/sci/ - Science & Math

theres no point in listening to random crackpots. come back when you have a PhD in atmospheric physics :))))))

Science community has always been like this. But wheres the evidence that global warming isn't happening? I would love to read your source.

>>8541621
>I'm not allowed to criticize something without being criticized
Are /pol/tards really this stupid or is this bait?

>>8541638
Molyneux has already debunked this hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s

>>8541646
not a poltard, i'm an engineer

>>8541718
>not a poltard, i'm an engineer
oh boy, if only you could realise how much that statement will damage the already ridiculed engineers on /sci/...

>>8541718
>Molyneux
>debunked

Two words that immediately discredit a person

>>8541729
He's not the only one who got it firgured out, everyone is catching onto this hoax. You should try and keep up withe latest scientific findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AwNKQqLESc

>>8541718
even worse

>>8541621
Science accepts criticism, from informed sources. Not neckbeard science.

>>8541947
so it's inherently flawed. i agree with that.

>>8541621
Oh boy, it's another moron from /pol/ who thinks "freedom of speech" means immunity from criticism.
You're allowed to criticise AGW, and we're allowed to laugh at you for being an idiot who believes conspiracy blogs.

>>8542633
sorry, you're not making any sense

>>8541621
The (((science))) behind AGW is primarily social science. Of course it's a religion in every way and can almost be labeled neo-Pagan.

Climate priests like any priest is a sort of authority figure. They can conjure up scary climate scenarios on their super computers, this is prophecy. They can disseminate these prophecies through a world wide propaganda media network, the etymology of propaganda is propagation of church dogma. As scary as these scenarios are there is of course always a fix, a way to save ones soul. In this case if enough CO2 emitters repent, and a CO2 tithe is collected, the prophecies may be forestalled and earth along with the climate heathens saved! this may involve great sacrifices up to and including life itself!

Any rejection of this dogma is met with an Inquisition of sorts, called deniers now this could easily escalate to a climate heretic hunt with weather vane crucifixions!

Like any religion time will tell if it sticks as it gets hold of the children before they attain any critical thinking skills for themselves. The problem with pop religion today is it's great anti-thesis, pop science. This is where the pure genius and Machiavellian nature of the growing AGW cult shines...
>To control the opposition we should lead it ourselves - Lenin

>>8542717
You type like you have some serious mental issues man. Seems like you would fit in much better over at >>>/x/, what are you even doing on this board?

>>8542717
I bet you think you're really smart making a long winded post like that. I can smell the pseudo intellectuality from my monitor.

>>8541638
>But wheres the evidence that global warming isn't happening?

It's happening, but it isn't catastrophic the way the alarmists are attempting to sell you.

In fact it has quite a bit of positive potential.

>>8542733
>>8542736

Not an argument.

>>8542717
best post so far. i always knew that btw

>>8542743
Tell me, how many posts on /pol/ do I have to read before I can hold informed opinions like you?

Yes, I've begun to notice this due to the EM drive.
Poor babby physics majors are scared that their hoax is going to be found out and all their power gone when it turns out things don't work the way they tried to sell it to us.

>>8542743
I honestly don't understand why you're here. Apparently you hate science, and you hate the scientific process, so you spend time on a board, mind you one of the slowest boards on 4chan, to shit on it.

That's like someone who hates homosexuality hanging out on /lgbt/, or someone who hates brony faggots hanging out on /mlp/ all day. The sad thing is I recognize your post style because you are probably the same faggot who has started the climate change political threads here over the past few months. So it begs the question, why the fuck are you here?

>>8542750
instead of being a touchy faggot, you should thank him for opening up and teaching you something

>>8541621
>implying you're qualified to criticize scientific theories based on what you read from your facebook feed and butt hurt no one takes your psudo-intellectualism seriously.

If you're so sure the earth is flat and that gravity is a hoax then go out and prove it and publish your work in a pier reviewed scientific journal and overturn the current paradigm.

If you wont do that then you really are not in a position to criticize and if you do no one will take you seriously.

>>8542747
No amount of effort will ever cure your retardation, I'm sorry anon.

>>8542756
>pier reviewed
hey i remember that thread. thanks for the memories.

>>8542755
>Thank him

Yes, let me go ahead and """thank""" a brainlet like him who posts Molyneaux videos to disprove decades of atmospheric evidence and data. Wow you sure convinced me buddy. Next you'll be posting links to some shitty climate """skeptic""" blogs that present nothing but cherrypicking and conjecture.

I can already see this thread is going to evolve into another shitpost festival like all the other threads these /x/ & /pol/ newfaggots have made here ever since the election ended and they branched off to other boards due to boredom.

>>8542757
No please I want to know. How many Molyneux videos must I watch to be qualified to make posts such as yours?

>>8542750
>The sad thing is I recognize your post style because you are probably the same faggot who has started the climate change political threads here over the past few months. So it begs the question, why the fuck are you here?

The sad part of this is, I'm not the person who made the post about AGW being a religion, I just felt like triggering you because you made a literal non-argument.

You're the one who hates science because you shit up a science board with non-sequiturs and telling people to leave rather than having an actual scientific discussion, all while acting like you're a psychic who can tell who's who in an anonymous forum.

