/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4109890/Did-4chan-user-make-salacious-parts-dirty-dossier-MAIL-Republican-anti-Trump-strategist.html

>>8596168
What am I reading here?

>>8596167
No, but it is misrepresented and either over- or under-stated in a variety of agendas.

>>8596196
So is it a serious threat?

>>8596206
Yes, to say otherwise would be to deny everything we know. For example, ocean acidification is a very real and immediate danger, fuck the ocean up and everything is fucked.

>what is ocean acidification
Increase in overall CO2 levels means an increase in the ocean's uptake of CO2, making it shift from it's slightly basic state to an acidic one overall. Which is bad, very bad, as ocean life has adapted to it's slightly basic enviroment.

Here's another

>warmer summer temperatures
Last summer, and the one before that, rivers in the PNW were almost hot enough to immediately kill any salmon entering them, which is extremely bad for the food cycle in the PNW and any ocean going creature that eats pacific salmon.

>>8596167
Can you not consolidate your threads? Flat earth climate change, learn to doublethink.

>>8596206

In the long term no, it will actually be a benefit. But the long term is ~1,000 years, for those of us who have to live thru the period of climate disruption it will basically be the apocalypse. But relax! The time when we could have prevented it is long past, so you may as well stop worrying about it and just hope you're dead before the sea level rises drown half of Europe and America.

>>8596196
>agendas
ooh such a scary buzzword

>>8596384
>But relax! The time when we could have prevented it is long past
Where are you getting this garbage from?
Global warming isn't a Civ5 disaster, that either happens or it doesn't - so long as we keep contributing to it, it will keep getting worse.
Yes, we're already committed to getting hit pretty bad, but there's still a lot of room to make things worse.

>>8596217
>Increase in overall CO2 levels means an increase in the ocean's uptake of CO2, making it shift from it's slightly basic state to an acidic one overall. Which is bad, very bad, as ocean life has adapted to it's slightly basic enviroment.

'Cept the "global warming scare" has been, for years now, claiming that the Oceans are releasing CO2 and that we've triggered a positive feedback cycle. So, I guess there's no danger ?

Let's face it. Hysteria will end only when all the economy is under one, central control.

>>8596405
>'Cept the "global warming scare" has been, for years now, claiming that the Oceans are releasing CO2 and that we've triggered a positive feedback cycle
The oceans both absorb and release CO2. Globally though, they're a net sink.
I don't know what told you they were a net source, but you should probably be more careful about your sources.

>So, I guess there's no danger?
The fact that you don't understand it ought to make you more concerned, not less.

>Let's face it. Hysteria will end only when all the economy is under one, central control.
Let's face it, conspiracy theories have never been an effective substitute for actual scientific evidence.

>>8596405
Here's a source if you don't just want my word for it:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/LDEO_Underway_Database/air_sea_flux_2010.html
>The equatorial Pacific (14°N-14°S) is the major source for atmospheric CO2, emitting about +0.48 Pg-C/yr, and the temperate oceans between 14° and 50° in the both hemispheres are the major sink zones with an uptake flux of -0.70 Pg-C/yr for the northern and –1.05 Pg-C/yr for the southern zone. The high latitude North Atlantic, including the Nordic Seas and portion of the Arctic Sea, is the most intense CO2 sink area on the basis of per unit area, with a mean of –2.5 tons-C / month / km2 (1 Ton = 106 grams). This is due to the combination of the low pCO2 in seawater and high gas exchange rates. In the ice-free zone of the Southern Ocean (50°S-62°S), the mean annual flux is small (-0.06 Pg-C/yr) because of a cancellation of the summer uptake CO2 flux with the winter release of CO2 caused by deepwater upwelling. The annual mean for the contemporary net CO2 uptake flux over the global oceans is estimated to be -1.4 ± 0.7 Pg-C/yr. Taking the pre-industrial steady state ocean source of 0.4 ± 0.2 Pg-C/yr into account, the total ocean uptake flux including the anthropogenic CO2 is estimated to be –2.0 ± 0.7 Pg-C/yr in 2000.

