/sci/ - Science & Math

It doesn't matter whether it's happening or not, China, India and other third worlders aren't giving up their growing carbon intensive lifestyle and America can't shrink it's carbon footprint faster without giving up the modern lifestyle so it really doesn't matter.

>>7524350
What if next generation nuclear power was implemented? What if fusion research was properly funded? Couldn't either branch of nuclear power provide as much energy as we need to maintain and grow our lifestyles? (Supplemented with other renewables of course)

>>7524339
Return to the board that contains the linked thread.

>>7524368
Yes. I wish we'd fund it properly.

>>7524368
Dude it's not ME who's against nuclear power research and deployment. If you want to know why Nuclear power research budgets are a joke and why it is we for all intents and purposes have a nuclear power plant construction ban going on in the United states talk to the environmentalists not me.

>>7524339

>>7524371
>>7524376

So basically, we have a completely viable and reasonable solution, we just refuse to use the technology because we have our heads up our asses.

Can we just start shilling for nuclear everywhere? /pol/ manages to get attention somehow and we are smarter than they are. Even just getting a few articles to appear is more than nothing. If we could somehow get a presidential candidate to talk about it, even better

>>7524416
Fucking liberals equating Nuclear energy to nuclear weapons is what killed nuclear energy.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushina certainly didn't help though. Fuck, why can't we just invest into Nuclear completely like France did?

Because this science (even though you possibly can't truly call it that because there's no control Earth) isn't settled (pic related), to use alarmist terminology, and in reality, science is never settled. That's what makes it science.

Ever since way back when Hansen and his Senator buddy turned off the air-conditioning and closed all the windows during his hearing, every prediction alarmists have made has failed to come true.

When real scientists make predictions and they fail, they reformulate their hypothesis. They don't double down on it.

>>7524339

the whole global warming thing started like 20 years ago. The seas were supposed to rise and drown us all by now. Why didn't it happen? I would really, really like it to happen BTW.

>>7524339
>Why is Climate Change denial still a thing?
People don't want to feel guilty about driving their Dodge RAM 1500 V8 that does 3 miles per gallon.

>>7524554
Source? I've always heard "be the end of the century"

The average person is very easily led. If you frequent /pol/, this should be clearly evident.

>>7524454
There's a certain Euro hate that Americans can never really get over. Don't want to be beholden to the E.U. and all that.
For fucks sake more people got hurt running away from Three Mile Island than from the actual nuclear plant "fallout".

>>7524339
I dunno

>why is anti-secondhand smoke shilling still a thing
>why is anti-chemotherapy/surgery/radiation still a thing
>why is anti-GMO advocacy still a thing

It's ignorance.

Climate scientists now fear a 'Day After Tomorrow' scenario
(because their funding is governed by the scariness factor)

>>7524416
>/pol/ manages to get attention somehow and we are smarter than they are
I really doubt that most people here are smarter than /pol/. Maybe more knowledgeable, but less wise and experienced with the way the world works. I bet there are people here who actually think "Jews = bad" is just a meme.

>>7524823
>why is anti-secondhand smoke shilling still a thing
Explain?

>>7524350
China will, it's already moving in that direction. The CPC isn't that stupid.

>>7524531
That graph looks nothing like the actual predictions the IPCC made, and for good reason: averaging different scenarios together is bound to give you retarded, meaningless results.

>every prediction alarmists have made has failed to come true.
No, Global warming has generally been more or less spot on the quantities we predicted. The geographical predictions have done worse, though depending on where you live that's not necessarily good news.

>>7524825
Because it's completely unreasonable to think that climatologists have any stake in the health of the planet they live on.

>>7524531
> science (even though you possibly can't truly call it that because there's no control Earth)

Wow, this is impressive levels of stupid.
Climate change deniers everybody

>>7524845
It's no worse than carpets, car pollution or scented candles, yet people think it's cancerous or hazardous, cigarette smoke is not cancerous unless you actually smoke cigarettes and do it for a long time.

>>7524416
> /pol/ manages to get attention somehow and we are smarter than they are.

>>7524878
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/116/16/1845.full

>>7524339
what a fucking alpha

>>7524339
Useful idiots.

>>7524884
What does that prove? Excess amounts can cause cardiovascular disease? Because a ton of other things do to.

Interesting how this only seems to only affect non smokers while quite a few smokers do just fine. You realize that in some cases medical doctors just check the "smoker" box when someone dies of an aggressive cancer (pancreatic, for example), regardless of whether or not they smoke?

