Pachauri said in his resignation letter, "For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

That's not "cherrypicking" anymore than quoting a criminal's confession is (but what about all of his other statements? the one time he said he killed her wasn't a fair sample of his typical speech!). He was speaking to summarize his approach to running the IPCC.

Far from being an impartial scientist, he was a fanatical environmentalist to such a degree that he declared it to be his religion. It's been an article of faith all along for him that Mother Earth must be threatened by mankind, one way or another, and it's his destiny to protect her.

>>7092098
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
Sheesh!

>>7092107

>Claim that the science is wrong
>Literally every credible institution still publicly supports it as well as the vast majority of actively public scientists in the relevant fields
>not a conspiracy

It's about time you grow up and start dealing with the implications of your arguments.

>>7092111

Actually by all measures, most well-supported projections from the past have shown to be too conservative.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

Glacial patterns have seen the most predicted patterns. We know the effect greenhouse gases have, and we know how much of it is ours, and we have predicted its effect.

Yes, some of the more minor details have been wrong - that's science.

>>7092120

The claim was that the government instilled them to eat them up directly, as part of a larger claim that there is more money in environmentalism than there is in fossil fuels (lol).

You can call names and get mad all you want. What I would like to see is the dots being connected - what taxes end up in the hands of >muhbigub'ment

>>7092139
We've already gone over past examples of the scientific mainstream getting things wrong without any conspiracy.

>>7092121
>UN IPCC Chief Rajendra Pachauri said in his resignation letter, "For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

And you deliberately misquoted him as saying that global warming is his religion. You couldn't be much more disingenuous if you tried. This isn't how adults argue.

>>7088448
Similar to the 'cigarrettes are harmless' people.

Bought, or idiots.

>>7092158

They were wrong because of the lack of better evidence available at the time. And they were wrong when science was less self-corrective, less streamlined, slower-evolving, and less interdisciplinary than it is now, and we also covered that there were no cases at the time to assert that they were wrong.

Saying that science has been wrong in the past is a very weak argument to say that current science is wrong.

>>7091935
what a coincidence. I notice your pic leaves out the caption at the bottom that mentions that first graph isn't adjusted for inflation. As it so happens, $1 in 1993 is worth $1.56 in 2011, so there's most of that perceived increase gone away.
And that bar graph isn't what you even say it is! That's not spending on climate change! That's the total US federal science budget! What, are you against spending more money on research? THIS IS THE MISINFORMED BULLSHIT THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM DENIALIST BLOGS INSTEAD OF READING THE PAPERS THEMSELVES
>sauce: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n8/fig_tab/nclimate1262_F1.html

>>7091941
namecalling != argumentum ad hominem
You may notice that I explained the perceived trend. If I'd said you weren't to be even listened to because you were a denialist, then maybe you'd have a point. Is it too much to ask that you use terms correctly?

>>7091991
...and yet the adjustment BASED on the change in location of measuring station is what >>7091639
was yammering about. you can't have it both ways, man! either climatologists are right to adjust readings based on the location of measuring stations, or they're not. you can't simultaneously attack them for making adjustments and demand that they make adjustments.
Again, an unlabeled graph. Where are those data coming from? Are those departures minima? Maxima? Means? Saying it comes from the USHCN is very little to go by.

>>7092045
You might as well say it's in Nature magazine. I'm not going to dig through every single document they have archived because you guys are too sloppy to CITE YOUR SOURCE MATERIAL.
I know why you don't have the source. It's because you got the (usually altered) graphic off a blog somewhere instead of actually reading the peer-reviewed articles.

>>7092107
>The only one pushing a conspiracy theory is you.
So...you DON'T believe that the overwhelming majority of climatologists are colluding to fabricate evidence in support of AGW? If that's so, how do you explain the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, with negative consequences for us all?