>>8542765
Please buddy, you're going to make a post like that, and then claim you're here for scientific discussion? Get the fuck out. Also, /sci/ is indeed a very small board with a very small userbase, so yes I can tell when someone has a very similar style of posting to the same faggots from previous AGW threads here. You're the same faggot who whined and cried about communism and AGW being a religion in the last thread, same exact """arguments,""" same exact sentence structure and pompous arrogance. Same use of your little (((memes))).

>>8542764
Zero, as I've never watched him. ('Not an argument' is a fantastic meme though)

Like I said, nothing you ever do will allow you to start thinking critically and seeing past propaganda.

>>8541621
99% of science is criticism. People who's arguments don't hold up are ignored. People who's arguments do hold up are accepted.

You would know this if you studied any kind of science ever.

>>8542769
>He can't comprehend someone trolled him on 4chan by posting the phrase, 'not an argument'

Discussion with you could never be fruitful, your head is too far up your own ass to be able to comprehend a word.

>>8542773
Too bad. I was looking forward to being smart like you. Oh well. I guess we can't all be redpilled free thinking individuals that come to their own conclusions like you.

>>8542762
hey molyneux is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time, that's an established FACT.
besides I'm not a /pol/ newfaggot, i'm an engineer who dares to ask interesting tough questions and speak truth to power

>>8542782
>Engineer

Now you're just shitposting, this is a bait thread, should have known better.

>>8542787
If you want to turn this into a real discussion, I'm willing.

I'm the one claiming AGW is positive.

>>8542761
>hey i remember that thread. thanks for the memories

sorry but that's the way it works. If you can't articulate the results of your experiments to a group of people qualified to evaluate your work then you don't get credit for it. That's what pier review is and if you have a problem with that concept we can add it to the list of other things you have a problem with such as gravity and the earth being roughly spherical.

>>8541621

OP will 100% post solid, peer-reviewed criticisms of climate change.

>>8542790
>pier review

>>8541718
>Molyneux has already debunked this hoax
If you don't trust climate scientists who have the credentials to study this for a living why do you trust a guy with a YouTube channel?

Full retard.

>>8542790
>A pier review is when a group of scientists gather to review someone's papers for publishing. The term pier review came about when foreign scientists arrived by boat at the pier to review with the local scientists and for convenience did it at the pier. Nowadays a true pier review is done on ceremonial occasions for especially important papers.

>If they go to a bar to review its called a beer review.

see i know what pier review is

>>8534418

>>8542802
Because he's redpilled, also not an argument buddy. Everyone knows that (((climate scientists))) are bought and paid by the NWO church of atmosphereology run by none other than your kenyan monkey lord president. You see, let me tell you about the jews and the kikes, see Alex Jones for proof. It's all a globalist conspiracy you stupid shill, god you scientists are so fucking stupid. You do it for free and you buy into (((their))) ((((climate change))) propaganda, you filthy dumb goy. Also climategate, also this image that is completely credible and infallible. There, ROASTED AND DEBUNKED. Next argument please. Don''t believe these (((scientists))) and their (((models))) lies. I don't know what anything on this graph actually means, but I know its lies, just like everything else in your jewish tricks. This is pier reviewed proofs.

>>8542815
Thanks for redpilling me. I will begin spreading the word.

>>8542815

So much circle jerking in this thread.

Nobody wants to discuss climate change, they just want to feel superior for having the 'correct opinion'.

Anytime somebody comes in with something outside of what's been rubber stamped correct you either ignore it or reply with snark and memes.

No wonder this board has been such shit for the last 8 years.

>>8542840
>last 8 years.
>/sci/
>8 years old

you have to go back

>>8542815
This is clearly bait. If it isn't, then you suffer from a level of abject retardation so profound it defies any reasonable explanation. Tsk tsk, go back to /pol/ and play hopscotch with your fellow tribals, you complete fucking troglodyte.

>>8542840
>Anytime somebody comes in with something outside of what's been rubber stamped correct you either ignore it or reply with snark and memes.
That's because those people aren't coming in with interesting and new information, they're reciting dead arguments that have already been torn apart hundreds of times. How many times should I need to explain why weather isn't climate and 1998 was a warm year before I can start telling the person spouting that rubbish to fuck off?

>>8542850
So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?

It will help mitigate drought and even expand vegetation into currently dry areas because plants lose most of their water through transpiration, and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations mean plants can fulfill their need while spending less time with their stomata open and thus conserve water?

What if I said I know for a fact that scientists often exaggerate the importance of their research to gain funding, so I think the alarmism is mainly to justify their own grants?

What do you think of the idea that carbon taxes are idiotic, and that local transforming measures make far more sense as local variables dominate local climates, as historically that's the way to deal with man made climate change (see the dust bowl).

>>8542861
>transforming measures
terraforming*

>>8542861
>So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?
Can you link to a paper by a person with credentials who argues this?

>>8541638
>But wheres the evidence that global warming isn't happening?

The question is human causation. You have to prove first that your theory is a good one and can make reasonable predictions about the future. Making claims and then saying the burden of evidence is on the other isn't Science.

There is plenty of evidence to show, that at the very least, we are on a temporary warming trend.

>>8542868
>Can you link to a paper by a person with credentials who argues this?

The first paper ever published on the subject.

Beyond that, we're on an anonymous discussion forum. It's my own opinion on the subject. I don't care for appeals to authority (especially when I already laid out that grants corrupt science).

