/sci/ - Science & Math

Unprecedented migration and destruction. We won't witness the effects in our lifetimes.

>>7450904
And it's highly likely that we are beyond being able to reverse it, we will adapt and carry on.

>>7450904
God, this guy is retarded.

>>7450936
Wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry.

>>7450904
Behind the veil the tide is turning.

>>7450942
You should cry, these people make up half the government, I would recommend reading articles relating to the idea of disaster capitalism, climate change will be very profitable for both sides of the debate

>>7450950
>ignorance never sleeps.

>it seeps into the cracks

>it's a formless function, unbridled by facts

>and it'll strangle you with no moral, ethical or reasonable qualms

>ignores doesn't sleep

Anyone who has been tracking the scientific journals on climate science has observed over many years that the supposedly expected temperature increase from CO2 has steadily been decreasing over the years.

This means that all the assumptions and claims made by the IPCC in the past were based on hype and totally inaccurate results.

We can now tell politicians that they can call off the warnings. There's no chance of a global warming of more than 2°C.

The decrease in the projected temperature rise from CO2 will continue on its present trend. By 2025 the warming by CO2 will be close to zero. We can thus expect that the quality of the forecasts will increase to the point where they will actually reflect reality.

>>7450993
oh wow, a paid piper.
typical modus operandi

>>7450998

Bullshit much?

The endgame is interplanetary colonization bit people are functionally retarded and think people will be more inclined to environmentalism if we never leave Earth.

It would be as if someone said you shouldn't eat the food you grow because people who are separated by distance and time will be hungry at some point.

Fucking hell. This Trump is the absolute stereotype of a egocentrical arrogant and psychopathic billionaire businessmen that could happily fit in the 19th century. The kind of guy that let'd people work 16 hours a day in the coal mines for him and still laugh about it simply because it fills his pocket

>>7450998
>From ...wordpress.com

Dropped.

So I don't know much about climatology, but what is the chance that global warming actually saves us in the long run, by making an ice age milder?

>>7450904
Nobody fucking knows the end result of climate change and anyone that does is a dirty fucking liar.

We know humans are causing the climate to change but that doesn't really mean much when EVERYTHING causes the climate to change. We have no idea just to what extend humans are causing the Earth to deviate from it's natural cycle if at all.

Any fucking retard that claims that they do is full of shit. The way things are going we're going to find out one way or another.

>>7451473
Do you retards actually believe this? Have you even looked into the businesses that he has owned? Holy fuck you're fucking retarded.

>>7451502
Great argument you got there bro, seriously.

>>7451502
Trump's main qualification for the Presidency is his talent at separating fools from their money. As a businessman, he's been a walking disaster area who has managed to destroy vast amounts of wealth.

>>7451487
Nil as we are currently in a trough of the Milankovitch cycle. We're basically being saved right now from both a small ice age and global warming.

>>7451529
> We're basically being saved right now from both a small ice age and global warming

How exactly? Can you please explain a bit?

>>7451533
Without global warming we would have been pretty cold now. After coming out of the Medieval Warm period around 1600 we went into the little ice age and the natural cooling trend was reversed as industry came about. If you look at the Milankovitch cycles we are coming out of a high temp period and going into a middle to low temp period that increases in the future. The LIA probably isn't solely from orbital cycles though, but they certainly wouldn't be counteracting them.

So with no global warming we'd be frozen but still would be interglacial (I'd assume, sometimes climate does runaway things though), and by frozen I mean really cold "year with no summer" scenarios, and that would continue for awhile. And if we didn't have that little ice age we'd still be warm like the medieval period and global warming would be faster than it is now which is already way faster than natural.

>>7450904
Is this real?

>>7451512
>destroyed vast amounts of wealth
>increases his own net worth by over and order of magnitude from what he inherited

What a shitty businessman. He fucked up so badly he became a multi-billionaire.

Combating global warming is a worthwhile endeavor, even if it turns out to be unwarranted. Chin up, it's a very minor cost to avoid a potential apocalypse and I am glad to pay it.

Before you put too much faith in your /pol/ articles and youtube videos, consider that you may be wrong and you are not qualified to play around with the fate of potentially all life in the universe.

>>7451548
How convenient! And to think that there are people who still don't believe the climate scientists who can identify two opposing climate effects with such stunning accuracy.

>>7450904
>No one remembers it being this cold.
>no citation in his 120 character post.
Welp. It must be true.

>>7450993
Who wrote that epic poem, Anon?

>>7451469
I don't really understand you analogy, but I am super in favor of space exploration.

>>7451563
Your post sounds like its making fun of a hypothetical post that says Trump is dumb. However the post you ACTUALLY responded to agrees that Trump is smart.

Are you bot, anon?

>>7451567
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrH04aoEyPI#t=10m20s
10:20

>>7451567
>Combating atheism is a worthwhile endeavor, even if it turns out to be unwarranted. Chin up, it's a very minor cost to avoid a potential apocalypse and I am glad to pay it.
>
>Before you put too much faith in your reddit articles and youtube videos, consider that you may be wrong and you are not qualified to play around with the fate of potentially all life in the universe.

>>7451507
Might want to look into the details of his businesses and which fucking businesses he has actually owned if you honestly think he would be exploiting people in the coal mines.

Liberalism is the worst type of cancer.

>>7451616
Are we just making shit up now or what? The post he responded to criticized trump of being a "walking disaster area who has managed to destroy vast amounts of wealth." Not only does this show his ignorance in economics but it wrongly suggests that trump is the typical fat cat businessman who's only goal is to make some shekels. He's saved his businesses from and profited off of greedy jew investors before in order to help his business and employees not get screwed over by jews.

>>7450910
>won't witness
BS
Warming will expand the hadley cells even more than now, drying the world's breadbaskets up. Crop yields will fall - think of what the drought has already done in california and australia. Things will be pretty fucked up in 20 years and it will just get worse.

>>7450904
pic related

>>7451889
>Hahaha
>Every kind of weather is evidence of global warming!

>>7450950

>>7450904
>He doesn't realize that global warming will make winters colder and summers warmer.
Basically, he just pointed out proof that global warming is real.

>>7451567

Even if we design policies on the blackboard that seem to mitigate the effects of global warming, we have to consider, first, whether those policies are even likely to be passed by politicians as we know them, and second, whether the policies might have associated costs that outweigh their benefits with respect to global warming. So if in our attempt to reduce the effects of global warming we slow economic growth so far as to impoverish more people, or we give powers to governments that are likely to be used in ways having little to do with global warming, we have to consider those results in the total costs and benefits of using policy to combat global warming.

This question of social science is no less important than the scientific questions.

>>7451910
That's fucking stupid, though.

Warming due to greenhouse gasses like CO2 or methane (which have a much weaker greenhouse effect than water vapor) should be concentrated in dry air, and it's much drier in winter than in summer.

During previous Hothouse Earth periods, there was little temperature difference from winter to summer, and between the poles and the equator. That's what we should trend toward with global warming: even steamy warmth.

>>7451912
...and you've got to factor in decades of technological progress, accumulation of industrial capital, and political change.

A few decades from now, we may be struggling with nuclear winter, or worried about cheap energy being used to suck so much CO2 out of the air and ocean that plants start going extinct from the low CO2 levels making them inviable.

We can't predict the human future that far in advance. Look at what happened in the last century.

A hundred years ago, we were still decades from all-electric computers, jet engines, nuclear bombs, space rockets... We had barely invented tractors and the Haber process for ammonia production (which was being applied primarily to ammunition, rather than fertilizer), and were about twenty years from having the Dustbowl of the Great Depression due to sheer clumsiness of farming methods.

It became a different world, decade by decade, and it's going to keep doing it.

>>7451607
its only 115

Vote for Bernie, everyone.

any attempt at changing this today wont have a noticeable impact for decades . the scientist that came up with global warming way back in the day even said as much . its to late to do anything. emissions from the 90s are still making their way up . air currents making micro currents in the air prevent a straight path up it takes a long time

>record breaking temperatures in Europe
>close to record breaking temperatures in US
>climate change isn't real guise

>>7452075
Claiming that any particular regional effect or year proves AGW is exactly as stupid as claiming that any particular regional effect or year disproves AGW.

>B...b...but I think I'm on the right side!
Maybe you are, and maybe you aren't, but you clearly didn't pick your side for non-stupid reasons.

>>7452034
A vote for bernie is a vote for fascism.

10 years ago I used to think that it might be almost entirely natural causes.
Thankfully at some point I realized scientists would have thought of that too.

>>7452086
Haha yeah he's a national socialist after all.

>>7451917
Eventually global warming would cause a global temperature rise, but models predict that in the Northern hemisphere temperatures will rise in the summer and fall in the winter, before becoming warmer at all times.

>>7452022
There's five spaces at the end.

>>7452086
Seems like we might as try it, since everything else has been fucking retarded.

>>7451625
>belief in God is like trust in science
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

>>7451848
>de joos!
Yup, it's /pol/ time.