>>8596167
Yes. Climate science is just like social science but without any control group.

>>8596167
No
It's real
It's caused by humans
It's a threat to the future of everyone browsing this board
It's not a threat to the vastly wealthy people responsible for it
It's being constantly belittled by them and their cronies because responding to it will reduce their short term profits

>>8596405
The oceans are a CO2 sink, because they absorb it in the form of carbonic acid (fucking up all kinds of sea life, but whatever)

The threat is methane-bearing clathrates on the sea floor in the higher latitudes, which have a high potential to melt with increasing temperatures leading to a massive release of methane which is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Not this shit again.

>>8596196
this

Is it true that pumping sulfates into our atmosphere could potentially be our emergency "out" method?

>>8596748
Yes, but it's only a temporary fix if emissions continue because you can only pump so much sulfates before affecting the ozone. It also won't help with ocean acidification.

>>8596167

Of course.

>>8596392
>Yes, we're already committed to getting hit pretty bad, but there's still a lot of room to make things worse.
Are you talking about the carbon tax or climate change?

>>8596764
>won't help with ocean acidification
Of course it would. The production of H2SO4 is inevitable. Have acid rain, get lower pH. Added bonus: it stinks like hell. What more can you ask for.

>>8596597
I'm afraid so comrade.

>>8596167
Is your brain a hoax?

it is, but like the 6 gorillian you'd better believe it or face the left wing death squad.

The environment does seem more energetic, and energy is heat. So, too, the science model on which global warming seems to be proven does seem to work within reason for electronics, gadgets and all sorts of useless stuff.

However, I'd say it is more "denial" than hoax. It never started with a story that no global warming was happening: It started with the assumption that global warming was happening and causing problems.

Deniers either see only money or they're afraid to face truth, which, unfortunately, is how we ended up in this crisis.

Once we reach peak oil we'll either have a total collapse of the oil industry and enter a long collapse scenario, or we'll shift over to more environmentally friendly and renewable options. Peak oil is coming soon, it's just about how soon it's going to come and if that will be fast enough to save the environment.

>>8597511

There are no "environmentally friendly" energy sources capable of sustaining modern technology.

>>8596405
Kill yourself

>>8597511
Waiting untill we've burned all the oil in the ground before doing anything about AGW would be INCREDIBLY irresponsible, and massive amounts of harm would have already occurred and//or been committed too by then.

>>8597519
>There are no "environmentally friendly" energy sources capable of sustaining modern technology.
Sure there are. Hydropower in particular is incredibly mature and well proven, and other renewables have been improving at a incredible rate.

>>8596537
>Climate science is just like social science but without any control group.
The predictive models are the control group in a sense, but they are constantly changing and are unreliable. Otherwise, this is essentially true.

but /pol/ says its a hoax

>>8597519
Only because they aren't widespread yet. Wind and solar will dominate the future, especially Solar. Geothermal can be used in some areas, but it's uncommon, and hydroelectric is already widespread, and some of the largest capacity power plants on Earth, in fact almost all of them are hydroelectric.

Then there's Nuclear, not renewable, but it is definitely something that, without such stiff regulations, could be used as a stopgap in switching from fossil fuels to renewable, much to the environmentalist's demise. Fuck what they did to Yucca Mountain.

>>8597795
Man made climate change is a governmental and economic expression of peak energy. As the bounty of energy provided through fossil fuels dwindles through the 21st century, the man made climate will certainly be altered in ways hard to fathom yet.

>>8596167

No. Trump is a fucking retard.

>>8596590
Never mind that Climate Change is a $7 trillion dollar industry.
http://business.financialpost.com/investing/climate-change-initiatives-a-7-trillion-funding-opportunity-for-capital-markets-carney

I mean if a cartoonist turned psychologist says that Climate Skeptics get tremendous funding, and draws a diagram, it must be true!