>>8541621
>be crappy college
>advertise that you are a crappy college
>get sued because people thought they would get a job and make tons of money even though every one knows its a crappy college
STEM BTFO

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/pf/college/devry-settlement/index.html

>>8542861
Higher concentrations of CO2 mean nothing if it causes a depletion of other resources at the same time. Yes, of course some plants may actually benefit from a higher amount of CO2, as long as they are supplemented in other nutrients that plants need to grow and flourish as well, you know, water, nitrogen and phosphorous from healthy soils.
Sure, some areas of the planet could benefit from a warmer climate, but for every region and every plant that does, there is another where a changing climate results in a climate shift, resulting in more droughts, which in turn leads to poor soils, which in turn leads to a drop in plant growth.
CO2 is only one element of necessity for plants to be abundant. An argument for this case is a greenhouse. Many greenhouses artificially increase CO2 in them in order to grow the plants faster, and it works, but also because the plants have adequate and regulated nutrients from their soils, as well as adequate water. You increase all of these elements and plants are going to benefit, but climate change doesn't always result in a net benefit of every single one of these characteristics.

Science allows for criticism.
Scientists allow criticism.

Idiots do not. Don't get science confused with the idiots on here. Just because your average moderator does not want to take charge of the board, and is allowing 4chan to degenerate to the point where it's users have actually impacted the nation in such a negative way, doesn't mean criticism isn't allowed by non-autistic scientific communities.

>>8542861
>So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?
I would call you a fuckface, because we've been over that in basically every one of these threads.

>local transforming measures make far more sense as local variables dominate local climates
You can't adapt to a moving target - no mitigation or local adoption will be enough if you don't also stop making the problem worse.

>>8542876
So can you link it?

If it informed your opinion I'd like to read it for myself.

>>8542878
DeVry is a for profit college. A private college. That is what you should expect from private institutions.

If you are not going to a state funded public university then you are getting cheated out of money and time.

>>8542880
>but for every region and every plant that does, there is another where a changing climate results in a climate shift, resulting in more droughts

See and this I think is false.

I think local variables are always going to dominate local climates, far more than a minor global variable like CO2. The goal is managing local climates so they adapt to the increasing CO2.

In fact this should be the agenda even ignoring CO2. The Sahara could be terraformed if we had the political will to do it. It's local histories that are dominant, not minor global variables.

>>8542886
>making the problem worse.

A CO2 concetration of 50 PPM would be a far larger problem than a concentration of 800 PPM. You can't just assume it's a problem.

The ocean acidification is worse than anything else.

>>8542899
>You can't just assume it's a problem.
I'm not just assuming it's a problem, there's a shitload of actual research that clearly shows it's a problem.

>>8542901
It's also all done by people trying to justify their own funding. That argument has actually become more persuasive to me once I began reflecting on my time in STEM.

Friends in biology talking about how they have to make the claim their research could have applications to cancer research, even when they honestly expected no such thing.

A professor in condensed matter saying how he is funded by DARPA because of applications to quantum computing, which he laughed about to us as being nonsense.

I honestly think CO2 is just a major distraction from more pressing environmental issues, especially when you consider solutions like new generation nuclear reactors simply aren't being pursued at all.

>>8542871
>The question is human causation. You have to prove first that your theory is a good one and can make reasonable predictions about the future.
Already been done. Greenhouse effect and its related feedbacks have been proven in many different ways.

>Making claims and then saying the burden of evidence is on the other isn't Science.
No, of course not. The science is the massive amount of published papers on this subject which you morons always try to pretend doesn't exist.

>>8542899
>A CO2 concetration of 50 PPM would be a far larger problem than a concentration of 800 PPM.
What? How is the concentration going to get to 50 PPM? What does this have to do with anything? Eating no food is worse than eating too much. That doesn't mean you should eat too much. Where do you morons get these "arguments"?

>>8542936
Is 9,000 calories a day too much food?

For some it's necessary.

That's the argument. Your incredulity just makes you look like a dithering fool.

>>8542938
>Is 9,000 calories a day too much food?
>For some it's necessary.
I can't tell if you've missed the point or are intentionally avoiding it.

>>8542815

>>8542894
>I think local variables are always going to dominate local climates
Non-sequitur. Droughts are local weather events. Sea level rise effects people locally. All of the negative effects of climate change are local phenomena caused by global variables. How are you going to prevent increased droughts locally? How are you going to prevent sea level rise locally? The math has already been done. Moderate carbon taxes will save billions of dollars in ecological damage and decreased productivity in the future, above what they cost. And that's simply from disincentivizing carbon emissions. Even more money will be saved if those taxes are invested into further mitigation and technology.

>>8542943
I think it's you that has missed the point.

>>8542914
>It's also all done by people trying to justify their own funding.
Exactly, any scientific fact can be denied with this one simple trick.

>>8542938
If 9000 calories a day was the average diet, the population would be suffering severe harm.

If 800 ppm was the average global concentration of CO2, the population would be suffering sever harm.

>>8542861
>So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?

You have no idea what higher CO2 will actually mean. Nobody does because it's an extremely complex situation that has far reaching effects. So I'd have to label you as an uneducated moron.

