/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8237307
>dat pic
>cringed hard
I lost an ability to care about it t/bh f/am

Are you asking why do people deny silly myths ?

What a stupid pointless thread lmao

>>8237314
I'm asking why people consider it a myth.

>>8237307
I had a severe car accident a couple of years ago and since then I've been quite suspicious of it to tell you the truth.
I also lost the ability to tie my shoes, I'm not sure if that's related.

>>8237322
Because the church of AGW has been perpetuating the same "omg were all gonna burn" meme for over 25 years with new "data" and grapgs that completely contradict with each other, and every year they get BTFO while nothing changes. Even their predictions for this summer have failed so far. AGWtards are jokers and they strictly belong to >>>/x/

>>8237385
>lost the ability to tie my shoes
You can thank global warming for that, you should've listened to Al Gore.

climate change is real. when I travel north the climate changes. it gets colder.

>>8237307
>dat facebook link name

really?

>>8237660
What did you expect from shitposting /pol/tards?

>>8237322
Because they have rewritten the temperature record several times, always increasing the warming rate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

>nb4 evil denier
Prove it wrong with documented facts.

>>8237808
Are you really going to assert the existence of a massive conspiracy involving scientists from many different countries, and back it up with a link to an hour-long youtube video of a non-expert making stupid claims about Al-Gore?

The fucking moon landing hoaxers are doing a better job; I'm actually embarrassed for you.

>>8237808
>""""""""they""""""""have rewritten the temperature record several times
>Prove it wrong with documented facts

Therein lies our little problem. You have already come to the conclusion that there is a nefarious group out there trying to keep the truth from people. So if I told you to go and read the IPCC 5th assessment report you would simply say that everything contained within it is just """"""them"""""" trying to spin lies with masses and masses of data from hundreds of different universities and independent researchers from across the globe.
The documented facts are there, you just don't consider them good enough because they do not fit your political notions.
Which is not /sci/. Try /pol/ or /x/.

>>8237826
>>8237817
climate science is less scientific than psychology

>>8237307
When you think about it, it doesn't really matter.

If the West reduces greenhouse gases, countries like China will just emit more.

They steal our intellectual property, they have no human rights standards, they try to outcompete us in every way they can, do you really believe they're not going to cheat with their emissions?

If climate change exists, the West should adapt to it, not cripple its industrial base!

>>8237859
Cool opinion, mememeister.
Climate science is essentially chemistry/physics with a ton of variables, which I'd say is more scientific than psychology.
Neuroscience is also basically chemistry/physics with a ton of variables, so that would be a more accurate analogy, but I figure you're less concerned by accuracy and more concerned by being contrarian for attention.
So here, little buddy, here's your (You). Keep on memeing :^)

>>8237864
>Prisoner dilemma, the post.

>>8237877
Yes. Of course, in reality it's even worse than that, because there are actually considerably more than 2 players.

The only rational strategy is to defect. And no, it is not "moral" or "altruistic" to transfer economic power to inhumane totalitarian regimes. Neither does it "save the planet".

>>8237882
And that's why we need a world dictatorship.

>>8237886
World War 3, you mean.

>>8237864
>If the West reduces greenhouse gases, countries like China will just emit more.
Except that's the opposite of what's actually happening. The USA's per-capita emissions are declining, and China is becoming a major player in building and installing wind turbines and photovoltic systems.

Also, you're assuming that it's a zero sum thing - if the West starts emitting less, then it becomes more profitable for other counties to pollute. But that's clearly not the case - countries that don't give a fuck about AGW (eg. Aus) are just going to burn coal regardless of what the USA or Europe do. So reducing emissions is still a net positive.

>>8237882
>Of course, in reality it's even worse than that, because there are actually considerably more than 2 players.
Defection becomes a worse strategy as the number of players increases. It's the two-player one-round nature of the Prisoner's Dilemma that makes backstabbing so profitable.

>>8237817
>Are you really going to assert the existence of a massive conspiracy i

So that's all you got? "A theory can only be wrong if there's a gigantic conspiracy."
Go back and look at the rewriting of the temperature record. Over and over. >>8237808
Are you so delusional as to think that people don't behave in their own self-interest? Or mutual self-interest?
Are you so naive as to think that every wrong scientific theory was due to a giant conspiracy?
By your ridiculous assertion, classical mechanics, non-moving continents, phlogiston theory of combustion etc. theories which were believed by almost all scientists, could have only been believed in because of a gigantic conspiracy. Yes, that's you stupid you are.

Deep down, you're undergoing painful cognitive dissonance. Watching NASA "scientists" contradict NASA "scientists." Must be painful to have your reality shattered so badly.

>>8237917
>China is becoming a major player in building and installing wind turbines and photovoltic systems.
Yes, let's just ignore that they ALSO are a major player in burning fossil fuels and buidling nuclear reactors. Are you seriously going to cherrypick like that?

