/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7166487
Can someone please fucking tell me why the earth stopped warming in the Middle Ages

Please

No bully

Just answer

Basically, if aerosols haven't been suppressing CO2-driven warming, then CO2-driven warming is weak and there's no looming catastrophe to worry about:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

But if aerosols do work to suppress CO2-driven warming, we already have well-worked-out plans to affordably use this effect to suppress the temperature rise without cutting our own economic throats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_%28geoengineering%29

>>7166502
The sun's output decreased hence the "Dark Ages"

>>7166487

>Daily Caller

>Judith Curry

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/aerosol-forcing/

>>7166539
>I’m not an economist, but I would have thought that we could grow the economy by tackling these problems?
Here's the reason you can never really trust warmists: they pretty much all assume that treating catastrophic global warming as real will have strongly beneficial side-effects even if it's not real.

Even if they see something that gives them doubt, they feel virtuous in suppressing that evidence.

It's a political bandwagon for people who don't trust economic freedom and want bigger government. Many of them are strongly in favor of reducing the human population and dramatically reducing material standards of living.

I'm enthusiastic about emerging solar power technology and prospective nuclear technology because I see them as ways to increase energy consumption by orders of magnitude, enabling not only the average person to enjoy the kind of lifestyle currently limited to the First World nations, but also new extravagances such as routine space travel.

You never hear warmists talking about alternative power this way, even though we're talking about the same technologies. They want it deployed in its current crude, expensive forms, and to strongarm people into just living on less power, and with less wealth than they have now, and to lock that in forever.

>>7166574
That's why I only trust scientists and not people with agendas like you or "warmists", whatever that is.

priestly jesuits

>>7166502
The theory of greenhouse gases and the atmosphere trapping heat is bullshit. Really, God is the only one who can keep the earth warm, and he needs the souls of dead animals to do it.

In ancient times, this was taken care of as plenty of different people believed in religions that supported ritual sacrifice, so lots of people were burning offerings to god and the atmosphere was nice and warm. In the Middle Ages, the church took over Europe and Islam took hold in the middle east so there was nobody burning any more sacrifices, and the climate cooled off. Hence the term "Christian Dark Ages" - it's not referring to science, but to the literal darkness since no one was allowed to burn sacrifices to god any more.

Fortunately, science has taken over for religion, and ever since the industrial age we have been helping God keep the earth warm by sending him the refined souls of thousands of dinosaurs as we burn fossil fuels. Thanks to the widespread efforts of scientists around the world to spread this knowledge, we've been able to generate enough heat to keep the Earth warm even while a growing population of people committing sin pushes God farther away and cools the planet down, and we've even reversed the effect to keep things warming up!

>>7166579
>scientists
>not people with agendas
Oh, that's cute.

Scientists always have agendas. They'll attach themselves to a theory, for whatever initial reason (often ideological bias or aesthetic preference), and then defend it by hook or by crook because it hurts their careers to have been wrong about something.

Scientists aren't inherently trustworthy, rather good science is verifiable, so you don't have to trust scientists.

Science is people mostly arguing strongly in favor or wrong and stupid things, until someone comes across a definitive, independently repeatable test that settles the matter. Then they carry on arguing as wrong and stupid as they can be without disputing that settled point.

The whole catastrophic global warming thing has never come near being settled this way, and its proponents have managed to argue in such a way that no possible data which could be forthcoming before their retirements could discredit it.

This is the kind of situation where you can trust scientists the least: they're out on a limb, and trying to present themselves as reliable experts while avoiding any possibility of falsification.

>>7166599
Yeah but I only trust other scientists who disprove other scientists, I don't trust random turds like you.

>>7166599
Hey. Faggot.

You realize you're on /sci/, right? The "science & math" board. Where scientists and people like mathematicians and engineers who are interested in science hang out and post.

You are literally insulting all of us, telling us that we're all full of shit, we're untrustworthy and if we say anything true, any retard with a high school education can run an experiment to verify it. Like, you're insisting that this is the case when we all know perfectly well that this is objectively false and you're just a stupid asshole.

Fuck off back to /pol/, don't come back here again and if you ever misclick and see a blue board start to load by mistake just hit the fucking back button and don't make another garbage post.