>>8542958
It's really not that complex. Higher CO2 -> more heat trapped in atmosphere -> rapid warming -> more CO2 and mostly negative effects toward the ecology and infrastructure humans depend on.

>>8542949
No, really you missed the point. We aren't talking about 800 ppm for "some" parts of the earth but for the entire earth.

>>8541621
>>If you're not allowed to criticize a theory without mobs of shills coming after you silencing you
and how exactly are you silenced?

>>8542769
>buddy
I recognize you now.
You resort to name calling and ad-homs. Your zealous use of "buddy" makes your posts easily identifiable. Obviously you are an avid supporter of AGW. I am an avid critic but my line of thinking is not unique and yours is about as unique as any cultists. I don't think we are really buddies and that's fine.

This guy gets it
http://www.cultureandreligion.com/html/religion_of_agw.html
>Whatever debate there is only centers on events that are weather related and then there is a leap of faith that global warming was involved and so CO2 must be reduced to prevent the event from happening again
He even went ahead and delved into the data sets so went further than myself. I don't need to, I recognize cult building when I see it and AGW is textbook with the largest cult on the planet, the Catholic Church, dogpiling on it like flies on shit.

It should be plainly obvious through the scientific method that AGW is merely a very questionable theory, the debate is not over and there is a somewhat obvious agenda attached to power and control of not just the people who subscribe to it but real world natural resources that are critical to modern life those being fossil fuels and CO2. It's hardly even a conspiracy, but a blatant power grab as any and all solutions offered up solve no problem of significance and in fact detract from real world problems with real world solutions. This is the real danger of any religion. Keep praying to your climate priests and their political handlers and see where that gets you, buddy!

>>8543000
Not an argument

>>8543000
Oh, you mean the same threads in which every single time someone supporting AGW provides facts and evidence for the phenomenon, the posts receive zero replies because you have no actual argument aside from buzzwords like "climate priests," or "political handlers." It's funny actually, because you can say the same exact thing about deniers of climate science with their "cult" of denial not based on the scientific process, as well as their "political handlers" aka people like James Inhofe, Lamar Smith, or any other petroleum-funded shill in congress, but apparently you don't see the irony in that sort of statement.

Not once in this thread, or any of the previous threads on /sci/ about AGW has anyone presented a shred of credible evidence questioning the data that exists. There's a point at which cherry-picking and grasping at straws just ceases to work in your so called "debate." It's also hilarious how you continue to harp on about "ad hominem" when there's many situations in which you do the exact same fallacy. For example, attacking climate science as a "cult" or using "climate priests" as an attack on credible researchers and scientists in the field is the very definition of an ad hominem attack on a scientific concept. If you want to discredit climate science, present evidence, not baseless conjecture with no proof or evidence.

You simply cannot state something like "[it's] obvious through the scientific method that AGW is merely a very questionable theory" without backing that statement up with anything but ad hominem that you apparently despise so much.

>>8543000
>It's all a religion because I say so!
Stop. You've made that claim many times now, and every time someone challenges it you've done nothing but repeat it over again. Actually support your claims, or fuck off.

>http://www.cultureandreligion.com/html/religion_of_agw.html
It's a mound of "CO2 is plant food, not pollution!" tier rubbish. Boring.

>It should be plainly obvious through the scientific method that AGW is merely a very questionable theory
Why even bother saying shit like this? If it was "plainly obvious", you wouldn't be arguing with people. Moron.

>>8541718
>not a poltard, i'm an engineer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSgp755DSA

>>8542717
Are you zizek overdosing on redpill? I want more of your manuscripts

>>8543339
>*palms own nose making grunting noises

Criticizing a theory outside of the language is probably not an effective method of criticism.

As for the example in OP you can question the political ramifications of global warming all you want. That's one of the battles I choose not to fight.

Climate change WAS challenged, About 10 years ago the scientific community was somewhat divided on the issue, but now they've all converged to the same conclusion. The evidence is simply too strong for any logical, critical thinker to refute. This does not make it a religion. If it did, then believing in electrons would be a religion, or believing in the photoelectric effect.

Youtube videos and statements from right wing politicians are not evidence. Science is evidence. We should listen to the fact before we build opinions.

>>8541621
>science doesn't allow any kind of criticism
Lrn2science fgt pls

>>8541638
>pls spoonfeed me teh evidence
gtfo fgt pls

>>8541736
>got it firgured out
L0Lno firguret pls
>...the chairman of the United States Senate Committee
>on Environment and Public Works does not
>understand what Global Warming is.
...and neither do you, fgt pls

>>8543372

This is exactly why the thread was created. If you have a theory - present the evidence. If, when asked for proof, you spout "i don't have to educate you" or some such you look terribly similar to folks 'proving' a spectrum of genders, and it's a bit suspicious.

So, i'll ask again - is there a decent model that shows human influenced climate change and was, so far, experimentally shown to not be wrong? If so, please point me to it.

>>8542802
there is little point in trying to argue these people.
if you point out how they are being retarded, they will call you a shill.
if you point out that actually they are the ones on the side of massive money (fossil fuel industry = AGW denial sponsors), they will call you a shill, even louder than before.

they will "debunk" your peer-reviewed meta-studies of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by posting a pixelated infographic .gif file, showing a blurry graph with unnamed axis and infowars as a cited source

>>8543424
>is there a decent model that shows human influenced climate change and was, so far, experimentally shown to not be wrong?
maybe before asking the question, you should first learn the english language.

after that, you can do the standard approach that applies to all fields of science: you check the published peer reviewed literature.
asking on 4chan is not a way to get reliable information on anything

>>8543440

Maybe that's because you arrogantly appeal to authority over and over again, just a though.