Reality is that Climate Change Believers are funded at a rate of a 1000 to 1 to skeptics.

>>8597017
Nice diagram of an authoritarian circle jerk. The use of the term "your source is shit" is the dead giveaway.

"You source is shit" = "not reviewed by certified warmists, not accepted by a warmist editor, not published in a warmist believer journal."

In short if a source doesn't fit inside your echo chamber (UN IPCC), it doesn't count. Therefore climate change is true!

>>8599174
Being well funded doesn't dispute the facts produced by said research though.

Also 2009 was almost a decade ago.

>>8599174
>>8599181
>John Cook isn't a reputable source because he's not a publishing climatologist
>it's biased and wrong to exclude sources just because they're not climatology journals
clue meter is reading zero

>>8596167
Climate change is real in the sense that it's happening. It's a hoax in the sense that entire government-funded industries have jumped up to convince you you want to pay more in taxes so they can be rich.

At the last major conference, all these countries that were going to be so negatively impacted by climate change ended up not wanting to spend their own money to do shit about it.

It's science tainted by gibs and corruption. Now every fucking storm is evidence of climate change according to retards at NPR.

>>8596405

>>8596167
It's real, but fuck all if we're going to stop it. China and India are becoming industrialized, and it would be extremely hubristic to think they're going to slow down because the West is suddenly so concerned about atmospheric CO2, just as it's transitioning into renewables.

The world is going to change, a lot, but ultimately life will adapt. There will be extinctions in the wild. Humans will continue on.

Before the great peer adjustment.

>>8599478
>US temperature trend
>global temperature trend
pick one and only one.
pic is from GISS "Global Temperature Trends: Continued Warmth in 1999" showing relatively little change in US temperature from 1895 to 1989, even as the world warmed significantly

This is our real problem:
https://www.google.com/patents/US4686605

>>8599521
>>>/x/

no one lives in globalistan

>>8597017
your soursu a shit

>>8599320
I thought the meme was to push inefficient renewable or green energy products on third world nations and keep them more or less in the dark so didn't pay much attention to it.

It's apparent now the meme is being primarily targeted at the first world which makes sense, they are the only populations with spare time to absorb it and have some spare change to tax.

You are correct, anyway the meme machine rolls, modern industrial society is going to be scaling down along with populations through the 21st century but the big check will be resource depletion, famine, disease or all of those, not bad weather. I enjoy a good storm myself. Pic related, the dreaded boob clouds.

>>8599181
>"You source is shit" = "not reviewed by certified warmists, not accepted by a warmist editor, not published in a warmist believer journal."
Wait wait wait.
Are you trying to argue that mainstream climatology journals aren't trustworthy sources, because they tend to reflect the views of most climatologists? Because that's fucking retarded.

We have a new record and an exxon outlook

Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like.
Owner name: BAE SYSTEMS

>>8600707
It won't go much over 100 and then after a brief leveling off goes into permanent decline of 1 to 10% per year so goes the theory. Peak oil theory has stronger more scientifically proven legs than man made climate change theory but obviously the 2 are joined at the hip. The latter just a governmental expression of the first since there is no 'solution' to peak oil theory.

>>8596384
>even more reason for Memelon Musk to go to Mars

>>8601565
>>>/x/

GLOBAL WEIRDING

>>8597511
>peak oil
The big flaw in that assumption is that the oil output of certain types of land-based wells in the US can somehow be extrapolated to apply on global oil production.

I understand though, you need to convince people that this type of energy is finite and that we need to take action into finding alternative energy sources. Except that it is not really science based.

>>8597813
>Wind and solar will dominate the future
except that they won't

For wind energy you need at least back-up systems in case there is no wind, or power plants you can turn off in case there is too much wind as to not destroy the electric grid.

Solar could work if there would *finally* be an efficient solar panel without net energy costs during its lifetime tbqh famalam.

>>8601600
>problem with unconventional oil sources, peak oil theorist?