>>7166616
If you only trust authority, and never evaluate arguments for yourself, you're going to go through life being used by manipulators and deceivers for their purposes.

>>7166624
>You are literally insulting all of us, telling us that we're all full of shit, we're untrustworthy and if we say anything true, any retard with a high school education can run an experiment to verify it.

You just made up this part on your own:
>any retard with a high school education

Injecting that phrase turns a statement of science's most fundamental value into a ridiculous strawman.

If think that people should just believe you on your say-so, rather than your useful conclusions being only those which are independently and objectively verifiable, then regardless of your job title, you are not a scientist, and you deserve more insults than I could ever dish out.

>>7166625
Being a scientist is not a matter of authority, it is a matter of quality control.

The easiest way to solve the problem is to become a scientist yourself and the entire authority point becomes moot. It is something I would suggest you to do, until then keep your inane babbling to yourself.

>>7166633
dubs equals truth

>>7166633
Of course, you don't mean "a scientist". You mean "a scientist in this particular field", by which you mean "a professional, published scientist who was originally trained in this particular field and is currently in good standing with its mainstream", by which you mean "a person who agreed with and continues to agree with and would lose their livelihood if they stopped agreeing with the orthodoxy of this field", or in other words, "someone who gets a paycheck for agreeing with me".

>The easiest way to solve the problem is to become a homeopath yourself and the entire authority point becomes moot. It is something I would suggest you to do, until then keep your inane babbling to yourself.

>>7166648
I am talking about a person who publishes peer reviewed papers who disputes other peoples theses and offers his own theses to dispute by other peer reviewed authors.

You don't need a degree to be a scientist, you just need a certain level of quality in your publications. A degree usually makes you more likely able to publish something that actually holds up to those high standards but it is not necessary per se.

Being anti science like you are boils down to being anti quality control of publications. You want to cheat your way into the discussion without submitting yourself to the process. That's why people don't take you seriously.

>>7166648
>someone who gets a paycheck for agreeing with me
scientists get funded to attack their own hypothesis and publish the results. That's what science is. Where would this "Pay" you mention come from? Can you link evidence for scientists getting payed for research AFTER they report their findings?

>>7166662
>Being anti science like you are boils down to being anti quality control of publications. You want to cheat your way into the discussion without submitting yourself to the process.
Well, you've certainly got an interesting definition of "anti science", as if credentials and peer-review are the essential elements of science.

The thing about "quality control" is that you can run it either way. A process which can be used to keep quality high, can also be used to keep quality low, such as presenting only one side of an argument, and encouraging gross overstatements of unwarranted confidence on a particular position.

I'll point you again toward pseudoscience such as homeopathy. If you wanted to criticize homeopathy, would you think it reasonable to submit your arguments to peer review by panels of homeopaths?

In your concept of science, how do you ever deal with an established community of cargo cultists who are only pretending to be scientists?

>>7166574
>>7166599

I'm not really sure how to break this to you...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/

>>7166668
>Can you link evidence for scientists getting payed for research AFTER they report their findings?
Are you seriously trying to argue that scientists aren't awarded positions and funding, or dismissed, defunded, and hounded out of the field, based on their body of work?

>>7166677
>>Scientists always have agendas.
>>Scientists aren't inherently trustworthy
>I'm not really sure how to break this to you...
>[link to story about scientist possibly being dodgy]
srsly?

>>7166676
You first have to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy before I will take it seriously. Showing me the refused valid papers of yours or other people would help immensely. I am not assuming those actually exist though, but feel free to prove me wrong.

There is no dispute about homeopathy in the scientific community. There are no peer review panels of homeopaths either. Homeopathy is not proven to be effective in any significant way.

My concept of science (which is everyone's concept of science btw) obviously only works if there is no great conspiracy going on. But again, you would have to show that is the case before I take it seriously into consideration, until then are you just some redneck who thinks the illuminati are trying to steal his cattle.

>>7166523
Why would we suppress the temperature rise unless it was man-made? If it was natural, presumably it wouldn't pose the risk of running out of control.

>>7166697
>You first have to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy
You first have to argue with me, and not this scarecrow you keep pretending is me.