Can you point me to the model?

Christ, this shouldn't be so difficult, no science needs authority to be proven. If you a convinced why not convince others? Surely there is enough information on the internet already, just post some goddam links.

>>8543446
>make a lengthy post describing how it's pointless to argue with denial-idiots
>denial-idiot tries to get me to argue with him
nice try, I r8 1/10 since you got me to respond.
I guess you're not hiding the fact anymore that you're just a troll. Good luck to you

>>8543442

So, within 4chan, reliably at least, you cannot. Saying you cannot present a model is basically saying you cannot make a statement that you think is correct and would agree with an experiment.

And if you ever wonder this is the region, within 4chan at least, you are a religious person - you believe claims you, by your own admission, cannot make a non-wrong theory about.

I would think this is the reason people tend to disregard you, not because those people are, necessarily lack certain character qualities.

Following this line of thought - if you're theory exists (presumably) only in nice places filled with like-minded people what is the effective difference between it and a religion?

Who cares whether or not global warming exists?
Aren't there more important issues like the collapse of society?

>>8543481
who cares knowing and understanding how the climate works. care about >MUH DEGENERACY instead, please i beg you care about it.

molyneux:
>i am a libertarian
>close the borders

>intelligence is not genetic
>intelligence is racial

>there are no decent christians
>christians > atheists, i'll even "cry" while saying it

>voting is always unjustified
>vote trump is the right course of action

the guy has 0 principle

>>8543465
you are arguing with a retard, just ignore

>>8541621
Science does allow criticism, but you gotta have more than "LOL its fake". For God's sake OP, man caused climate change is a consensus in academia.

>>8543531
he went from libertarian ideology channel to staging calls and making videos for the autistic alt-right fan base for the money

>>8543531
he's still one of the greatest (if not the greatest) intellectuals of our time. you gotta deal with this, that's a fact.

>>8541621
The science accepts criticism.
That doesn't mean that random people on the internet will entertain your 'arguments' instead of just calling you a retard and saying you're wrong because you deny science.

>>8541621
You're correct, and this is nothing new.

There's also a few more problems that make this all unscientific:
>correlation is taken to imply causation by the very same "I fucking love science" people who love to say "correlation does not imply causation"
>there are no controls on measurements -- the scary temperature graphs that start in 1880 are taken from a variable number of sensors in variable locations (close to civilisation, which is even worse) using variable technologies of variable accuracy, and this is patently not scientific
>the data showing a scary increase in global temperature is actually indistinguishable from error (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305x.21.8.969))

>>8542717
Yeah basically.

>>8541718
>1990 model is uncertain
>26 years ago
>using a textbook from 1945
>less than ½°C increase
>not to worry
okay

>>8543556
the causation is that CO2 allows white light in and doesn't allow infrared light out(heat)

>>8543424
>i don't have to educate you
now you're beginning to get the drift

>>8541718
this post, is not an argument

>>8543521
>who cares knowing and understanding how the climate works
is this a trick question?

>>8541621
You can criticise it all you want. You just have to understand it before you do.

Except for global warming though, if you don't accept it you are worse than people who deny the holocaust

>>8543591
>Except for global warming though, if you don't accept it you are worse than people who deny the holocaust
no, you're not, holocaust deniers are much worse

>>8543556
Three lies in a row, impressive.

>>correlation is taken to imply causation
AGW is not based on correlation, it's based on a mechanistic understanding of the climate. Anyone even mildly familiar with this subject would know about such mechanisms like the greenhouse effect. So why are you lying?

>there are no controls on measurements
There are many controls on measurements. There are several corrections done to account for station variability, and these corrections have been empirically shown to not bias the data in any particular direction when compared with proxies or high quality subsets of stations:

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

Anyone even mildly familiar with this subject would know that the temperature record is corrected. So why are you lying?

>the data showing a scary increase in global temperature is actually indistinguishable from error (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305x.21.8.969))
The data this paper claims to have measured is from three stations. Three. It's just the old denier trick of cherrypicking data, and then applying the conclusions drawn to all the data. It's also published in a fake journal.

>>8543559
>Molyneux is this retarded
...all right, but why is /sci/ this retarded?

>>8543607
>It's also published in a fake journal.
Fake how? It's on Scopus too.

>>8541621

It is one thing to criticize a theory. It is another to keep shit posting about flat earth or to deny climate change without any kind of argumentative support.

Plus, your picture sucks. Science is not a liar, it just moves from funeral to funeral

>>8541718
YouTuber and a journalist eh?

>>8543638
E&E will publish anything that denies AGW. The publisher admitted that she publishes based on her political agenda.

>>8542849
Pretty sure that was a joke. Ass burgers are a bitch eh?

>>8541638
How do you prove that something isn't happening?

>>8543686
I'm not doubting your statement, but do you have a source for that? Just curious, want to read up on that Journal.

>>8543970
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment

>>8543697
By refuting the evidence that it is happening.