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:Hubbert_Upper-Bound_Peak_1956.png

>>8601600
Peak oil is not a "theory" any more than the temperature at which water boils is a theory.

When you use a resource that is only replaced over millions of years, you eventually use it up. All the drilling technology in the world can't change that.

The world is already seeing the beginnings of peak oil, as Europe increasingly bases its energy needs on natural gas from Russia.

The collapse of the oil industry is peanuts compared to the collapse of industrialized farming. The world won't end with a bang, nor with a whimper. It will end with either Soylent Green or the Road.

>>8602246
>when you pretend to have idea about how much oil there is
looool

>>8602246
Peak oil is most definitely a theory.

No one is denying that oil is finite. The way oil will be extracted and the whole idea that there is a peak in oil extraction is that it is a prediction on how oil is going to be extracted.

Maybe the theory is accurate for conventional oil reserves but since unconventional oil is being extracted better and better the original theory no longer holds.

>the theory was conceived in the '50s so it's not strange at all that peak oil is not accurate anymore.

>>8601565
Experimental support
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/PressReleases/2013/27-13r_Artificial_Plasma_Cloud_HAARP_1200x597.jpg

>>8602265
Who are you quoting?

I'm building a self encloed biosphere in the souther chile at a high altitude so IDGAF you cunts can off yourselves off

>>8602265
Oil will also become more and more expensive. Unconventional oil requires initial R&D investment, and the techniques to extract are still more expensive when put into use. Eventually, and I believe it to be very soon, the cost of oil will exceed other alternatives. It won't be a sudden panic, but a slowly accelerating growth of inflation that won't be reversed unless we develop better alternatives - which we will. This is also why it's important to explore and invest in alternative energies now so that the market doesn't have to rush to find long-term alternatives.

>>8602209
>>8602246
>>8602265
peak oil is a guarantee. what we don't know is when it'll happen, due to improvements in extraction and prospecting.

>>8602336
>>>/x/

>>8597795
>/pol/ is never wrong
In longer perspective we are having a small ice age at the moment. It all depends on perspective. Global warming like they advertise it is complete bullshit.

>>8602858
Ice age simply means that there are ice sheets at the poles, completely irrelevant to whether there is significant warming relative to humans, being caused by humans. You are a human with a human perspective right?

I mean, even if someone takes the view that humans aren't the single direct cause for an increase in global temperatures.

Can't those individuals be reasoned with that we ought to limit the amount of particulates we spew into the air from factories and power plants and overall negative effects to the quality of air and water that we breathe and drink?

I really have trouble seeing why we haven't agreed overall on reaching a common target, even if we are standing at slightly different positions all across the board.

>>8602858
>we are having a small ice age at the moment
O RLY
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/2016-shatters-record-alaskas-warmest-year

>>8600357
>Are you trying to argue that mainstream climatology journals aren't trustworthy sources, because they tend to reflect the views of most climatologists? Because that's fucking retarded.

They reflect the views of government sponsored climatologists who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line. Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

These climatologist know exactly who pays there bills. Since government will make enormous amounts of money from carbon taxes, they know they have to be careful.

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

>>8605991
Even oil companies admit it though. You literally have no allies

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

>>8599181
>there's no such thing as good and bad sources
guess how I know you're scientifically illiterate

>>8605991
>They reflect the views of government sponsored climatologists who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line.
Then why didn't they start publishing papers saying global warming wasn't real during the Bush years?

>Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology:
So your example of climatologists being forced to tow the line is a climate skeptic who won research awards, held a prestigious position at a university for decades, and retired of her own choice? Wow, how persecuted.

You people are so delusional it's funny.

>>8599174
what I fail to see in the whole "global warming is a hoax invented by the government/china/globalists/nwo/jews/mothman/etc." is what exactly is the endgame here? Having people use less carbon-based fuel sources? Which are finite anyways? Even if global warming was totally fake we would still have to transition from coal/oil/gas to be able to survive.