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. Do you think homeopathy is a conspiracy? Do you think the Pacific islanders who built imitation airbases in the hopes that the gods would airdrop supplies for them were conspiring to hide the truth about airplanes? Were all of the repeaters of the Millikan experiment conspiring to delay progress toward the true measurement of the charge of the electron?

Each professional scientist who believes in the social goodness of the catastrophic AGW story and dismisses contrary evidence without giving it any real consideration, and lauds supporting evidence without any real scrutiny, could sincerely believe that enough of his trusted colleagues can be depended on to be fully objective that the field won't be harmed by his own entirely reasonable time-saving and morally virtuous assumptions.

...just as you might have felt totally reasonable in making an assumption which fits your worldview and conveniently supports your argument, without taking even ten seconds to fact-check with google:
>There are no peer review panels of homeopaths either.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/homeopathy/

>>7166703
>Why would we suppress the temperature rise unless it was man-made? If it was natural, presumably it wouldn't pose the risk of running out of control.
First of all, I did not say anything about it being man-made or not.

Secondly... did you just seriously presume that a *natural* effect could be trusted not to run *out of control*?

Have you lived on the same Earth I have? Nature isn't a benign mother goddess.

>>7166582
I'm glad you let me know your post was going to be stupid in the second sentence so I didn't have to read more.

>>7166726
You are saying the entire peer review system for climate related science is under the influence of an anti-truth agenda. That is a conspiracy theory.

>do you think homeopathy is a conspiracy
No, why would I?

>Each professional scientist who believes in the social goodness of the catastrophic AGW story and dismisses contrary evidence without giving it any real consideration
What people personally think and what they publish are two different things. If they make faulty assumptions in papers than that should be revealed by review.

>there are crooks who push peer reviewed journals for homeopathy, creationism or the crystal theory of atlantis
Yeah these exist but they aren't taken seriously by the scientific community. Funnily enough these started to pop up to counter respected science just like you do.

>>7166679
honestly you're right, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people on both sides playing to their audience.

So lets be objective then. From the article OP linked, "A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought"

From my understanding, they are saying man made emissions still influenced the environment, just not as much as some models predict. Is this correct?

>>7166735
>I did not say anything about it being man-made or not.
I got that backwards. The suppression is man-made. So, we may have been causing global cooling.

>Secondly... did you just seriously presume that a *natural* effect could be trusted not to run *out of control*?
Based on the fact we are here, yes.

>>7166487
Reminder that today is april fools.

>>7166770
What's hilarious is that it didn't change 4chan much.
April fools is just another drop of irony in an ocean of trolling.

>>7166749
>they aren't taken seriously by the scientific community.
Guess what? Predictive climatology isn't that well respected in the larger scientific community. You can find lots of mainstream, established scientists declaring it to be a field of politically-biased, overconfident loudmouths, who grab funding and influence by scaremongering, and you can find more who are afraid to comment because it's such a politicized issue.

But they don't count, right? Because they're not climatologists.

Remember that you made this argument, that the peer-review system of one field can be ignored because of the judgement of people outside it, next time you find yourself hopping back and forth between dismissing the opinions of non-climatologist scientists, and declaring that any worthy arguments would pass through the peer-review process.

>>7166759
>From my understanding, they are saying man made emissions still influenced the environment, just not as much as some models predict. Is this correct?
I don't think anyone is claiming that man made emissions don't influence the environment, unless you go to the total lunatic fringe.

It's all about how large the effects are, which directions they go, what feedbacks there are, how confident we should be about all of this, and how fearful we should be about being wrong.

>>7166768
>>Secondly... did you just seriously presume that a *natural* effect could be trusted not to run *out of control*?
>Based on the fact we are here, yes.
Here on a planet that has passed through hothouse Earth and snowball Earth periods, where sudden asteroid impacts or supervolcanic eruptions can globally blot out the sun, where there enough metals, and other oxidizable materials, and metal oxides to either suck all of the CO2 out of the air or suck all of the oxygen out of the air, depending on which gets exposed by what kind of event, where we live on a crust of rock atop a seething, nuclear-decay-driven mass of molten iron...

