/sci/ - Science & Math

I think most people who advance human driven climate change laugh, belittle, and blow off skepticism because they have no idea what they're talking about. They buy into it like it's a fashion choice. At most they might have a graph to support their beliefs, but usually not even that. Just, "lol you just don't understand science, denier".

It doesn't really matter anyway, none of this shit is going to get serious funding until they convince a large majority of the population that they're right and it's dire, and that shit isn't gonna happen until they operate transparently and quit referring to anyone who questions them with holocaust rhetoric.

What you did is called false equivalence. You'd get the same reaction if you tried to take a neutral stance on creationism vs evolution or vaccines causing autism. You might think the mature position in controversial topics is neutral, but anthropogenic climate change is a controversy only among politicians and the general public, not the scientific community. Non-human factors such as volcanism and solar activity are not enough to be the main cause of present climate change. We've got satellites monitoring solar activity and volcanism, and very good data on the quantities and effects of man-made gases in the atmosphere. Saying "I'm neutral because nobody knows yet" shows your ignorance regarding the subject you're arguing about.

>>7104972
>Non-human factors such as volcanism and solar activity are not enough to be the main cause of present climate change
Yes they are. That big Iceland volcano a few years ago spewed out more CO2 than humans have in the last 50 years.

>>7104967
Thank you, I needed to know that there were some like minded people. The term "denier" was what got me heated when I had to watch that bullshit.

>>7104972
Fuck it, I'm taking the bait
>very good data on the quantities and effects of man-made gases in the atmosphere.
If this data is so accurate and precise and tells us everything we need to know already about their effects on the climate then why are there hundreds of scientists who are finding more and more evidence that suggest the exact opposite? Denying that evidence proves YOUR ignorance to the subject.

To the point of my neutrality equalling ignorance- I was talking about the discussion in class. I'm not going to walk in there and refuse to hear anything anyone else has to say, regardless of whether it is complete bullshit or it holds any sort of merit. I didn't want to come off as the "New world order" tinfoil hat wearing motherfucker who thinks the gubmemt is jus tryna taks mah gassesses.

The problem with the climate change issue is that it's always focuses on temperature and emissions.

The real bulk of the damage humans have performed is from thousands of years of shitty agricultural and animal husbandry practices that degraded soil quality to horrible levels and accelerate erosion rates everywhere.

>>7104972
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/ the leading climate scientist at MIT has found numerous, laughable flaws in tons of models that are there to produce your "very good data"

>>7105001
Now that's something that I can see as a better argument for anthropogenic climate change than the burning of fossil fuels for the past 200 years, although I haven't read much on it, do you have a source(s)?

>>7104943
>We had to watch these three TED talks before class
what "school" do you go to? lol

>>7105012
It's a really simple class to teach critical thinking and how to apply it to our work, I wish all of my other classes were as easy as discussing fucking TED talks, I'd be drinking every damn day if that were the case.

>>7104943
>I'm not an expert in climate science and I was arguing with another non-expert in climate science about climate science. He blindly chooses to agree with the overwhelming agreement among actual experts in climate science about AGW. Why?

>>7104967
>Experts in climate science don't know what they're talking about.

>>7104973
>I'm an 80-year-old grandmother and I believe everything I read in an e-mail or on Facebook.

>>7104989
>Your agreement with climate science experts demonstrates your ignorance. My agreement with random dipshits on the Internet demonstrates my enlightenment.

>>7105004
>I think predictive models and observational data are the same thing.

>>7105007

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054028

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/prediction-prevention-and-remediation-of-soil-degradation-113130829

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/land_deg/land_deg.html

>>7105023
so the situation you describe in OP happened in a critical thinking class? wow.

>>7105025
tyrannosaurus autoco#rekt

>>7104943
The problem with things like climate change is that the opposition often has very little technical understanding of the issues. Climate change is happening, we can see it, that much is undeniable. I am not trying to patronize you when I say that most people are simply not qualified to comment on this.

>>7104943
You are in no way qualified to comment with an opposing argument to this.

Climate change is happening. That is a fact.

The earth may go through cycles, but this much CO2 increase is unprecedented.

>le volcanoes
That only accounts for like, 4% of the increase.

And then examine layers of ice.

Seriously, just stop.

We are absolutely destroying this planet.

>>7105054
We were discussing climate change and cycles in my astronomy class last night, and I learned something pretty interesting that I never knew before. The earth's magnetic field reverses every 250,000 years or so, and during the reversal the magnetic field first drops down to 0. This is due to happen in the next 4000 years, with rates something like -0.07 Gauss per year (I have no idea what this means it was just on the powerpoint). I was just wondering if this was true, and If so wouldn't it be a significant factor in climate change? According to my professor research shows that it hasn't caused significant mutations in the past, but aren't ice ages something like every 250,000 years? And if the planet is gradually losing it's magnetic field it must be heating up.

>>7105104
>And if the planet is gradually losing it's magnetic field it must be heating up.

Why?

>>7105104
No previously observed temperature changes as dramatic as what we're experiencing now, though.

>opens with a meme
>stars denying climate change

fuck off

>>7105114
I have no idea, my prof basically told me that we have no idea. Maybe something to do with the inner core having convection currents but I'm no expert by any means. This really interests me though and it has inspired me to learn more about magnetism at the quantum and large scales.

>>7105306
sorry, I misread, please disregard this.
>>7105114
But wouldn't less of a magnetic field basically allow charged particles into our system and increase the energy absorbed by our atmosphere a.k.a. temperature?