>>8543556
correlation is taken to imply causation every day by every scientist on the planet

all scientific evidence is correlative

the job of the scientist is to construct their experiments such that causation is the only reasonable explanation for observed correlations

>>8541736
Did... did you watch that video? He's debunking the idea that global warming is a hoax.

>>8541621
>This dogmatic approach to global warming is what really makes it sound like a religion.
It's only a religion when it comes to global warming.

Man made climate change can be easily proved through basic laws of physics.

Global warming doomsday is whats extrapolated bullshit. We have no idea what the long term outcome will be.

>>8544035
>I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?

Yeah, this is not a legitimate journal when the editor admits to political bias on a scientific issue.

>>8541736
>>8544089
Same guy posted the same video in a previous thread, I pointed out the same thing. He's either baiting, or he is too stupid that he just went to Youtube, typed in "global warming hoax" in the search bar and copy pasted the first two results.

>>8543014
"Cult" and "climate priest" are not ad-homs and I do not resort to personal attacks, it's pointless on an anonymous cartoon image board.

The scientific method in the case of AGW is not being followed, it is simply weather monitoring and not on a geological time scale because the "science" is in its infancy. The climate is cyclical and there are an infinite number of variables that go into it not just man but all life on earth. CO2 is being cherry-picked as the sole culprit which just happens to be critical to life on this planet and a by-product of spent fossil fuels. If the science was legit it would need to lend as much weight to every other factor, water vapor, plant cover, volcanic activity, solar activity but also thousands of other factors. To say these are all being modeled correctly in computers is ludicrous, the margin for error makes these models ridiculous. Entertainment at most but to start basing tax on? Preposterous!
With that tax already in place and ramping up, 'big oil' for the most part is just required to pass on any of that burden downstream to the end consumer, the oil shill funding argument is dead. Global fascism is what AGW is spawning through what to me looks like a religion.

>>8543137
It has all the markers of a religion not a science, I've pointed these out, why is that?
CO2 is not a pollutant, calling it a pollutant equates to calling life on this planet a pollutant.
Most of the AGW (science) is projection. It cannot claim with certainty that any anomaly in climate or weather over the last 100 years is man-made, it is just an idea. Even then to think it can pinpoint mans contribution to such a hypothetical scenario is laughable. That this movement has gone ahead and seeks control of CO2 emissions on a global scale downright scary! The fanaticism and levels of belief amongst its follows give it the appearance of a religion more than science. Science stands on it's own, does not need fanatical or draconian enforcement.

>>8544223
Which community college did you drop out of that qualifies you to make such lengthy and insightful posts?

>>8541621
No it's isn't. Global warming is the proof. You can't deny it otherwise liberals go bat shit crazy.

>>8544105
Nah m8. I don't think our carbon emissions can have an effect on the entire planet. For example the was a small "ice" age during Middle Ages and a warming in the 16th I guess. Don't know which centuries precisely.

>>8543230
Please don't judge all engineers because some act like morons when they discuss issues outside of their expertise.

We don't judge all scientists because sometimes Stephen Hawking says a sentient AI is going to sneak into our rooms and steal our bodily fluids while we sleep, or when Carl Sagan said nuclear winters were a real possibility.
-t. Engineer

>>8544223
Ad Hominem definition:
>A logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself
The argument:
>Mankind is causing the current global warming trend which is leading to climate changes.
Person making the argument
>Climate scientists
Rebutted by attacking the character
>Claiming climate researchers are "climate priests," Claiming the theory of global warming is a "religion."

Do I seriously have to spell shit out for you, are you actually this daft? You are so ignorant, and you reek of pseudo-intellectualism.

Not ONCE have you attacked the actual argument of climate science. All you can do is shitpost your little rants about muh priests, muh religion, muh communism, muh globalism fascism. So many fucking 'isms. Get your head out your ass please.

>>8544407
saying something is a cult is not the same thing as saying that something is wrong solely because it's a cult

>>8544413
The mental gymnastics you have to jump through to confirm your own bias is incredible.

>>8544416
i'm not that guy, i just jumped into the thread for that post

>>8544413
You're right, calling AGW a religion is NotAnArgument©

>>8542815
Why did people suddenly start to uses (((((parentheses ))))) instead of """"quotations""""? It feels like I'm reading Lisp code.

>>8542815
>Because he's redpilled

>>8544483
parentheses started on Twitter by anti-semites because parentheses are stripped out by search engines. people would surround someone's name with parentheses to mark that they're jewish and direct harassment to them

>>8544493
Seems doubtful, yet not too unplausible.

>>8544493
>and direct harassment to them
omg such harassment...

>>8544512
what's doubtful? it's well document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses

>>8543230
>tfw engineer and /x/ is my main board

no bully ;_;

>>8542633
Good post

>>8544341
this.

>>8544407
There is no "science" to debunk only the wild speculation that is called climate science. An enormous mountain of temperature readings that show no clear anomaly outside of known natural variation. The second pillar it stands on are the computer simulations of climate, a ridiculously complicated attempt with an infinite number of variables but one - CO2 - singled out as the primary driver and in need of regulation immediately or catastrophic consequences will follow. Of course every single one of these simulations has been wrong. The main drivers of this science are questionable entities, the UN is a purely political organization, not scientific. NASA is in the business of launching spy satellites and then there is the center of climategate, the University of East Anglia which apparently cannot be trusted.