Humans have only been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Human civilization and literacy have only been around for thousands of years. Advanced, industrial human civilization with halfway decent scientific record-keeping has only been around for one or two hundred years, depending on your definition.

There's no guarantee against natural global changes that would be seriously inconvenient for us.

I can't believe climate science denial is actually a thing on this supposed science forum.

>>7166787
>Remember that you made this argument, that the peer-review system of one field can be ignored
There is no clear separation between the peer-review systems of different fields.

People who can't publish anything in the respected journals, making their own journals to push their bad science, those people can be ignored.

>Predictive climatology isn't that well respected in the larger scientific community. You can find lots of mainstream, established scientists declaring it to be a field of politically-biased, overconfident loudmouths
Do they say so in public media? Or by dismantling the methods of predictive climatology in scientific publications? I only care about the latter since the former would be an argument by authority, something you yourself strongly condemned somewhere up there in the top of the thread.

Also there is a strong difference between science making bad predictions because of insufficient information and science making bad predictions because of conspiracy agenda suppressing unpopular voices. You are assuming all faults of climatology are based on the latter, caused by agenda and suppression of legit research.

>>7166804
>Also there is a strong difference between science making bad predictions because of insufficient information
Hold up. It's one thing to have insufficient information, and to know that your information is rather limited, and your conclusions are therefore essentially speculative. A lot of science is that way, and that's fine.

It's another thing to have insufficient information, and to declare that "the debate is over", attempt to dictate global economic policy, and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your certainty of being some kind of corrupt anti-science shill or nutjob.

Then, you don't get to say, "Well, we had insufficient information. That's just how science works." You were actively preventing science from happening.

>and science making bad predictions because of conspiracy agenda suppressing unpopular voices. You are assuming all faults of climatology are based on the latter, caused by agenda and suppression of legit research.
Oh look, it's the conspiracy strawman again. You're obviously not interested in the things I'm actually saying.

/sci/ - Pseudoscience and Denialism

>>7166682

>Talk about how scientists who believe in global warming can't be trusted.

>Denialist scientist that literally sells scientific studies touted to disprove global warming to oil companies.

>srsly?

Seriously.

>>7166823
>>Talk about how scientists can't be trusted.

>>scientist that literally sells scientific studies

fixed

>>7166817
It's not a strawman, you actually said all of this crap:

>[a climate scientist is] a person who agreed with and continues to agree with and would lose their livelihood if they stopped agreeing with the orthodoxy of this field
>climate scientists get payed to agree with climate change
>Regarding climate science peer review: The thing about "quality control" is that you can run it either way. A process which can be used to keep quality high, can also be used to keep quality low, such as presenting only one side of an argument, and encouraging gross overstatements of unwarranted confidence on a particular position.


>and to declare that "the debate is over", attempt to dictate global economic policy, and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your certainty of being some kind of corrupt anti-science shill or nutjob.

The critics of global warming are not presenting scientific evidence, they are instead trying to discredit climate science just like you are trying to do.

>>7166796
AFAIK, Earth's ecosystem has never been endangered by runaway aridity due to natural warming. As humans, we could easily adapt to if not thrive in gradually increasing temperatures. Global cooling however poses a severe threat to us.

>>7166800
>climate science denial

Is that what liberals are calling it now? Just like they call it "holocaust denial"?

>>7166828
So you think holocaust is fake too?

>>7166828
Your witty nazi sarcasm is very arousing.

Isnt this just an april fools article?

>>7166826
>you actually said all of this crap:
>[just let me add my own word here]
>[I'll just paraphrase this entirely]
>[inserting some more made-up context]
So how come you can't find anything to just quote verbatim? Why does everything have to be wrapped in your own thoughts?

Why aren't you quoting and responding to my explanations and examples of how such bad science as I describe can emerge without any collusion or malice?

It seems that you not only have to cherry-pick, but distort what I've said and pretend that I've made no attempt to address your accusation before. And you claim to be on the side of good reasoning and valid science. Didn't you heavily imply earlier that you are employed as a professional scientist yourself?

>The critics of global warming are not presenting scientific evidence, they are instead trying to discredit climate science just like you are trying to do.
You are hilarious. You haven't even read OP.