>>8605991
>who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line. Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology
She retired after a long and highly successful career. If "they" are trying to push out climatologists who don't support AGW, then they're doing the worst job imaginable at it.

>Since government will make enormous amounts of money from carbon taxes, they know they have to be careful.
This conspiracy theory gets repeated by deniers like it's obvious, but it makes no damn sense whatsoever.
Firstly, the scientific consensus on AGW PREDATES any political calls to actions - politions were/are the last to get onboard with doing anything about it, not the first.
Second, if the government wanted to raise taxes, they could just do it. They don't need to fake an entire field of scientific study, or to conspire with every other government on earth (even the ones they don't like) to make sure that they're all forging the same results. And you've completely ignored that a) a good half of the proposed carbon taxes are tax-neutral or b) all of the other costs of dealing with AGW, which are what's causing every government to drag their feet as much as possible before agreeing to do anything.
It doesn't even work as a non-conspiracy by individual politicians - they get money and power by looking nice to the public and sucking up to industry, and pushing a response to AGW harms both of those goals. They don't get paid more for raising taxes.

You're just assuming all this shit is a grand conspiracy because you don't want to address actual reality.

I work at a factory cow farm. If I went with my assault rifle and slaughtered as many cows as possible would it help slow down global warming due to methane emission reductions? I'm willing to take one for the team.

>>8607932
make sure to livestream it

>>8596167
didnt they try to change the term to climate change since it wasnt exactly global warming.
and we know climate chnage exist becasue of events in the past. however i think the question that most scientist researching this is if MAN-MADE climate change is a thing and if it is how significant are its effects.

>this is just my interpretation of things tho i could be wrong.

Thanks CO2

>>8606060
>if the government wanted to raise taxes, they could just do it
I don't think so and this is a global tax implemented by globalists to save the globe from itself.

It does nothing to restrict the dreaded poisonous CO2 gases but simply dictates who can emit them. I am sure that will work out well, indeed some people just don't address actual reality.

>>8609808
Wow, you're telling me that a drought is supposed to last indefinitely forever, and never leads to a recovery if precipitation increases? Wow, really opens up the voltage-gated ion channels in my synapses friend! I guess I'm a /climate-denier/ now!

I think climate science is probably correct in their predictions, but I am still uneasy--they have so many free parameters in their models (10,000 for the dude at the last talk I went to), that they can be tuned to fit a whole host of random fluctuations without realizing it. Anybody want to explain to me how this isn't a problem (specifically for projections)?

>>8609548
>didnt they try to change the term to climate change since it wasnt exactly global warming
They changed the term to make it easier to understand for people like you.
For example, warming temperatures cause more intense winter storms. It's easier to just call it climate change than to explain to laymen why warming would cause a blizzard.

>>8611374
What do you mean? They're highly complex models, so of course there's a lot of error.

>>8611538
why did the ice age happen

The Sun will now enter in a minimum phase, people also tend to forget El Nina.. we'll see who's right and who isn't, only time can tell.

For what it is worth, I think there was a scientific solid foundation in this, that would have cleared our understanding in this argument if not derailed. Climate is probably one if not the hardest subject in Earth studies and it is still under active research. Then media and giant foundations hooked up transforming it into a 2012 mayan apocalypse prediction denying criticism.

>>8611617
ice ages happen regularly because of small variations in the Earth's orbit causing the Earth to cool slightly below normal triggering positive feedbacks (such as expanding sea ice) that cool down the entire Earth for a very long time

>>8611568
The margins for error are probably so large as to make them completely useless except for entertainment purposes.

>>8612131
I think there is more to it, earth has been in heat entropy since its creation along with the changing composition of the atmosphere. Then there are sun cycles so right there you have 4 major factors including orbit variations.

>>8611617
The current ice age? A rare confluence of several factors such as Earth's orbital eccentricity, atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases, and the position of the continents around the poles blocking ocean currents.