>>7524339
>Why is Climate Change denial still a thing?

In general, the nuances of Climate Science is not as accessible as other science topics. Unless one is moderately educated in the field and keeps up with the literature, he or she needs the information synthesized for him or her.

Who should synthesize it? More likely than not, people are going to consult those who they are close with and can better identify with. This means political pundits, religious leaders, bloggers they like, friends, family, etc. This bias is how so many deniers thrive despite the evidence consistently presented from the scientists.

Similar oppositions happen with other ideas, like a young earth, an electrical universe, a geocentric universe, etc. However, those ideas do not have implications that drive political issues in the same way Climate Change does. This forces Climate Change into a lot of discussions, making it a popular subject. People then seek out those who speak their narrative to synthesize the subject. This means the bleeding heart liberals will listen about the polar bears dying and how humans are the root of evil, the conservatives will hear about how it's a scam to ruin capitalism and exploit hard working men, and those who distrust organizations and government will claim global conspiracies among scientists and governments. They'll cherry pick data and information to confirm their narrative. This is why Climate Change denial is a thing.

>>7524873
>That graph looks nothing like the actual predictions the IPCC made, and for good reason: averaging different scenarios together is bound to give you retarded, meaningless results.
It's also because that graph is for the mid-troposphere, which denierfags have conveniently hidden by removing the title of the graph. Whenever you ask for proof that climatologist models have failed they will always give you mid-troposphere models and not surface temp models.

>>7524339
Because not everyone becomes easily wrapped up in emotional antics and social conditioning. When parents, teachers, the man next door, Bob at the corner shop and that guy on TV all have the same crazy look in their eye telling you 'global warming is real, you should hate yourself and preferabbly commit suicide to lower your carbon output'.. Some people get sucked right in, others turn around and run the other way.

It has no more to do with 'muh science' then it does for pro-agw people, and its just as legitimate a response.

>>7524376
If people here take nuclear power seriously which I suspect many do, we need to distance ourselves from environmentalists.
That includes distancing ourselves from their sacred cows i.e. global warming, solar, wind, anti-coal, etc...
There is no point engaging in any environmental debate, regardless of what side you believe to be right, when the left and environmentalists are completely crazy when it comes to such things. Supporting them, even by default is a lose lose situation for everyone in the long run.

>>7524381
Couldn't the same argument be applied to religion?

>>7524381
Basically this. What's the stick up peoples ass about climate change ? We are building more factories, mroe carbon emmission, more electricity usage, more trees cut and natural resources being depleted. Even if it's not as exaggerated as the media makes it, you can still see how the climate would naturally change with our global process.

So what kind of conspiracy can there be behind asking people to heat up the world less. Also what kind of harm can it bring to be considerate about nature ?

>>7526009
>crusades

>>7526016
What about them?

>>7526015
Strange you notice some stick up anti-agw peoples asses, but fail to notice the fucking Burj Khalifa shoved up pro-agw peoples asses.

>>7526035
I have no idea what you mean.

>>7526015
>So what kind of conspiracy can there be behind asking people to heat up the world less
Because that's not what is being asked, and its definitely not the end game. Whats being asked for is complete submissiveness by the entire population of only Western nations. The dismantling of economy and industry, the introduction of draconian laws and policy, the cult like behavior of people to ostracise those who go against the 'consensus'.

I'm sorry but if you haven't seen this being played for more then simply 'oh pwease won't you just emit a little less CO2 *puppy dog eyes*' then you MUST be transfixed by ideology and emotion, nothing else could make someone so blind.

>Also what kind of harm can it bring to be considerate about nature ?
>everyone who disagrees with the 'consensus' just isn't considerate about nature and hates cute little bunnies.
Yeah no, get fucked.
Environmentalists are a bigger danger to the environment then anyone.

>>7526051
He means "people who believe in AGW are smelly poopy heads"

>>7525946
Since you're talking about people being irrational with narratives, what do YOU think it adds up to?

>>7526075
> The dismantling of economy and industry, the introduction of draconian laws and policy, the cult like behavior of people to ostracise those who go against the 'consensus'.

How is cutting off carbon emmission relate to any of that ? Although it is true that whichever company doesn't go green might get prosecuted by the others. And they may even be pointed responsible when our ecosystem goes to shit in the future.

Although I don't know how it is obedience. It either goes for every single company or none.

> Environmentalists are a bigger danger to the environment then anyone.
That just makes no sense

Millenarian Cathedralism. That's all.