>>7451912
>whether those policies are even likely to be passed by politicians
He was saying that he believes politicians should pass those policies, not that he thought it was likely.
>slow economic growth so far as to impoverish more people
Possible, but it seems more likely that new green industry would create jobs instead of costing them, and a whole load of jobs will disappear when we run out of oil and gas - having alternatives already in place is the only reasonable way of mitigating that devastation.
>give powers to governments that are likely to be used in ways having little to do with global warming
That's an issue of policy, not global warming. You could say the same about any sort of legislation. Making murder illegal could give governments powers that have little to do with homicide, but it's difficult to see how if the law is sensible.
>This question of social science is no less important than the scientific questions.
What social science? Most of your post is about legislative processes.
>>7451625
Atheism isn't a choice; you cannot make yourself believe in something. Indeed, that fact is essentially the definition of "belief". Also, I fail to see how atheism could fuck with "all life in the universe" (though the same goes for global warming, so in both cases lets pretend it say "all life on the planet).

>>7451899
Actually the post is satirizing the argument that weather is evidence against global warming. But keep on with your delusional thinking.

>animal so adaptable it can live in space
>will fail to adapt to a gradual change in temperature over 100s of years

>>7452154
No animals can live in the void of space. Humans can only live there because of our equipment, which we only use because we cannot adapt to live there.

>>7450936
I'm probably going to vote for him though. Better than any libcuck getting into office and letting forced feminism destroy the country.

>>7450904
its too late to prevent some bad things from happening.
if we dont do anything, way way worse things will happen. think day after tomorrow.

>>7452161
What's your point?

>>7452198
>>7452154 is completely wrong.
He's using the logic that since we adapted to space living, we can adapt to a few degrees of temperature change. The problem in his reasoning is that we never adapted to space living at all.

>>7452161
bugbears can survive in the void of space. bacterial spores can, as well.

>>7452163
I hate feminists too but I hate corporate oligarchs even more so I'm voting for Bernie

>>7452205
You know there are places on earth that are already uninhabitable due to extreme heat? And yet we have built cities there, thanks to the wonder or air conditioning.

Most people already spend 90% of their time in climate controlled environments. I fail to see how a few more degrees will somehow render the planet uninhabitable.

>>7452219
Because there's other things on earth besides humans, and not everyone even has access to those utilities you described.

>>7452228
What's your point?

>>7452230
Are you really this stupid?

>>7452235
Are you?

Everything we need can be grown indoors.
Besides, the increased heat and CO2 in the atmosphere will increase plant growth, and everything will sort itself back out in a few hundred years.

>>7452244
>everything can be grown indoors
That's a very nice American centric view you have there.

>increased heat and co2 will increase plant growth
No. The heat will kill them, and the CO2 won't make photosynthesis any faster.

>everything will sort itself out
There is no basis for this line of thinking. You are putting everything on the line for a chance that it will be fine.

>>7452219
>You know there are places on earth that are already uninhabitable due to extreme heat
Yeah and they have to get water from elsewhere cause the ground is so fucking dry, and running all the ACs eats a gigantic amount of electricity.

What is gonna happen is the amount of those kinda places is going to multiply so that hundreds of millions of people will be living in them, except where is all that water and energy gonna come from?

But wait, I forgot, hugely expensive and risky space travel is gonna 'solve' every single environmental and resource issue faster than those earthly problems can accumulate or affect things like space programs.

>>7452246
>No. The heat will kill them, and the CO2 won't make photosynthesis any faster.


http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CO2_Fertilization_grl_Donohue.pdf

>>7452254
Where in the world could they possibly find water?

Electricity isn't scarce. There's new wind farms being built daily. Solar plants, hydroelectric dams, nuclear plants. We will never be short for electricity. Or water.

>>7452261
>The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established.
>is yet to be established

>>7452269
>We will never be short for electricity. Or water.
I see you're going all out today.

>>7452219
>global warming ain't no problem
>all you gotta do is just crank the A/C, libruls!

>>7452269
>We will never be short for electricity. Or water.
We already are. On both counts. Either you're a troll, or you're the most ignorant cunt on /sci/.

>>7452282
There's plenty of water. We just don't have the infrastructure set up to be able to use it.

>>7452100
>models predict that in the Northern hemisphere temperatures will rise in the summer and fall in the winter,
Which models? That doesn't sound like a probable outcome of increased greenhouse effect primarily affecting dry winter air.

>>7452288
And when people finally figure it's time to fix that, shit's gone fucked up and large infrastructure projects will be harder to do than if we hadn't been sitting on our asses this whole time.

>>7452288
Converting the ocean into water for human consumption or agriculture is tremendously inefficient energy-wise (we are already in an energy crisis) and is not even close to being accessible to all people in the world. So in a sense, you're correct. There's loads of water on earth, but hardly any of it is usable and there exists no efficient or practical way to convert LARGE QUANTITIES of the unusable portion into something that actually benefits our species. It would be more practical to find ways to use fresh water more sparingly and conservatively, like not using air conditioning so fucking much. Consider this metaphor: It's easier to keep a house clean than it is to let it go to hell and adapt to living in hell.

>>7452279
He's got the right idea, though. No place on Earth is going to become "uninhabitable" because it's too hot.

The only realistic worry for reducing habitable area is sealevel rise, and that's something we can also deal with by locally-profitable action. Dredging material from the ocean floor to above sea level creates new usable land (highly desirable land, since it's oceanfront property) and lowers the sea level. There's a huge area of the ocean that's shallow enough for us to do this.

>>7452307
Except in China, where they've already completed their 80 billion dollar south-north water transfer project.

>>7452313
>use fresh water more sparingly and conservatively, like not using air conditioning so fucking much
Oh my god, you think air conditioning uses up fresh water?

What retarded greenie propaganda are you getting that from?

>>7452321
Isn't China that place with severe drought, groundwater and rivers so polluted the water cannot be used, and several of the cities projected to become too hot to live in (unless you think every single building having AC on 24/7 and people avoiding going outside due to health hazards is 'normal')? Aren't they also buying farmland abroad because they predict their domestic agriculture is at risk/not enough?

>>7452323
Air conditioning doesn't use much water directly, but my point stands. Argue the point.

>>7452338
Energy is in nearly infinite supply. It is not something we will ever run out of.

>"hurr some places have minor energy problems at peak hours, so energy must be scarce"

>>7452338
>Okay, I'm a ridiculous ignorant idiot, but instead of re-examining my own position and educating myself until I don't constantly spout stupid shit, I'm expect you to converse with me as if I were an informed and reasonable person.
No.

>>7452349
Renewables cannot replace coal, gas and oil at current rate of consumption. I also imagine biofuel plants are susceptible to increasing heat the same way edible crops are.

>>7452356
If all of our electricity was generated by nuclear, we would have enough Uranium to last 6,000 years at present rate.

>>7452349
You're absolutely correct. The Sun, for example, essentially provides an infinite supply of energy (for all humanly intents and purposes). The problem is converting to electricity and distributing it. We have yet to learn how to do this efficiently. Get your head out of your ass. Solar panels need a whole lot of fucking work to compete with coal plants. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, this means we should try harder. All technologies start somewhere, often somewhere that's similarly unwieldy or seemingly unpractical. Energy is not scarce, but short supply. Learn the difference between the two.
>lrn2economics

>>7450904
>sailed over the cliff at this point?
Yep, next stop ice age.

>>7452110
but anon, if you count spaces as characters they're at least 134

>>7452356
>>7452362
Far more geothermal energy comes out of the Earth's core than all of our power consumption put together.

Each day, more energy from sunlight falls on the Earth than the energy of all the fossil fuels we've burned so far, and all the fossil fuels still in the ground that we know about.

>If all of our electricity was generated by nuclear, we would have enough Uranium to last 6,000 years at present rate.
Really, it's practically inexhaustible. Ordinary granite has more nuclear fuel energy from trace uranium and thorium content than coal has chemical energy.

>>7452374
There's also deep hydrogen. The mud they pulled up from the Kola Superdeep Borehole came up "boiling with hydrogen".

Water deep in the crust and mantle tends to give up its oxygen to the less-than-fully-oxidized metal that's also down there. There's enough free hydrogen down there to burn all the oxygen out of the atmosphere.

>>7452372
>not knowing about invisible ascii characters

>>7452163
Vote for the billionaire asshole, that right america. He's a representation of the "every man"

>>7452086
fascism is far right, you absolute fucking dimwit

>>7452471
Yeah, man. Like, the National Socialists were totally right wing and opposite of socialism.

Calling fascists "right wing" is the biggest lie the left ever told.

>>7452362
that's pretty good
add Thorium and that's at least another several millenniums
besides, we will be able to mine asteroids and figure out fusion long before that

>>7452370

How would you know the difference between a normal ice age and one caused by anthropogenic CO2?

>>7452589
Nope.

>>7452370
Does this mean that hot dry weather is proof of Global Cooling? Or are any and all observations "proof" of Anthropogenic Climate Change? In practice, the latter seems to hold true.

>What is the endgame with climate change?

End game would be entire planet has been successfully terraformed. The remaining humans now live in small climate controlled zones and are treated like animals at a zoo.

>>7452849
Because we understand the Milaknovich cycles.

Goddamnit. Can /sci/ just have a sticky of all of these retarded questions we answer over and over?

>>7452870
>Because we understand the Milaknovich cycles.
Not fully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem

>>7452778
>add Thorium and that's at least another several millenniums
It's actually way more than that, because of seawater uranium, and the uranium and thorium in granite.