>if the West starts emitting less, then it becomes more profitable for other counties to pollute. But that's clearly not the case
Wrong, it is the case: They will have lower adaptation costs while the West has higher opportunity costs. The money that the West has to spend on emissions reduction is then no longer available for adaptation in the West. In addition, if the West reduces demand for fossil fuels, the global price of fossil fuels falls and other countries can buy and burn more for the same money. Econ 101.

>Defection becomes a worse strategy as the number of players increases.
lrn2gametheory fgtpls

>>8237875
That's why its predictions are so accurate, pic related. Source: Dr. John R. Christy, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

>nb4 Schmidt and Nutter.
Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>>8237826
> Let's pretend that the UN IPCC is not a political organization.
> Masses and masses of data.
Filtered through a political committee. Not impressed.

Your naivete is astonishing.
Take your climastrology elsewhere >>>/x/

>>8237926
>buidling nuclear reactors
This is the single best way to combat global warming

>>8237927
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

ITT: Oil shills

>>8237945
No it isn't. The cement production needed for it releases its own CO2, and the energy is used in addition to burning fossil fuels, not as replacement. They do it because they want more total energy, not less.

It's not even cheaper when you consider the public costs of contamination risk and long-term waste storage.

Global Warming is 99.9999% effected by the displacement of snow and ice in Antarctica due to the symbiosis of Earth's Axis and a massive ice sheet.

>>8237935
Kek, you just did it. You did exactly what I said you'd do.
I dragged myself through IPCC5 last year because I wanted to get to the bottom of this. I couldn't find any major flaws in it. It was more comprehensive and transparent than any of the data or arguments coming from the other side. Give it a go, and see if you can find flaws that I missed.

For the record, I am politically "lower-right", and coming to terms with the reality of climate change hasn't altered that. I'm just not going to let my political views get in the way of facts, because that's for plebs.

>>8237947
>Look at Simpleton Science Soros Shills
That graph was shifted upwards (changed reference period) to hide the utter failure of the models. Again, read here:

https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Don't believe it? Let's look at the UN IPCC's original projections. See attached pic from the AR4 IPCC report (enlarged with updated temps).
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html , lower left corner.
Notice the starting point, much lower than the fraudulent rewrite of history by SimpletonScience. Don't understand why you take those guys seriously.

>>8237968
>99.9999%
>effected
>symbiosis of Earth's Axis
oh you.jpeg

>>8237920
>So that's all you got? "A theory can only be wrong if there's a gigantic conspiracy."
Reading isn't your strong point, is it?

You're the one claiming there's a massive conspiracy. Unless you actually have better evidence for that then random youtube videos, I don't NEED to do anything more than laugh.

>By your ridiculous assertion, classical mechanics, non-moving continents, phlogiston theory of combustion etc. theories which were believed by almost all scientists, could have only been believed in because of a gigantic conspiracy.
I can't even follow your train of thought here. I'm not blindly accepting your conspiracy theory, therefore I believe that Newton's work was a conspiracy? What the actual fuck?

>Deep down, you're undergoing painful cognitive dissonance. Watching NASA "scientists" contradict NASA "scientists." Must be painful to have your reality shattered so badly.
Just Stop.

>>8237926
>Yes, let's just ignore that they ALSO are a major player in burning fossil fuels and buidling nuclear reactors.
I wasn't ignoring it. My point was that they weren't just sticking to coal and leaving emissions reductions to everyone else.

>The money that the West has to spend on emissions reduction is then no longer available for adaptation in the West.
Until emissions rates stop climbing, the amount of money that needs to be spent on adaption is effectively infinite. Winning the race off a cliff isn't much of a victory.

>>8237927
You've post that exact same graph so many times, and it's been pulled apart so many times, that it's not even funny anymore.

Also, are you seriously citing WUPWT now? I mean it's a step up from fucking Youtube, but still.

>>8237935
Accusing people of being naive doesn't make your pet conspiricy theory more compelling.

>>8237948
I wish.
Actual shills are at least able to fake being coherent.

>>8237967
>and the energy is used in addition to burning fossil fuels, not as replacement
What?

>>8237971
More comprehensive? By not publishing anything that didn't fear monger so that the UN could demand $100 a year? Well I can assure you that they leave a lot out. Such as:

Lists of Skeptical Papers
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

>>8237979
>>8237971
>>8237979

>More comprehensive? By not publishing anything that didn't fear monger so that the UN could demand $100 BILLION a year?

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

>>8237977
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

>>8237978
>My point was that they weren't just sticking to coal and leaving emissions reductions to everyone else.
What are you talking about? Their emissions are increasing, not decreasing. Also they always lie about everything, why on earth would they ever publish correct numbers?

>Until emissions rates stop climbing, the amount of money that needs to be spent on adaption is effectively infinite.
Bullshit. Even if it were true we'd be better off adapting for as long as possible instead of just transferring money to goddamned China and Russia.

>What?
China doesn't build nuclear reactors in order to stop burning fussil fuels. It builds them in addition to burning fossil fuels. Are you an idiot or something?

