/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8523374
>I've never felt this level of rage before
"waaahhh someone believes something different than I do"
go fuck yourself

>>>/pol/

>>8523380 climate change isn't a "belief" anymore. With the amount of evidence we have denying climate change is like denying gravity.

>>8523391
>denying climate change is like denying gravity.
which is something /pol/ denies as well, so it's in line with their beliefs.

good, either we fuck industry now or climate later. and i'm not going to be around later.

>>8523380
go back to your safe space

honestly at this point we're fucked anyway; might as well just live the most comfortable lives we possibly can and build compounds so that our descendants can life comfortably, if differently, in the future instead of living shitty lives so our descendants can live shitty lives

>>8523395
That's real selfish there, son. You're not planning on having kids, are you?

>>8523430
your kids aren't your consciousness.

>>8523430
kids will adapt

what do you think the point of evolution/natural selection is?

>>8523374
CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP

>>8523391
no one denies climate is changing. The right tends to deny humans are the cause. I'm more or less in the middle, I think humans are contributing but the evidence of it is vastly overblown. There's a reason /sci/ gets trolled by so many climate change threads, because most people claiming the evidence is undeniable are just parroting others. In any case, it is a far cry from being established science.
>>8523398
you're the one crying about differing opinions.

>>8523461
>In any case, it is a far cry from being established science.
That's bullshit.
What criteria would you need it to meet to be considered "established science"? It's already very widely accepted by experts in the field.

>>8523461
this, the long term projections still need 100 years of validation. the climate catastrophe stuff is at best equivalent to string theory at this point.

>>8523461
>no one denies climate is changing
HAVE YOU FUCKING BEEN ON THIS BOARD IN THE PAST EVER

>There's a reason /sci/ gets trolled by so many climate change threads
IT'S BECAUSE THERE IS AN ENDLESS SUPPLY OF ASSHOLES WHO DENY THAT THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING

HOLY FUCK

>>8523499
>It's already very widely accepted by experts in the field.
so was ego depletion...

>>8523507
models are also all over the place.

>>8523461
get the fuck off of my board

you're comparing yourself to /pol/ and calling yourself a moderate

I have news for you you brainwashed smug piece of shit

>>8523527
tbf you guys are the extremists when it comes to this. you are taking the more extreme position.

>>8523527
>get the fuck off of my board
>my board

>>8523532
>>8523534
consider killing yourself

>>8523507
Models are irrelevant in linking humans to climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

>>8523540
do you have anything worthwhile to contribute?

if not have fun with your shitposting i guess

>>8523394
>which is something /pol/ denies as well, so it's in line with their beliefs.


underrated best post! /thread

>>8523380
"waaahhh someone believes something different than I do"
go fuck yourself

>>8523519
So was evolution.

>>8523544
Why should I put effort or thought into my posts when you refuse to do the same? Let's shitpost together, friendo.

Also, kill yourself.

>>8523554
why are you such an extremist edgelord?

>>8523541
the comment was about the severity and timing of outcome given trends.

>>8523555
why is it that you can only call yourself a moderate when you compare yourself to the literal scum of the earth?

>>8523499
>What criteria would you need it to meet to be considered "established science"?
the evidence
The evidence itself. you do realize what an argument ad populum is right? tell me, what irrefutable evidence is there that humans are the cause? saying it's very widely accepted just reiterates my earlier point about the most ardent supporters having little knowledge of the subject. Again, I do believe that humans are very likely to be contributing to climate change. I would even say that it's likely that the contribution is significant (i.e. speeding it up by some factor), but saying that it's almost a certainty and comparing it to gravity is a huge intellectual failure.
>>8523515
>>8523527
Ironic that the people arguing strictly emotionally would tell me I don't belong here.
Try a little something called objectivity.

>>8523570
not him but because moderates aren't extremist enough to label the other side of the spectrum literal scum of the earth. not everything /pol/ says is wrong.

>>8523572
>tell me, what irrefutable evidence is there that humans are the cause?
Parading around your ignorance of climate science is not a convincing argument.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

tl:dr Greenhouse effect via basic physics, humans being the main source of net increase in greenhouse gasses via radiosotope analysis, greenhouse gasses being the main source of radiative forcing via radiative spectroscopy, and much much more!

I can't wait to watch this world burn. Honestly what a time to be alive. You get to see a species that has evolved for over hundreds of thousands of years to kill itself.

We are LITERALLY standing at the beginning of the end. Literally the point of no return.
How can you not be hyped for this?

>>8523590
iktftbhf

>>8523592
Nothing personal is actually the first thing that comes to mind. There's no hatred involved. You actually get to see the end of human race. How cool is that?

>>8523575
/pol/ is never right

>>8523584
This. There is irrefutable evidence yet it's still refuted.... Fucking madness

>>8523374
This is what people should be protesting, NOT FUCKING DEMOCRACY.

>>8523575
ecologists have determined that extermination mosquitoes would have no negative effects on the biosphere

I see no reason not to believe something analogous with /pol/tards

literally name one good thing that /pol/ supports

>>8523608
Please don't tell me there are people still walking around a month after the votes.

>>8523428
bullshit we're not fucked, we need to build tens of thousands of nuclear reactors using uranium we rip out of the ocean and start ripping CO2 out of the air and converting it into carbon fiber and other useful carbon things. We need to get pro-active on stopping CO2 build-up god damn it! None of this faggy cap and trade shit.

>>8523572
The typical tinfoil hat denier is boring to me, the conspiracy logic and cherrypicking is the same every single time, but your kind is fascinating. You think you're being "objective" and "neutral" when in reality you were just intelligent enough to realize that the denier blogs you were reading were probably bullshit, yet not intelligent enough to actually go look at what scientists are actually saying. Is it because you were scared you wouldn't understand it, or did you try to understand it and failed?

>>8523572
what arguments

this is not an argument

this is me done arguing

this is me telling you that you are literally garbage

try a little something like get the fuck out

weathermen can barely predict tomorrow's temperature and whether it will rain, and you expect me to believe they can predict the entire global climate?

good joke

>>8523555
why don't you just kill yourself.

>>8523625
>try a little something like get the fuck out
yes little one, keep doing this for decades to come, this way of reasoning people will SURELY sway them to your views :D

>>8523625
>>8523628
You see? This is this thread everytime. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to shitpost and make things worse because by god I don't see why you faggots should have the monopoly on being giant unthinking assholes. I'm doing this because it's shit, you're shit, and I don't anyone to come away not believing its shit because believe me its shit.

>>8523622
No different then the people who think GMOs are evil and that vaccines cause autism. All of them read their science from shitty blogs to confirm their beliefs.

>>8523635
fuck my views

fuck converting you

just get out

the future doesn't need you, just kill yourself

>>8523628
Physicists can barely predict a coin flip and you expect me to believe they can predict it will land on heads half of the time on average?

Good joke

>>8523642
shouldnt you be whining on your tumblr or something?

>>8523613
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/12/07/michael-moore-calls-for-protesters-to-disrupt-trumps-inauguration.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-idUSKBN13W2HQ

>>8523644
shouldn't you be in your safe space?

>>8523602

>>8523657
where's that suppose to be? the place where everyone believes without a doubt that climate change is real?

maybe you should give Climate Hustle a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q

you're the one trying to shut down all opposing opinions

I'm happy to discuss with you but all you want to do is tell people to kill themselves

>>8523610
western civilization

>>8523663
Maybe you should kill yourself

>>8523584
and blindly linking something and saying it says something without quoting or citing is not an argument either. I'm not reading 150 pages just because you're too lazy to form your own argument. try again with page number citations and actual statements.
>tl:dr Greenhouse effect via basic physics, humans being the main source of net increase...
This, again, is nothing I disagree with. It's generally accepted that greenhouse gasses change climate. It's an obvious fact that that humans are contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Can you quantify the effects of this? How much faster is the climate changing? How bad would the consequences be? how fast would it increase (or not increase) if humans contributed no greenhouse gasses?

>went to fox news facebook page
>HAHAHAHA THIS WILL HURT LIBRULS HAHA XD
Are conservatives really so retarded that they would pick an idiot to dictate the nation's policy on a vital topic JUST to spite liberals? Don't they realize that worsening of the environment affects them too?

>>8523663
I'm not trying to shut down your opinion. You can have it. Just get out.

>>8523663
im not here to discuss, I'm here to make your thread shit like you make my board shit

have you considered just ending it all?

>>8523673
well i can assure you that wont happen

maybe you can pray to the climate gods that global warming will come kill me :)

>>8523676
my thread? you must be mistaken or have gotten confused somewhere down the line, i didn't make this

>>8523678
Interesting. I have a counteroffer. Get out.

>>8523522
The models are "All over the place" because they're based on different contexts. Obviously a prediction for what will happen if we burn all available fossil fuels is going to look different to one where we don't.

>>8523572
>What criteria would you need it to meet to be considered "established science"?
>the evidence
That's not very hard - basically all of it is public and can be downloaded off the websites of the groups who collected it.
What do you want to see? The IPCC synthesis reports are a pretty good place to start if you're okay with something a bit wordy.

>saying it's very widely accepted just reiterates my earlier point about the most ardent supporters having little knowledge of the subject
I said it was widely accepted by CLIMATOLOGISTS. That's not the same as doing a headcount on a bus.