>>8612065
Solar activity has been low for a while and the temperature has been rising sharply. La Nina and El Nino are only a short term event.

The error distribution is highly suggestive of a systemic problem.

>>8612370
We're not there yet, but you can see it from here.
Droughts come and go, and so does warming.

>>8612371
I like how you cut off the part of the graph that shows it's baselined incorrectly to exaggerate the distance between the data and the model, which is what the part you didn't cut off shows.

You are also comparing measurements of the upper atmosphere to models which predict surface temps.

>>8612461
We know pretty well the relationship between temperature and TSI. Warming from it comes and goes, but AGW doesn't.

Gee, I extrapolate like a climate scientist!

>>8612677
>AGW is based on extrapolation of a trend and not a mechanical model.
Are you people completely ignorant of climatology or do you just feel fine lying about it?

>>8606060
>>Since government will make enormous amounts of money from carbon taxes, they know they have to be careful.
>This conspiracy theory gets repeated by deniers like it's obvious, but it makes no damn sense whatsoever.
>muh politicians never lie
>muh politicians don't want power or money

http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/climate-change/Documents/climate-finance-roadmap-to-us100-billion.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/Projecting%20Climate%20Change%202020%20WEB.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/countries-release-100b-climate-finance-roadmap-2020
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf (site sometimes is down)

>>8606060
>>who will be fired or driven out of their jobs if they don't tow the line. Example Judith Curry former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology
>She retired after a long and highly successful career. If "they" are trying to push out climatologists who don't support AGW, then they're doing the worst job imaginable at it.

What did she say in her blog?
>Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

Are you stupid, or just pretending to be? She said the politics made it impossible to do good science. Oh gosh, aren't you the naive one who preaches that "science" is neutral? That is anyone who's funding "research" while trying to make billions of dollars will create no bias in the research? >>8612918
At least if its government or UN funding.

But if an oil company puts some money into research (much less than government) then the research is hopelessly tainted.

Your bias or gullibility (both?) is palpable.

>>8606051
>You people are so delusional it's funny.

Projection much? >>8612936

You don't need a model to tell you that CO2 is an insulator. It's frankly as simple as that.

>>8606060
>Firstly, the scientific consensus on AGW PREDATES any political calls to actions - politions were/are the last to get onboard with doing anything about it, not the first.

What consensus? Oh, the one that John Crook made up.
Or are you talking about the 83% consensus on Global Cooling? Yeah, that certainly predates the calls for a $Carbon $Tax.

JOHN COOK DEBUNKED:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

JOHN COOK LIES
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

>>8612936
>She said the politics made it impossible to do good science.
Which is horseshit as her own experience directly disproves that. She got everything she claimed skeptics don't get. The fact is, and has always been, that funding, publications, positions, and recognition go to the best science and the best science has shown that AGW is real. Instead of proving her opinion, Curry took her ball and went home.

>>8612956
>>She said the politics made it impossible to do good science.
>Which is horseshit as her own experience directly disproves that. She got everything she claimed skeptics don't get.

She changed her point of view on climate science AFTER she was TENURED. And after CLIMATEGATE.
And she was still driven out of academia.

>"getting driven out of the university" = "I can do good science when I want to"
huh? At this point you're just acting reflexively. Best evidence I can see that you're a paid shill.

Hope you make more than you did at CTR.
Still a nerd virgin?

>>8612953
>cosmic rays
Kek I wasn't expecting much, but you got me.

>>8612969
>>>/pol/
you have to go back

Same shit, different thread, same retards that can't respond to anything that challenges their retarded conspiracy worldviews, same shitty infographics and cropped charts. Do you faggots do it for free? Who are you shilling for with this sort of desperation?

Why do you guys always start a new one of these threads every time the old one dies? Why are you so desperate to spread your bullshit cherrypicked propaganda?