This is one of those things like claiming that there are no homeopaths doing peer review. It's obviously false with even seconds of research.

>one study negates an overwhelming body of research
>cato institute

are denialcucks this delusional?

I guess a grade school level of education on environmental science really gives you the ability to look at climate data and give a well informed opinion

>>7166849
I've just readded the context of the original quotes. Are you denying that you said and implied these things? You know that nobody actually reads this besides us two, you actually don't win anything by bullshitting me.

Oh and not to forget all the shitty comparisons of climate science with homeopathy. Like for real? Predictions and models based on scientific evidence is the same as magic water now?

>taking what you said out of context
So you basically think that climate science is a valid field of science and it's peer review system is not extremely biased to a point where voices against climate change can't be published anymore. That's great, means we agree. Only took 10 posts of you weaseling around.

>OP
>dailycaller
I consider you just as hilarious as I appear to you.

>>7166870
>So you basically think that climate science is a valid field of science and it's peer review system is not extremely biased to a point where voices against climate change can't be published anymore. That's great, means we agree.
Is this strawman argument reflex something you can't control? Do you hate productive discussion so much that you are genuinely incapable of responding to what people are actually saying, and engage with the things they've actually said?

It's just one cheap rhetorical ploy after another with you. I call you out on your strawman, and you try to pull this binary worldview bullshit, where if I don't own your strawman, that means I agree with you entirely.

Now you're fucking strawmanning yourself, pretending that all along, your only position was something far more reasonable and harder to argue against, even though your previous statements go far beyond what you're now claiming.

>climate science is a valid field of science and it's peer review system is not extremely biased to a point where voices against climate change can't be published
Climate science does not consist entirely of claims of absolute confidence in catastrophic global warming.

A problematic amount of bias sufficient to produce an unreasonable "consensus of experts" is not the same as such an extreme bias that no criticism whatsoever can be published.

>>Journal of Climate, American Meteorological Society
>I consider you just as hilarious as I appear to you.
Look again there, chum.

A giant and a midget doing a headstand may each feel they are looking down at each other. Mind that you don't hurt your neck.

>>7166582
10/10

>>7166906
Did you read the abstract? It is just a model that suggests that the impact of strong atmospheric forcing had little impact on the atmosphere between 1850 and 1950.

>>7166582
Underrated

>>7166624
He is telling you that you are human.

>>7166921
Catastrophic warming predictions are based on models where aerosols have a stronger cooling effect.

Based on temperature data, the assumptions that aerosols had a stronger cooling effect led to a conclusion that CO2 has a stronger warming effect.

Given the same temperature data, the same greenhouse gasses, and the same aerosols, if aerosols have a considerably weaker cooling effect, that means CO2 also has a considerably weaker warming effect.

...a warming effect so much weaker that *catastrophic* AGW is basically ruled out, and the warming "pause" we're in is not the calm before the storm, but is simply the sort of thing we should expect if we continue to unconcernedly emit CO2: long pauses, followed by periods of gentle increase, and even periods of decline, giving us plenty of time to adapt to this modest, gradual warming, and every reason put off worrying about the climate while we develop economically and technologically, taking full advantage of fossil fuels to accelerate progress.

It is, of course, just one study. It could still turn out to be wrong. But it shows how the debate is far from over.

>>7166828
>Just like they call it "holocaust denial"?

Why is the crossover of the two groups not surprising at all to me.

>>7166487
Lewis and Curry (2014) published a paper which estimated a 1.75 degree C increase in temperature from doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration. Lewis has updated his analysis with the new aerosol data. The new estimate is 1.2 degrees C. Pic related. What is the temperature increase from doubling CO2 without any positive feedback? You guess it, 1.2 degrees C. This Means There Is No Positive Feedback From Increased CO2. And that kills Catastrophic/Disruptive/Whatever Climate Change theory. You have to DOUBLE CO2 concentration to add a mere 1.2 degrees C.

>>7166677
So did you buddy Michael Mann. He took money from a fossil fuel shill, the Electronic Power Research Institute. Meanwhile, the biggest shill-funder of all, FedGov supplies $billions to help it justify more government and more $taxes.