We can already get U235 from seawater more economically than we can breed Pu239 from U238. Seawater extraction only costs a few times more than conventional mining, which is an almost insignificant part of the cost of today's nuclear power. To ever deplete this resource, we'd have to extract it in a hurry, because it's replenished by natural leaching from the continents.

Actinides can be extracted from granite (where they commonly exist in 10+ ppm concentrations) by weak-acid leaching, which is something that can be done in-situ and is already used in conventional mining. Because of the low concentration, this would be a very expensive way to get U235, but for breeder reactors, you'd effectively be getting hundreds of times as much fuel. This makes the fuel cost very low in relation to the energy content (although we still need to develop cost-effective breeder reactors).

The continental plates are made of granite. Nearly everywhere, if you dig a little way down, you get granite. There are large bodies of exceptional granite with ten times more than average actinide content, but even the average chunk of rock has enough to be a more energetic fuel than coal, by either mass or volume.

>>7451454
No warming over the last two decades
Explain that

>>7451881
But there's been no warming for the last 20 years

>>7452965
But after the NOAA replaced high quality Argo Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data with low quality ship intake SST data, they suddenly discovered a warming trend.

What more do you need to know?

>>7450904
No endgame, things are the same as they are now. Climate scientists and atmospheric "physicists" aren't very smart and I don't trust them to do anything correctly.

Climate change has been confirmed for over a decade now. More and more spices of insects have been moving north due to warmer climate. Denying it just because "it's how you feel the weather" it's pretty ignorant.

>>7452857
Ok on the far left we have totalitarian dictatorship and on the far right we have anarchy. So Fascism, which is government control of the means of production, is firmly on the left.

>>7451912
>So if in our attempt to reduce the effects of global warming we slow economic growth so far as to impoverish more people, or we give powers to governments that are likely to be used in ways having little to do with global warming, we have to consider those results in the total costs and benefits of using policy to combat global warming.

AL GORE IS A SHILL FOR BIG PUMP

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article2142718.html

>>7452858
No no no. EVERYTHING is proof of global warming.
Pay attention.

>>7452163
forced feminism? oh, you mean the same feminists that have had a voice for over 40 years? but wait, you think it's new and sudden, right? fuck off.

>>7452981
So they replaced high quality data with low quality data and that was a good thing how?

Oh wait, you were using "sarcasm" weren't you?

>>7453003
Yes, sarcasm. But the NOAA really did that.

>>7452994
>Facism, which is government control of the means of production

You're an idiot if you think that's the definition of Facism.

>>7450904
70s and 80s
>holy shit the earth is going into another ice age
90s to curr
>holy shit your kids will never have a white christmas again

>>7453031
During the 70s and 80s there was only a small minority of scientists who predicted an ice age. More than 75% of climatologists were predicting warming back then.

>>7453181
The National Academy of Science believed in Global Cooling. Pic related.

>>7453181
An international team of climate scientists believed in Global Cooling

>>7453228
Hubert Lamb, the head of Hadley Climate Research Unit and father of modern climatology believed in Global Cooling

>>7453242
They just want you to keep consuming oil products because it's just such good cash. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead and the related scandals.

>>7453181
NASA believed in Global Cooling

>>7453181
NCAR, part of the NOAA believed in global cooling.

>>7453181
The CIA believed in global cooling.

>>7453181
NASA GISS believed in global cooling.

>>7453181
This is what NCAR had to say:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf

>Climate Change and its Effect on World Food

>by Walter Orr Roberts Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, andNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

>In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations. Some scientists believe that this may have presaged the onset of the dramatic climate anomalies of 1972 that brought far-reaching adversities to the world’s peoples. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the bad climate of 1972 may be the forerunner of a long series of less favorable agricultural crop years that lie ahead for most world societies. Thus widespread food shortages threaten just at the same time that world populations are growing to new highs. Indeed, less favorable climate may be the new global norm. The Earth may have entered a new “little ice age”

>>7453031
>Facism
An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[5}\
Sources
Jump up ^ Ivan T. Berend, An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 93
Jump up ^ James A. Gregor, The Search for Neofascism: The Use and Abuse of Social Science, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 7

The above taken directly from the fascism wiki

>>7453017
I applaud you sir

>>7450950
>That e-mail
we switched to environmentally friendly energy sources that don't create smog and cause asthma and cancers, while becoming independent from foreign oil FOR NOTHING ?!?!?

>>7453313
Thanks.

>>7453325
>we switched to more expensive energy sources that don't create smog and cause asthma and cancers, while becoming independent from foreign oil FOR NOTHING ?!?!?

FTFY

>>7452977
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

>>7453405
So now you know how the planet copes with natural warming cycles.
That's what science excels at.

>>7452857
This isn't even a "horseshoe theory" thing. Fascists and Nazis were always anticapitalism, revolutionary leftists, who seized whatever property they wanted for the state, directed the economy as they pleased, and respected no established, traditional, or historical rights, laws, or courts that did not suit their purposes.

The fascist/communist split is a schism of the far left, not far right vs. far left. They differed primarily on the national/international issue, which itself is mainly a question of honesty and tactics. The Soviet leaders were Russian supremacists in practice, as the Maoists were Han supremacists. Down in their bones they were nationalists, too.

Right-wingers support the existing order, or work to restore a recent order. That's what being on the right wing has always meant. They are the ones resisting or reversing change.

(Horseshoe theory comes into play when people shift so far to the right that they want to restore an order that isn't recent, that is often poorly remembered or mythical. Effectively, they want to overturn the existing order and try something very different and outside of any remembered experience. Leftism clothed in the right's rhetoric. I see it more as a circle than a horseshoe. Far clockwiseism.)

So AGW is a right/left issue. The left loves to have a reason why everything is bad and the established order should be overthrown. The right loves to find fault with those reasons and defend the established order.

In good balance, this results in reasoned discussion and sound policy, especially with the energetic, fresh-thinking young on the left and the experienced old on the right. Ideas are generated, championed, and filtered through skepticism and a healthy respect for the fallibility of human reason.

>>7452219
good lord the ignorance

Everything is fine, please continue dumping shit into the atmosphere.

>>7451607
>my anecdote

>>7453688
This isn't true. You're thinking purely in terms of economics. You're completely neglecting the social aspects of both dogmas. The left wants the state to impose equality, the right wants the state to impose moral unity. Taken to extremes, you get communism where all people are forced to be socio-economicaly equal and facism where people are forced to be morally congruent. Obviously there is tremendous overlap, hence the horseshoe.

This is all a false way of setting this shit up, though, because political ideology isn't a fucking continuum with two sides. But your saying that Facism and Communism are both "left" only looks at economics. Political ideology is composed of much more than economic ideals.

>>7453688
As something of an AGW skeptic and general right-winger myself, one of the biggest red flags has been An Inconvenient Truth.

This was a presentation on AGW that was applauded and promoted by prominent warmists. It was also full of glaring inaccuracies in making its case.

So I am immediately ready to discount, as dishonest or incompetent, anyone who recommended or praised An Inconvenient Truth. None of the experts who endorsed it are trustworthy. They've shown that they have an agenda, and are willing to use deception to push it. Their claims of impartial science forever after ring hollow. You only have to catch an "expert" lying once to know never to trust him again.

Don't try and tell me about a "consensus of scientists" (where "consensus" actually means "strong majority", not the lack of any serious dispute, and "scientists" means "people in this particular, narrowly-defined field", not that other scientists in less controversial fields universally respect the field and its findings, and the subject of the "consensus" is only that "some warming is happening and humans are making a significant contribution to it", not the heavily-implied "a disaster is happening and we have to stop burning fossil fuels"), after I've seen crowds of your experts lying to push a political agenda.

If you can't acknowledge this as a rational, well-founded objection, then I can't acknowledge you as a rational, intellectually honest person, and I'm going to see you as just getting mad at me for being an obstacle to the agenda you want to push. I'm going to think the most likely reality is that you don't know whether what you're saying is true either, but you see it as useful, or just accept it uncritically as part of your group affiliation and push it as part of being a good group member.

>>7452445
Bernie's an actual socialist, I'm questioning whether or not Hillary is Adolf Hitler's genderbent clone, and half of the Republican field is corporate/establishment shills.

Might as well vote for the actual billionaire instead of voting for people paid off by billionaires in the shadows. Though I like Carson for being an actually intelligent human being, and I like Rand for being pro-constitution.

>>7453728
>posts water
Rekt by own retardation

>>7453753
Please,
Go to Google scholar
Type in 'review article + global warming'
Read a few of the (peer reviewed) journal articles

Thank you

>>7453786
>climate scientists paid by government money for global warming research overwhelmingly agree that global warming is happening exactly as predicted and can only be prevented by giving mo' money for dem research programs
>perpetually incorrect models and fudged data are collectively ignored
Honestly, I'm looking forward to New York and the entire California coastline being underwater.

>>7453786
Peer review doesn't increase credibility if I don't trust the field. Do you understand there are peer reviewed journals of homeopathy? They are peer-reviewed by other homeopaths.

I don't trust the people collecting the data, I don't trust the people processing it, I don't trust the people interpreting it, I don't trust the people predicting the future, and I don't trust the people who come up with remedies. As I previously mentioned, enough of those people have demonstrated that they have an agenda and are willing to use deception to push it, that I treat them as a political group rather than as unbiased experts.