>>8542914
>It's also all done by people trying to justify their own funding.
this and whenever anyone tries to blow the whistle they are dismissed as oil company shills.

climatology is very dogmatic compared to other fields of research, even gender studies.

>>8544793
You evade a proper response every time, it's hilarious. Whenever you get called out you do nothing.

>>8544807
>Roy Spencer
here we go again
>Dismissed as oil company shills
http://marshall.org/board-members/ Scroll down to the very bottom please.

What is the George C. Marshall Institute you may ask? Founded as a conservative "think tank," it aids in the distribution of propaganda to deny climate science.

Here's money that the foundation took in from Exxonmobil, before the public caught on and they stopped publicly giving money to the organization:
>$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
>$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
>$60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
>$80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
>$95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
>$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
>$90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support";
>$85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

He is also a columnist for TCS Daily, and has written over 40 columns there. TCS Daily is run by DCI Group, which itself is a lobbying firm under the employ of Exxonmobil. Coincidence? Exxon has also given money to TCS Daily:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/vnr40

He also spoke at Heartland Climate Conference 6 in 2011:
http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/

Not enough space on 4chan to talk about Heartland, but they are very similar to GCM.

>>8543381
>...what the fuck are you
>doing kid

>>8544831
>http://www.tinfoil.org
great source m8.

>>8544831
>>8544807
More about this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020913050409/http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

No, Spencer has absolutely zero connections to the petro lobby, none whatsoever.

Didn't even mention it, but the guy also just happens to be a quack that denies the theory of evolution as well.

>>8544840
>I didn't read any of the links, all of which are directly sourced and have links to statements given by Exxon themselves for their monetary donations to GCM.

Go right ahead and read the first link here, it's an actual archived link from GCM. Here is a direct quote:
>when the Institute turned its attention to the science of global warming, it decided it would appeal successfully to industry for financial support.

>>8542750
/sci/ is fast though

>>8544846
actually i clicked for the irs report and it sent me to greenpeace. great stuff m8. real legit. linking me to a scam advocacy group that hinges on the agw meme for its survival.

>>8544851
>Muh greenpeace
So what? Does who presents the information matter? You can find the same information on Wikipedia for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

You can even just google this shit, it's simple. This article is 13 years old and details how Exxon donates money to groups like GCM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.html


Also, did you completely ignore the link to the archive of GCM's website which explicitly states that they seek out funding from special interests like Exxonmobil?

Here, I'll paste it again since apparently you can't read.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020913050409/http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm
>This fall, the Institute received its first-ever grant from a corporate foundation-- the Exxon Education Foundation. The Exxon Education Foundation fit our criteria perfectly for it is a well-known supporter of a variety of groups, including environmental organizations. We are very pleased to be one of this foundation's grantees.

Holy shit you are retarded.

>>8544872
>Muh greenpeace
oil companies at least provide me with something unlike greenpeace.

>http://www.nytimes.com
lmao because they turned out to be reliable. lmao

>Also, did you completely ignore the link to the archive of GCM's website which explicitly states that they seek out funding from special interests like Exxonmobil?
you only posted it after i pointed out your tinfoil shit doesn't count. though i'm more likely to trust people who keep my car going than people who want to take my money away for their dubious goals desu.

holy shit you are salty.

>>8544879
also that graph really illustrates well how unreliable liberal predictions are, i expect as much out of climate science which is filled with beta numales. i mean you cant even predict tomorrows weather but you think you can predict the climate 100s of years from now? lmao.

inb4 weather != climate
climate is the aggregate of weather btw, so them not being identical only goes against you.

>>8544879
>you only posted it after i pointed out your tinfoil shit doesn't count. though i'm more likely to trust people who keep my car going than people who want to take my money away for their dubious goals desu.

Can you not read moron?

>>8544846
>More about this:
>http://web.archive.org/web/20020913050409/http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm

Or are you just blind?

>Go right ahead and read the first link here, it's an actual archived link from GCM. Here is a direct quote:
>>when the Institute turned its attention to the science of global warming, it decided it would appeal successfully to industry for financial support.

>>8544887
>Can you not read moron?
looks like you cant, as i said that link wasnt initially provided. see:
>>8544831
to which i replied:
>>8544840


my goodness you're a brainlet. lmao

>>8544893
Read my first post. There is a 2000 character limit on 4chan, you replied to me before I was able to finish making my point. I literally went up to 2000 characters in that post, I couldn't add another link if I wanted to.

You should watch this:
https://xmovies8.org/watch?v=Merchants_of_Doubt_2014#video=DgH8zOjF8UD4ffC72JRAnznof4c3L-NSvUop97YU770

Go to ~50 minutes where they have a guy who used to work for GCM talk about how the president of the institute was a lobbyist for the oil companies. They talk more about other think tanks after that.

>>8544903
again i really dont care if he is funded by oil companies. oil companies provide me with something, when have you climate scientists ever done anything for me? all i see you guys ever trying to do is tax me and make necessities like oil more expensive for me. cant you do anything useful for a change instead of whine about some supposed doomsday you keep pushing back every year it doesn't happen like the rapturetard? i'm genuinely curious.