>>8612969
>NO U R A SHILL
>MUH CLIMATEGATE
>MUH CTR

/pol/ is truly the fucking cancer of 4chan. At least /b/tards stay on fucking /b/, or /mlp/ faggots stay on /mlp/, but you people, you are a fucking cancer that spreads everywhere. You bring your same shitty arguments, your same logical fallacies, your same edgy 14-year old contrarian bullshit personalities with you. Just fuck off already. Crawl back into your hole and stay there.

>>8612974
believing in the death cult
>>>/x/

>>8612969
Driven out? She retired of her own accord, moron. Stop lying.

>>8612953
>Wattsupwiththat once again
>MUH CARBON TAXES MUH BIG GUBMINT COMIN FO MUH MONIES!
>MUH CONSENSUS! HOW DARE THEY! IT DISAGREES WITH MY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS DESPITE IT BEING ACCURATE AND PEER-REVIEWED! U (((SCIENTISTS))) AND UR ((((PIER REVIEW)))! FUCKING KIKES! FUCK U SOROS GLOBALISTS! I KNO DA TRUF!

This is what happens when a little underage sperglord like yourself takes /pol/ ironic shitposting seriously. You are a walking, talking example of Poe's law.

It's truly hilarious how you can't see through your own delusion, when you post links to WUWT, or some other shitty blog. You obviously spend far too much time in your own echo chambers buddy, who are you shilling for, Anthony is that you?

>>8612978
>cancer ... faggots ... fucking cancer ... edgy 14-year-old ...
You are also misusing greentext, which indicates you're a newfag as bad as >>8612969
Get out.

>>8612995
>MUH GREENTEXT ONLY FOR QUOTES!

Child, I've been here for over 11 fucking shitty years, go back to >>>/pol/ with all the other underage newfaggot cancer.

>>8612978
>Same shit, different thread, same retards that can't respond to anything that challenges their retarded conspiracy worldviews, same shitty infographics and cropped charts. Do you faggots do it for free? Who are you shilling for with this sort of desperation?

> conspiracy worldviews
> look at my ad hominem!!

>It's not a conspiracy theory. Have you ever heard of the Rio Summit, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Accords, the IPCC? Those were all meetings of bankers and politicians and bureaucrats with a few token scientists sprinkled in to make it look good. Those meetings were concerned with controlling the earth's resources and redistributing the world's wealth. That is why all the US industry was moved to China, why NAFTA came into being, why so many nations are adopting open borders. It's a nearly global movement with gibs for undeveloped nations that buy into it.

it IS all about money. >>8612953

>And the scientists are corrupt; CRU had a little thing called Climategate, which proved they were "sweetening" the data to "hide the decline", and their hockeystick graph was proved to be bullshit.

>then they had Climategate 2: e-mail boogaloo, which proved they were petty grasping twats who tried to stifle any research that might throw doubt on their conclusions.
> the most glaring example: a study on dendrochronology (tree rings) proved the CRU's methods were simply wrong.

>one of the CRU "scientists" was on the peer review board, and said "ohh shit, her math is correct, our evidence is useless" and then started emailing the rest of the CRU hacks to find a way to stop publication, which is a despicable violation of peer review standards, and is plainly unscientific, and the head of the CRU decided to malign the journal that was gonna publish it, by claiming they were "infiltrated by the baddies" (direct quote, they really are like children)

You're going to have to do better than ad hominem.

>>8612978
They're autists and bored teenagers, m8. You just have to let it go, ignore them, and accept that they have no power in the real world.

>>8613000
Wow, you really typed that fast buddy, are you just copy-pasting bullshit? Nice quick response time shill.

>MUH AD HOMO

Fuck off already, people like you do nothing but use ad hom attacks to discredit legitimate climate scientists. The irony is delicious. You mad shill?

>>8612998
Your writing style suggests otherwise. You aren't convincing anybody that you have been here since 2005.