>>7092162
rekt

>>7092162
First of all, that wasn't me. Secondly, the statements are practically equivalent. It was a declaration that he had been a fanatical environmentalist all along, and not an impartial scientist at all, and therefore the IPCC under his management should be viewed as an environmentalist interest group.

>>7092171
>They were wrong because of the lack of better evidence available at the time.
Oh, you're THAT guy. The "even if they're wrong, they're right" guy.

>>7092200
>the statements are practically equivalent
we got a real genious here, lads

>>7092211
Keep splitting those hairs while you ignore that your Chief Impartial Scientist declared environmentalism to be his religion.

So tell me if I understand the current /pol/ position on climate change properly:

>1. Climate change is not caused by human activity, or is not happening at all
>2. Climate scientists, who almost all think that it is both happening and human caused, are almost all either bad at their jobs, part of a large conspiracy with world governments, or only go along with what gets funding to keep their jobs and obtain the results they are "told" to.
>3. World governments are interested in promoting the illusion of manmade climate change because "that's just what the Jews do, man"

>>7092221
>oh no, a scientist wants more than anything else to protect the Earth and its ecosystems
so...how is that a bad thing exactly? are you saying he's going to falsify evidence to...protect the Earth?
dude what?

Nice goalpost shifting though. First someone said (falsely) that he'd declared global warming to be his religion. And now you're saying that environmentalism is his religion, and that environmentalism is totally the same thing as global warming!
nigga you don't understand dot bee em pee

>>7092169
>Bought
jej, you're so fucking retarded you don't even realize the irony.

>>7092228
>hurr, you are all /pol/
Most climate scientists don't study the question of whether global warming is happening or not at all. Rather, they work from the assumption that it is, because that's what most of the funding is for.

If a newly-minted PhD today asked for funding to study the possibility that global warming might not be happening, they'd get laughed out of the room.

The group of people who have ever professionally studied whether or not there is such a thing as AGW happening is tiny, and quite divided in its opinions.

>>7092271
So climate scientists are bad at their jobs, then.

>>7092271
>Most climate scientists don't study the question of whether global warming is happening or not at all. Rather, they work from the assumption that it is, because that's what most of the funding is for.
More like, they work from the assumption that it is, because that's what the overwhelming majority of the evidence, like DIRECT TEMPERATURE READINGS, thus far indicates.
You might notice that most physicists don't study the question of whether the gravitational force follows the inverse-square law. Rather, they work from the assumption that it does, because...

>>7092240
>First someone said (falsely) that he'd declared global warming to be his religion. And now you're saying that environmentalism is his religion, and that environmentalism is totally the same thing as global warming!
There are vanishingly few environmentalists who aren't strong believers in global warming, even among those who ridiculously misunderstand the case for it or even what it means. That's why it's practically equivalent. Catastrophic global warming is one of the most central major articles of faith among fanatical environmentalists.

Furthermore, environmentalism is a strong motive to push global warming regardless of whether one rationally believes it to be true or not. It's an excuse to interfere with all sorts of industry, and tell people they have to accept having less and leave nature alone more.

>>7092299
>There are vanishingly few environmentalists who aren't strong believers in global warming
There are vanishingly few Presidents of the United States that aren't white, but that doesn't mean that being white and being President are practically equivalent. See how stupid what you just posted is? You're welcome, thank you for playing, please put in an honest effort next time you're trying to make a point.

>>7092284
This supposed huge consensus of experts is actually a small number of people who have seriously examined the question, plus a large number of people who were told in school that one side is right, then employed to work under the assumption that one side is right, and have never seriously examined the evidence themselves.

They're really not in a better position than people outside of the field to have an opinion. If anything, they show more bias than qualification.

>>7092319
>>7092284
>>7092211
So it's just avatarfagging and shitposting from here on out?

>>7092326
>They're really not in a better position than people outside of the field to have an opinion.
Thanks for the advice. Next time, I'll be sure to trust the opinion of the bums off the street for their perspective on climate change over the opinions of guys who wrote their PhD thesis on this stuff.