>>8541638
Burden of proof dipshit

>>8542633
Name one (1) time a /pol/tard has said you don't have the right to criticize them. Or are you just mad that they then criticized your comments instead of immediately throwing a fit?

>>8544917
lmao you're a fucking idiot. what if a cop came to your door and told you there was a crazy axe murderer killing faggots, would you be like 'oh what have you ever done for me besides not let me walk around with my cock out' and keep shitposting?

>>8544924
after verifying they are indeed the police i'd trust them because police officers aren't scam artists who just try to tax me for their over-glorified science fair projects. but more importantly what has climate science ever done for me? answer it.

People who outright deny climate change are mostly just shitposting, not that I'd expect any of you autists to discern that.

>>8544933
it's just fun watching these autists flip their shit about this really happening man-made phenomena non-issue.

>>8544831
>a proper response
What specifically are you unhappy about in the response? What is the "proper" response?
You want me to challenge the AGW theory? As simple as I can make this for you since comprehension is not one of your strong points.

-CO2 is not a pollutant, does not need regulation
-All climate models have so far failed in the short term, we are supposed to believe the long term climate doom prophecies are any different?
-They do not, cannot prove man and CO2 is a driver let alone to what extent.
-Temperature variations so far recorded accurately do not represent anything out of line with natural variation
-The entities pushing AGW are of the political and social science realm except perhaps NASA who are mainly tasked with temperature recordings that again do not show any deviation outside of the natural norms.

Also, those numbers you are posting are absolute peanuts compared to the money going into the AGW religion because for one thing there is no money in being a climate heretic, a lot of be made in a new age AGW religion starting with the taxation that would eclipse those numbers by an order of magnitude already!
Shiat, One climate priest - James Hansen - alone has received more than all of that combined in climate funding to propagate his pet religion.
>NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

>>8541621
>>8541632

Scientists once denied a theory because it came from a priest.

>>8544341
>Carl Sagan said nuclear winters were a real possibility.

Weren't they, during the Cold War? Thought I saw a thread about the effects of Russia vs USA just earlier.

>>8545035
Every point you made is a baldfaced lie that anyone who knows how to google can prove wrong. Actually most of them have already been proven wrong in this thread.

>>8545084
No because nuclear winter wouldn't actually happen.

>>8545035
>-CO2 is not a pollutant, does not need regulation
Look up what a pollutant is. CO2 definitly needs to be regulated if we want to have any chance of reducing emissions of it.

>All climate models have so far failed in the short term, we are supposed to believe the long term climate doom prophecies are any different?
By "short term", do you mean the 14-day forecast? Because that's weather, not climate. The climate models we have do a decent job - they're far from perfect, but they're enough to justify concern.

>They do not, cannot prove man and CO2 is a driver let alone to what extent.
Sure they can. We have outgoing radiation monitoring, past climate history. and basic physics.

>Temperature variations so far recorded accurately do not represent anything out of line with natural variation
Wrong.

>The entities pushing AGW are of the political and social science realm except perhaps NASA
Which entities? The scientists discussing AGW work for a broad variety of governments and organisations, not all of which even get on well with each other.

>AGW religion
Stop.

>>8545035
James Hansen is probably one of the most famous climatologists in the world, so no shit people pay to fly him out and give talks / speeches to a variety of different organizations. This is really grasping at straws.

Especially considering over $1,000,000 of the money you said is from outside sources is from scientific prizes he won, such as a $500,000 share in the Blue Planet Award shared with Dr. Robert Watson, a British chemist who specializes in paleoclimatology. He also received half of a $1mil Dan David Prize, an Israeli award.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2010/2010-06-20-01.html

All of that is a far cry from a special interest like Exxonmobil or BP or the Southern Company deliberately funding denialist groups and their """experts""" that have zero experience or credibility in earth sciences. Also, the only sources I can even find for the $1.6mil figures you listed was of course, Anthony Watt's WUWT, which is funded by none other than the Heartland Institute, which Watts has appeared as a paid speaker at their International Conferences on Climate Change. No conflict of interest there? Especially when Heartland has received money from the petroleum industry in the past?

What's hilarious is Heartland is the same organization who organized lobbying efforts against Tobacco regulation and opposed the scientific evidence of smoking related diseases. Long before they were campaigning against global warming, they were campaigning against smoking regulation. It's hilarious how linked the two lobbying efforts in support of the cigarette corporations and the fossil fuel industry are. Fred Singer is another notorious figure in Heartland.

Heartland no longer reports who gives them funds, but in the past they took $736,500 from Exxonmobil alone until they stopped funding them. Koch has funded them, Philip fucking Morris has funded them. Pfizer as well.

>>8542893
buthurt MIT reject detected
all the best schools are private ones

>>8545341
>confusing private schools with for profit schools

lmao end it

>>8545348
>a for profit college. A private college. That is what you should expect from private institutions.
>backtracking this hard
end your life faggot. also,
If you are not going to a state funded...
why would you be this stupid on the internet

>>8541947
Strawman much?

>>8545348
>private schools are charities
dumdum

>>8545385
He's not misrepresenting your argument.

>>8545613
>if it's not a charity it's a for-profit

Www Ldd

>>8545331
This is a direct, factually supported response. trumpfags will tell you posts like these never happened. trumpfags confirmed big gay babies holy shit.