>>8523628
>good joke
The actual joke is that most people can't tell the difference between climate and weather, but consider themselves experts on both.

>>8523663
>maybe you should give Climate Hustle a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q
Well that's fucking embarrassing.
Cfact? Really

>>8523669
>Can you quantify the effects of this? How much faster is the climate changing? How bad would the consequences be? how fast would it increase (or not increase) if humans contributed no greenhouse gasses?
All of that is covered in the report they linked.
You asked for the damn evidence, you don't get to whine that it's too long for you too read.

>>8523681
and yet somehow, you're the only one still in it

it's like you came in and everyone left because you make the world around you a worse place

>>8523683
>All of that is covered in the report they linked.
>You asked for the damn evidence, you don't get to whine that it's too long for you too read.
literally not an argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>baww muh future i wont even be part of baww
lmao the non-egoist salt itt.

>>8523380
>>>>>>>>>/pol/

>>8523683
>The models are "All over the place" because they're based on different contexts. Obviously a prediction for what will happen if we burn all available fossil fuels is going to look different to one where we don't.
and what assumptions are taken. sorry but all models are wrong, and these have yet to demonstrate their usefulness.

>>8523689
>How do you know there's a sun?

>It's right over there just look.

>I don't want to.

>You asked for the damn evidence, you don't get to whine that you don't want to look at it.

literally not an argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>>8523672
Stop being an idiot. They're not putting themselves in harms way just to spite liberals. They legitimately don't believe in man made climate change, AND the appointment spites liberals. They wouldn't support Muslims nuking the US just so they can say I told you so.

>>8523697
remind me which authority did i appeal to?

>>8523685
if i'm the only one still here why are there multiple people responding to me? are you saying i'm just samefagging, including as you?

>>8523693
>caring about the fate of the overpopulated, resource stripped, urbanized, globalized future
This. Humans are a blight on the earth. If not for global warming it would have been something else

Find peace with yourselves lest you forever fight against your certain demise

>>8523704
Do people leave the room when you enter it in real life too?

>>8523709
what are you trying to say here?

>>8523710
I'm trying to say that you're disgusting and that you should kill yourself.

when did this board get so many extremist brainlets? did Al Gore hire a bunch of spammers? this feels like a raid

>>8523715
No, it's just me. Fuck all of you. I hate you more than you'll ever know.

>>8523689
Did you even read what you just linked?
>An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
It can be fallacious but is not always, its also only applied to people who have the appearance of authority without actually having it or someone with authority trying to dictate a domain they don't have experience in. It very much doesn't mean that any reference to authority is fallacious.

>>8523689
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I didn't appeal to any authority. The fucking reports list the evidence that they're based on. You are free to read basically all of that evidence yourself, at no cost.

>>8523715
>did Al Gore hire a bunch of spammers?
If your understanding of science comes from listing to politicians, you are part of the problem here.

>>8523669
>and blindly linking something and saying it says something without quoting or citing is not an argument either.
Yeah, you're so "objective" that you asked for evidence and then complained when it was presented to you, in an easily digestible form, because I didn't "cite" it. If you won't read a summary of the primary literature, why do you want it cited? So you can ignore the cite? Yes, you truly care about the facts and are not defending your insecure ideology at all!

>Can you quantify the effects of this?
Yes, see pic from AR5.

>How much faster is the climate changing? How bad would the consequences be? how fast would it increase (or not increase) if humans contributed no greenhouse gasses?
Read the report. Or just google it. If you seriously never looked for the answers to these questions by what right do you have to claim an opinion about climatology?

>>8523715
Why do you insist on making this board worse with your shit opinions and your shit logic and your shit attitude. Get out. No one wants you here. You add nothing.

>>8523717
i hope by the time you're on your deathbed you'll realize how much time you wasted fighting a non-cause just because you were tricked by some fake news and politicized science

otherwise you'll just die unenlightened like all the other idiots

>>8523724
I hope you don't have the peace of a deathbed. I hope your children starve from food shortages.

>>8523721
>shit this
>shit that
>shit everything
this is why no one will take you seriously when you try to convince them of your position

did your high school not have a debate club?

>>8523724
I hope all the worst models of climate change are true just to know that those of you who denied it will suffer. I hope nations destabilize and nukes fly and locusts fly from the earth and I hope that you beg for death but that death does not come.

>>8523698
>They wouldn't support Muslims nuking the US just so they can say I told you so
don't you mean they WOULD support?

>>8523733
I am not here to debate. I am here to tell you to get out. I am here to tell you that you make the world worse. I am here to tell you that you are a bad person, on the inside and that God will not forgive you.

>>8523727
>>8523735

>>Where's the evidence?
>Here's the evidence
>>I'm not reading all that! Summarize it!
>OK, here is a summary of it
>>That's just your summary, where's the evidence???
>I already gave you the evidence
>>Argument from authority!!!
Am I getting memed or are deniers this stupid?

>>8523745
Interesting. Though if I may offer a simple, logical rebuttal:

get out

>>8523744
>God
oh wow you believe in climate change AND your imaginary sky friend

now i'm really convinced

>>8523744
>skywizards
>real
climate scientists, everyone

>>8523683
>I said it was widely accepted by CLIMATOLOGISTS. That's not the same as doing a headcount on a bus.
but, logically, it is. It is no less fallacious if the ones who believe it are scientists than if they are randoms on a bus. If multiverse theory is believed by most physicists does that make it real or even any more likely? Climatologist can believe anything for any number of things. If the major reason is the evidence for it, then say the evidence instead of simply pointing out the belief. Pointing to just popularity, no matter the group, is asanine.
>That's not very hard - basically all of it is public and can be downloaded off the websites of the groups who collected it.
>you don't get to whine that it's too long for you too read.
and you don't get to say "other's have already argued, therefore my argument is their argument". You also don't get to blindly link something without stating the points you're making by linking it. It's not that it's too long, it's that you're basically asking me to make your argument for you. I could read the whole thing and still have nothing to refute because you didn't make any points. You have a terrible habit of pointing to others to fight for you.
>all of that is covered in the report they linked
Then cite where, and specifically state your interpretation of what you're citing. You're not making any real arguments here, you're just basically making the "google it" argument.

>>8523747

>>8523748
Only so that I may believe that there is a Hell for you to go to. I couldn't fathom living believing otherwise.

>>8523746
It's real, they really are this stupid
>Haha why would I read somthing from NASA they are a bunch of rat jews Haha
>By the way here is and un-sourced excel graph that says youre wrong get cucked shill

>>8523758
you know you can live with religious virtues without believe in supernatural lands like heaven and hell and supernatural beings like a "God" and a "Devil" right?

>>8523757
I'm sure that your ability to fail to justify your beliefs online for extreme lengths of time is prodigious. I can't imagine you have many other skills to waste your time with.

>>8523697
Except it's not just some authority. It's an authority that has spent a good portion of their lifetime studying the climate. Common sense tells me that the guy who studies the climate is more likely to be right about the climate than someone who doesn't study it.

if you really believed in climate change why wouldnt you go out and do something about it instead of shitposting with people you accept have opinions that won't change?

>>8523762
I know that you are not a virtuous person. I know that you suffer terribly the sin of not getting out.

>>8523763
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKIuj4n_8PQ

>>8523764
>he thinks the fallacy depends on WHO the authority is
whew

is this what passes for american education these days? has common core ruined this incoming generation?

>>8523766
I've given up. I want it to burn. Because of people like you.

>>8523461
>no one denies climate is changing
Trump does.

>>8523770
See
>>8523718

>>8523770
go

back

to

/pol/

>>8523771
your lack of convinction is exactly why no one will take you seriously

>>8523777
czech'd

>>8523720
Are you the same person >>8523683 because you're doing the exact same thing. Blindly pointing to something and saying nothing about what you think it says is not an argument.
>So you can ignore the cite
no, so I can get an actual statement out of you.
>Or just google it
there it is...
Asking you does not mean I haven't looked for answers or even that I don't know the answer myself. It means i'm trying to get YOUR actual argument. You have yet to actually state a single point and just keep trying to let others argue for you or make me make your argument for you.

>>8523751
>but, logically, it is. It is no less fallacious if the ones who believe it are scientists than if they are randoms on a bus
What if I told you that when we say "consensus of climatologists" what we mean is that the vast majority of published climatology research supports AGW? Let's see, you won't accept the consensus because it's "an argument from authority," you won't read scientific papers because "they are too long," and you won't accept summaries of the research because "they aren't evidence." So what the fuck do you want, moron? Make up your mind.

>>8523778
Your lack of any redeeming features is why everyone you know secretly hates you.

>>8523751
>and you don't get to say "other's have already argued, therefore my argument is their argument".
That's how science works, dumbass. You cite the published work of others instead of making shit up. Do you know where you're posting right now?

>You also don't get to blindly link something without stating the points you're making by linking it.
I did state the points I was making, you just won't accept any evidence or argument. Admit it.

>>8523778
I don't see why I have to want the world to exist to know that climate change is real

>>8523770
Citing logical fallacies on my argument doesn't work retard.