>>7092326
To go back to the example of Fg following the inverse square law, I assert that while most physicists will say that it does, very few of them have actually studied the question themselves, and most have just been taught that gravity follows an inverse square law. So should we disregard the positions taken by physicists regarding gravity's effects? Should we consider physicists LESS qualified to weight in than laymen because they've been taught something?
No, of course not. They learn it in school, yes, but they see how all the evidence agrees with it. Why should climatology suddenly be different in this regard? Because you personally disagree with the way the evidence is pointing?
It sure seems to me as though you guys, to compensate for a lack of supporting evidence, seem to just brainstorm a lot of hoked-up reasons not to listen to anything in a peer-reviewed journal.

>>7092333
it's /sci/ versus /pol/ in a discussion about AGW, and you're SURPRISED that it's 100% shitposting?

>>7092353
>it's /sci/ versus /pol/
Shut the fuck up and get out. It's just /sci/. Declaring the other side of an argument to be /pol/ is the lowest form of argument.

>>7092361
I'd argue that actually BEING /pol/ is lower.
Eh, I'm just clinging to the hope that maybe /sci/ isn't actually full of idiots.

>>7088456
>How could they possibly not believe more educated people (scientist) than them?
An appeal to authority sure makes you seem educated.

I haven't read the data nor do I know the theory and I won't act any differently until I do. I never will so I'll never care about climate change.

>>7092155
how fucking stupid are you? have you ever even paid an electric bill. i have a green energy tax on my current electric bill right now, you fucking retard. call your electric company and ask them to explain every delievery charge. my state has a charge and i think there is a federal one too.

>>7092162
what do you think the UN chief was referring to when he said protecting the planet? fucking astroid threats?

>>7092369
>anyone that disagrees with me is a nazi

>>7092353
>the example of Fg following the inverse square law
The difference is that physicists don't take that on faith, or just believe that someone, somewhere has done the necessary work to prove it. Rather, all sorts of things they do work with don't work out if it's not true.

There are very few physicists who would be able to conduct their careers without noticing if gravity did not actually follow an inverse square law, at least on the familiar scale of our solar system (more than a few physicists doubt that it holds at larger scales, or down to microscopic ones).

Global warming isn't that kind of bedrock fact about the universe. Mostly, it's a theory about what will happen decades into the future. There's no hard confirmation for it but to keep pumping out CO2, wait decades, and see what happens.

A climate scientist who applies for a grant to refine his model of cloud formation, arguing that he should get public funding because of its relevance to global warming predictions, doesn't need to know whether global warming is actually happening, and wouldn't likely notice if it wasn't. The main relevance of global warming to his career is that it helps him get funding and respect. It's not really part of his work, it's just there in the backdrop. He doesn't go looking for sources of systematic bias in the instrumental temperature record, or improprieties in the selection or truncation of proxies, or errors in their statistical analysis. The people who might do that are practically in a whole other field from him.

Your analogy is terrible. Your reasoning is terrible.

AGW is a genuinely controversial subject, such that its political supporters have to make arguments like a "consensus of experts", because the case for it is complex and inaccessible to non-specialists. Your argument is "we know the consensus is valid because we don't need the consensus, because we wouldn't have the consensus if we needed it, which I know because we have the consensus".

>>7091991

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/

What did I just tell you?

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/plugins/BanNasties/imageDiversion.php?uri=/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/AGU-2012-Poster.png

>Try a logical, fact an data based argument for once. And look at this peer-reviewed paper (yeah, I know, hurr durr evil deniers...)

>"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

They are either fools or motivated by greed.

The fools can be swayed by simply making it not about "climate change" and about clean air, water, and soil for your children and their children. Because the things that will give us clean air, water and soil also fight climate change.

The greedy on the other hand are just trying to protect their existing revenue streams. Because they already own what ever gives them money. Developing new revenue streams cost them money. So the way to get them around is to incentive-ize them into developing new markets that help fight climate change.