I'll make the point again that finding the glaring flaws in An Inconvenient Truth didn't just discredit that particular film, or just Al Gore. It discredited all of the experts who watched it, and declared that it was good. It discredited a community that did not rise up to condemn it. Those people haven't been purged from the field.

Do you suppose that experts who would deceive the public would be scrupulously truthful in their open communication, that all the public could see? Why would they be?

>teh globble warming is not happ'ning
>it's not, it's not, it's not

>>7453755
>Bernie's an actual socialist
No, he's not. He's a social democrat and thats not a terrible thing at all. I'd honestly be okay with Rand but I'm hoping Trump goes independent and fractures the right. Everyone in my family who supports Trump are loud, moronic pollacks.

>>7453818
>climate scientists paid by government money for global warming research overwhelmingly agree that global warming is happening exactly as predicted and can only be prevented by giving mo' money for dem research programs
nigga, do you even understand how the scientific establishment works? the guy who blows the lid off a massive conspiracy to suppress evidence would get the science equivalent of All The Pussy. he would get SO much funding to further study his startling results, he would get shit named after him, and he would be immortalized in the annals of scientific history as The Guy Who Made The Discovery. this is why you can trust publicly funded science: no conspiracy can possibly survive the desire of each of its members to stab the others in the back for personal advancement.
meanwhile, the "skeptics" all seem to get a lot of money from the fossil fuels industry and try to hide it. I'm talking about people like Willie Soon. and THOSE are the guys you'd rather trust?

>>7453823
so are you saying that you don't believe in climatology? tough nuggets. if you think the science is wrong and phony, go get evidence to back it up. "I don't trust the field" isn't sufficient justification on its own; go prove them wrong if you really think so.
oh, and exactly WHAT "glaring flaws" are there in An Inconvenient Truth? that it exaggerates the immediacy of the effects of climate change? that's pretty ticky-tack.

>>7453864
>oh, and exactly WHAT "glaring flaws" are there in An Inconvenient Truth?
Most of it is falsified and distorted. It would take a book to explain everything that's wrong with it.

The most prominent example is the scissorlift scene, in which Al Gore theatrically reveals his "smoking gun" evidence of how clearly atmospheric CO2 controls the global temperature. He has this big chart of (proxy-measured) data from the distant past showing temperature and CO2 together, and how well the variations of each correspond to each other. At the end of it, he gets on his scissorlift to show the CO2 going way up in the modern age.

What he doesn't acknowledge or address (and neither did ANY of the warmists until AFTER it was pointed out by skeptics, at which point they generally responded by either ignoring or misrepresenting the objection), is that what the data shows is that the variations in carbon dioxide FOLLOWED the changes in temperature, with a considerable lag. The temperature would go up, THEN the CO2 would go up. The temperature would go down, THEN the CO2 would go down.

This was neither visible nor explained in An Inconvenient Truth.

What his chart should have showed is that variations in CO2 were very clearly NOT the driving force in historical climate change. The temperature would go up when CO2 was low, and it would go down when CO2 was high, for reasons which were and are not well understood, and this would then cause the ocean to release or absorb CO2 over time.

Go watch the show again if you don't remember. This was the centerpiece of the argument, the part that makes you think, "What kind of crazy anti-science idiot could disagree with this?" It was an absolute, deliberate fraud.

And warmist experts who knew it was, sat through it, and applauded, and went out and said to the public, "You should watch this. This is what we're talking about." These people are still in key positions all through the climate science community.

>>7453879
this would be a good point if it weren't for the fact that you're referring to CO2 amplifying warming trends kicked off by orbital variation. the initial warming comes first, causing an increase in CO2, and then due to a positive feedback effect, both temperature and CO2 shoot up.
yes, temperature increases cause a rise in CO2, but the converse is also true. the reasons for the former are actually pretty well understood (mostly doing with gas solubility in liquids); the fact that you believe they aren't demonstrates your ignorance.

seriously, is that the best example you've got? what a joke.

>>7453894
>>What he doesn't acknowledge or address (and neither did ANY of the warmists until AFTER it was pointed out by skeptics, at which point they generally responded by either ignoring or misrepresenting the objection),
>>misrepresenting the objection
>this would be a good point if it weren't for the fact that you're referring to CO2 amplifying warming trends kicked off by orbital variation. the initial warming comes first, causing an increase in CO2, and then due to a positive feedback effect, both temperature and CO2 shoot up.
>>misrepresenting the objection

In the first place, that was not the case presented in An Inconvenient Truth. You're being extremely intellectually dishonest by not acknowledging the point I'm making, by twisting it into something you find it easier to argue against.

Secondly, the claim you're making isn't one that's easy to establish. If the CO2 had led the temperature trends, this would be strong evidence of it having a strong influence on global temperature. Since it lags the temperature trends, the argument that it shows positive feedback depends on complex models, and the amount of information on other factors from those times is quite limited, making the ability to test those models very limited. This doesn't have a stronger prior plausibility than the claim this is all supposed to support: that CO2 in the modern world is driving warming.

The grand presentation was to reveal a smoking gun proof of the "CO2 drives warming!" claim. This typical limp rebuttal amounts to an argument that, despite the obvious involvement of other factors playing a much stronger role in changing the global climate, the data behind the chart of the scissorlift scene is not strong evidence against CO2 playing a role. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

(one last point I can't fit here)

cont. from >>7453910
>>7453894
>yes, temperature increases cause a rise in CO2, but the converse is also true. the reasons for the former are actually pretty well understood (mostly doing with gas solubility in liquids); the fact that you believe they aren't demonstrates your ignorance.

>the former
>temperature increases cause a rise in CO2
I have never said anything to suggest that the mechanism of this isn't well understood.

Let's go back:
>>The temperature would go up when CO2 was low, and it would go down when CO2 was high, for reasons which were and are not well understood, and this would then cause the ocean to release or absorb CO2 over time.
If you read this line and honestly concluded that I think the mechanism of temperature driving CO2 is not well understood, you have very poor reading comprehension.

Try it as two sentences:
>>The temperature would go up when CO2 was low, and it would go down when CO2 was high, for reasons which were and are not well understood. This would then cause the ocean to release or absorb CO2 over time.
It's the causes of the global temperature changes which were not and are not well understood. We have very limited ways to collect information from those times. We have to take what we can find, and use that to make educated guesses about what was going on.

>>7453855
Generally, when a politician is pedaling too much free shit, I can't respect them since it's clear that they're just trying to pander to the "gimme dat" crowd.

Oh, and he's anti-gun, so he's out by default on my end.

>>7453433
If you actually read the article, you'd realize that the climate has been warming but the sea has absorbed it up to now, thanks to the salinity cycle. The 30 year cycle is turning, and now the pendulum will swing the other way - massive amounts of heat start will burping up around 2025. Water wars everywhere after that.

>>7453433
If you actually read the article, you'd realize that the climate has been warming but the sea has absorbed it up to now, thanks to the salinity cycle. The 30 year cycle is turning, and now the pendulum will swing the other way - massive amounts of heat will start burping up around 2025. Water wars everywhere after that.

>>7450904

At this point anything but total abolition of all industry both light and heavy, and complete shift into more natural eco-friendly style of living will bring about a doomsday scenario.

>>7454010
geoengineering will buy us a few decades extra time.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=50m

It seems like everyone on /pol/ is convinced climate change is a hoax, and keeps spitting out old debunked arguments.

Since this issue is related to energy, where are we at with peak oil? My understanding is that conventional crude production has peaked, but how long until supply becomes an issue that causes modern society to crumble?

>>7454029
>modern society to crumble

Sounds like the W era to me

>>7454029
>how long until supply becomes an issue that causes modern society to crumble
Maybe in 500-800 years unless change to an alternative energy source.

>>7454027
watching it now, this is riveting stuff!

>>7454029
I don't think supply will ever be a catastrophic problem. Prices will just slowly and steadily rise to meet the new cost of production and demand, but that rising price will also cut into demand which has already happened in the US. As cost of production rises the previously shitty solutions like ethanol will start to become viable. The nail in the coffin for oil would be when it costs more energy to produce than energy you're getting out of the ground, at that point the only reason to keep pumping is to change how your energy is stored.

"Climate Change" is bullshit based on faulty and proven to be wrong mathematical models. When the results don't fit the storyline, they claim a gobal warming "pause" - WTF!!

I want to murder someone says:
> "oh but its the hottest year on record, and the lowest ever recorded icecaps"

Listen dipshit, temperature records have only been recorded for the last 120years and with any accuracy for the past 40-50years. Saying something is the hottest year ever is alarmist nonsense.

>>7454344
tastyb8

>>7454384

Hangon I'll go out to my garden and chop down a tree and tell you what temperature it was in 1854.

>>7453910
>Since it lags the temperature trends, the argument that it shows positive feedback depends on complex models
You're acting like we know nothing about the properties of carbon dioxide and of atmospheric science in general. Your response to the whole issue seems to be "well it was a long time ago and I don't trust climatologists and I personally don't understand the science backing this up, so we can never really be sure." It's somewhere between argumentum ad lapidem and argument from incredulity.

