/sci/ - Science & Math

Are we still talking about this in current year?
It's none of your business goy.

I know this is an /sci/ thread but is there a single evidence against man-made global warming ?

>>8022314

Why don't you try Wikipedia?

>>8022314
https://youtu.be/C4bDk-pPgbs

>>ITT: OP is a faggot like always

>>8022327
Sheeeit, Bill hasn't lost his coolness(pun intended)

>>8022314
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Here, it even comes in basic and intermediate so you can read it at your own pace :)

>>8022327
> temperature measurement from millions of years before the present
LMAO

>>8022314
what you should really ask is:

-is there evidence that climate changing is man-made
-is there evidence that climate changing is NOT man-made
in both cases, yes

>>8022336
Do unicorns have red horns or blue horns ?

I say red horns, what do you say ? But you can only say red or blue horns even though we haven't established the existence of unicorns yet.

>>8022336
And what you should know is that the ration of evidence is:isn't is 10:1

>>8022334
Well as Bill explains, it's from computer models and estimates (estimates based on the isotopes of various elements found in minerals, as well as the structure of the minerals themselves left over from those time periods).

But despite being fairly accurate by all standards, it also doesn't take into account a variety of other circumstances that make it a poor way of determining the effects of CO2, as Bill also mentioned.

>>8022314
concrete evidence right here. if you don't get it, you're just stupid.

>>8022338
So what you are saying is that we haven't even established that there is any kind of climate change, so there is no point in arguing whether the planet is warming up or cooling down. Instead of arguing whether the ship is sinking or not, we should first argue whether or not we're on a ship at all.

>>8022341
The reliability of radiocarbon dating only lasts maximum 50,00 years. Any time period beyond that is full of inconsistencies and loses its credibility.

>>8022348
Carbon dating is not the only dating methodology.

>>8022347
I'm saying you should argue with evidence and not semantics. Something so obvious as you claim as man-made climate change should have tons of solid evidence lying around so you don't have to avoid showing even one.

>>8022352
I'd like to hear the other methods that actually reach a scientific standard. Remember, evidence is a strong word. You can't prove anything with rings on the trees and counting coral reefs.

>>8022353
But there is tons of evidence. The question we should be asking is, do you really want to hear it?

>>8022343
>uncited
>no label on the y axis
>no scale
>no uncertainty
>multiple values of x for the same y and vice versa
I'd like to see the data set this was generated from.

Because honestly, I'm a little suspect of any graph of hurr vs durr given how easy it is to cherrypick the results.

>>8022355
I can't wait to see this ton of evidence you're talking about. I can finally prove to people that AGW is not an /x/ subject

>>8022354
>evidence is a strong word
>especially when I redefine it to exclude things like evidence

>>8022358
k

>>8022361
> I have no evidence
> I rather attempt lowering his standards of evidence so I can sell this bullshit.
Are you afraid that your "evidence" is going to be on par with this ? : >>8022343

>>8022363
>evidence is widely available online and has been posted in this thread >>8022327 >>8022332
>I know, if I ASSERT that there is no evidence that's the same as there not being any
>checkmate!

>>8022369
You obviously don't know anything about axiom of choice. If I choose for it to be no evidence, then there is no evidence.

>>8022371
There is no evidence alright. If there was any, you would post just one instead of avoiding it for the last dozen of posts and shitpost instead.

First it was not happening at all.
Then it was not caused by human emissions.
Then it was that ice ages happen all the time bro.
Now it's the sun or planet x.
All great arguments, we should have this thread 4 times a day.

>>8022314
No. It's fabricated my China to cripple the West's economy.

>>8022314
> agw
yes it is an /x/ meme and it should remain in >>>/x/

>>8022375
My sentiments exactly

>>8022339
oh jesus fuck no please. No. NO.

>hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr more people are paid to say it is so it must be true durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I expect more from someone who pretends to be a scientist.

>31 replies
>8 posters
>it was 7 within the first 11 replies
>I know only three of the posts have been me
Little bit of samefagging going on here I sense

>m-muh models
>m-muh consensus
scientific truths are not defined by democracy

anyone who argues deductively from consensus is scientifically illiterate at best, and a jew at worst

>>8022391
>3 out 7 are mine
Sound to me like you're the samefag

I guess the industrialization ended the ice age as well lol

>>8022397
Holy shit, I knew /sci/ was stupid but come on

Within the first 11 replies, there were 7 posters. I was one of those posters (and two of the posts were mine).