You don't have to change their minds. You just have to find a motivational factor. That will get them on our side while allowing them to still have their beliefs.

>>7089082
There is no one saying you can't, just don't commit hate crimes along the way.

>>7092394
>/pol/ is only nazis

There are plenty of normal idiots on there too. For instance, climate change deniers like yourself.

>>7092387
>what do you think the UN chief was referring to when he said protecting the planet? fucking astroid threats?
air and water pollution spring to mind. not to mention ocean acidification, which is an UNDENIABLE result of higher CO2 partial pressures in the atmosphere. and how about nuclear winter in the aftermath of another world war? preventing nuclear war is absolutely on the UN's to-do list.
If you think that there are no credible threats to the biosphere besides global warming, it demonstrates how under-informed you are with regard to ecology.

>>7092400
I understand where you're coming from with that argument. Unfortunately, you're coming from a position of ignorance.
For a significant increase in the partial pressure of a major greenhouse gas to NOT cause significant warming, in the absence of other major factors, would require rewriting QUITE A BIT of atmospheric science. Do you have any idea of the complexity of the fluid dynamics alone involved in modeling an atmosphere? Or the strides earth scientists have made in understanding how those extremely complex systems work? (I do, albeit a somewhat fuzzy one; my degree work focused less about atmosphere and more on sediment.) The point is that while "the Earth's average surface temperature is increasing" isn't a key foundation of climate science, it is the logical conclusion of foundational principles coupled with the observation of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

>>7092400
>AGW is a genuinely controversial subject...because the case for it is complex and inaccessible to non-specialists
By that logic, gravity following the inverse square law is also "genuinely controversial". To most people, gravity is a constant: 9.8 m/s^2. Most people are at the Earth's surface, where you need specialized instruments to detect gravitational anomalies (on the scale of tens of mGal). Demonstrating that Fg is proportional to R^-2 is pretty damn inaccessible to the lay man.

Try harder.

>>7088448
> climate change deniers
I don't know anyone who thinks the climate doesn't change.

I know people who reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming and people who think global warming is a good thing, but never anyone who thinks the climate doesn't change.

>>7093674
>implying Summer is real
It's been Winter all fucking month, and by that data it will continue to be Winter forever. Do you retards honestly believe that the temperature will just magically go up? Climate change believers are the lowest form of sheeple.

>>7089082

3, 4, and 6 are just harmless tinhats, but global warming deniers are infiltrating positions of influence and may lead to serious environmental damage through their neglect in the future. And evolution deniers are causing many people in certain areas to be denied the chance to learn proper science.

>>7093683

Meant to be reply to

>>7089072

>>7093683
>global warming deniers
Try and keep up faggot, the climate conglomerate already moved past that because they couldn't keep making up data to fit. It's called Climate Change (TM) now. Keep paying your carbon tax, we need to line the pockets, I mean save the planet and stuff.

>>7092192
>how do you explain the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, with negative consequences for us all?
>Science is based on popularity and authority!!!!
>Anytime a scientific theory is wrong, it has to be because of a conspiracy!!!
>>7089438

The fact that you are obsessed with "hurr durr you're a conspiracy nut" shows that you truly have no substantive counter-argument.
Can't answer this question can you? And don't waste my time with after-the-fact model-tweaking as "proof"
>>7092111

BTW, your obsession with the "conspiracy theory" meme reminds me of Christian fundmentalists who simply can't comprehend someone not believing in God. They think there is something truly wrong with them. Yup, AGW is a secular religion.

>>7093693
>Keep paying your carbon tax, we need to line the pockets, I mean save the planet and stuff.

Caterpillar Inc.should do pretty well for themselves in the near future.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-11/bloomberg-proposes-20-billion-new-york-flood-plan-after-sandy

>>7092146
A non-answer. You didn't state a prediction, which Distinguishes from normal climate!
> Sea level rising!
The sea levels have been rising since the end of the ICE AGE!!! Sheesh "science" so sloppy only AGW could get away with it.