>despite the obvious involvement of other factors playing a much stronger role in changing the global climate, the data behind the chart of the scissorlift scene is not strong evidence against CO2 playing a role
Those data DO support the well-known effect that CO2 drives warming. What you're making a big deal about is the fact that the warming in that case was initiated by precessional changes in the Earth's orbit, and CO2 came in secondarily. You want to split the hair that increases in CO2 didn't START the warming that time, that it just AMPLIFIED it? Sure, you can have that.
But you seem to be demanding that historical warming trends only be attributed to CO2 if CO2 was the sole cause, not merely a major and significant cause. We don't really have that, because today's warming trend (increases in temperature in the presence of positive greenhouse forcing but in the absence of other forcings such as Milankovitch cycles or significant solar variation) is really unprecedented throughout measurable history.

>>7453918
>It's the causes of the global temperature changes which were not and are not well understood.
Even worse than being fuzzy on basic ocean/atmospheric chemistry. You realize that we know quite a lot about the Earth's orbital effects on climate, right? Are you going to chalk that up to the same old "it involves complex models, we can't be sure about anything"?

>>7454403
Incredulity is not an argument.

>>7454407
>Even worse than being fuzzy on basic ocean/atmospheric chemistry. You realize that we know quite a lot about the Earth's orbital effects on climate, right? Are you going to chalk that up to the same old "it involves complex models, we can't be sure about anything"?


We know jackshit about the oceans. We've barely mapped them.

>>7454304
>previously shitty solutions like ethanol will start to become viable
honestly, ethanol would be viable now if it was made from silage instead of grain. there's some interesting research with jungle rots and the like looking for better ways to break down cellulose into something useful. but right now the corn industry is using ethanol as nothing more than an excuse to get subsidized.

>>7454412
>We know jackshit about the oceans. We've barely mapped them.

>can't understand relatively simple ocean chemistry (particularly at the ocean-atmosphere interface) without mapping out the entire ocean floor, right?
oh lawd mah jimmies
this is like saying we don't know anything about mantle convection because we haven't been down there in person

>>7454408

>IPCC - "Here is a load of shitty data we've pulled out of our arse on tree ring termperatures. 100% of us agree that the earth's temperature should be X°C. See that big yellow thing up in the sky there, well that has nothing to do with earth's climate fluctuations. It's all us humans fault. Read this report by a railroad engineer on mathematical models that won't stand up 10 years from now. Give us lots of money for more research."

>>7454422
It's not as though solar irradiance has been measured. That would be too simple to show its effect on climate. It's also just a coincidence that multiple proxies match up.

>>7454422
incredulity still isn't an argument, and now you're just dismissing data because you say they're bad unreliable data because you said so. also
>2015
>blaming current warming on solar variation, when solar output is actually flat and current warming has no trace of 11-year cyclicity
ISHYGDDT

>>7454422
Nobody is saying that.

>>7451493
>natural cycle
Why is it not a part of the natural cycle? Is something natural because it is repetitive or because there are no manipulations of the environment? A meteor strike causes a change in our environment. Is a meteor strike not natural?

There were much greater environmental fluctuations only 10,000 years ago than what it is now.

>>7452269
>purifying ocean water

Completely impractical.

>>7454004
Lol the earth can't flood like that.

>>7454598
>Getting water from space ice.
I like where you're going with this.

>>7452849
>anthropogenic CO2?
the meager 4%? it doesn't really matter because even the immediate removal of all humans from the surface of the planet wouldn't change a iota of climate dynamics.
>>7452858
>all observations "proof" of Anthropogenic Climate Change?
only if you spin them that way. RSS and UAHv6 are still reliable and publicly available. follow the data, climate models are neither falsifiable nor are they validated.

OVER 97% OF CLIMATE MODELS AGREE: THE OBSERVATIONS MUST BE WRONG

>>7452865
>treated like animals at a zoo
run by the Brotherhood of the Burning Globe?

>>7454640
>le unlabeled axis
>le unlabeled data sets
>le unsourced graph literally taken directly from Watt's Up With That
and you expect to be taken seriously.

>>7450904
>What is the endgame with climate change?
average temperature will be higher by a few degrees in a few hundred years.
you won't even notice it. well even if you were alive a few hundred years from now, you still wouldnt notice it.

It's honestly hilarious to see how math and physics majors start flailing around when it comes to debating climate change.

>>7452313
>we are already in an energy crisis
do you have some kind of mental deficiency?
global energy production is at an all-time high and keeps growing each year. contrary to bullshit media hype, oil is far from "running out" nor will it ever come close within the forseeable future, and even then there's a gorillion alternatives available, ready to be deployed as soon as they stop being unprofitable due to low-cost oil.


>>7452313
>there exists no efficient or practical way to convert LARGE QUANTITIES of the unusable portion into something that actually benefits our species
except, you know, evaporation? that thing that permanently happens on a massive scale, takes up seawater and makes fresh water literally fall from the sky in large quantities?

>>7454640
>Taking the average of projections for different scenarios
Wow, such honest skepticism

>>7452977
> But there's been no warming for the last 20 years
The US has had record high summers for 14 out of 15 of the previous years.

You really can't be dense enough to average the record high summers and the record low winters, and say that nothing's wrong?

>>7454640
>the meager 4%?
The only percentage that actually gets added to the atmosphere, whereas non-man-made source of CO2 absorb more than they release. You really must be a retard to repeat this 4% meme without giving one iota of thought to what it means.

>>7453786
>muh peer review
peer review is only as respectable as the people in the field are as a whole.
there's a fuckton of 'scientific' papers that 'prove' in great detail how market economies can never work and how central planning is the superior system, approved by all the peers at the intitute for marxist-leninism at havana university. doesnt make it any more credible.

>>7454752
>peer-reviewed scientific publications can't be trusted because I don't believe in climatology
keep fucking that chicken

>>7453922
I'm voting for Trump because I think it'd be funny
it's my first election where I can vote too
fuck it

>>7454757
he has a point though
none of their results can be reproduced, their predictions have been all kinds of crazy wrong in the past, and their models are far too complex for us to check for errors ourselves.
trusting them when they tell you that they're totally right this time just boils down to putting your faith in them because they carry the label of science and have the support of media and politics.

>>7454774
>none of their results can be reproduced
tell that to Dr. Richard Muller
>their predictions have been all kinds of crazy wrong in the past
lemme guess, you refer to the sharp divergence of observed temperatures from predictions around 1991? just another climate denier who's never heard of Mt. Pinatubo. in reality, the predictions of climatologists as a group (as opposed to one dude whose controversial claim got a lot of media coverage) have been pretty reliable.
>their models are far too complex for us to check for errors ourselves.
so basically because they study a complex system that you don't understand, you can't trust anything they say. your ignorance of the methodology is not their fault.

>>7454598
It's where all the fresh water already comes from. If ocean water stopped evaporating, it wouldn't take very long for there to be no fresh water any more.

And the process as currently run is incredibly inefficient. Most of the purified water just falls back into the ocean.

Graphene filters should make desalination cheap and energy efficient within a few years, and the continuing advances in solar panels and automated production should greatly increase our energy supply.

I think you're going to be surprised at how the fresh water issue plays out.

>>7451548
>the little ice age
was caused by the depopulation of North America. All those natives burned massive amounts of wood, after they all died that wood wasn't being burned. there was less c02 being released as wood smoke thus reducing the global temp. you can't remove that many people and not expect there to be some effect.

>>7454802
>so basically because they study a complex system that you don't understand, you can't trust anything they say. your ignorance of the methodology is not their fault.
Maybe not, but it does mean they're asking us to take their claims on faith. Also, the full details of the models are often unpublished, with the models themselves being only evaluable on particular supercomputers, and the process by which the parameters of the model are determined is opaque.

If you have enough knobs to turn and levers to pull on a model, you can make it say anything you want. Any sufficiently complicated model with enough tunable parameters is effectively a curve-fitter.

The purpose of going through developing a complex model is to eventually come to a demonstration of validity that can be understood by people who do not understand the model. Climate scientists claim to be able to predict changes a century in advance, without being able to predict changes a decade in advance. That leaves them with a fundamental credibility problem.

>>7454603
Flooding isn't an issue.
The drying up of earth's bread baskets is, and will cause revolutions and wars in a mere 20 years.

>>7454806
>to be some effect

actually it was caused by a volcano but whatever

>>7451502
actually he did hire illegal immigrants and made them clear asbestos with no breathing protecting and using their bare hands.

>>7454721
There was some fedora-riffic guy who worked on a nuclear reactor in the army and is trying to write a book on philosophy in one of my gen-ed classes who tried to argue that climate change wasn't real because "the ocean is absorbing all of hte carbon". I just smiled and nodded. Not even going to try to tell him that, even if that's true, the absolute devastation of the entire coral reef system would be catastrophic anyway.

>>7454747
The US is not the globe , sir
http://nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/docs/ChristyJR_SenateEPW_120801.pdf

>>7454849
1/3

>Maybe not, but it does mean they're asking us to take their claims on faith.
Either you take their claims on faith, or --wait for it-- you can EDUCATE YOURSELF on the issue, come to understand it, and THEN weigh in on the issue. When a doctor examines you and makes a diagnosis, you take his claims on faith, right? Because unless you too are an M.D., you don't understand the full complexity of medicine. If you suspect he's pulling your leg, you might go see another doctor for a second opinion, but you sure as shit don't go "well, I have no way of knowing for myself whether his expert opinion is true or not, so I'm going to assume he's lying to me for personal profit". And when ~95% of the medical community concurs with the first doctor's opinion, you sure as shit don't go "the medical community can't be trusted to keep itself honest; all those doctors are just looking out for each other". The whole point of expertise is that people who have put in the effort to study a subject are given somewhat greater credence than some Joe Schmo who doesn't understand how the subject works. Your paranoia is just one part of a very large movement of anti-intellectualism in this country guised as a backlash against elitism. To quote Isaac Asimov:
>There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

>>7454849
2/3

>Also, the full details of the models are often unpublished, with the models themselves being only evaluable on particular supercomputers
and if you want to study this shit, you can get access to a supercomputer and ask them to send you a copy of their model. fuck sake, what you are saying is that because not everyone has a supercomputer available to them, and therefore the methodology won't be accessible to the layman, that we shouldn't even use supercomputers in scientific inquiry.