At the point I posted that, there had been 31 replies, I had posted once more and the number of posters had only increased by one.

Now this guy >>8022393 has posted, it increased to 9 - but it didn't increase when you posted, dear samefag.

>>8022393
Yes, you have every right to challenge established scientific consensus assuming you are just as educated and well-informed on the subject as the scientists you're challenging or have access to some evidence that they don't or can somehow show that they're all incompetent and/or lying. But if you're just a pleb talking out of his ass then you're an idiot. Imagine if you're a physicist and some normie off the street tries to tell you that relativity is bullshit because he read some fucking blog posts about it. That's the level you're on.

>>8022404
well it's an /x/ thread so who cares

>>8022404
Of course it didn't increase I was reply to you

>>8022402
>>8022404
Nor you, in fact. I realise you have to create the illusion of a majority in order to push your viewpoint, despite one of your core arguments being that an overwhelming majority consensus does not constitute sufficient evidence, but come on.

>>8022393
>I don't understand what consensus is or why people care about it.
>Despite this very issues being explained multiple times in literally every AGW thread.
>Instead of doing even the slightest research, or even asking someone else, I'm just going to shitpost about Jews!

I'm sure this thread is going to be fantastic.

>>8022410
an overwhelming majority of the world have consensus on the existence on God as well...
Even though there are zero consensus on AGW, nor any proof

>>8022416
Exactly. We haven't seen this AGW you speak of

>>8022314
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

>>8022406
Yes, and the same goes for inbred normies spouting off how they "know" man-made climate change is real because it's the current year - or because Bill "Bachelors in Engineering" Nye keeps yelling it on national television.

Anyone who says man-made climate change is real because there is a consensus among scientists can be destroyed in about 2 seconds using simple first-order logic.

>>8022415
Okay but you even admit that I'm just shitposting about the jews (i.e. I'm having a laugh). Just trying to funpost a bit, mate.

>>8022415
> there is zero consensus or anything of the sorts
> AGWtards got BTFO in literally in every thread due to lack of evidence or even basic argumentative skills
> oh let me pick on the guy that used the word "jew" in his post so I can avoid delivering evidence as if I'm not trying to argue about AGW or something.
It's already fantastic. Another AGW /x/ thread, another bunch of delusional AGWtards drowning in their autism.

>>8022314
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

>>8022427
>showing a website specifically tailored to proving AGW
Yea, nice try.

>>8022421
Yeah, I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying consensus doesn't automatically imply accuracy, even though there is zero consensus on AGW.

Except for /x/ probably

>>8022429
>show me evidence of AGW
>but don't link to sites that present evidence for it
What are you even on about?

>>8022430
Why would you argue about the accuracy of something that is at a zero? It like arguing about the existence of God

>>8022433
> posts cheap amateur journals
> as concrete evidence for AGW
wow...I guess it proves that fat people just have bigger bones and aren't really fat.

>>8022416
>an overwhelming majority of the world have consensus on the existence on God as well...
Scientific consensus and religious headcounts are completely different issues. To begin with, it's generally accepted that as a whole, practicing scientists are experts inside their fields. I doubt many Buddhists recognize Islamic clerics as authoritative sources.

>Even though there are zero consensus on AGW,
What? You can piss and moan about whether it's 97% or 95%, but the vast majority of climatologists believe that AGW is a real problem.

>nor any proof
There's plenty. Go read fucking anything not shat out by a blogger.

>>8022421
>We haven't seen this AGW you speak of
Here.
Good enough?

>>8022424
>Yes, and the same goes for inbred normies spouting off how they "know" man-made climate change is real because it's the current year - or because Bill "Bachelors in Engineering" Nye keeps yelling it on national television.
God forbid that non-experts might believe the conclusions of experts. Those crazy fools probably go to doctors too.

>Anyone who says man-made climate change is real because there is a consensus among scientists can be destroyed in about 2 seconds using simple first-order logic.
I think you're horribly confused about what a consensus is and why people care.

>>8022430
>I'm saying consensus doesn't automatically imply accuracy,
No-one claimed it did. What has been claimed is that consensus is a strong indicator of accuracy that's accessible to people without expert knowledge.

>>8022436
>Skeptical Science
>cheap amateur journal
If you don't even grasp the distinction between a journal and a site run to inform the public, just stop posting.

>>8022486
>There's plenty. Go read fucking anything not shat out by a blogger.

Expect him next to try to refute your argument by citing a blog.