>>8237981
>>8237979
More omitted research.
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C

Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C

>>8237979
>>8237981
Are you really going to spam the same list of cherry picked papers again?

>>8237984
>>>8237981 (You)
>>>8237979 (You)
>More omitted research.
Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters

Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C

An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila

Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C

The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C

Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °

A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle

Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °

>>8237988
More omitted research.
>>8237971


a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis. Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074

Analyzes the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends, obtained by satellite
microwave data, and surface temperature measurements.

b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 103-112

Documents the mismatch between popular perceptions, as created by media reports, and
climate reality, which does not show extreme weather as increasing in the USA.

c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in
the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228

Documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes
during the 1920s and 1930s, then a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise
in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of
tornado activity in recent years, and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.

>>8237971
>>8237989

More omitted research.


d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal
changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290

Documents that increasing economic impacts of extreme weather events in the USA is a
result of societal change and NOT global warming.

e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty &
P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586

Concludes that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization,
land-use change, etc. and not due to increasing green house gas in the atmosphere.

f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L
Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331

Shows that extreme weather events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts
etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere, where sufficient data are
available for adequate analysis.

g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D
Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238

Argues the relatively large rise of CO2 in the 20th century, was caused by the increase in
the mean temperature which preceded it.

>>8237990
>>8237971
>>8237989

More omitted research

Temperature reconstruction using proxy data: The Hockey-Stick Graph

The following studies demonstrate conclusively that the highly publicized Hockeystick
graph was based on several erroneous calculations and assumptions.
a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature
series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777

b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-
682

c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710

d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution
proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617

e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of
the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House sub-committee on
Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of
Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from
ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf

f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O
stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p.
741-751

>>8237992
More omitted research

Extraneous influence on mean temperature trends: urbanization, landuse
change etc.
a. “The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to
climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases” R A Pielke sr et al Phil.
Trans. R soc. London UK (2002)360 p.1705-1719
Considered a landmark paper in the present global warming debate. This paper brings out
an important aspect of land-use change and its dominating impact.

b. “Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate” E. Kalnay & M Cai, Nature, Vol. 423, 29
May 2003, p. 528-531
Using the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA, re-analyses upper-air data and
an extrapolation to the surface, obtaining the urbanization impact on mean temperature
trend to be about 0.280C over 100 years and about 0.180C over the recent 30 years.

c. “The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska” K Hinkel et al International J of Climatology, Vol.
23, 2003, p. 1889-1905
Obtains the urban-rural temperature difference of over 20C during the winter months at
Barrow, Alaska.

d. “Impacts of anthropogenic heat on regional climate patterns” A Block, K Keuler & E Schaller
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31, L12211, 2004
Shows how anthropogenic heat released from highly industrialized and populated areas
can produce a permanent warming from 0.15° to 0.5°C.

e. “A test of correction for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data” R McKitrick & P
Michaels, Climate Research, Vol. 26, 2004, p. 159-173
Documents a definite warm bias in the temperature trend, as a result of non-climatic
impact of local (and regional) economic activity.

>>8237985
>Hurr durr Orsekes said 100% papers are "Climate Change is True"
> Hurr durr John Crook said 97% papers!
>He's posting dozens and dozens. OMFG! Act dismissive!

Reality doesn't always conform to the dogmas of a pseudo-scientific death cult.

>>8237978
>>>8237927
>You've post that exact same graph so many times, and it's been pulled apart so many times, that it's not even funny anymore.
READ THE EVIL DENIERS: https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

> I said "its been pulled apart" and anyone who doubts that is an evil denier.
>I hate seeing our failed pseudo-science held up for ridicule!
Because its still correct and shows the utter failure of AGW.

>Also, are you seriously citing WUPWT now? I mean it's a step up from fucking Youtube, but still.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/
> Ad hominem doesn't work here.
> Warmist calculus: If denier then false, therefore climate change is true!
You remind me of fundamentalists who argue, "Christianity is true because the Bible says so. And Bible deniers are of the devil!"

>>>8237935
>Accusing people of being naive doesn't make your pet conspiricy theory more compelling.
> I reiterate any scientific theory that is believed by many scientists can only be false if there's a conspiracy. That's how science works.
You know the word "guillible" was removed from the dictionary?

I've been reading a lot of these papers you posted. These are not research papers, they're opinion response papers. Do you have any research papers to list? I'm just grabbing them at random.

>>8237983
>What are you talking about? Their emissions are increasing, not decreasing.
As are most countries, but the % of renewables is climbing. As I said, my point is that they're clearly not just ignoring AGW altogether and leaving all the work to everyone else. You can claim that they're not doing enough, but that's a different issue that can be addressed with agreements and shit.

>Also they always lie about everything, why on earth would they ever publish correct numbers?
Politicians are gonna politic. Putting up with that is just part of the price of admittance to doing anything at all on this planet.

>China doesn't build nuclear reactors in order to stop burning fussil fuels. It builds them in addition to burning fossil fuels.
If they didn't build those reactors, they would have to build MORE coal capacity. So yes, they are replacing fossil-fuel generation.