>>7526088
>That just makes no sense
Environmentalists have degraded debate regarding the environment to one of childish juxtaposition where compromise is 100% impossible. They have so many sacred cows they couldn't physically let go of no matter the circumstance, genuine solutions which take consideration for all points are blackballed before they even get a chance to make their case, either because they go against the sacred cows or they would mean submitting to dreaded compromise.
Letting environmentalists have such a big role in policy is like letting a bull in a china shop, nothing good can come from it.

>>7526106
That makes even less sense. They are not the ones dumping their toxic wastes to oceans, they aren't the ones filling the sky with carbon fumes. You have not explained how they are more of a danger at all...

>>7526088
>How is cutting off carbon emmission relate to any of that?
You've said the same thing as you did before, and my response again is that's not all that's being demanded of Western nations and their populations.

>>7526118
> that's not all that's being demanded of Western nations and their populations
What else are they demanding ? If they cut off the carbon emmission they practically won't have anything else to bitch about. Even if they do, the companies can shrug them off since whatever else they do doesn't contribute to global warming.

>>7526115
Top kek.
They are partaking in that, the only difference is that at the same time they propose a utopia to gullible people where such things don't happen and magically living standards remain the same if not better. Meanwhile governments and industry get on with providing the modern world in real time.

>>7526115
>what's so bad about the corporations?
>they're pumping carbon fumes into the sky!
>how do we know that's bad?
>because the environmentalists told us so!
>what if the environmentalists are crazy or stupid?
>how can that be? they're not the ones pumping carbon into the sky!

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

>>7526122
What if you're the crazy, stupid one for denying scientific findings that go against your preconceived worldview?

>>7526121
Well, corporations make excess millions of dollars by dumping their crap to the nature on the expense that the nature everyone has to live in. They can simply stop being greedy fucks and stop gaining the excess profits in the name of a brighter future.

>>7526122
I don't think you need to be an environmental activist to see carbon emmission is bad for the nature.

>>7526136
You know it's rude to answer a question with a question.

>>7526138
You are quite welcome to exit society and go live in the woods.

>>7526141
Nah I'd rather fix the problem, and it seems like most people agree. You are welcome to go live in the woods if you don't like it.

>>7526143
Then you may as well go live in the woods cause that's the quality of life we would eventually get if environmentalists had full reign.

>>7526141
The woods I hypothetically want to live in would also be effected by the GLOBAL warming, so you see it's not an excuse.

Also you skipped the whole thing about gaining excess profits to stop raping nature, which sounds like you accept that fact and have no sensible response to it.

>>7526148
I will just direct you to my original posts. No point going around in circles.

>>7524368

>What if fusion research was properly funded?
Research doesn't magically progress faster because you throw money at it.
Case in point: there's a foundation for cancer research up in Chicago, founded by some pole who lost his brother to the disease. The thing has millions, and offers sizable grants to anyone willing to investigate a "new or promising direction" in cancer research. It doesn't go through this money, because there aren't that many "new or promising directions" in regards to cancer.

>>7526150
Your original posts had zero context or response to the issues adressed. Which doesn't do a very good job with defending your point...Like at all.

>>7526156
When the foundation of your ideology is shaky, every other minor point you make is as well.

>>7526151
>Research doesn't magically progress faster because you throw money at it.

What about the Manhattan project?

>>7526169
> global warming is proven to be real
> i'll keep contributing to it and i don't give a dick

>>7524833
I'm talking pure intelligence: IQ or g-factor. Also /pol/ has an absolute ton of retards, more than /sci/.

>>7526171
If i were to translate his autism, he meant
>research doesn't necessarily progress faster..

anons are retarded often.

>>7526146
We're already reducing emissions and we don't seem to be heading for the woods. Nice irrational fearmongering.

>>7526173
>alarmist predictions proven to be absolute make believe
>i'll keep spouting them

>>7526183
Yes because we have a mix semi-rational and irrational people at the helm who are able to make some compromise in policy. If the left had full reign we would be in the shitter already.

>>7526186
>Science is wrong because I feel it is
This is all you have isn't it?

>>7526186

http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/4891_GlobalWarmingImpacts.pdf

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/global_warming_2007.pdf

There are NASA photos with dates where you can actually see the decreasing sizes of polar caps as well as chronologic temperature charts

>>7526186
Can you explain how you are signigifcantly different from someone who denies evolution, or vaccines, or a round Earth, etc...?

>>7526199
Can you explain how you are significantly different from someone who believes in geocentrism, Lysenkoism, Ptolemaic astronomy, or any other authoritarian dogma...?