And horrible droughts?????? False. Pic related. BTW, since the horrible drought prediction failed, Climate Change has been falsified right? Oh wait,
just need model tweaking. Heads you win, tails we lose!

You have failed. And I am not surprised.

>>7092187
You really can't explain your way out of a paper bag. Haven't seen this much hyper-ventilating as substitute for facts and logic since I listened to a Southern Baptist revival preacher.

You assumed that the financial figures weren't inflation adjusted. Even if they weren't 56% =/= 100% increase!

>.and yet the adjustment BASED on the change in location of measuring station is what >>7091639 (You)
was yammering about.
This is where your understanding failed. The adjustment INCORPORATES the UHI as the norm for a moved or missing thermometer. That is done by the process of "homogenization."
Go back and read:
>>7091991

Seriously though, I think you're about to explode. You're so angry because all you have is insults and hiding behind authority. Oh wait! Popularity. Because everyone knows that truth is decided by popularity.

>>7094306
>The sea levels have been rising since the end of the ICE AGE!!!

lol, please tell me you're joking

>>7094306
We've been warming since the end of the ice age because of slow warming. The temperatures haven't gone down, they're just going to go up very very fast. The fact that sea level rise has happened in the past doesn't make it okay today, and doesn't make it okay with the rapidity that's happening.

And, infact, overall, global warming won't lead to widespread droughts. It will increase the rainfall and large scale weather events for a large part of the world. Only a few places get boned.

This is why it's "climate change" science and not just "the world is getting hotter and everything will become a desert" science.

>>7092449
>>"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU.
Huh? Why are you quoting Richard Muller? The fake skeptic. Long before his "i'm a skeptic" he said:
‘carbon dioxide as a gas emitted from fossil fuels is the biggest polluter in the history of man.’
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/

>>7094334
Yes. Since the Ice Age.

Learn to science.

>>7094306
>And horrible droughts?????? False. Pic related. BTW, since the horrible drought prediction failed, Climate Change has been falsified right? Oh wait,
>just need model tweaking. Heads you win, tails we lose!

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/massive-reduction-in-us-drought-over-the-past-80-years/

Cherry picking is pretty fun.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/shock-news-the-west-side-highway-was-permanently-underwater-in-1660/

http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/national/145323-hurricane-sandy-2012-superstorm-batters-us-coast-manhattan-goes-dark-7-5m-without-power-17-dead.html

>>7094349
>Why are you quoting Richard Muller?

The quote is from Anthony Watts.

I guess Al Gore got to him too...

>>7092091
Phil Jones is a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, the SAME GUY caught up in the 'hide the decline' debacle.

He is not 'some public policy advisor'.

He is actively involved in creating and curating climate-related data sets, and has demonstrated an emotional bias towards a conclusion.

That that is an unscientific attitude, is all I'm saying.

>>7092171
>They were wrong because of the lack of better evidence available at the time.

and one of the main skeptic arguments is that we dont have sufficient evidence today either.

we dont have accurate, primary sources for climatctic conditions going back thousands of years.

what we have are a few temperature records going back hundreds of years with extremely limited matrices (few or singular measuring stations) and many more recent data sets that go back decades, maybe a century sometimes.


To say that you can use a single weather station's readings to model literally thousands of square miles is atrociously ignorant of complex systems.


to argue that we have anything close to sufficient data to make a meaningful model of the climate is laughable, and thats disregarding the (in)feasibility of modelling something as large and complex and interconnected as the global climate, which represents the most complex non-linear system we know of.


if we can't even get a grasp on a complex system like the global economy, which is MAGNITUDES simpler than the global climate, why are you so confident in climate science while economics is (rightly) not regarded as a science?


i'll say that more directly.


If climatology can be considered SCIENCE, then so can economics.