>and the process by which the parameters of the model are determined is opaque.
read the goddamn methodology, you twerp. it is not researchers' problem if drips like you are too ignorant to read and understand the methodology.

>>7454849
3/3

>The purpose of going through developing a complex model is to eventually come to a demonstration of validity that can be understood by people who do not understand the model.
You set an impossibly high standard by insisting that the only true demonstration of validity is for the model to be accessible to the layman. Your arguments thus far have revolved around the fact that you don't trust the models because you don't understand them and haven't personally reviewed them.

>Climate scientists claim to be able to predict changes a century in advance, without being able to predict changes a decade in advance. That leaves them with a fundamental credibility problem.
It's almost as if large-scale effects are easier to predict than small-scale effects. The weatherman can't tell you what the weather will be like an hour from now, but he can give you a pretty good picture of what the next week will look like. This small-scale uncertainty is pretty well-known, but for some reason climate deniers get all huffy about it and act like it's something new and crazy when it relates to climatology.

What is the course of action for the endgame?

>>7455149
>Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all.
AAAND that right there discredits the whole damned paper. CO2 is the limiting factor in primary productivity PRECISELY NOWHERE. In most marine environments, it's iron that limits plant growth. In most terrestrial environments, it's phosphate or nitrate. ONLY IN HEAVILY FERTILIZED CULTURE will an increase in CO2 concentration translate to an increase in plant biomass production. Not to mention the negative effects that ocean acidification (as a result of higher CO2) will have on planktonic growth; lowered pH will severely stress everything that builds a shell out of carbonates (like coccolithophores and foraminifera), knocking down photosynthesis and biodiversity in the oceans.

Later on he claims that "the world around us evolved when levels of CO2 were five to ten times what they are today", which would be true if the biosphere hadn't changed much in the past THREE TO FOUR HUNDRED MILLION YEARS OR SO, because that's when those levels of CO2 were present. AND THE BIOSPHERE HAS INDEED CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.

You know who makes that fuckstupid argument of "but CO2 is good for plants"? The fossil fuel industry and scientists they fund, and absolutely no one reputable.

>>7455211
Nice rebuttal. If only I could believe what some anonymous jackass on the internet tells me instead of a respected climate scientist.

>>7455181
>fuck sake
>you twerp
>drips like you
>climate deniers
>>7455211
>that fuckstupid argument

game over, you lost
and you know it
that's why the surge of adrenalin

>>7455252

>>7455236
>says the anonymous jackass on the internet openly contradicting the overwhelming majority of climatologists
You want respected primary sources? Hold on to your butt:
>http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-0762-2_8
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01113.x/abstract
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2097149
>http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00014588
>http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/06-2057.1
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4319/lo.1997.42.3.0405/pdf

>http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/433/2011/bg-8-433-2011.html
>http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1897/1551-3793-5.1.173.b
>http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/141.short
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4319/lol.2011.rfeely_sdoney.5/abstract

Now what?

>>7455276
>http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/06-2057.1
Ecological Society of America?
You complain of biased petroleum industry shills and you counter with this weak shit?
Your "scientists" are whores who will make a study say whatever their grantors desire.

>>7455325
>it's a professional society of ecologists
>therefore it must be biased in favor of hippies
Yeah, the ESA is so biased against anything fossil fuel that Chevron saw fit to become a major donor to it.
>http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-9623-90.4.360

Seriously, is that the best you've got? I give you all these peer-reviewed primary sources backing up what I'm saying, and your response is to complain that one of them is in a journal whose name makes you think it's all about hippies and ecoterrorists. It sure seems like you're just going all pic related.

>>7455366
You know what I think?
I think maybe you're a hippy.
A dang filthy hippy.
I bid you good day

>>7455412
nah bro, I'm a paleontologist.
and just like every other denier, you wilt in the face of actual evidence on a topic.

>>7455470

>>7455485
fukken saved. here, have a pic in exchange.

>>7450904
Meterologists and Scientists alike postulate that we will experience global cooling the near future.
Whether that is the negation of Global Warming or just a skip in the stride, still remains unknown.

>>7454304
>ethanol will start to become viable
>Implying ethanol isn't worse than oil when it comes to being environmentally friendly.
People forget that corn doesn't magically come from nowhere. In order to feed both people and cars, you either need more land or usage from cars or people to go down. Guess which option happens.

>>7455598
Yeah, his point about ethanol was flawed, but his argument is still valid.

>>7453337
>we make everyone poor and raise prices FOR NOTHING?!?!

>>7455470
I'm not a denier as such. I just have yet to be convinced.
When Climategate brought us such gems as Mann's "if they ask for my data I'll destroy it"
You'll excuse me if I'm underwhelmed.

>>7455758
>I'm not a denier as such. I just have yet to be convinced.
>thinking that Climategate was anything other than a wholly fabricated scandal
look, you can say you're just a skeptic all you like, but the fact is that you're obstinately refusing to follow the evidence, not because you have evidence to the contrary, but because you personally don't trust the scientific establishment. sorry mac, you're a denier.

>>7455758

>gets rekt
>keeps posting

>>7455809
It's not that I don't trust the scientific community. It's that I don't trust a small part of the scientific community with a vested interest in a certain ideology.

>>7455811
Good post

>>7455827
pic related

>>7455827
>It's that I don't trust a small part of the scientific community with a vested interest in a certain ideology.
So, exactly what ideologically linked vested interests do you think climatology is manacled in that other fields are somehow magically free of?
look, I explained this earlier in the thread; if there was a conspiracy to fake all the evidence so as to ensure a steady supply of funding...well, the best way to get grants is to come up with something new and surprising. and the best way to make a name for yourself is to discover/reveal something that nobody had ever known of before. if such a conspiracy existed, it would be exposed extremely quickly by someone looking to stab his buddies in the back for personal gain. do you understand the principles operating here?

also, every argument you've made to the effect that we shouldn't trust climatologists is equally valid against any other highly technical field. why do you trust the rest of science and reserve your unreasonable (perhaps even paranoid) skepticism for climatology alone? to return to a previous comparison, you wouldn't obstinately cleave to this sort of false skepticism when it comes to medicine, would you? or chemistry? or aerospace engineering? no, you'd trust THOSE experts, because they know their fields and you don't (at least not nearly as much as they do). and yet you reserve this strange denial, this rejection of the overwhelming consensus of evidence and analysis, for the study of climate purely because you are a climate denier.
git gud.

>>7455827
So then why not trust the rest of the scientific community who don't have vested interest in certain ideology and still understand AGW is real? Why not accept the research conducted by California-Berkeley, by a group of skeptics, which pointed to the exact same conclusions?

>>7455848
>California-Berkeley, by a group of skeptics
Do you even read what you're typing?
I used to live in Berkeley.
I know those people. They're not exactly unbiased

>>7455845
>you wouldn't obstinately cleave to this sort of false skepticism when it comes to medicine, would you?
It's not obstinate and yes I would and do.
I observe from personal experience how cavalierly doctors prescribe medications of questionable value for the sake of action. i have been a cardiac patient for 10 years now and have seen how they say that certain pills will do certain things and continue to sing their praises years after I've quit taking them.


Hippy

>>7455864
>Claims he isn't a denier and would accept legitimate
>Systematically rejects every single piece of evidence given to him

Your post isn't even fucking logical. What the hell count as unbiased? Being a conservative? You realize that's not what unbiased means, right? "Oh the geographic location where this university where these people were employed is very liberal. That means you can't accept any research they conduct because they're incapable of being impartial!"

I'll let you in on a secret. Having an impossibly high standard of evidence is effectively the same thing as denial.

>>7455876
>Your post isn't even fucking logical.
Of course it's logical. I know what sort of people live on Berkeley and they're batshit crazy.It doesn't take much to discern that what comes out of that asylum is bullshit.

>>7455876
Look , the world is too old and our understanding of it's workings is too limited to allow us to draw more than rudimentary conclusions about any part of it's operation.
So let's just agree to disagree about whatever predictions we have about some future disasters we see coming.

I haver to work in the morning , Good night.

>>7455881
You're absolutely right, anon. Dismissing every single piece of academic research that comes out of UC Berkeley for ad-hominen reasons is certainly logical and not at all fallacious.

You're just trolling at this point, right?

>>7455888
I'll agree to disagree if you fucking admit you're a denier. That you deny the validity of the giant, fucking GIANT body of evidence to the existence of AGW.

>>7455864
>I used to live in Berkeley. I know those people. They're not exactly unbiased
>>7455881
>I know what sort of people live on Berkeley and they're batshit crazy.It doesn't take much to discern that what comes out of that asylum is bullshit.

he thinks that everyone living in Berkeley is a hippie! I can't make this shit up...but he apparently can.