>Bullshit. Even if it were true we'd be better off adapting for as long as possible instead of just transferring money to goddamned China and Russia.
Have you been living in a cave since the cold war or something? Commuting mutual suicide just so that you don't have to give a temporary economic advantage is not a sound strategy. Go read the fucking Tragedy of the Commons.

>>8237995
I'm not even going to bother reading all of your spam, but from a look of it it's 25% interesting outliers, 50% garbage from known kooks (How many of those links are from McKitrick? And why?), and 25% good papers that you just misinterpreted.
Seriously, go look up what an argument is and how it's supposed to work. Mildly annoying people with oceans of microwave-reheated spam isn't going to win you any points.

>Reality doesn't always conform to the dogmas of a pseudo-scientific death cult.
"Pseudo-scientific death cult"? Really?
Are you just calling people names now?

>>8237982
Kek, one of my professors is one of the worlds top researchers on Milankovitch cycles, he thinks the climate change we're seeing now is due to human activity. Nice try though.

>>8237992
>>8237990
>>8237989
>>8237988
etc.
I'm aware that models have been constructed that show a lower climate sensitivity that most others, well done you for digging them up. However, having spent a long time engaged with this subject (I study math and climatology) I have come to the realization that my professors are not retards, nor are they likely paid shills, but they still invariable support the AGW hypothesis. This leads me to choose between believing them, and the large quantities of studies and models they have got me to read, and believing some guy on 4chan shitposting copypasta (according to google it's pretty stale).
Forgive me for trusting the former.

>>8238007
>Politicians are gonna politic. Putting up with that is just part of the price of admittance to doing anything at all on this planet.
So you basically admit they can and will lie through their teeth, and you still claim
>that can be addressed with agreements and shit.

No it can't you fucking imbecile.

All leftist retards like you are doing is destroying your own country to hand money over to foreign totalitarian regimes. You are fucking pathetic.

>>8238004
>READ THE EVIL DENIERS: https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
It's fucking climate audit. They have all of the journalistic integrity of the Daily Mail, just with more jargon and less racism.

>Because its still correct and shows the utter failure of AGW.
Nobody but you seems to think that. So shouting it louder won't help.

>I reiterate any scientific theory that is believed by many scientists can only be false if there's a conspiracy. That's how science works.
You seem incredibly fond of quoting me saying that, despite it having nothing at all do do with anything I ever actually wrote.
YOU are the one claiming there's an enormous conspiracy.

>>8237886
Why do you think that we need a world dictatorship?

>>8238014
I'm an earth science major hoping to go into planetary geology. I've taken all the meteorology and climatology classes my university has to offer and I'm forced to the same conclusion.

Mostly because the more I learn the clearer the data becomes but there's still a lot I don't know I can't see anything Earth shattering to occur in the future because those who've studied it longer hold the same opinion.

I'm just grabbing this guy's papers at random, I did find a couple of actual research papers and not response papers and they don't mean what Mr Potato Head thinks they do.

For example, I grabbed this one off one of his websites, a paper discussing solar irradiance http://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2016-91/

does not in any way prove global warming is a myth nor does it in any way address carbon gases or the affect we're having on the climate, positive, negative, or neutral. It's simply discussing changes between events such as the Maunder Minimum and today's solar output.

I'm forced to say 'and?' We've known about this stuff for decades.

We're well off the 11 year cycle, the sun's affect on the climate is being overwritten by greenhouse gases, posting a paper on the sun's affect on climate is interesting but worthless.

>>8238017
>All leftist retards like you are doing is destroying your own country to hand money over to foreign totalitarian regimes.
>leftistsleftistsleftistsleftistsLEFTISTSLEFTISTSLEFTISTSLEFTISTS
You're showing your true colors at last.
This honestly, genuinely isn't about being BLIND LEFTIST SHEEPLE KEKS.
This is, at it's heart, about combustion products, and radiative forcing, and the extent one affects the other.
I'm opposed to gibsmedats, I favour restricting muslim immigration, and limiting government power.
I also believe carbon dioxide causes radiative forcing (can be shown in a high school lab), and we are emitting enough of it collectively to make a measurable difference in earth's temperature, and that the people who are measuring it aren't all retarded or evil, and, most importantly, that it will be cheaper to adopt clean technology now than it will be to clean up after the increase in storms and rising sea levels etc (see The Stern Review).

>>8238017
So you basically admit they can and will lie through their teeth, and you still claim that can be addressed with agreements and shit.
Yes?
Chinese politicians don't have a monopoly on being two-faced asshats, everyone else's can do that too. You seem to be assuming that because everyone isn't best friends and holding hands, it's a waste of time to try to make agreements or solve problems. Which is fucking dumb.