>>7526199
Can you explain how you are significantly different from someone who simply followed the crowd and believed for centuries in the geocentric universe, that the earth was flat or one of the other thousand falsities that people like yourself once would give their life to say were true?

>>7526199
We ain't authoritarian.

>>7526236
Why are you showing the examples of uneducated nutjobs instead of adressing the facts ? Nobody can pinpoint a specific year for global warming because it's a gradual process and the proof is there.

>>7526241
But at the same time you expect us to create fundamental policy and change our societies in massive ways based of these types predictions.

>>7526241
So climate scientists are
>...examples of uneducated nutjobs
You said it!

>>7526251
Minor changes that will keep the air clean. That's all. Just go easy on the carbon emmission.

>>7526256
I'm not accountable for other peoples claims. I simply asked you to respond to the facts and you're still avoiding it.
It's like you're saying that ancient archeological findings are not valid just because Ancient Aliens are using them to attribute everything to aliums.

>>7526265
Start with your own self-accounting:
>>7526224
>>7526228

>>7526270
I'm not them.
I'm this : >>7526196

Funny enough it got no replies since all you climate change deniers are lazy cucks.

>>7526282
>Reality
>NASA

>>7526282
>Reality
>NOAA

Cutting of satellite data of Arctic ice at 1979 (highest spot) when it goes back to the 1972 dip.

>>7526313
>>7526305

Are you one of those paranoid freaks who think NASA is also conspiring against people and earth is actually flat ?

Nice job posting charts with no sources btw

>>7526282
>Reality
>Erasing the Medieval Warming Period

>>7526322
> Post graphs of inconsistent NASA temperatures
> OMFG! The cognitive dissonance is killing me.

Sources:
James Hansen, 1981; former head of NASA GISS
NASA GISS 2002
NASA GISS 2014

Check the data yourself
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Honestly, I'm surprised at you unawareness about how much the temperature record had been changed.

>>7526322
So basically
>everyone who disagrees with me is a paranoid freak
>everyone who agrees with me is a well rounded individual who bases their opinions on logic and science :^)

>>7526348
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

...are you goddamn serious ? Even in your own source you can see the gradual increase in temperature over the course of decades.

And thank you, I'll use this source in further threads to show global warming proof.

>>7526351
It's kinda hard to take you seriously when your posts are full of greentext and lack any point

>>7526387
> graphical evidence of NASA rewriting the temperature record
> abject denial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who... is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs,

>>7526418
> seeing physical evidence of charts showing increasing temperature over a course of 50 years
> avoiding to adress the fact and changing the subject
I don't even know what you're doing anymore. You obviously can't look at these charts and see the gradual increase in temperature. Something is terribly wrong with you.

>>7526015
>>7524339
Saving the environment costs rich and important people money.

>>7526480

It costs poor people as well, they're the ones who always end up paying in the end.

Because climate "scientists" aren't very smart. How can you take anything they do seriously?

>>7526480
It's okay, they have money.

>>7526493
> adressing to people rather than facts again
keck

>>7526493
>Avoiding facts
Damn, denial is strong in this one

>>7526387

>graph starts at 1880

I actually spat out my coffee I laughed so hard.

>>7526224
Yes, all of those are disproved by modern science while climatology is a modern science. How do you know round earth isn't just another liberal conspiracy?

>>7526228
>Can you explain how you are significantly different from someone who simply followed the crowd and believed for centuries in the geocentric universe, that the earth was flat or one of the other thousand falsities that people like yourself once would give their life to say were true?
What disproved geocentrism? Hint: it wasn't denying science. You're the one pushing what is against the facts. Not me.

>>7526236
That's irrelevant to the question.

>>7526228
Wait, did you just seriously compare yourself to Galileo?

>>7526418
>cognitive dissonance is

>>7526106
>They have so many sacred cows they couldn't physically let go of no matter the circumstance, genuine solutions which take consideration for all points are blackballed before they even get a chance to make their case, either because they go against the sacred cows or they would mean submitting to dreaded compromise.

Sounds like modern medicine

>>7526480

this is what reddit actually believes

>>7524454
IT'S TEH FCKN LIBRULS

>>7524554
>the whole global warming thing started like 20 years ago
More like 34 years ago, boy.

>>7524873
>averaging different scenarios together is bound to give you retarded, meaningless results
... b-but teh denialists are perfectly happy with retarded, meaningless results.

>>7524531
>no control Earth
wat

>>7526009
No

>>7524864
>China will, it's already moving in that direction.
Lol. Seriously believing this. Believing China won't cheat, ignore, whatever.