>>7455870
>doctors prescribe medicines that may or may not help, because it's better to try doing SOMETHING than to leave a condition untreated
>sometimes medicines don't work as well as expected
>this means that the entire medical profession can't be trusted not to conduct a massive hoax on the public.
So do you believe that you know more about medicine than the AMA? Because that's the equivalent to what you've been saying about climatology.

>>7455888
>Look , the world is too old and our understanding of it's workings is too limited to allow us to draw more than rudimentary conclusions about any part of it's operation.
Aaand it's the old denier canard of "well, despite all the mutually consistent evidence laid out directly contradicting my claims, I'm gonna say that we just can't be sure." NO. We can be PRETTY SURE, and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that YOU'RE WRONG.
First you claim that the evidence doesn't exist. Then you claim that the evidence doesn't mean what climatologists say it does. Then you claim that the evidence is faked. Then you claim that the evidence just isn't conclusive. Exactly how much evidence does it take to convince you? Well, it appears that no amount of evidence will do the job, and that points straight to "denier".

>>7455870
>Boomers
How can you be this ignorant

>>7452163

>>7450998
Independently from your more-than-dubious source (no information on the author, multiple "articles" taken from scoop.it (sic)), I don't know where you are going with your post, besides saying "kek IPCC are faggots". Are you implying that we shouldn't modify our energetic habits because it won't have disastrous consequences in 10 years, but in 50 instead? Or even by 2100? That an increase of 2C on the global temperature won't have a serious impact ?
You can't go backwards with global warming, and I'm sure that future generations will proudly look at your message from their troglodytic houses because the surface temperature has become unbearable in summer.

And to go back to the thread, global warming doesn't lead to hotter temperatures in general, but more extreme meteorological phenomena. Which is exactly what has been happening recently, how funny. Enjoy your forest fires in California and your Soudelor in Asia. The issue is anomalies : https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413

For the curious, even if it were just a 2C increase : https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resources/impact-global-temperature-rise-2c

>>7450904
there isnt really a point of no return. At worst, the average temperature will return to normal when humanity perished and a few thousands years have passed.
Its just that with each year that we keep producing greenhouse gases it takes more than one year (and that time increases the higher the concentration) to undo the damage

>>7456856
Yet the point stands that in this instance we have the scientific community backing the absolute necessity of the drugs and the reality being just the opposite.

>>7456812
>mutually consistent evidence
Lol

>>7457331
>At worst, the average temperature will return to normal when humanity perished and a few thousands years have passed.
No, no, that's not true. It will be more than a few thousand years. There is a feedback mechanism at play; hotter temperatures beget hotter temperatures. The cycle doesn't break until some major event forces it back the other way.

That's why we're pretty much fucked without immediate global action. We're kind of at the tipping point. A few more decades of staying the course, and barring drastic intervention of the sort whose consequences we can not predict, it's just going to keep getting worse, even if we eliminate our outputs entirely.

>>7454759
The amount of times I've heard variants on the phrase "I'm voting for Trump because I think it'd be funny" is truly scary.

>>7455848
Berkeley Professor Richard Muller was never a skeptic. He faked it.

>"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13423/page2/

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

And nobody says the earth hasn't warmed. That's a silly strawman argument.

>>7453755
Carson's intelligence would be great if had dedicated any of it toward learning about things that he needs to understand to be president. I thought I hated career politicians before he announced his candidacy, but now I at least see their value. I would rather not vote someone into office who has to learn how to run that office while he's already in it.

>>7456812
What rubbish. No matter what happens Climate Change is TRUE!

Here's a nice list of some of the many failed predictions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

No matter what happens, it all "proves" climate change. Melting polar ice, growing polar ice.
Hot spot in the troposphere, no hot spot. Snow becoming rare, snow becoming more common.
No troposphere warming for almost 20 years... No increase in strong hurricane or tornadoes. Nope,
doesn't matter.

You are the deniers. The deniers of the scientific method. Anthropogenic Climate Change is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a science.

>>7458156
Uh... many of those "failed" predictions are largely true, or are well on the way to being true. It's like they're not even trying....

>>7454752
u fockin wot m9?
In all seriousness, even though we can't account for everything when studying climate, you thought that it would be smart to compare it to a field like economics that can't even, with much certainty, figure things out that happened decades beforehand?

Anecdotal evidence counts for nothing trump. I'd prefer to believe the 95% of experts who study this.

>>7458145
Carson's not intelligent at all.
Just because he's got a respectable trade doesn't make him smart.

>>7455598
Wrong. Animal feed is produced as a byproduct of producing ethanol. So, up to a point, no extra corn has to be used.
I don't agree with the other guy's suggestion that ethanol will ever become viable, but you dun goof'd with your claim.

>>7458181
He's an arrogant prick (did you hear what he said about educating people during the debate?) who knows nothing about anything related to governance, but he is certainly intelligent.
That's like saying being a physicist doesn't indicated intelligence. Of course it does. It doesn't mean that that person knows shit about anything outside of physics, but they're certainly smart.

>>7458127
You're the only one bringing up the strawman. Everyone ITT is just calling you a retard for saying humans aren't causing it. It's as simple as that.

>>7450904
The ideal endgame is to build like 1 nuclear reactor every week for 40 years (IIRC), preferrably the IFR or LFTR, plus installing the infrastructure to create gasoline from H2 and CO2 obtained from seawater for transportation. Problem solved.

Too bad we won't do it because the people who care about global warming are also insanely idiotic regarding nuclear power and insanely anti- economies of scale with their decentralization bullshit mantra dogma.

Yes, I mad.

>>7458711
Are you that litposting nuke?

>>7458735
>litposting
I don't surf /lit/.

>>7458191
I am original ethanol poster, and what I was talking about was lost and not clearly explained. With regards to peak oil alternatives like ethanol will set a cap on the price of whatever petroleum products they can replace. Ethanol economics get a little muddy because you've got to spend gas to make gas, but whatever- it doesn't matter much to peak oil and because this is a slowly evolving problem capacities can start to replace each other and gasoline engines can be replaced with ethanol friendly engines gradually.

So that was my original reason. To talk about ethanol a little more, there generally is no food vs fuel dilemma like you say, there are some exceptions like Brazil who are probably trading food production for fuel since they use sugar cane. In the case of corn though basically the trash is used to make fuel and there are some newer plants that are trying to use all of it, so there are basically no downsides since that corn was going to be grown anyway.

With regards to land use and intensive farming it's the downside, and all forms of energy have a downside. We probably don't want crops used exclusively for energy, even though the world probably could right now (worldwide calorie production per person is the highest ever). Choosing between petroleum and ethanol comes down to which is the lesser evil, trashing soil or the atmosphere? If food crops were being grown there anyway then the choice is obvious. If it is energy crops there's an actual decision to be made, but in that case there is an vested interest for landowners to keep the soil intact compared to diffused responsibility for the atmosphere. The last thing to keep in mind is that this is all to have energy dense portable fuel, so if that stops being important then discussion about ethanol, gasoline etc can stop.

>>7458145
>>7453755
>B.A. from Yale in psychology, M.D. from UMichigan, presumably plenty of BIOS courses
>still thinks evolution is fake
>studies and operates on human CNS for thirty years
>still thinks sexual orientation is chosen

I like Dr. Carson for his prowess as a surgeon and for his relative moderacy on some things (like affirmative action), but some people you just can't help.

>>7458127
to the best of my knowledge, he never claimed to be skeptical of the theory. he was skeptical of the actual results, the actual measurements, and worried over a lack of experimental rigor.
that's what the denier crowd is also talking about, right? they don't contest that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas or that human activity is causing the ppCO2 to rise. they just don't believe that it translates to a real increase in temperatures. of course, they're wrong, but what can you do...

>>7458156
>future predictions talking about stuff literally decades in advance
>like, predictions regarding 2050, 2080, 2100
>hasn't happened yet in 2014
>zOMG FAILED PREDICTION
also, quoting Der Spiegel as if it was a scientific publication? instant discreditation.

It's really sad that people still fall for the manmade global warming thing. Thought it would go away after all the debunking but loons still want to shove their agendas down our throats to sell their shitty electric cars and raise taxes or whatever. It's became strangely religious to the Al Gore worshippers of the world.

>>7454384
Oh, look, the industrial revolution started in 1975.

>10 year moving average.

Got any stock picks to go with that?

>>7459639
I need debunking not funded by Shell Oil.

Simultaneously fascinating and terrifying that such a widespread and blatant hoax can occur at the behest of the so-called "educators" of the world

>>7459674
World population and consumption have never changed.

>>7452994
Anarchy is not far right. Anarchy is NOT libertarianism. Libertarianism espouses an unrestricted market, free to exploit and plunder. Anarchy opposes the use of money or authority for purposes of imposing governance. Anarchy is more closely related to Tribalism, which is more related to communism than libertarianism, but only if you remove the central committees and replace them with open assemblies. Christ cum on a cracker you wing nut, read a goddamn book.

The big problem is Both left and right are pro-industrial. Pro-Job creation. we need less jobs. We need more stoner slackers in the world. we need to learn to live healthily in poverty rather than find away to raise the standard of living by destroying the planet. The people who deny climate change are Techno-Fascists who want the world to burn because they have enough money to buy enough comfort to remove themselves from the problems facing the rest of the world.