China is going to be hit by global warming too. They know that, they're not stupid. And while the numbers they're producing are almost certainly "optimistic", they're clearly putting considerable money and effort into developing and rolling out non-fossil-fuel generation. Furthermore, the Chinese economy is heavily dependent on international trade. So the whole "We shouldn't bother because they won't" arguments fails on three counts: They ARE bothering, if they weren't we do have means to try and talk them into it, and even if they didn't care and wouldn't listen, carrying them would still be better than drag-racing them off the cliff.

>All leftist retards like you are doing is destroying your own country to hand money over to foreign totalitarian regimes.
No-one but you is talking about destroying any countries.

Seriously, I don't understand what your overall point is, it's like some kind of twisted, paranoid version of the perfect-world fallacy: "Well THEY might try to exploit anything good we ever do, so we'll just have stop trying to fix anything and make sure we fuck everyone over harder than they do".
That isn't rational, that's Captain Planet villain reasoning.

>>8238038
> it will be cheaper to adopt clean technology now than it will be to clean up after the increase in storms and rising sea levels etc
No it isn't you fucking retard.

I didn't call you a leftist because you believe in climate change, I called you a leftist because you want to damage your own country and transfer money to China and Russia, which is exactly what you unilateral emissions reduction madness would boil down to.

We already established that the storms and sea level rise will happen regardless of whether we reduce emissions or not, because China, Russia and other countries SURE AS HELL will emit the difference anyway.

We even agreed they will lie about the numbers if necessary.

Why do you think Russia's propaganda channel RT pushes the climate agenda so aggressively? Out of the goodness of their hearts? You're a fucking moron if you believe that.

>>8238033
>I can't see anything Earth shattering to occur in the future
This.
I have far left peers that are climate change activists, a lot of them seem to think we are heading for venusification, human extinction etc.
We're not. We're looking at a fair bit of extinction of other species (sad, but in a couple of generations time, nobody will give much of a shit. t. Dodo). Other than that it'll be a bit stormier and windier, and the ocean will rise, laying waste to our low-lying cities, causing mass immigration (wuh-oh!) and economic hardship. Nothing our species can't survive, but it's more efficient to tackle now than later.

>>8238049
>Chinese politicians don't have a monopoly on being two-faced asshats, everyone else's can do that too. You seem to be assuming that because everyone isn't best friends and holding hands, it's a waste of time to try to make agreements or solve problems. Which is fucking dumb.
You know what is REALLY dumb? Pretending you can make meaningful agreements with people who you know in advance will cheat.

>China is going to be hit by global warming too. They know that, they're not stupid.
Yes, they're not stupd, but apparently you are. Their best play is to get us to reduce while they don't.

>they're clearly putting considerable money and effort into developing and rolling out non-fossil-fuel generation.
They're spending money on every source that's profitable to them, INCLUDING fossil fuels. You sure as hell can bet they're not going to spend one cent more on the same energy than they have to. Which means, if we reduce, it becomes cheaper for them to emit and that's exactly what they will do because they are not idiots like leftists in the West.

Why isn't there more reason to believe that greenhouse gases may be kept in the atmosphere and warm, but particulates make reflect sunlight and cause cooling? Sounds like bullshit to me.

I believe in science, so yes, I think global warming is real.

>>8238050
This is honestly like arguing with my dog.
I'm done, you win "The Most Persistent Retard Award", clap for u.
Anyone else that feels like tagging in, just remember, this guy has already made up his mind, nothing you will say can change it.

>>8238055
>You know what is REALLY dumb? Pretending you can make meaningful agreements with people who you know in advance will cheat.
Believe it or not, but international agreements actually are a thing that already exists. Seriously how do you think every trade deal or treaty ever works? Both sides basically admit they know they other side is going to cheat, and then they take steps to catch them and use it as leverage.

You don't NEED everyone to be perfectly honest with everyone for things to work. And I have no idea why you think otherwise

>Yes, they're not stupd, but apparently you are. Their best play is to get us to reduce while they don't.
That's not just their best play, that's everyone's (immediate) best play. It's also a terrible play if everyone does that.
The point is that this ISN'T the prisoner's dilemma, because we're not playing it in the dark. We can talk to each other, we can make deals, and we get more than one chance to make a decision. Every nation has tools to punish the other, every nation has tools to see what the others are doing, and every nation has a stake in the overall outcome.

I'll say it again with less words:
Co-operation doesn't require everyone to be friends.

What IS naive and stupid is your unspoken assumption that China is somehow exempt from all of this, and that they can do whatever and the rest of the world just has to put up with it. And what's even stupider is your conclusion - that it's better to commit mutual suicide than to let them away with it.

>>8238069
>nothing you will say can change it.
Because you didn't provide ANY FUCKING ARGUMENTS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY DEFEAT THE POINT.

Writing words no the internet is not magic that will change everybody's minds to yours while you have no fucking point.

You have no knowledge of the game theory and economics of climate change, you just keep pretending that unilateral emissions reduction is some kind of smart solution AFTER I explained to you why it makes no goddamned sense in words that a child should understand.

You're a fucking imbecile and I cringe at the thought that you have the right to vote.