>>7104943
>I feel like I'm speaking out against the catholic church when I try to take a neutral look at the whole thing

le precocious undergrad meme

you are a fucking parody of yourself, you know that right?

>>7104973
> That big Iceland volcano a few years ago spewed out more CO2 than humans have in the last 50 years.

The 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruptions lasted a month and released an average of 1.5×10^8 kg of CO2 per day. This is less than 3.44×10^8 kg of CO2 per day it prevented from being released by grounding so many flights.

http://hqweb.unep.org/yearbook/2011/pdfs/UNEP_YEARBOOK_Fullreport.pdf

>>7105119
I didn't know stars deny climate change I thought they contributed to it?

OP here, I'm not denying climate change at all, I'm questioning the impact that human emissions actually have on the climate.

>The earth is flat, it's been established and it's the way things are
Bu- but I think it's round
>Are you fukin kiddin me m8? You dare question what our pope scientist says is true? GTFO

Same fucking thing. There's evidence to back up both arguments, yet the popular belief's data has been wrong multiple times.

>Al Gore's Hockey stick

>>7105748
Climate models are always wrong, new ones are just less wrong than the old ones.

It's hard to screw up the taking of data all over the world which do show that CO2 is rising in an unprecedented rate, which in turns causes all sorts of other things like ocean acidification and the shifting of air or ocean currents. Not sure if the last two are happening--it's conjecture--but ocean acidification is tied to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Good luck OP.

P.s., don't use the vatican analogy, you'll get crucified by the people who already on edge from dealing with those who say climate change is not happening

>>7105054
HOLY MOTHER OF FUCK why can't you libfucks listen.
What the fuck qualifies you to have a supporting argument on this?
>Hurr durr oh no we need to cut back on our emissions because all of my teachers and a lot of the media are saying so
>I guess if they say something we need to blindly follow along with it because it has to be true!
There have been measurements of the co2 levels from 4200 years ago just recently in northern China. They believe an immense, abrupt climate change caused a mass migration from the area because it got very hot and they weren't able to grow their agriculture.

If we are destroying this planet then oh fucking well, there's nothing that's going to all of a sudden stop everyone on earth from burning gas and oil that abruptly. If we cut out every emission cold turkey the earth would still heat up. It will eventually cool down. It's now known that carbon emissions take up to 10 years to have an effect on the climate. A lot of the data that has been produced is wrong because of assuming it had an immediate role on the climate.

Quit calling people "Deniers" because they don't believe everything that is happening is man's fault. You all sound like modern day feminists

>>7105036
Yeah... We're being taught to think about how to approach a problem and no one is ever truly wrong in that class until its "Less discuss climate change" day and if someone (myself) decides to take another look at something, they're shot down and belittled instead of actually listening to that approach. rediculous.

>>7105104
This makes a lot of sense

>>7105761
Ahh yeah, true. that is what I do not want to be grouped into.

>>7105790
Lets**

>>7105025
Telling it like it is.

>>7105025
Most of the "actual experts in climate science" aren't even climatologists

The top climatologist at MIT doesn't buy into half the shit that is being published.

Can say the same thing to you bud

Again, disagreeing with sociologists and groups of undergrads in other fields who collectively publish papers on climate

I don't think that, could've worded it better.

>These scientists all observe and claim this
>But this one observes and claims something opposite
The power of one, paid naysayer. I guess until you do the measurements yourself and come to your own conclusion you can't ever know anything huh.

>>7105114
No magnetic field = no van allen belt, so more cosmic rays blast the surface/atmosphere raising the temperature? I don't know.

>>7105831
Just an example of one who knows what the fuck he's talking about

>>7104972
There's a false equivalence between the predictions and the data. The predictions fail over and over again, so people ignore the data.

>>7104943
Show him/her how the temperatures keep changing over and over.
Pic Related: Blink Comparator of 3 different temperature "truths."
NASA 1981
NASA 2002
NASA 2015
>nb4 the temperature stations moved
We're talking over the Same Time Period, not new time periods.

>>7104943
Explain to him just how settled the science is.

>>7104943
Explain to him the science is not settled by popularity or authority. And that 97% of Climate "Scientists" are paid by Big Government which will make $Billions in Carbon $Taxes.

And also explain that the "consensus" is a fraudulent statement.
And explain to him how many, many Climate "Scientists" sit on the boards of environmentalist organizations and get funding from Greenpeace etc.

>>7104943
And explain to him how ClimateGate emails show that the "scientists" wanted to rewrite the temperature record.

>>7104972
>anthropogenic climate change is a controversy only among politicians and the general public, not the scientific community.
Uh... it's as controversial in the scientific community as it is in the general public.

Attempt to dismiss this generally narrow "the scientific community" down to "people who mention global warming in their published work", since there's a large amount of published work which mention some connection to the *assumption* that global warming is happening (which is easy mode for getting funding, since a considerable amount of political power is bent toward earmarking funding for global-warming-related research), but not to "people who examine the question of whether global warming is happening in their published work" because when you look at this group again you see a lot of controversy.

So you really have to cherry pick hard to produce data to support this claim of a consensus. It is a very controversial issue, inside and outside of the scientific community. It is only uncontroversial in that community of people who depend on belief in global warming for their employment.

>>7105782
>>7105822
>>7106046
>>7106068
>>7106073
>>7106083
>>7106097
>>7106105
This b8 never fails to bring out /pol/tards

Same old /pol/tards, same old tinfoil images.