Also, fuck off to >>>/pol/

>>8523778
It's possible you're still here. May I make a polite suggestion? Instead of being here, consider leaving.

>>8523804
like i said, going nowhere

my government pays me to research, and so i spend my time here

>>8523778
If you have access to a canister of gas and a gas mask, it makes an excellent exit bag. Relatively painless, not that you deserve it.

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

>>8523781
>Are you the same person >>8523683
No.

>Blindly pointing to something and saying nothing about what you think it says is not an argument.
I gave three very concrete, very specific facts upon which climatology is based. Instead of responding to them you keep pretending these points don't exist. You keep pretending I didn't cite them when the link I posted discusses them and cites the primary literature. You are just lying at this point.

>Asking you does not mean I haven't looked for answers or even that I don't know the answer myself.
So you have looked into it and are just lying when you claim that the evidence is lacking and the science isn't settled? Or you never looked into it? Which is it?

>>8523815
>>8523804
>>8523795
>>8523803
are you all thesame person?

>>8523809
they seem to be getting their money's worth

at least you aren't actively harming your country by publishing anything

>>8523803
Unfortunately they probably like that kind of response. Insults and stupidity is kind of their thing on /pol/. The best thing to do is probably just identify it as an inflammatory and baiting comment then just ignore it.

>>8523783
>What if I told you...
what if I told you as I literally just had, that it's still fallacious. it doesn't matter if they believe it, because it can be any number of reasons. If it's because of the facts, which i'm not denying that it very well could be, then cite the facts that led to that consensus
>you won't read scientific papers because they're too long
No, I just won't make your argument for you. What if I said climate change is obviously not real and cited http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kaltofen/bibliography/03/KM03.pdf
the reason is there, I promise
>>8523791
>That's how science works, dumbass
No it's not. you make a specific claim, such as "humans have sped up climate change by a factor of 4" then cite where you got it from. You don't say "humans caused climate change" (IPCC).
>I did state the points I was making
no you didn't. you just made a broad claims such as "climate change is man made", never any specific evidence. Again, answer the specific questions i asked.

>>8523809
Charcoal burning is a fairly simple way to kill yourself as well. It's like running your car exhaust back into your car, but more elegant.

>>8523809
DIY Exit Bag Insturctions:

Do practice this first, because you may be quite incapacitated when you try to do it, and the bag in particular should be prepared in advance as.

This is a self-use bag is designed to allow the sufferer to end his or her life in dignity and in a peaceful way.

Essentially, the idea is to place a plastic bag over the head and draw a string tight enough to be airtight, allowing the person to quietly die from asphyxiation/oxygen deprivation.

Do practice this first, because you may be quite incapacitated when you try to do it.

If used without an inert gas, a carbon dioxide build-up will happen, which is unpleasant and will elicit a panic response. This can continue even into unconsciousness, and the bag may be ripped off, causing failure and further stress. Using an inert gas prevents CO2 building up and allows one to die of oxygen deprivation. (and with oxygen deprivation, you will indeed see the white light, so just walk towards it - yes really)

>>8523751
>but, logically, it is. It is no less fallacious if the ones who believe it are scientists than if they are randoms on a bus.
You're going to have to walk me through that. How is a consensus of experts on a subject equivalent to the views of random people on a bus?

>Climatologist can believe anything for any number of things. If the major reason is the evidence for it, then say the evidence instead of simply pointing out the belief.
I did. Other people did too.
You've ignored the evidence.

>and you don't get to say "other's have already argued, therefore my argument is their argument".
Why not? Their arguments are way more impressive than what I could come up with on my own. They've had years, often decades of study into this.

>You also don't get to blindly link something without stating the points you're making by linking it.
I was being vague because you didn't actually say what you wanted, just "the evidence". If you'd asked for a specific thing, I would have pointed to that.

>Then cite where, and specifically state your interpretation of what you're citing.
I don't know what it is that you want me to find a citation for.

>>8523766
>if you really believed in climate change why wouldnt you go out and do something about it
Most of the really significant changes that need to be made are society wide things, not something that a single person can do on their own.
I don't get any say in - for example - whether the Australian Government greenlights opening up a new coal mine.

>>8523770
>he thinks the fallacy depends on WHO the authority is
IT DOES. If you'd read anything on informal logic rather than just spamming the word "fallacy" over and over, you'd know that.

>>8523816
>I gave three very concrete, very specific facts
Which? The ones about greenhouse gasses? the ones about humans contributing? the ones I already said I accepted and argued why it's an incomplete argument already to which you never responded?
>and are just lying when you claim that the evidence is lacking and the science isn't settled
nice false dichotomy...
so are you wrong or are you stupid?
As I already said, it is that i'm trying to get YOUR argument.

>>8523826
Why would I need to burn charcoal if global warming is real? Shouldn't that kill me on it's own?

>>8523809
Helium is perfect, as it's obtainable at any party supply shop, plus the properties of helium make it easy to use.

It is preferable to take the decision to end one's life before getting to the stage of needing assistance, because anyone assisting you can, and on current evidence will, be prosecuted by the law of the land. Also, since exit bags are not readily available for purchase, where do you get one?

Strangely enough, the ideal bag for a DIY exit bag is probably already in your home - a tie-top rubbish bag.

The only other thing that is needed is a short length of flexible hose - one which will fit the nozzle of the helium tank.

First of all, fold the top of the rubbish bag twice to ensure no gaps are left at the bottom of the bag.

Then make a connection for the hose, using parcel tape or masking tape. There is no issue of pressure, as the bag is never under more than air pressure.
When needed, the helium is attached to the hose, then the bag fitted over the head and tied tight. As this is not necessarily an easy thing to do, simple practice is sensible.

Expel as much breath as possible before fitting the bag, and start filling with helium immediately. You won't even know you're breathing helium - the human body ignores it, and the person will feel pretty much like they're breathing in ordinary air. (Helium is used by deep divers who must have oxygen without CO2, although they do have oxygen mixed with theirs!)

>>8523834
Once the bag is filled, but not under pressure, turn the helium off and keep breathing normally.

The ideal position is reclined in a comfortable place, but there are a couple of other issues that need to be dealt with.

Dying can be a messy business and it is quite normal for people to void their bladder and/or bowels immediately after death. This isn't nice for loved ones to deal with, so some sensible precautions are advised.

If adult diapers are not available, make use of towels and plastic sheeting as needed to ensure no mess is left on the bed/couch.

If it is too late to do without assistance, and do need some small amount of help, there are a couple of ways helpers can be made safe from prosecution.

Making sure any helper wears a pair of gloves and then wraps YOUR hands around any items touched. No doctor/pathologist or coroner is going to be able to deliver any verdict other than suicide then. Writing a short letter is also good evidence to present to the coroner.

Rightly or wrongly, the police have shown a determination to prosecute those who assist in suicide, which is the legal status of euthanasia in New Zealand and the courts have shown that they indeed issue prison sentences for the "crime".

>>8523835

>>8523831

where are you copypasting these from? seems like a useful source of info

>>8523843
ah some suicide forums they're pretty great you should go check em out, maybe go post and tell them death isn't real and it's made up by greedy/corrupt scientists

>>8523823
>then cite the facts that led to that consensus
I already did, you just refuse to read my cite. You see, you won't accept my argument because "it's not cited" and you won't read my cite because "it's too long". You can't have it both ways, moron.

>No, I just won't make your argument for you.
I never asked you to make an argument, I asked you to read my cite. Alternatively you could accept the cite without reading it, or argue against the point without reading the cite. But you don't get to simultaneously claim I never made a point, I never cited the point, and the cite is too long to read. These three things cannot all be true at once.

>What if I said climate change is obviously not real and cited http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kaltofen/bibliography/03/KM03.pdf
I would first argue against the point by referring to my previous three arguments which show climate change is real and which you have failed to refute. I would then point out that your source does not support your claim, because it is about the irreducibly of polynomials, which is an irrelevancy.

>No it's not. you make a specific claim, such as "humans have sped up climate change by a factor of 4" then cite where you got it from.
I just did that.

>You don't say "humans caused climate change" (IPCC).
I didn't do that. I made three very specific claims and linked you to a summary of the evidence which cites primary literature. You failed to even respond to the points and thus you lose the debate.

>you just made a broad claims such as "climate change is man made", never any specific evidence.
You're a baldfaced liar:

>>8523584
"tl:dr Greenhouse effect via basic physics, humans being the main source of net increase in greenhouse gasses via radiosotope analysis, greenhouse gasses being the main source of radiative forcing via radiative spectroscopy, and much much more!"

>>8523845
are you depressed? why are you browsing suicide forums? are you realizing the banality of climate change? there's some hotlines you might want to take advantage of like 1-800-SUICIDE

life is precious, you dont have to waste it away being an orc in Al Gore's horde

>>8523843
I mean can you imagine? Going to a suicide forum and trying to convince people death isn't real? If anyone could shitpost that level of denialism, I think it's you. You've been training for it this whole time!

>>8523852
Well the hope isn't that I get you now, but that maybe 10 years from now you'll get real depressed and then suddenly remember "exit bag!" I want you to have the most effective suicide possible and not waste any chances.

>>8523853
This is easily the best response ive seen to all this guys unfortunate posts.