>>8238054
I meant 'earth shattering' being some smoking gun that proves all the science we've learned in the last 50 years is a lie. I've read papers about clouds offsetting warming that turned out to be nothing, I've read about cosmic rays, high altitude clouds, rain patterns in the tropics. All turned out to be fluff.

Nothing at all, no earth shattering thing, has proven that our understanding of climate is wrong. I don't see it happening at this point. Our understanding of the climate is pretty straightforward. The arguments against are pretty contrived.

>>8238089
>Believe it or not, but international agreements actually are a thing that already exists.
Funny, last time I checked the Paris agreement was the best we could ever come up with, and it has NO FUCKING ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

>Seriously how do you think every trade deal or treaty ever works?
Guess what: They send goods we can examine and vice versa. What are you going to do, establish a surveillance net in China AND ALL OTHER COUNTRIES that independently measures CO2 emissions? You're so detached from reality it hurts.

>The point is that this ISN'T the prisoner's dilemma
Exactly, it's WORSE because we have hundreds of players involved, and every single one of them has an incentive to defect.

>Co-operation doesn't require everyone to be friends.
>your unspoken assumption that China is somehow exempt
Idiotic strawmen that have no relationship with the actual argument.

>>8238094
Arguments to what? Whether or not AGW is a conspiracy or not? That's what the thread is about. That's all I was ever arguing. Handsome strawman though. Maybe you thought I was somebody else. Don't worry, it must be hard to keep track of all these big scary alternative viewpoints.
No need to get so mad though!

>>8238106
>That's what the thread is about. That's all I was ever arguing.
Blatant lie, when you look at the context. You can click on the fucking links.

Seriously kiddo, you can't even have a fucking discussion on 4chan without lying about something people can check, and you think totalitarian regimes are not going to lie about their emissions when no one can check and they have massive incestives to lie.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

>>8238103
>Funny, last time I checked the Paris agreement was the best we could ever come up with
It's not "we could ever come up with" - we've done far better with other (non-climate) treaties.
In fact, most of the criticism of the Paris agreement was that none of the parties were actually willing to commit to anything.

>What are you going to do, establish a surveillance net in China AND ALL OTHER COUNTRIES that independently measures CO2 emissions?
You don't need a surveillance net for that. There's a bunch of practical ways to estimate emissions. For starters: coal mines aren't exactly subtle.

>Exactly, it's WORSE because we have hundreds of players involved, and every single one of them has an incentive to defect.
No.
The "backstabbyness" of the Prisoner's Dilemma comes from the fact that it's played in the dark. No-one gets to talk to each other or see what anyone else is doing until they've already made their final decision. It's a TERRIBLE model for human behavior, because we AREN'T playing in the dark with only a single decision at the end.
We can make agreements. We can determine whether people are upholding those agreements. And when they don't uphold those agreements, we can punish them. Fuck, even you have to be aware of this, because you just explicitly pointed out that the Paris agreement sucks because it fails at THIS VERY THING.

I'm repeating my self now, but FUCK: China is bound by the exact same limitations as anyone else. They CAN'T just run off and do their own thing, because they depend on international trade and agreements just like everyone else, and because they live in the same climate as everyone else. They can't just sit this out, and they're smart enough to know that. So your fearmongering that relies on the assumption that they can do whatever they want without repercussions is broken from the very first word.

>>8238112
I followed the links, couldn't find an example of me arguing anything other than whether or not AGW is a conspiracy. I did, however, find lots of instances of you getting very wound up, calling people nasty names, and being quite frightened of big scary unilateral agreements. I think that you're being a very naughty man, but that it comes from a place of fear, and that you have some personal soul searching to do. Good luck with that anon, I wish you all the best.

>>8238133
>China is bound by the exact same limitations as anyone else. They CAN'T just run off and do their own thing, because they depend on international trade and agreements just like everyone else, and because they live in the same climate as everyone else.
Are you 12 or something? The have the biggest cyber espionage army in the world, steal trade secrets and IP as a routine operation, employ child and slave labor and lie about other forms of pollution all the fucking time.

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

I'm done discussing with you backstabbing traitors, you are a disgrace to your country and you do not deserve the right to vote.

>>8238148
>I followed the links, couldn't find an example of me arguing anything other than whether or not AGW is a conspiracy.
That's funny because you responded to my posts and I didn't even engage in that aspect of the discussion. Lying piece of shit.

>>8238192
>I'm done discussing with you backstabbing traitors, you are a disgrace to your country and you do not deserve the right to vote.
Haha oh wow.

>>8237977
>effected
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/effect
>effect - VERB: "Cause (something) to happen; bring about"

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business/business-news/mini-ice-age-could-freeze-11607587

Global warming is a liberal hoax. Everybody knows that. That's why the changed it to climate change, so that they can attribute all kinds of weather to it.

The climate has always been changing and will always be changing, as long as there is an atmosphere.

CO2 is actually food for plants. It's good for the planet.