>>7094363
>sea levels rise due to decrease in glaciation, then level off as glaciation stabilizes
>zOMG SEA LEVELS HAVE BEEN RISING CONTINUOUSLY
Based on that graph, you can't assert a rising trend after, oh, 6kya or so. There's a clear transition at ~8kya, and sea levels rose slowly for a little while after that and then leveled off.
Sea levels haven't been rising since the end of the most recent ice age; they rose AT the end of the most recent ice age.

And now sea levels rise at about 3mm/year. Estimating from the graph, the average rate of sea level rise over the past 8000 years was ~0.375 or thereabouts. Even assuming that's a significant underestimation of the actual value, there's a pretty serious discrepancy between the historical trend over the past few millennia and the current trend over the past two decades or so.
Learn to science yourself.

>>7094329
I didn't assume that the financial figures weren't inflation adjusted. I read the caption which your picture so conveniently excluded, amigo. It said "Science budget in millions of US dollars". Not "millions of 2011 US dollars", just "millions of US dollars". I'm giving Ms. Palmer and Nature the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the article she wrote and they published had its captions correctly written.
You're ignoring the major point, the 56% increase aside, that the graph did not say remotely what you said it did. You claimed that government funding for climate change had doubled over the time period in question. In fact, government funding for science OF ANY SORT doubled. Because the version of the figure you posted had had the caption cropped out, you didn't know this. And so you were caught in an extremely dumb lie and decided to gloss over it by poking fun at me for getting terse with you. Well done! I'm sure nobody noticed the whole 'lie' bit now that you've accused me of getting mad and not using facts.

As for the other issue, I'm not getting into the methodology of adjusting historical readings. I'm commenting on the ethics of adjusting them in the first place. You accused climatologists of "rewrit[ing] the past" because they adjusted temperature readings, and then proceeded to advocate for adjustments based on similar grounds.
You seem to be against these adjustments when it means that the evidence goes against your viewpoint and for them when they are in agreement with your opinions.

I eagerly await your next post talking about how I don't have any facts or logic and am just calling you names, but curiously failing to address any of the lines of argument expressed in this post.

>>7094400
wow! A single, cherry-picked day. How about an
apples to apples comparison? Same drought index, for the month,
Long term. That's apples to apples

Sorry, August 1934 was much worse than July 2012.
Climate Change has been falsified.
Oh, that's right:
If prediction is correct => Climate Change is TRUE
If prediction is wrong => we need $$$ for a better model, but Climate Change is TRUE

>>7094491
>caught in an extremely dumb lie
Graph shows that climate Change funding has doubled. I say that it has doubled. Wow, what a lie. You really are out of control.

>As for the other issue, I'm not getting into the methodology of adjusting historical readings.
Why not, I explained it, and I gave the sources? The adjustments taint the data via UHI. That is why the rate of warming constantly changes upward with updated data. Explain, specifically, how moving a few thermometers between say 2002 and 2014
>>7091677
would cause a giant increase in the rate of warming? OVER THE SAME TIME PERIOD AS BEFORE. You don't have an answer which is why you don't want to get into it. Your only answer is "you're making an ethical accusation!" with the implied, "Climate Changes scientists are the most honest people in the world. They don't care about their income at all!" BTW, I never said anyone lied, I said that their chosen method taints the data with the UHI, which you deliberately ignore because the cognitive dissonance of seeing scientific data falsify your Authoritarian viewpoint of science is just too painful.

Learn this:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

>>7094468
Those sea levels rise real fast when you tamper with the data. Univ. of Colorado self-comparison of sea level rise.

>>7094468
Look what happens when you use actual tidal gauge data. No climate change acceleration in sea level rise.