>>8523823
>what if I told you as I literally just had, that it's still fallacious.
Then you should go an look up what the "appeal to authority fallacy" actually is, and the circumstances it requires to actually be fallacious.

>If it's because of the facts, which i'm not denying that it very well could be, then cite the facts that led to that consensus
Which facts? You actually need to ask specific questions if you want specific answers.

>What if I said climate change is obviously not real and cited http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kaltofen/bibliography/03/KM03.pdf
>the reason is there, I promise
I'm not even sure what your point is any more.
The IPCC reports (specifically WG1, "The Physical Science Basis") is a summery of the physical evidence supporting the theory of AGW. You asked for "the evidence", and unless you provide details of exactly what you want, the answers you're going to get are either going to be very shallow summaries, or long synthesis reports.

>>8523832
$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

Thank you for helping us take on the world's toughest energy challenges™

-Al Gore

>>8523852
Anyway, I gotta go to bed because I contribute to society. I must bow to your NEET-level shitposting longevity. Who knew being a welfare queen had such amazing perks.

All I ask is that you remember "exit bag" every time you think of me.

>>8523866
Oh don't let me go out on a low effort CTR post, I know you're worse than that.

>>8523833
>Which? The ones about greenhouse gasses? the ones about humans contributing? the ones I already said I accepted and argued why it's an incomplete argument already to which you never responded?
So you accept that humans are the main source of net increase in greenhouse gasses, and you accept that greenhouse gasses are the main source of radiative forcing. Good, so you admit that humans are the main source of global warming. Thank you for conceding the argument.

And if you want the actual numbers, I already posted a graph from AR5 showing the radiative forcing measurement. This shows that the radiative forcing from CO2 alone is equivalent to the net radiative forcing. In other words, CO2 emissions are responsible for 100% of the observed warming trend. If we take into account the other greenhouse gasses, humans are responsible for about 120% of the warming observed. All of this is in the AR4 and AR5 reports and is widely available information.

>nice false dichotomy...
Nice dodge of the question, loser. Did you look at the evidence for AGW or not? These are mutually exclusive and all encompassing. If you did, you are a liar. If you did not, you are a fool.

>As I already said, it is that i'm trying to get YOUR argument.
You already have gotten it, you liar. Try responding to it, like "no the greenhouse effect isn't real" or "no radioisotope analysis did not find humans are the main source of the net increase in GHGs" or "no spectrosopy did not find that GHGs are the main source of infrared radiation towards the earth" or "climate feedbacks are negative" or "the Earth isn't warming". You sophistic little FAGGOT.

>>8523878
>loser
>fool
>liar
>FAGGOT
you must be a joy at parties

>>8523832
>You're going to have to walk me through that
I already did. Does most physicist believing in multiverse theory mean that it's true or even that it's more likely? It means nothing, unless the reason is by virtue of evidence but if it is, then you say the evidence because that's the true factor. i.e. more evidence implies more belief and more evidence implies more likely but more belief does not imply more likely.
>Why not?
because then you're not really arguing, just encouraging me to read something. It's fine if you repeat a statement they said as part of your argument. It's not fine to just defer the whole argument process to someone else.
>you didn't actually say what you wanted
actually I did >>8523669
>I don't know what it is that you want me to find a citation for
Well first you have to actually find a point to make. For example, "an increase of x ppm CO2 for y years would lead to z feet increase in sea level in w years.
>>8523850
>I already did,
no you didn't. you cited 150 pages without making any statement. Again, what if I cited http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kaltofen/bibliography/03/KM03.pdf as proof and gave you no reasoning?
Just read it, I promise it's there.
>I would first argue against the point by referring to my previous three arguments
that's not a refutation of the article. You have a severe misunderstanding of logic that is making this very difficult.
>I would then point out that your source does not support your claim, because it is about the irreducibly of polynomials, which is an irrelevancy
How do you know it's irrelevant if I gave no reason why it's connected? all I said was the evidence is there. You didn't say why anything in there is wrong, so you're just being ignorant and denying the citation right?
>I just did that.
no you didn't. If so, do it again. All you did was cite an entire paper while making no argument.
>I didn't do that. I made three very specific claims...You failed to even respond to
>>8523669

>>8523890
ever heard of tl;dr?

>>8523881
>Focusing on those words
>but not the argument

You represent those labels perfectly.

>>8523869
>I must bow to your NEET-level shitposting longevity.
I've been studying since the age of 13, finding /b/ back then has greatly influenced my intellect and ability in discourse

>>8523900
>expecting anyone to listen to your argument while you call them names
this is where you went wrong

this is why the marxists will never succeed, simply too insulting and unable to have a reasonable conversation

>/pol/tard neckbeards know more than LITERAL rocket scientists at NASA
kek

>>8523878
the IPCC was clearly biased in those reports. There has been no warming since 1995 and their own data shows that CO2 levels 111have increased at times with no change in global temperatures. Do you know how they got their confidence measurements? Do you know how they measured radiative forcing measurement? do you even know what radiative forcing is and why that presents a problem with measuring it?

>>8523890
>no you didn't. you cited 150 pages without making any statement.
You're lying again, I made three statements which you have failed again and again to respond to.

>because then you're not really arguing, just encouraging me to read something.
I don't care whether you read it. Argue against it or accept it. Those are your choices. But don't lie and claim I didn't cite it just because you don't want to read. And don't lie by claiming I never made any statements when you know I did.

>It's fine if you repeat a statement they said as part of your argument. It's not fine to just defer the whole argument process to someone else.
Do you have split personality disorder? You can't demand a citation and then claim that by citing my claims I am deferring the argument to someone else. Choose one and only one.

>actually I did >>8523669
And I responded to what you said. You completely ignored the numbers I presented you. You already admitted humans are the main cause of the warming by conceding these three points. So you lose. Again.

>Again, what if I cited http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kaltofen/bibliography/03/KM03.pdf as proof and gave you no reasoning?
I argued against your claim and your source, you hypocrite. Unlike you who won't read the source and simultaneously denies my claims exist and admits they are true.

>that's not a refutation of the article. You have a severe misunderstanding of logic that is making this very difficult.
It's a refutation of you claim you illiterate baboon.

>How do you know it's irrelevant if I gave no reason why it's connected?
Why would I need you to give a reason why it's connected when I can directly argue it's not connected? Are you using your brain or are you just typing random sentences in the hope that I will confuse them for logical statements?

>All you did was cite an entire paper while making no argument.
All you do is lie about posts that are right there for anyone to see.

You lost the argument, admit it.

>>8523926
how have i lost an argument when you won't even bother making a point...
> argued against your claim and your source, you hypocrite
no you didn't. i made an obvious exaggeration of what you're doing to try to make it obvious to you why you're being retarded. You're clearly too much of a dumbass to see it no matter how many times it's explained to you. So here, i'll just play with the retard by his own retarded rules

These refute your source, two of them mentioning IPCC report and its findings directly
http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/10/21/0958305X16674637.abstract
http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm

>>8523914
>the IPCC was clearly biased in those reports.
How so?

>There has been no warming since 1995
Even though this is cherrypicking the 1995 El Nino it still turns out to be ridiculously false. Hilarious.

>Do you know how they got their confidence measurements? Do you know how they measured radiative forcing measurement?
The IPCC doesn't measure anything, it presents already published research. The sources and methodology are discussed in the reports.

>do you even know what radiative forcing is
Radiative forcing is the difference in incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation due to a particular source. This can be indirectly measured in a variety of ways. Measuring the RF of greenhouse gasses is convenient because we can directly measure the amount of infrared radiation from each gas being sent back towards the earth via spectroscopy.

>and why that presents a problem with measuring it?
No, enlighten me.

This is one of the worst threads I've ever seen

>>8523926
No response to >>8523930? thought so. Even by your own rules you can't hold an argument together.
You lost the argument, admit it.

>>8523914
Actually no. If you look at the trend, there is clearly warming. This is just for satellite data.

Sea level rise, which is underestimated by the models, actually indicates that a large portion of the heat went into the oceans. Heat causes the oceans to expand, thus causing a rise in the sea level.

Surface temperatures also indicate an increase.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

>>8523890
>Does most physicist believing in multiverse theory mean that it's true or even that it's more likely?
Yes.

>but if it is, then you say the evidence because that's the true factor
If you want to dig through the evidence yourself that's fine, but there's too many fields for people to do that with everything.
We have experts for a reason.

>actually I did >>8523669
>Can you quantify the effects of [humans are contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere]? How much faster is the climate changing? How bad would the consequences be? how fast would it increase (or not increase) if humans contributed no greenhouse gasses?
Okay, so what?
I mean, yes, I could skim through the AR5 myself and copy-paste what it says here if you want, but I don't see how that's better than giving you a link to check the thing yourself. It's not like I have this stuff committed to memory.

Still, if it makes you happy, >>8523720 has already posted the forcings chart.
It comes from the IPPC AR5WG1 SPM, page 14
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
But the sources are in the supplementary material for Ch8:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/supplementary/WG1AR5_Ch08SM_FINAL.pdf

Again, feel free to read this without someone spoonfeeding you.

>>8523914
>There has been no warming since 1995
First, that's a damn short timescale.
Secondly, yes there has. Look at the pretty graph.