>>8237808
>Prove it wrong with documented facts.
Independent study confirmed those adjustments were necessarily and accurate.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

>>8238419
this, ladies and gentlemen is the quality of bait we have here now

What is even the point of discussing AGW if theres nothing we can do about it ?

>>8238587
Because there IS something we can do about it and the longer we wait the worse it'll become. The more people that are informed the sooner we can expect change.

>>8238597
wat to do ?

>>8238062
I believe in science, so yes, I think there are over 40 different genders

i don;t actually care about AGW but i think we should stop using oil because saudi arabia is a fucking awful place and the sooner we stop paying them to cause trouble the better

>>8237307
If there was a shred of consistent scientific evidence supporting it, I'd believe in it.

>>8237817
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.
>Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil refining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
>allegedly accepted $1.2 million over the past 14 years from energy companies

You don't even need to read it. I highlighted some points for you as you seem the type to doesn't like to read.

tl;dr the conspiracy is real, unfortunatly

>>8238611
Whats even their endgame ? Isn't global warming primarily gonna hurt oil and gas companies ? They told me that the entire point was to go green and use electric cars and shit.

>>8238616
An effective conspiracy doesn't necessarily need to be well thought out. Perhaps they haven't thought that far ahead. Maybe they'll just move to a colder climate and live out retirement in opulence and let the rest of the world burn.

>>8238616
An effective conspiracy theory doesn't need to be clever, sophisticated or well thought out. On the contrary those with extreme power tend to use simple brute force solutions rather than clever ones. (such as bribing people with exorbitant amounts of money) So they probably haven't thought that far ahead. Maybe they plan to move to a colder climate with AC and live in opulence till they die of old age.

>>8237660
whatever happened to ExtremelyPissedOffRightWingers1 I wonder.

>>8237808
>let's take three poorly-labeled graphs that aren't aligned on the axes
>flash them past the viewer really fast so it's hard to compare them
>and say they prove a massive conspiracy
>adjustments? measurement bias? what are those?
just the same old denier memegraph as always
>nb4 evil denier
>Prove it wrong with documented facts.
this fucking guy who wants us to prove there ISN'T a conspiracy even though he hasn't brought any "documented facts" to suggest that there IS.

>>8237975
>they measured temperature anomaly using a different baseline
>therefore it's a fraud!
do you understand how graphs work? like, at all? the climateaudit post literally takes the observation curve and moves it up and down to try and prove your claim, apparently unaware that all that is changed by using a different baseline is that the y-axis is numbered differently.

>>8237979
>>8237981
>>8237984
>>8237988
>>8237989
>>8237990
>>8237992
>>8237994
reminder: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
do I also need to remind you of how many of your listed papers actually SUPPORT mainstream theories of climate change?

>>8238466
deniers STILL don't have an answer to how known skeptic Muller tried to prove climate change to be false, and ended up proving it true instead.

>>8238599
Move away from suburban sprawl and back into the cities. Fund research for alternative energy. Support taxation of automobiles and gasoline that discourage their use. Support carbon sequestering projects.

This is not rocket surgery

>>8238771
>whole post of shitposting, adhominems and more lies
>post consists zero evidence
nobody is surprised

>>8238791
>hurr I don't like it
>he said mean things
>ADHOMADHOMADHOMADHOM
if I had a nickel for every /pol/ack who accused people of argumentum ad hominem without actually knowing what it means...I could buy myself a candy bar.

>>8238797
>omg how can u judge me im so triggered
>whaaaaaaaa polpolpolpolpolpolpolpol Dx Dx
if I had a nickel for every dumb sjwtard who desperately calls random people online pol, I could buy myself an airline company

>>8238702
Maybe energy is life, so to control life control energy? I think we are just watching the transformation from a usury based control system to an energy based control system. Of course there is resistance in the feeback loop known as the internets. AGW is just a theory supported only by computer simulations. Garbage in, garbage out, propaganda is often just smothering a population in garbage.

>>8237307
Why even bother? GW/CC is irrelevant, just ignore it.

>>8238791
>>8238797
>>8238814
>these faces
i'm laughing but please stop

>>8237920
>"scientists"
Fuck off to /x/

>>8238814
if everyone in the world was a "dumb sjwtard" such as you describe, that would be $370M
even relatively small airlines have a net worth over a billion $dollarz$

I at least was honest about what I could buy with my nickels

>>8238814
>>8238870

BTFO

>>8238870
>I don't know how currency works

>>8238870
holy shit, fucking REKT

>>8237307
>le cherry picked

Gotta love watching libtards on /sci/ getting BTFO on a daily basis.

>>8238877
>damage control
hey, at least you were able to afford some dubdubs. :^)

You guys have a really funny way of saying you support nuclear energy to cut down on all the nasty carbon emissions that make the climate change and government panels need billions of tax dollars to study thermostats going up and down.

I'm sorry but if you actually argue with global warming deniers then you've stooped to their level and they will defeat you with their experience.