>>7526591
>climatology is a modern authoritarian ideology.

FTFY

>>7526436
>gradual increase in temperature
> Anthropogenic Climate Change

Its been warming since the Little Ice Age. Did they have SUVs in 1750?

>>7526436
NOAA 1997 62.45 Degrees F is the warmest year

>>7526436
>>7527934
NOAA 2014: 57 + 1.24 = 58.24 degrees F
Making 2014 the warmest year on record.

How is 58.24 degrees warmer than
>>7527934
the record temperature of 62.45 degrees in 1997?
The data tampering is strong with this one.

We just got out of an ice age 10,000 years ago no shit the earth is warming, it's been warming since 4000 BC.

Carbon emissions will be taxed, greedy libs will get their money and the sea levels will continue to rise.

Government backed, highly-politicized consensus science gave us the fat causes heart disease idea for decades. It turned out to be disastrously wrong. Group-think, peer-pressure, institutional indoctrination and emotion influences humans just as much as rationality does.

See political codification of 30 year old science that threatens to impose wholesale draconian repression on human industry, progress and life? Look out!

>>7528071
this tbh

Mainstream science has a lot to answer for.

>>7528071
>Government backed, highly-politicized consensus science gave us the fat causes heart disease idea for decades. It turned out to be disastrously wrong.

But that's true though.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=286620

http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/korean-soldiers-study/

>>7528124
>imprecise measurements of a tiny number of soldiers from 60 years ago to support the debunked notion that fat causes heart disease
>all in order to defend the integrity of global warming

Truly depraved.

Deniers are a lot less harmful to people than hippies who think the solution is organic food.

That's not a false dichotomy, it's the largest minority. The important thing is a vast majority of scientists and engineers aren't deniers.

Think about it, what do you think would actually improve if you managed to convince a group of pathologically ignorant people that anthropocentric climate change is a reality?

>>7528144
>imprecise measurements of a tiny number of soldiers from 60 years ago to support the debunked notion that fat causes heart disease

Sorry, but an image macro and name-calling can't erase the fact that you're wrong.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

>>7528171
>The unSkepticalScience deception.
FTFY

Crook and Nutter are frauds
https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/?s=john+cook
https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/john-cook-is-a-low-down-dirty-liar/

>>7528171
>Look! Evil denier started CMIP modeling at 0 degrees in 1979!

Look, UN IPCC AR4 Fig. 10-26 did they exact same thing! Pic related. I guess the UN IPCC are a bunch of evil deniers.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
Enlarged figure in lower left hand corner of the diagrams; with updated temps.

>>7528188

I wonder who made this.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257662261_Learning_and_Teaching_Climate_Science_The_Perils_of_Consensus_Knowledge_Using_Agnotology

>David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs

>Willie Soon

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/29062015/smithsonian-revamps-disclosure-rules-after-willie-soon-controversy

Oh.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8FBCA6CC6CD18FB6F400B320EFCED569.c1

Does every peer-reviewed paper in the field of geology have to state, in its Abstract, that Planet Earth is not flat but rather it is a sphere that orbits the Sun?

>>7528260
>hurr durr ad hominem
How about a substantive counter-argument? Climate "Scientists" are paid to get results that will help get those $Billions of Carbon Tax money and help the UN with its stated goal of Literally more than a $Trillion in 10 years.
>>7527869

Tobacco company scientists help tobacco companies make money.
Government scientists help government make money.

>>7524833
but /pol/ is dumb as fuck

Even /jp/, /sp/ and /tv/ are smarter than them.

The difference is /pol/ have such a grand and delusional unwarranted sense of self-importance that they've fooled themselves into thinking they don't have the opinions and general intelligence of Alabama trailer trash.

Which they do.

>>7528204
>Look, UN IPCC AR4 Fig. 10-26 did they exact same thing! Pic related. I guess the UN IPCC are a bunch of evil deniers.

You know this is the internet, right? We can just look where this stuff actually came from now.

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/das-gebrochene-versprechen-von-marotzke/

>>7526007
EMBRACE THE POWER OF ATOM!

>>7528289
>http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html

>I'll pretend that the original data and predictions aren't from UN IPCC AR4
And you call skeptics deniers?

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

>>7528279
>Tobacco company scientists help tobacco companies make money.

They sure do.

http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit

>>7525448
>quite a few smokers do just fine
This delusional psychosis of yours appears to be worsening.

>>7524339
simply misinformation