>Do you know how they got their confidence measurements?
I'm not sure who "they" are, but I'll answer this for GIStemp because that's what I posted.
There's a basic overview here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The original paper talks about error estimation from page 22 one:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_ha00700d.pdf
The updated methodology and discussion is in here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf
Though it mainly discusses confidence in comparison to other datasets.

>>8523930
Did you just cite E&E?
Really?

>>8523930
>how have i lost an argument when you won't even bother making a point...
How have I not made a point when you admitted the points I made are correct? You seem to have an extreme case of split personality disorder in which you switch between two people with completely contradictory descriptions of this pathetically one-sided argument:

>tl:dr Greenhouse effect via basic physics, humans being the main source of net increase...
>This, again, is nothing I disagree with.

>no you didn't. i made an obvious exaggeration of what you're doing to try to make it obvious to you why you're being retarded.
All you did was show that you don't understand how arguments work. You could argue against my points and my source, instead you simultaneously claim they don't exist, you won't read them, and you agree with them. The only thing you have not done is make an argument.

>These refute your source, two of them mentioning IPCC report and its findings directly
Wow, a half-assed attempt at an argument! Except hypocritically, you presented a source with no argument, which is what you have been throwing a temper tantrum about (even though I presented arguments with my source) this entire thread! Hilarious!

>http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf
First let me just point out this is a predatory, fake peer-review journal. The article is a mess of denier memes, unsourced images of charts, and citations of blogposts. It's honestly delusional to compare this garbage to the AR5, let alone claim that it "refutes" it. Now let's get to the meat. This doesn't even come close to refuting any of the points I made or even AGW. It claims that extreme weather trends are not increasing, but does not show that any of the trends it gives are statistically significant. Nor can we determine statistical significance, because it's sole source of evidence is a bunch of uncited graphs.

>>8523968
>Yes
Guess I'm dealing with a bigger idiot than I thought
>you want to dig through the evidence yourself that's fine, but there's too many fields for people to do that with everything.
what the hell? Why even bother arguing then if you believe this. This is just escaping making a point.
>Still, if it makes you happy
Already posted 3 different links showing IPCC conclusions as wrong, even specifically addressing their confidence ranges related to that graphic. All you had to say was one sentence about ONE source. Care to actually try this time?

>>8523942
I really want to believe that it's people shit posting, but sadly I feel most of the climate deniers genuinely believe it.

I guess it's what happens when you let politics dictate your life.

>>8523930
Continued
It's a fairly common denier meme to claim that extreme weather is not increasing. The trick here of course is that extreme weather is by definition rare. Trends in extreme weather are notoriously hard to measure. The trends are not statistically significant, because we have not been measuring them for long enough. Deniers take advantage of this and ignore statistical significance in order to claim the increasing trend is missing. The rest of the article is just rehashing the conspiracy logic surrounding homogenization, which is just statistically legitimate corrections to data that deniers love to hate because they can claim it is the source of warming in the data. But unfortunately for them, homogenization has been both theoretically and empirically validated:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

See pic. It has very little effect on the trend.

>http://eae.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/10/21/0958305X16674637.abstract
Another fake journal. Another crank author. This time denying the greenhouse effect. Really, no time is worth being spent on this. It's just utter pseudoscience.

>http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm
Three fake journals in a row! You win the big prize of everyone laughing at your shitty sources! This one bases it's analysis on another paper published in the same turdpile of a journal which, get this, measures the correlation between CO2 and temperature over periods of months to a year and then concludes there is no correlation. This paper then goes on to extrapolate from that cherrypicked non-sequitur a bunch of nonsense that of course ignores the greenhouse effect exists and ignores that solar radiation has not increased. Yes, he argues that Earth's magnetic field allows more solar radiation into the atmosphere and that this is the source of warming, but there is no correlation between solar radiation and the warming trend to begin with. Brilliant.

>>8523974
>How have I not made a point when you admitted the points I made are correct?
because I answered those points and argued why they're incomplete already? jesus, how many times do I have to repeat things to you? even here when you realized you hadn't answered it >>8523968 you still point to a text without answering them.
>The only thing you have not done is make an argument.
>Wow, a half-assed attempt at an argument!
perfect how your own argument can be used so well against you
>You seem to have an extreme case of split personality disorder in which you switch between two people with completely contradictory descriptions of this pathetically one-sided argument:

>Except hypocritically...Hilarious!
THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT YOU RETARD. I even explained as I was doing it that I was basically giving up explaining your wrongs and was just going to do the same retarded shit as you. How do you miss irony when it is so clearly spelled out for you?
>It's honestly delusional to compare this garbage to the AR5
right, because the the IPCC is a bastion of peer-review. Also two other sources you conveniently ignore refuting AR5 findings. Is Cambridge a breeding ground for faux scientists too?

A question to those who oppose using cleaner energy.

Why? What's wrong with abandoning the use of fossil fuels?

>>8523708
>>8523693
>muh spooks
kys

>>8523527
/pol/ is broadly centrist, and is open and free to all opinions!

>>8523584
>humans being the main source of net increase in greenhouse gasses via radiosotope analysis
Where is it? How on earth do you measure it?

Now, assuming that current climate change is mostly anthropogenic -- how do we stop it? So far I've seen the suggestion of punitive taxes on electricity, punitive taxes on petrol cars, and punitive taxes on the consumption of beef. All would arserape the poorer in society.

>>8523625
And AGW preachers wonder why not everyone is willing to buy what they're selling. You don't convince someone by screaming insults in their face.

>>8524016
Are you saying they had good measurements of land and ocean temperatures in all the same spots in 1880?

>>8524028
Nothing; we need to switch entirely to nuclear and renewable energy.

>>8523908
Trump is actually smarter than most scientists. He has an estimated IQ of above 180.

>>8523461
Climate alarmism is the most anti science thing masquerading as science.

I rather deal with creationism desu, it's less annoying.

>>8523570
Look at this pretentious self righteous little cuck

Look and laugh

>>8524038
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

>>8524045
we cool senpai

>>8524045
Isn't that just more damning?

>>8524048
>didn't read anything
no.

>>8523996
>what the hell? Why even bother arguing then if you believe this. This is just escaping making a point.
I don't follow. How does believing that prevent me from arguing a particular topic?

>Already posted 3 different links showing IPCC conclusions as wrong
Your three different links are REALLY unimpressive.
The first doesn't address global warming directly, and is basically irrelevant to this discussion.
The second is from E&E, a journal with absurdly low standards.
The third is just bizarre.

>All you had to say was one sentence about ONE source. Care to actually try this time?
I still have no idea what you actually want. What sentence, what source?

>>8524047
Is there a reason you posted that?

>>8524052
We cool

>>8524047
What's the point in posting that, that it's been hotter in the past therefore who cares?

In 2003 the European heatwave killed about 30,000 people at about 104 degrees. Imagine it reaching 120, like during the Eocene maximum how many people would die?

Just because it's been hotter before doesn't mean that humanity can survive it. We evolved to live now when it's cooler.

>>8524049
Isn't that just more damning?

>>8523663
>>8523676
>>8523673
t. tolerant scientifically minded scientists of truth

>>8524059
>Dying from heat

nigga just turn on the AC lmao

>>8524028
muh Big Oil profits

The fact that this board is a science board just pales its name just from you idiots. To believe something that doesn't exist in the first place just shows how gullible you people are and how ignorant you are to the facts.

The talentless hacks that you call "scientists" are nothing but money-grabbing fact-fakers just taking all our donation money to spend on their luxurious garbage that will only flood the government into a large swamp than it ever was before.

All you globalist leftist shits should seriously commit suicide, you don't deserve any right to free speech with your brainwashed SJW cuck idiocy. Enjoy crying when Trump wins that second term.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/07/weather-channel-attacks-breitbarts-climate-science-fake-news-climate-change/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=silfiTY32xo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC1k5hmWyGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tebTD6yWOX0

Face the facts, not libtarded opinions that you keep spouting on here.

>>8524213
>>8524218
>Butthurt Breitbart
>Some asshat on youtube
>Info Wars garbage
>Patrick Moore rambling
>I'm not even sure why you posted this, it's not supporting your position.
Yeah, that's some real top-quality sources you've found there.
Is there one you'd particularly like me to address?

>>8524232
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>>8524236
Credibility is a an actual thing.
If you go around telling people the US government is hiding aliens, I'm not gonna be terribly interested about your thoughts on other subjects.

>>8524241
This is what makes politics uninteresting in practice. That 90% is a big bullshitting competition and trying to fish to make others look bad and almost nothing is about facts.

>>8523374
The 'cold' seems to have moved to Greenland this year.
Expect a harsh NH winter.
>never felt this level of rage before
In other News:
Sea ice hit record lows in November #weather
Trump's EPA pick is causing green heads to explode
Trump Induced Panic Exposes Media Bias and Ignorance of Climate

>>8524038
>>8524218
>>8524213
$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

Thank you for helping us take on the world's toughest energy challenges™

-ExxonMobil

>>8524236
It's not an ad hominem if the source is demonstrably compromised.
>>8524033
IQ is a meme just like your beloved "god emperor"
>>8523881
Sounds like somthing a loser fool liar faggot would say.
>>8523873
>implying you're not being paid
or do you shitpost on sci >for free?