These retards appear everywhere. Whether it's about vaccines, the moon landing or flat Earth, there will always be a couple of retards saying "Hurrr durr the scientists are wrong! It's a big huge conspiracy by the majority of scientists and scientific institutions! I know that cause my local Republican politicians and my pastor told me so!"

You literally can't get any more retarded than this. The Facebook page in OP's picture is just icing on the cake.

>>8239531
>reaction image posting
>purely ad-hominem
>strawman
>lying
>generalizing
>name calling
>zero argument
>no evidence yet again

Typical AGW poster. Why is nobody surprised ?

>>8239536
>Evidence

Wait. Since when did GW deniers ever care about evidence? Even if I did post evidence, wouldn't you just link me to some conspiracy theory? Or say "All your sources contradict each other (Even though they all agree?) And wouldn't my evidence by "debunked" by some right-winged politician that knows better?

Fine, I'll bite the bait.

Listen you idiot, it doesn't take a complete fucking genius to realize that more greenhouse gazes in the atmosphere, that the more hotter it's going it. The increase of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, mainly due to the use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

The majority of scientific institutions and most scientists agree that global warming is real. Only Republicans and a few retards without a high school degree oppose this.

Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I mean just look at all these lying bastards, how dare they!!! Pushing their global agenda on us!!

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

It's a worldwide conspiracy to fool us into caring more about our ecosystem, how dare they!!!

I can't believe that people like this exist, it blows my mind.

>>8239562
I suspect that the rise of "I don't believe the experts" is due to people having too high self esteem.

Like, you don't get this in Asian countries, because Asian countries understand that you are worthless until proven otherwise.

>>8239562
We are talking about manmade global warming retard. How can you try to sound so righteous when you don't even know what people are talking about ?

Your "evidence" should be proving that if we stop certain things the average temperature will stop rising.

>some right-winged politician that knows better?
>All your sources contradict each other

The pope fully supports the church of AGW btw. It's ironic how furiously righteous you try to sound yet you're unaware of the world and everything you say is retardedly wrong on dangerous levels

>>8239566
China has been neglecting the disastrous effects of such large scale use of fossil fuels and now it's paying the price.

Beijing is barely habitable now due to the very toxic care, but now it's waking up. China today is the country that spends the largest amount of money on green technology and is trying to move away from fossil fuels because the rest of the country is ruined.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/11/china-s-investment-in-renewable-energy-surpasses-europe-u-s-combined.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/by-the-numbers-china-s-clean-energy-investments-show-big-strides

I've got a crazy idea, how about we learn from China's mistake and try to avoid it? Or should we wait? The shift to green energy must be done as fast as possible.

>>8239584
>Posts link where it's CLEARLY written "(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)"
>Hurrr we talking about AGWWWW

>Talk about human use of fossil fuels and deforestation
>Hurrr we talking about AGWWW


Please, continue on with your stupidity. And oh the irony, what I am saying is dangerous? Curse me for being dangerous! Curse me for wanting to take better care of our ecosystem and Earth! Instead, let's remove all environmental regulations and pollute away, that's the less dangerous pass you agree with, right?

Jesus Christ, this can't be real. People can't actually be this retarded. And Pope Francis is chill you fucking idiot, still a better moral authority than fucking Ted Cruz or some other Republican that opposes global warming.

>>8239593
>argument from politics
Thanks for letting us know to ignore the rest of your dumb posts :^)

1/3 of all the CO2 man has released since 1750, has been released since 1997. Since 1997, satellite data shows no change in global temperature. And CO2's effect is supposed to be primarily relatively immediate, with its lagging effects being relatively reduced.

An utterly massive dump of primary climate forcing and no change? Fail to reject the null hypothesis. Back to the drawing board.

Either way, climate science isn't science. There's no control Earth.

>>8239863
>Setup strawman
>knock it down

>climate science isn't science. There's no control Earth.
Not all sciences are experimental, some are observational. Astronomy and much of geology.

>>8239896
>/x/tard global warming alarmist trying to justify unfalsifiability
heh

>>8239562
You see this ? This is official data from NASA clearly showing evidence of the UFOs.

How can there still be UFO denialists after the massive amount of evidence in 2016 ? I can't believe people like this still exist like O to the M to the G

>>8239931
Is nasa reporting that as confirmation of visitation from extraterestrial lifeforms? Cool, please post link for more info.

>>8239863
Completely absurd. We make predictions, when predictions are shown to be accurate the science is proven. Not having a control Earth is irrelevant.

In before another dumb fuck uses falsified data to claim climate predictions haven't been accurate.

Okay I need an opinion on a Computer Repair shop. I have narrowed it down to two names which are funny but at the same time professional. The first name is "Toss Me The TP (thermal paste) and the second one is "Hand Me The Hard Drive". Be as brutal as you like :p

>>8240200
>Computer simulations of every carbon molecule on earth
>science
Wew lad.

>>8240218
the meme of "it's not a good simulation unless you track every molecule" stopped being funny a long time ago, and was forced to begin with

or maybe you're just an autistic physicist who doesn't like to think about how particles behave in aggregate.