Are you so naive as to think that Corporations want more money and power, but Federal Government and the U.N. don't?

>>7167160

You might want to learn about what you're criticizing before you make an ass of yourself.

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

>He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

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

>>7166927
No, he's not.

He's telling all of us that he's a massive retard.

Telling us that we are human would be reminding us that climate models are still relatively poorly understood and making definitive predictions based on them is flawed.

But instead, he's chosen to try to tell us that all scientists are frauds who are in on a massive conspiracy to lie about science to get more funding since this will somehow inexplicably generate more funding than spending just as much effort actually doing the science. Which says nothing about anything aside from his irrationality and double digit IQ.

>>7167261
>he's chosen to try to tell us that all scientists are frauds who are in on a massive conspiracy
...except you made that all up yourself, and he has repeatedly explained how no conspiracy is needed.

>>7166582

>>7167273
...because he's a delusional retard trying to explain how he's right and everyone else is wrong, anon, at least try to keep up k?

>>7167252
Yeah, never mind that Mikey Mann takes money from Oil Shills. Never mind that part of Soon's deal was that he keep his funding anonymous. Never mind that 1.2 million spread out over 10 years and with about 50% over head amounts to a tiny $60K a year for a doctoral level researcher.

Never mind that FedGov dishes out the $Billions to justify $Carbon $Taxes. If a scientist gets a mere $60K a year from an OIL company, they're completely compromised. But FedGov giving out $Billions is perfectly neutral?

You are nothing, if not hypocritical. This was all started by a Leftist Congressman and his Leftist buddies at the NYTimes to criticize anybody would has the temerity to disagree with the secular religion of Climate Change. Because ad hominem is all you've got. Can You Prove That Dr. Soon's Research is Wrong? Nope.

Pic related. Consensus based "science."

>>7167281
>a tiny $60K a year
>a mere $60K a year
Bro have you not been reading the thread? You already got the message across, you've made it perfectly clear you're a massive retard you can stop driving the point home.

>>7167281

too obvious b8

>>7167252
A paper is a deliverable for most grants. Sheesh, the NYTimes doing anything to further the Enviro-Socialist agenda.

Was the results of the deliverable part of the grant? No. Did the NYTimes mention that? Of course not.

>>7167293
Sorry about your brain damage buddy. Facts are a hard thing to bear.

>>7167298
lol cheers m8, watch your blood pressure

>>7167295
>Can You Prove That Dr. Soon's Research is Wrong?

Answer the question.

>>7167299
120/80, but thanks.

>>7167300

I'm not a climatologist and neither are you. The only reasonable stance for you and I to take is go along with the overwhelming consensus. Can you prove the thousands of others wrong? No. You're applying wildly disparate standards of evidence.

>>7167307
You've got to be kidding. Science is not a popularity contest. It never has been and never will be. Especially when it is bought and paid for by a very non-disinterested party, FedGov. And the "Scientists" will lose their funding and probably their job (with the rare exception of the famous tenured types) if they don't stick to the party line.

Consensus Science of the Past:

Continents do not move.
Atoms are the smallest particle.
Space and Time are absolute.
Light is waves in ether.
Phlogiston powers fire.

"Consensus" science has been wrong many times.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." - Richard Feynman.

>>7166676
Holy shit dude, I'm not sure if you're a persistent troll or if you really think the experts are incompetent or untrustworthy. Damn man. Get a grip.

>>7167311
>hurr durr i'm just like galileo

The anthem of every crackpot ever.

>>7167307
>the overwhelming consensus
>Can you prove the thousands of others wrong?
There's actually almost nobody who professionally studies the question of whether there will be catastrophic global warming. That's dangerous ground to tread.

The published papers which set out to address the question of whether mankind is primarily responsible for the warming trend over the last century or two come down on either side of it. It's not 50-50, but by no means does it show consensus.

Claims of a "consensus" are based on the number of published papers written starting from the *assumption* that mankind is causing warming, generally studying the effects of the warming without concerning themselves with the causes. There is a lot of funding reserved for this kind of study, and one of the best ways to increase the likelihood of getting a grant is to make your work sound important, and mentioning that mankind is causing global warming and you're studying how bad the damage is a good way to get funding. On the other hand, there would be no advantage to mentioning it, if your opinion was that the warming was natural, or that you just didn't know.