>>8523866
>>8523866
Hey fucktard that doesn't even make sense, "the world's toughest energy challenges" is ExxonMobile's slogan

go back to /pol/ or better yet just kill yourself my friend

>>8524245
>run-on sentences
>taken seriously on sci
Pick one.

>>8523777
>Scriptfagging is enough to impress the middle schoolers on /pol/.

>>8523461
No. You can't feign a false-midpoint stance and be taken seriously with such little supporting reason/evidence.

>>8524261
This doesn't happen

What does happen is government corruption

>>8524350
>What does happen is government corruption
What exactly do you mean by "government corruption"?

>>8524022
>because I answered those points and argued why they're incomplete already?
You didn't answer them, you agreed with them and then asked some questions which I answered. You are ignoring the answer. The questions do not somehow disprove the points I already made.

>even here when you realized you hadn't answered it >>8523968
Not me, retardo.

>The only thing you have not done is make an argument.
>Wow, a half-assed attempt at an argument!
Yeah you sure showed me by posting three links to fake journals after several posts avoiding the argument and complaining about how just posting links is not an argument!

>THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT YOU RETARD. I even explained as I was doing it that I was basically giving up explaining your wrongs and was just going to do the same retarded shit as you. How do you miss irony when it is so clearly spelled out for you?
Yes, the point is you are a hypocrite for criticizing me for something I never actually did, and then doing it yourself. That IS very ironic.

>right, because the the IPCC is a bastion of peer-review.
Yes, it actually is. Can you show me a single paper it cites which is not from a solid, peer reviewed journal? No, you can't, because you won't even read it.

>Also two other sources you conveniently ignore refuting AR5 findings.
Yes, clearly I conveniently ignored them when I replied to them in the post directly above yours. Moron.

>>8524350
$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

Thank you for helping us take on the world's toughest energy challenges™

-ExxonMobil

>>8524030
>Are you saying they had good measurements of land and ocean temperatures in all the same spots in 1880?
In the 1880s there were enough meteorological stations to extrapolate the trend.

>Hillary winning would have meant WW3 and nuclear bombardment of all civilised areas of the world, destroyed Humanity
>Trump winning mean global peace with an absurb amount of butthurt from the traitors

I'm so happy that the Lord blessed us with Donald "God-Emperor" Trump.
Shadilay !

>>8524509
you have to go back

>>8524517
If i do, who would make you eat your still-beating heart on the day of the rope ? ;^(

>>8523664
western white* civilization

>>8524052
>The third is just bizarre.
the third is just nonsense. Just ignore that /pol/ troll. This is what they're good at, getting people worked up.

>>8523374
>global warming
Today I'll remind them.
Could you give me a single reason why I, as a 1st worlder, should care. I see only benefits

>>8524594
>inb4 meme 60m sea level rise
Not happening. Worst case scenario is we get a couple more hurricanes per year

>>8524597

>>8524509
>>Trump winning mean global peace with an absurb amount of butthurt from the traitors
>I'm so happy that the Lord blessed us with Donald "God-Emperor" Trump.
Trump has already promised to send American troops to help Russia secure control of Syria so they can build their pipeline and secure control of Europe's oil supply lines.
Our best bet for avoiding WW3 was to elect Hillary, now our only hope is that Trump will abandon his foreign policy platform as quickly as he abandoned the rest of his platform.

>>8524601
the countries with red will suffer least or most?

>>8524594
>shit countries starve
>northern hemisphere yields are higher
i see no problem with this

>>8524603
>Trump has already promised to send American troops to help Russia secure control of Syria
Also known as "the road to restoring peace in Syria". Or do you, like Hillary, think that ISIS and dozens of identical Islamist groups deserve to be handed control of Syria on a gilded platter? That would be great for world peace, wouldn't it?

>Our best bet for avoiding WW3 was to elect Hillary
Ah yes, the cunt who deliberately destabilized Syria (and Libya), and who wanted to shoot down Russian jets.

You lying weasels deserve worse than death.

>>8524504
>extrapolate
great

>>8524594
>more parasites like mosquitoes, taenia and botflies
>more third worlders immigrating to first world countries
>destruction of rainforests/plants which produce a lot of O2.
>sea engulfing low elevation areas in first world countries.
>more extreme weather that will destroy crops in both third and first world countries

The map only talks about carbon carbon fertillisation. It doesn't take into account extreme weather changes that result from climate change.

>>8524659
You don't get it. Russia wants a stranglehold over Europe. Syria is just a pawn in a bigger game

>>8524671
Let's hear what Syria has to do with "stranglehold over Europe", and why you'd prefer jihadis to hold Syria instead.

>>8524659
You mean negotiating an international no-fly zone with Russia. Nobody was going to shoot down Russia planes.

Trump on the other hand would be okay with Japan, Korea and Saudi Arabia getting their own nuclear weapons. I mean, it's not like that could trigger a nuclear weapons arms race in the middle East and Asia. right?

You better hope he flip flops on that.

>>8524670
This.

People tend to ignore the current situation such as those pine infecting insects that have only been able to survive in the forests due to the warmer winters.

Or the fact that hotter climates will lead to droughts, worse soils, and wildfires.

>>8524677
>Let's hear what Syria has to do with "stranglehold over Europe",
We've already been over that, but here's some light reading for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+pipeline+war

>why you'd prefer jihadis to hold Syria
That's a strawman. Even Hillary was fighting ISIS, we just don't want to hand Syria to Putin.

>>8524696
You want to hand Syria to saudi arabia and qatar

>>8524687
And greener deserts :)

Thank you based co2

>>8524699
Sure why not. It will weaken Russia and maybe stop them from fucking with Europe. It's not like the current leadership is any better with hundreds of people dying.

>>8524685
>negotiating
Yes, with a coalition of the willing.

>with Russia
Ridiculous. Russia has no interest in seeing a strategically and economically valuable ally get pummeled. You would have to use force to stop Russia dropping bombs on terrorists' heads.

>Trump on the other hand would be okay with Japan, Korea and Saudi Arabia getting their own nuclear weapons.
Is this speculative or have you actually got a quote for me? I don't care either way, by the way.

>I mean, it's not like that could trigger a nuclear weapons arms race in the middle East and Asia. right?
Is an arms race equivalent to World War Three?

>>8524696
>Even Hillary was fighting ISIS
Even though Obama's administration keeps """"""""accidentally""""""" bombing valuable Syrian Arab Army positions to allow ISIS to advance and take them over (I say "keeps" as this has happened at least twice recently). The US bombs ISIS with one hand and aids with the other. It's a limited hangout situation.

>we just don't want to hand Syria to Putin
t. Mohammed Abdul Ahmed Umar ibn Saud. You're a neocon in Democrat clothing.

By the way, I would prefer Russian stranglehold over Saudi stranglehold.

>>8524711
>he prefers wahhabi mosques and terrorism all over europe
le russian bogeyman

>>8524711
There's literally nothing wrong with what Russia is doing compared to what USA and Europe are doing and have done.

USA actively funded terrorists and regime toppling jihadists, while Russia supported stable governments.

>>8524699
>You want to hand Syria to saudi arabia and qatar
I want to hand it to the U.S. State Department, ideally without Petraeus or Romney being the new Secretary of State.

But I'll give you a +1 for making me Google a second "strawman" pic.

>>8524723
neocon

>>8524723
Supporting a side other than Trump (of those available) means you want to hand it to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whether or not you actively understand this or not.

>>8524713
>Ridiculous. Russia has no interest in seeing a strategically and economically valuable ally get pummeled.
>Good idea, Russia has no real military strength (compared to the US). Why not lean on them instead of helping their military-expansionist ambitions?
FTFY

>>8524635
most

>>8524670
>>more parasites like mosquitoes, taenia and botflies
In Africa (meaning nobody cares). There is no chance of this happening over 40deg. latitude
>>more third worlders immigrating to first world countries
>implying 1st worlders will let big enough waves of migrants to endanger their way of life
Keep in mind that most EU countries went apeshit over accepting several thousand immigrants, let alone tens of millions. Also, there've been multiple famines and droughts in Africa and nobody really came to Europe.
>>destruction of rainforests/plants which produce a lot of O2.
Tough shit. There is nothing we can really do anyways. If only 3rd worlders weren't like fucking locusts. Also, with more CO2 comes exponentially more greenery.
>>sea engulfing low elevation areas in first world countries.
No, see
>>8524597
>>more extreme weather that will destroy crops in both third and first world countries
We'll endure. Nothing worse than a hurricane or two.

>>8524713
>Even though Obama's administration keeps """"""""accidentally""""""" bombing valuable Syrian Arab Army positions
Yo DO understand it's a three way war, and we're against both ISIS AND Assad, right?
Try to keep up.

>>8524715
>>8524722

"Stable government" that has killed hundreds of thousands of it's own people along with the Russians.

>>8524734
I don't have time to Google a third "strawman" image, so have this instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
...it is nice to see you can't support your position without resorting to obvious fallacies though.

>>8524742
t. ISIS

>>8524747
You are the strawman

>>8524735
So what do you gain from having jihadis take over Syria and letting ISIS-tier fuckheads have their own airforce, have their own tank division, and run suicide skiffs in the Mediterranean?