>>7454729
I think we are in an energy crisis BECAUSE production is at an all time high.

>>7452163
>libcuck
summer 4chan plz leave

>>7452211
Same. I'm a little cautious about Bernie though, his stance on feminism is murky. I might go third party, we'll see.

>>7453002
They're getting a bigger voice. Obama has pandered to feminism way more than any other president ever has. Dems used to at least act like they supported gender equality, now they're all-in on the feminist "men can go fuck themselves because women are all that matter" mindset. Bernie might be able to get past that since he's pretty good at cutting the bullshit and not pandering. I seriously doubt we'll see a Bernie campaign ad repeating the wage gap myth (like Obama did in 2012)

>>7450904
All is not lost with CC. It's getting there though, and ocean acidification too but nobody talks about it. If people stopped acting like a Trumper and took this shit seriously we could definitely come out with minimal damage, but I don't know how likely that is.

>>7459764
But anarchists tend to be just as detached from reality as libertarians, so meh.

>Malthus was right.
Malthus was wrong dip-shit. The way to stop overpopulation is make everyone rich. The way to stop the destruction of the enivornment is to raise eveyone's standard of living. If you look at the evidence, the people who are doing the least damage to the environment are also the richest and have the most energy consumption, esp clean energy producers like France who get 80% of their electricity from clean nuclear.

Did you know that 2% of all worldwide energy consumption in the United States world goes towards the production of fertilizer? Without that, billions of people would starve. IIRC, the planet's biosphere cannot support more than a billion humans without modern agriculture, esp. fertilizer, which means modern energy production.

Your insane plan would result in the deaths of billions, and we can be sure that the survivors will trash the environment completely in their desperate efforts to stay alive.

>>7452211
>>7459848
The fuck is wrong with you. Most feminists just want to end the systematic discrimination against women and achieve equality. Go back to your slymepit.

If you think that "social justice warrior" is a pejorative, then something is seriously fucked with your head.

>>7460936
>Did you know that 2% of all worldwide energy consumption world goes towards the production of fertilizer?

Fixed. Sorry.

While I'm here, I should mention that we're going to need to do desal on a massive unprecedented scale to avoid mass starvation, and that's also going to take a shitton of energy.

>>7459848
>I seriously doubt we'll see a Bernie campaign ad repeating the wage gap myth (like Obama did in 2012)

Even the most extreme sources I've seen on the matter still admit to a 5% or 10% gap of wages that are unexplained - specifically not explained by differences in experience, position, etc. Seriously, stop spouting this demonstrably false bullshit that there is no wage gap.

>cliff

>>7457331
I can keep throwing gasoline into the fireplace and the fire will _never_ spread to the room and burn everything up even if no gasoline is thrown.

>>7450936
Totally agree there. He's not intelligent enough to know that if there's warming the temperatures can go either up, or down, or stay the same.

>>7455211
>CO2 is the limiting factor in primary productivity PRECISELY NOWHERE.
>ONLY IN HEAVILY FERTILIZED CULTURE will an increase in CO2 concentration translate to an increase in plant biomass production.
Well, CO2 is the limiting factor in many types of commercial crop production, and it is far easier to fertilize than to increase the CO2 levels on a large scale. The paper may be shit, but your refutation of this point leaves a lot to be desired.

Whilst they're often discussed in the papers, the matter of latent heat is seldom mentioned in online rabble. For the purposes of scale, the energy required to melt icebergs is more than enough to power countries for quite a while.

That should put into perspective how much of a buffer the ice caps and oceans (with the massive heat capacity of water) are. The question is, how mad will the rate of warming be once a period in which ice caps are absent be?

>>7460938
>>7460945

Lol. Obama specifically said "women earn 77% of what men earn for doing the same job." That's a lie, and one which feminists have been telling for a long time. 5-7% gap is found after accounting for SOME factors, not all of them. Men are more assertive in the workplace, better at projecting confidence, dress more professionally, etc and all that plays a part as well as many other factors that can't be accounted for.

>but muh feminists just want equality for everybody!!!
The Obama administration still doesn't consider it rape when a woman forces a man to have sex. They support the Violence Against Women Act because only female victims of DV should be acknowledged. The feds still give federal funding based on the Duluth Model, a feminist DV model based on the idea that women can't abuse men because men have all of the power and privilege in society. He's given tons of speeches on women's rights and not once mentioned any men's issues. Even when he talks about issues that predominantly affect men he leaves gender our of it (such as addressing police brutality as solely a racial issue, despite 97% of the victims being male). He created a Counsel for Women and Girls but refused to create one for men and boys.
None of those viewpoints are in any way about equality, and yet all of them are the result of pandering to feminism.
You'd think somebody tripping as a "Scientist" would actually do a minimal amount of research on a topic before talking about it like that. Reading a definition in the dictionary does not quality as research Professor Scientist.

>>7452161

so a bird that builds a nest is not an adaptation?

>>7452885

I'm giving you a reply for putting a good post in a bait thread.

>>7452998

When a city starts getting salt water flooding in the streets you have real problems.

>>7457331
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=18m

>>7460936
it's impossible to make 'everyone rich'. people can only be rich when there exists a poor population to compare them to. And being poor doesn't necessarily mean you have a low standard of living. It simply means you can't hire someone else to clean up after you, and you cannot be a primary consumer of the 'free market'

The way to stop overpopulation is to remove the food supply. If billions of people are sustained by an unsustainable energy market that means people gonna die. I understand you are unrealistically sympathetic, but humanity cannot escape nature; it can only cheat it for a time. (and time's almost up) If you don't want billions to starve to death, than we could support some nearly fascist world government to imposes some strict mandates to lower the number of children allowed by couples - and force corporations to stop plundering the last refugees for wildlife. Alternatively, we could make contraceptives free and available to all women and lessen the demand for resources. One of the primary reasons poor reproduce more, is because they don't have the same access to methods of birth control as the rich. Unless you insist people are to be caste, but that just seems cruel and unusual.

In either case we should reduce the population to preindustrial levels, ideally BEFORE we are forced to by the environment.

We could also stage a world war, if you like. I say it should be religious so all the nuts can get off this rock. Let's pit Jews and Christians and Muslims against each other in a giant desert somewhere already ravaged by mankind and televise it for the entertainment of the enlightened.

What I mean to say: We can either run and jump off the cliff and hope for a miracle, the ester island approach; or we could stop short of the cliff and find a safe way to scale down, the re-wilding approach.

Sure, civilization has been good to us, but only for the last few thousand years. Nature has been better for longer.

>>7458040
Monkeys with guns - in every meaning of the phrase.

>>7461320
>it's impossible to make 'everyone rich'. people can only be rich when there exists a poor population to compare them to.
That's:
1) equivocation,
2) semantics,
3) irrelevant, and
4) stupid.

People don't have less kids because they see a bunch of people around who are poorer than them, and their gonads shrivel with smugness. They have less kids because they feel secure, they have access to education and birth control, they are surrounded by entertainment other than sex and playing with children, they don't need help on their dirt farm, etc.

>>7458711
>build a metric fuckton of nukes
>preferably fast reactors that fail spectacularly

What could possibly go wrong.

>>7450904
The endgame has always been to fleece the gullible public for as long as possible by any means necessary, and mostly fraudulent.

This global warming hoax should have told you that science is always wrong, but instead, you shrug it off and have faith that tomorrow, science will be right.

There have been many tomorrows.

Science has never been right. Not once.

>>7460936
>the people who are doing the least damage to the environment are also the richest
Lrn2ipat
I = P×A×T

the endgame is to maintain our lavish lifestyles in a sustainable way

which is probably possible

>>7461631
>Science has never been right. Not once.
... as he types onto the Internet.
GTFO, baitmeister

>>7461634
>probably possible
Lrn2probabilly

>>7461641

Fuck off, I have a masters in Mathematics with a speciality in probability theory from MIT. You're just a worthless shitposter on /sci/, probably with an associates degree from ITT Tech.

>>7461636
You need to seriously learn the difference between science and technology, you ignorant twatwaffle.

>>7454589
I know you're just arguing semantics, but his usage of the word natural simply means without human involvement.

>>7461652
You need to seriously learn the difference between right and wrong, turdflinger.

>>7461650
>probably with an associates degree
>probably
there you go again, failfag

What the fuck did you just fucking type about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at MIT, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids with Anonymous, and I have over 300 confirmed DDoSes. I am trained in online trolling and I’m the top hacker in the entire world. You are nothing to me but just another virus host. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on the Internet, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with typing that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we chat over IRC I am tracing your IP with my damn bare hands so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your computer. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can hack into your files in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in hacking, but I have access to the entire arsenal of every piece of malware ever created and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the world wide web, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking fingers. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit code all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>7461634
only if other people maintain their not-so-lavish lifestyles. If everybody on the planet lived like the average American we'd be fucked. Too many GHGs, and not enough water.

>>7461689
Needs more Stallman tier neckbeardism.

>>7461667
You need to seriously learn the difference between heaven and hell, gobbstopper.

>>7459730
>over-land

Good thing that data takes no account of 70% of the planet. Then it might signify anything.

>>7461821
Nuclear solves both problems pretty easily.

>>7462080
It's like researchers have thought about that too!