Climate Change has been falsified. Oh wait!
If prediction is correct => Climate Change is TRUE
If prediction is wrong => we need $$$ for a better model, but Climate Change is TRUE

>>7094537
Here's the graph

>>7094520
>Graph shows that climate Change funding has doubled. I say that it has doubled. Wow, what a lie. You really are out of control.
Read the caption on the figure. Read it. Then get back to me.
And to make one thing perfectly clear, the thermometers were not moved between 2002 and 2014; rather, the adjustments were made during that time span, based on the relocation of measuring stations (overall trend of going from warmer cities to cooler airports), the transition to higher-tech thermometers, and efforts to standardize the time of day at which measurements are taken. The bases for the adjustments were in effect over the course of DECADES. It was only fairly recently, though, that an attempt was made to formally account for them. And hey, did you notice that the trend of going FROM cities TO airports means that the UHI effect actually brought up historical measurements more than current measurements?
Finally, you seem to be in the habit of putting words in my mouth. Nowhere in this thread did I say "you're making an ethical accusation!", nor did I claim you accused climatologists of lying.

>>7094493
>for the month,
>Long term
dude, do you know anything about the earth sciences? as far as climate goes, we don't draw conclusions based on days, or months, or even a whole year. we look at trends over the course of a decade or so, letting regression to the mean iron out the occasional anomalous year.

>>7094520
Speaking of data fudging to create a new global temperature record.

Here is the NOAA website back in 1998. Proclaiming that 1997 was the warmest year ever. That year was 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13

Continued on next...

>>7094594
Now here is their proclomation of 2014 being the warmest year ever. They say that 2014 was
1.25 degrees warmer than the twentieth century; which was 57.0 degrees Fahrenheit. That makes the global temperature of 2014 58.25 degrees Fahrenheit! That 4 degrees COLDER than 1997!!!

They rewrote the past!!!!!!!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

>>7094585
>I'm commenting on the ethics of adjusting them in the first place.
Not related to an ethical accusation. Nope, no implication that I'm making an ethical accusation. Whatever.

Your refusal to confront the tainting of data with UHI where I give you the scientific sources is to be expected. Instead you give "just so" excuses. I pointed you to an exacting methodology that checked for correct instrumentation, placement etc. A way to compare good with bad data, showing a significant UHI effect. But you DESPERATELY avoid dealing with it. Instead, you deliberately obfuscate. Then you simply become boring.

Yes, you have gotten me bored. And long term drought trends. Thanks for bringing that up picture related.

Climate Change has been falsified.
Oh, that's right:
If prediction is correct => Climate Change is TRUE
If prediction is wrong => we need $$$ for a better model, but Climate Change is TRUE

>>7094645

And how about a heatwave index from the EPA?
Question, when were the heatwaves the worst?

>>7094528
oh look, another unlabeled graph. no citations or nothing, just a vague reference to UColorado.
Well, I did your work for you and tracked the graph down to its source. Here's your problem: those graphs aren't of absolute sea levels, but are rather relative to a baseline year. As they update their data sets, they change which year is the baseline. They also correct the data every two months or so based, essentially, on instrument calibrations. I know, it doesn't sound as exciting when I explain what's actually going on, but ah well.

>>7094537
>>7094541
Did you know that we've been burning large amounts of fossil fuels since the mid-1800s? Also, take the edge of a sheet of paper and extend that red satellite altimetry trendline back to the 0 level. Notice how that red line is actually steeper than the trend of the black line since ~1910.

>>7094645
>no implication
If you think I'm implying something, say so. If you think I actually said something, put quotation marks around it and attribute it to me.
>Your refusal to confront the tainting of data with UHI
I did confront it. The fact of the matter is that the overall trend of measuring station relocations has been FROM (warm) cities TO (cool) airports and similar. I'll see your Watt and raise you a BEST: http://scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-107.php
If you think Berkeley Earth is biased, let me remind you that they get a big chunk of funding from Mr. Charles Koch. Yes, THAT Charles Koch. Mr. Watts originally welcomed Berkeley Earth's report, but then once it turned out that they didn't come to the same conclusion as him, he attacked the methodology he'd previously praised. Oops.

>>7094645
>>7094649
It's called "global warming" rather than "continental USA warming and drying" for a reason, you know.