How many civilians have to get caught in crossfire over a fucking pipeline? Let Syria return to normal you fucking infant.

>>8524742
"Thousands of its own people" meaning peaceful head-chopping moderate jihadis, and civilians who, as one would expect, die in war. Don't try to dress this up as humanitarian work by the US.

>>8524747
He's right.

>>8524702

It's more complicated than that.

Regardless of whether the procession of prevailing climate regimes leaves us with more arable land than before, such a transition has broad economic and geopolitical implications.

Don't assume these repercussions will be limited to the developing world.

Anthropogenic climate change is complete nonsense, this is a great appointment. Climate scientists are just failed physicists who are too dumb for any real scientific endeavor, on the level of economists.

>>8524768
Funny because most physicists believe in anthropogenic climate change also. Being edgy will get you nowhere.

>>8523610
>>8523664
Wow, rekt m8.

>>8524768
>Anthropogenic climate change is complete nonsense
No, it isn't. The negative effects they claim it will have are the nonsense. I remember people blasting all day in the late 90s and early 00s how we'll turn into venus by 2050, the sea will rise by a meter per year and other such tardshit and the average libshit was buying it like it was Mao's quotations. Meme anti-warming "measures", like buying less plastic bottles, using a bit less energy and using ""ënviromentally-friendly"" lightbulbs will do absolutely nothing

>>8524736
>In Africa (meaning nobody cares). There is no chance of this happening over 40deg. latitude

it's already happening. It's just that with a warmer climate, they're will be more of them.

>Keep in mind that most EU countries went apeshit over accepting several thousand immigrants, let alone tens of millions. Also, there've been multiple famines and droughts in Africa and nobody really came to Europe.

It has to more with the unbearable heat + famines and droughts. That will definitely increase the number of migrants from those areas. Same goes for south America.

>Tough shit. There is nothing we can really do anyways. If only 3rd worlders weren't like fucking locusts. Also, with more CO2 comes exponentially more greenery.

According to the graph I replied to, nope.

>We'll endure. Nothing worse than a hurricane or two.

Seems like a lot more than that.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

>>8524784
How is the climate changing not a severe negative effect in of itself? Acidification of oceans is real. That alone is quite devastating.

>>8524784
I've recently seen a show by bill "the end is" nye the anti-science guy

He literally thinks the world will end in 10 years, and brought "climate experts" on his show that repeated this sentiment

>>8524779
Only because they take climate scientists at their word, and don't realize that they are all brainlets.

>>8524784
>The negative effects they claim it will have are the nonsense.

According to some blog you read on the internet.

>>8524805
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Now I know not to trust anyone but shitposters on 4chan.

>>8524790
>Acidification of oceans
iron fertilization will take care of it. Also, it will increase O2
>inb4 deep sea acidification
Can't win it all

>>8524792
I fucking hate the popsci "celebrities". If they were really for the conservation of the enviroment, they would've been pushing for the development of fusion reactors not recyicled meme paper.

>>8524807
Yes, we will all die when the earth heats up 2 degrees. It's the end. If you don't dismantle your industry and submit to China, the earth will be 100% desert in 5 years time at most.

>>8524815
If we don't start IMMEDIATE action against climate change then this graph will go WAY UP like weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew

good bye graph!!!

>>8524815
>I'm so retarded I get my science from blogs on the internet.

>>8524814
You can't trust anyone on the left.

>>8524702
>And greener deserts :)
Not likely. Most deserts are predicted to get bigger and drier.

>>8524594
That graph looks pretty damn optimistic, compared to what I've seen elsewhere.

>>8524601
What is that even describing?

>>8524784
>I remember people blasting all day in the late 90s and early 00s how we'll turn into venus by 2050
Maybe you should stop listening to shitty journalists and politicians, and actually pay attention to climatologists.

>>8524815
>iron fertilization will take care of it.
Yeah, most people who actually know their shit are a bit more cautious than that about geoengineering.

>Can't win it all
You're retarded.

> If they were really for the conservation of the enviroment, they would've been pushing for the development of fusion reactors not recyicled meme paper.
That would be a pretty dumb gamble - there's still no guarantee we're going to see commercial fusion in the next 20 (or more) years.
Also, paper recycling works quite well.

>>8524713
>“If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.” Nor would it be so bad, he’s said, if South Korea and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons, too.

A nuclear arms race is sure to happen in the Middle East or Asia if any of these countries obtain them.

Note also that Trump said he would be willing to shoot down Russian planes "if diplomacy fails"

>Is an arms race equivalent to World War Three?

Looks like an internationally enforced no fly zone that would be negotiated and approved by Russia before it could happen. Zero chance of WW3. You're incredibly stupid if you think that Russia's going to fuck with US + NATO.

The closest thing to WW3 would be Trump undermining NATO and giving Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia the green light to develop nuclear weapons.

>>8524955
>bit more cautious than that about geoengineering
What do you suggest we do without any other options?

What do you suggest we do, mr. 2smart4u. Only 1st world countries care about global warming. Good luck convincing the non-green countries to do anything.

>>8525096
Look at what the chinese subhumans are doing.

>>8523380
Fucking this. If your science can't hold a debate and 'hurts feelings' it has to die.

>>8525101
It's not very feasible. You'll have to put thousands or millions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere. And after a few years, you have to do it again.

Who is going to do that? Who will pay for it? Also think of all the protest of people who don't want the government to put stuff into the atmosphere.

>>8523534
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8524815
Iron fertilization is masking tape.

>>8525179
>our board

>>8525177
>>8525184
I mean that the international community is too disorganized and profit-driven to manage to implement any meaningful planetwide CO2 reduction policies. Realistically, there is no way to stop the west's consumerism or China's rapid industrialization at this point. Best case is we try to negate the worst aspects and wait for technoligical progress to give us some options.

>And after a few years, you have to do it again
Then we'll do it again. What elso do you suggest we do, realistically.

>Who will pay for it?
Green tax. They are already scraping your wallet for it anyways

>Also think of all the protest of people who don't want the government to put stuff into the atmosphere.
Like somebody cares about people protesting. Reference: OWS

>>8524661
>can't no nuffins cuz I say so
Great.

>>8525200
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525261
>Our

Who?

>>8525261
is this part of the reddit raid? where did all these close-minded people come from all of a sudden? or is it just one guy samefagging?

>>8525267
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525270
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525276
is it just a bot? test

>>8525276
>>8525278
Test beep boop

Is this /leftypol/?

>>8525280
Get the fuck out.

>>8525283
It's /sci/ - Science & Math
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525280
>>8525283

All anti-science fags should go to >>>/pol/

>>8525300
You seem to be pretty anti science, so are you leaving now? bye!

>>8525304
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525314
Someone losttheir child, it's having a tantrum on me

>>8525321
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525304
>no u

anti-science and too retarded to come up with a proper comeback.

Anyway. fuck off to >>>/pol/

>>8523391
>believing in the gravitational jew
We're kept on earth by centripedal force. Gravity does not exist.

>>8525332
there's no need to come up with a 'comeback' to 'gtfo'

>>8525334
You can stay. The rest of you get the fuck off our board.

>>8525336
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525332
You guys have been pretty anti scientifici n this thread, throwing a tantrum doesn't help

>>8525343
>literal awoofag
go back to your trump general containment thread

>>8525347
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525352
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8524061
>didn't read anything
no

>>8525336
>I'm too retarded to think of a comeback except for the ones that 4 year olds use.

>>8525372
Get the fuck off our board.

>>8525374

Sad!

>>8523596
Doomsday prepping pleb identified

ITT: Cucks

You people are nothing worth of arguing with. I can't wait to see your stupid tears flow when Trump gets elected, so that your stupid chink hoax would die off as myth.

>>8525376
>still butthurt about hillshill losing

>>8525807
>chink hoax
You're ignorance is showing.

>>8525868
The butthurt will never end, and it should not end, as she was actually the one elected by the majority of people.

>>8525376
>He unironically listens and believes to fake news

Denialists have led me to believe that this is the worst planet, by far. And so I no longer care about its fate.

>>8525980
Denialists are strange. They're completely impervious to facts, unless the solutions align with their political beliefs.

There was a study done on the acceptance of AGW and they found that Republicans were more likely to accept AGW when they were presented with the free market and deregulation as solutions, rather than government intervention.

Democrats, however, didn't give a shit either way, they were fine both with deregulation or intervention as a means to solve the problem. It didn't change their likelihood of accepting AGW.

So for Republicans, whether they accept it or not hinges almost entirely on ideology.

>>8525936
what year did USA adopt that system of choosing their leader again? i seem to have forgotten

>>8525936
Google electoral college and get a clue.

>baww muh climate in 100 years when i wont even be around baww look at me virtue signal about shit completely irrelevant to me so i look like a moral superior by doing exactly what this insincere hyper-altruistic culture asks of me

Warming is good for the planet. Longer growing seasons produced record crops in Canada. Leafs win.

>>8526000
>dem digits
observed

>>8525990
Found it.

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/9256/Campbell%20et%20al._Solution%20Aversion.pdf

>>8524028
Dude I'd be all for switching to nuclear over fossil fuels and I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change.