The supposed scientific consensus that, if we don't curb our emissions, warming will be catastrophic, is almost impossible to support. Where this idea is mentioned in published papers, it's usually something that is simply commentary bringing up a worrisome possibility, rather than being a conclusion of the paper.

An important thing to remember when claiming a "consensus" is that you're not just claiming more supporters than opposers, you're claiming a lack of agnosticism, uncertainty, or indifference.

>>7167314
>>pseudoscience such as homeopathy
>Holy shit dude, I'm not sure if you're a persistent troll or if you really think the experts are incompetent or untrustworthy. Damn man. Get a grip.

>>7167322
No, but you identify with a "might makes right" mindset like the Catholic Church (at Galileo's time) or the "science" of Lysenkoism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>7166579
scientist aren't superheros
they are as flawed and fallible as anyone

>>7166574
OOGABOOGABOOGA

Well scientists already bent to societal pressure on race/gender and intelligence so I wouldn't be surprised if they would for environmentalism also.

Plus it pits them against the enemy all leftists love to hate, big corporations; in this case oil, despite the fact that burning hydrocarbons is literally the only reason they aren't living like renaissance era peasants.

>>7167494

>I'm not lacking any self-awareness in my rightwing tendencies, it's just that every expert in every field has a leftist bias!

>>7167373
>they are as flawed and fallible as anyone
egalitarian ideologue detected

>>7167539
Academia has a leftist bias.

Not "every expert in every field", just the fields where they don't actually depend on being right to make their profits, but only on getting people to agree that they're right.

>>7167539
Academic has a neotenous bias. Academics are literally biased toward features of immaturity.

>>7167551

>Being leftist has financial incentive in all fields!

>>7167590
I see what you did there, you sneaky devil.
>>7167551
You take note.

>>7166529
this was caused by the presence of so many knights

>>7166738
how is this board so goddamn autistic

Even if CO2 emissions had a minimal impact on the greenhouse effect, they're still contributing greatly to ocean acidification. That alone is enough to warrent investments in alternative energy sources like nuclear and solar.

>>7168583
"Ocean acidification" isn't entirely negative, though. There should be an overall increase of marine life and larger harvests of fish and seafood, though smaller harvests of particular types of fish and seafood.

It's the same way that the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 on plants is going to be good and bad. Some plants respond more than others. Poison ivy, kudzu, and other pest plants are going to have their growth and reproduction rates increased. But crops in general are also going to grow faster. Food production has already significantly increased because of the increased CO2 level.

The higher CO2 levels will increase the growth of algae, which is the foundation for sea life. Those species which can tolerate the increased acidity will thrive in a more energetic ecosystem.

We can take advantage of this, and limit acidification, by open-sea aquaculture. By seeding nutrient-poor water with nutrients, we can cause algae blooms, which will cause a boom in krill and boost the fish population, replacing what we take and thereby allowing us to take more.

Increasing the total biomass of the ecosystem will decrease the CO2 level.

>>7168681
>By seeding nutrient-poor water with nutrients
I meant minerals.

In much of the ocean, phytoplankton growth is limited by the availability of trace minerals, so we can get a big boost over a wide area just by dumping a small amount of the right kind of soil or cheap bulk chemical.

>>7167311

>Continents do not move.

Biologists were puzzled by the presence of primate fossils in both Madagascar and India, but not in Africa or the Middle East. Geologists were puzzled by the presence of rocks in both Atlantic Canada and North Africa, but not in the rest of the Americas or Europe.

>Atoms are the smallest particle.

Richard Laming.

>Space and Time are absolute.

Leibniz opposed Newton's absolute time and space under the reasoning that space made no sense except as the relative location of bodies, and time made no sense except as the relative movement of bodies.

>Light is waves in ether.

Light waves required the propagating medium to behave as a solid over one million times more ridgid than steel, yet not interact with other matter, which seemed odd to contemporary scientists.

>Phlogiston powers fire.

Couldn't explain why metals got heavier as the burned or rusted.