The problem is that the Climate Alarmists want to completely ignore nuclear because "MUH CHERNOBYL MUH FUKISHIMA" and go solely for solar and wind, which are not technologically developed enough/financially solvent to work as a viable full-time alternative.

>>8525997
You are welcome to be a retard. No one is stopping you

>>8526032
>t. butthurt retard

>>8526015
Interesting. Can't say I'm surprised, but still interesting.

>>8526000
US suffers because we're in the goldilocks zone. Nothing beats our climate.

However, Canada staying a frozen wasteland is reason enough to solve global warming.

>>8526045
>Canada staying a frozen wasteland is reason enough to solve global warming
always love that burger-leaf banter

>>8526045
>US suffers because we're in the goldilocks zone. Nothing beats our climate.

the US will be fine as long as we can keep shit irrigated. water is our issue with global warming more than temperature.

>8524045
You realize if he started it at a high point that it makes it an even better case for cliamte change right?

Your argument should have been that he started it at a low point. Can't even get your propaganda right.

>>8523622
The fuck is wrong with you? He's asking for anything aside from "most people agree"and you just get mad and insult him. Real strong argument buddy. I bet you school all the unenlightened conspiritards

Maybe if you tried your very hardest and acted like a normal decent human being you might convey some actual information

Then again, you are probably autistic and can't control yourself

>>8526049
I'm afraid that just logistically this is going to be very difficult, and at best it will weigh on our economy pretty heavily. Certainly on California's economy.

I will never forget what Eisenhower said about this. He said that the land is really the biggest source of our economic might. That we've been given a gift from god in the form of this continent, or something to that effect. Also, the consensus among historians that the fates of virtually all civilizations have hinged on favorable climate conditions and little more.

>automation
>vr
>climate change
>energy crisis
>holy war
>social media
>memes
>drones
>crispr
>you were born just in the nick time to witness the beginnings of the matrix

Hold me /sci/...

>>8525997

>moral

This is really what it comes down to. Conservitards just think climate change is some new way for liberals to make fun of them or be superior to them, and are suspicious out of principal.

>>8526064
They shouldn't have gotten on the wrong side of the argument. It's their own damn fault. Now they're stuck looking like crazy flatearthers.

>>8526064
its because lefties are constantly trying to sneak too many things into legislation like the bathroom shenanigans

>>8524028
I'd love to switch to cleaner energy, but not if it even slightly increases the cost of living to lower or middle class people from my country.

>>8526067

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5LeYDW2LsM

>>8526070
I'm sure you'd much prefer a societal collapse that wipes out the middle class entirely. Sure, it won't happen to you. But that's why people who actually want to work to solve real problems, whether its for themselves in the present or for the future, think you're just selfish cunts.

>>8525997
Posts like this imply scientists are just posturing and are not genuinely motivated by the desire to solve problems for the world, which is just idiotic projecting on the part of the poster. (If the poster is not in fact a 14 year old troll)

>>8526064
that wasn't about agw being real or not, it's that it isn't our generation's problem. we'll be long dead before shtf. and you're dumb for tripping over yourself, wasting your life to whine about people who aren't born yet. so yes morality is what it comes down to but not what you think it is.

>>8526081
>not my problem
You're stupid. I sincerely hope you're not in STEM. You don't belong.

>>8526081
>it's that it isn't our generation's problem

Yes it is

>>8526078
>societal collapse
I don't quite get this. I don't think climate change is a myth or anything, but how exactly would it its effects be realized in one dramatic event rather than things generally becoming somewhat crappier, and if it is gradual how the fuck will things gradually becoming crappier (while being at least slightly counterbalanced by advances in other areas, mind you) result in "societal collapse"?

>>8526087
no you're stupid. it isn't my problem, i'll be long dead when this stuff is a problem. and i have a degree in EE doing signal processing so you can suck my left nut, brainlet.

>>8526089
no it isn't, we'll be long dead before it is a problem. if the models prove to be correct.

>>8526078
they're posturing about caring about a future that doesn't include them, sorry that your reading comprehension is impaired.

>>8526095

It's a problem now.

>>8526107
not really. i'm fine.

>>8526111

If you drop a bowling ball off a skyscraper, is it a problem when you let it go or when it hits the people standing below?

>>8523610
your mother via EBT

>>8526115
it's a problem if i go to jail for it, not that i would do that.

>>8526120
>not that i would do that.

Then you wouldn't do climate change.

>>8526125
burning fossil fuels isn't a crime and should never be. people who aren't born have no right to life. honestly you guys sound no different than pro-lifers.

>>8526134

It doesn't matter if it's a crime you oaf, it's a problem we are causing that should be solved now.

>>8526115
see the thing is you're not the guy who can make a choice to throw the bowling ball or not; you're some other guy who can make a choice to point a gun at your own family to force them to not drop the bowling ball, but by doing so resign themselves to a live of poverty. moreover, the top of the building is like a fucking billion stories above the ground so it will take a few decades for the bowling ball to land anyway. oh, and they've already dropped like fifty of the bowling balls. at that point, instead of pointing the gun at them, why not resign yourself to knowing that the balls are going to be dropped and instead try to both get people to move out of the way and get the balls out of the air before they hit the ground?

>>8526145
i'm sorry that you're a dumb cuck at the mercy of your empathy that you can't live life for yourself. this isn't a problem for us. you know what is a problem for us? restrictions and taxes on us as individuals so that we pave a brighter future we won't even be part of.

still want to help the planet and reduce your carbon foot print? pls kys, that'll do more for the climate than anything esle you could possibly do.

>>8526146
>at that point, instead of pointing the gun at them, why not resign yourself to knowing that the balls are going to be dropped and instead try to both get people to move out of the way and get the balls out of the air before they hit the ground?

Because the balls keep getting dropped, you idiot, and eventually so many balls will be dropped that you won't be able to remove them all and there won't be anywhere for people to move to.

>>8526159
people who aren't me or you or the person you're responding to since we'll be 6 feet under.

>>8526150
>cuck

>>8526162
point still stands, little limp dicked faggot.

>>8526161
>not getting yourself cremated to contribute more greenhouse gasses

>>8526163
What point? You've said nothing but "fuck you I've got mine" over and over.

>>8526195
rich from the imbecile who couldn't do more than throw a tantrum repeating "it is a problem" ad nauseam. pls do the planet you care so much about that favor and kys.

>>8523968
A 97% consensus of climate scientists agree that data tampering will help you get more funding.

>>8523968
>Still, if it makes you happy, >>8523720 has already posted the forcings chart.
>It comes from the IPPC AR5WG1 SPM, page 14
>http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
>But the sources are in the supplementary material for Ch8:
>http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/supplementary/WG1AR5_Ch08SM_FINAL.pdf

Looks at my Authoritarian Hypothesized Forcings. Never mind that the atmospheric temperatures were flat for 16 years (and have rapidly cooled as of late). We's tampered them there ground data to gets them warmings real good.

Who needs facts when data tampering and models = TRUTH?

>>8524016
>Look at my tampered diagram of data tampering!
> Please don't compare modern temperatures graphs to actual graphs of the past!

Now you're lying about your lying. Is your name John Cook?

>>8524016
>But unfortunately for them, homogenization has been both theoretically and empirically validated:
>muh, look at my appeal to authority

Look at this spectacular example of adding Urban Heat to data, err, I mean homogenization.
It certainly has been validated to increase the budgets of climate alarmists.

>>8526087
Where does it say that STEM makes you a morally righteous savior of humanity?

Are all scientists angels sent from heaven to guard the earth?

>>8524045
>> Hurr, durr Nuttercelli libeled Spencer/Christy, therefore climate change is true!

>nb4 Schmidt.
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/

PS Don't care if its an evil denier blog. Try using facts and logic instead of Ad Hominem, Ad Populum and appeals to authority. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

PPS Giving a link to a paper with out specifying the actual argument and data is nothing more than an appeal to authority (and pal review).

>>8524049
>Look at my simpleton science crap.
OH NOES!!!! Nuttercelli and John Crook invented and excuse to pretend that the predictions didn't utterly fail.
But they lied, as explained here:
>>8526321
Here is an actual graph taken from UN IPCC AR4, see attached pic. It's here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
In the lower left hand corner of the page, enlarged with updated data.

Notice they have the starting date just like in the graph from John Christy. So, not surprisingly, SimpletonScience lies like the sack of crap it is.

>>8524049
Warmist clowns try to rewrite the past to hide their abject failures. They get enraged by this graph that was about to be published in UN IPCC AR5 (retracted at the last moment, because warmism can't stand the light of day.)

>>8526330
>>8526321
>>8526320
>>8526301
is any science as pathetic as climatology ?

It's literally just masturbating at graphs and arguing which graph is more right

>>8524788
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
>Muh, you can't have an opinion unless you're a certified Climate Scientist!
Citing a cartoonist turned psychologist.

>>8524955
> Look at these great predictions, they're just as accurate as always
>>8524038

Thank you for helping us towards our goal of $100,000,000,000 a year. In return, we have deposited $0.02 into your account.

- The United Nations (and Mr. Soros)

>>8526275 >>8526280
>>8526288 >>8526301
>>8526330 >>8526335
>>8526349 >>8526360
Not this shit again.