>>8612994
>U (((SCIENTISTS))) AND UR ((((PIER REVIEW)))! FUCKING KIKES! FUCK U SOROS GLOBALISTS! I KNO DA TRUF!
>This is what happens when a little underage sperglord like yourself takes /pol/ ironic shitposting seriously. You are a walking, talking example of Poe's law.

Your denial is astonishing the evidence is right there >>8612918


And here:
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

>>8613012
I don't give a rats ass what you think. I'm sick and fucking tired of you faggots making these SAME EXACT THREADS every other fucking day here. Get the fuck out and get the fuck back to your echo chamber now.

These threads are always filled with shills like you that come to /sci/ just to start bullshit arguments over climate change. You want to have this shit? There is a fucking place for it, go back to /pol/ and have your anti-science circle-jerk there.

Posting these threads here is the equivalent of going to /mlp/ to shit on furfaggots, or /a/ to shit on anime. Get the fuck out.

>>8613007
Idiot. Its green-texted to show the it was copied;
From a very wise anon.

>>8612998
Must hurt to be getting your ass kicked with facts and logic.

I don't know the science behind it, but I really don't care. (I know this bothers BUT MUH DATA sperg types, sorry)

Everything about it feels like a fabricated forced meme. Everyone who pretends to care about it seems to be faking it for social status. The insistence that it (human-caused global warming) is 100% undeniable and anyone doubting it is an absolute retard on the level of flat earthers feels very religious to me. There's an underlying sense of anxiety I pick up whenever someone talks about how ITS TOTALLY URGENT. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NOW it just feels phony. I don't doubt they believe it, but I get the feeling they doubt it deep down. Don't climate models have a hard time actually predicting what will happen? I remember being under the impression that Florida would stop existing in the 2010's.

Another thing that bothers me is that, assuming it is true, shouldn't depopulation be a high priority goal? Shouldn't we check Africa's rapidly growing population? If the fate of the world is at stake, shouldn't we be a lot harder on China over their carbon emissions? Wouldn't it be worth going to war over?

I don't want to say it IS bullshit, but it certainly smells like bullshit to me.

>>8613015
>anti-science circle-jerk ther
There is nothing more anti-science than a politicized pseudo-science.
Its happened before and its happening now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>8613015
>I'm sick and fucking tired of you faggots making these SAME EXACT THREADS every other fucking day here.
Why are you paranoid about me making these threads? Do you know how to discern writing?

>These threads are always filled with shills like you
You tell me that I am a /pol/ crossie despite you criticising >>8612969 for mindlessly declaring anons as shills, which apparently made him a /pol/ crossie. Stop being a hypocrite.

>These threads are always filled with shills like you that come to /sci/ just to start bullshit arguments over climate change. You want to have this shit? There is a fucking place for it, go back to /pol/ and have your anti-science circle-jerk there.
>Posting these threads here is the equivalent of going to ... /a/ to shit on anime. Get the fuck out.
That was a quick contradiction.

>>8613020
>>8613016
Go self-fellate yourself on /pol/, for the last time. No one gives a shit about your shitty copy-pasted crap. You have no arguments and you cannot even form your own. It's nothing more than the typical IPCC conspiracy garbage and conjecture.

Your entire argument is in fact conjecture, nothing but a bunch of sourceless quotes with your own interpretation of them, that in fact means nothing because there is actual evidence for climate change being anthropogenic.

>>8613029
Always hilarious when denialists like yourself claim that climate science is politicized, when in fact it's people like you who politicize it, and conservative (and liberal too) shills that have politicized a scientific issue for decades.

>>8613030
Not a contradiction. Your entire responses are conjecture, not evidence or scientific reason. Fuck off back to >>>/x/ or >>>/pol/ where you can make baseless claims and circle-jerk around them.

>>8613027
>I don't care about the facts, but it feels wrong to me
Do you get why this shit isn't welcome on the science board? There's a much larger board dedicated to feelings. It's called /pol/.

>>8613000
Just shut the fuck up and >>>/pol/

>>8612978
They just realized that since GamerGate brought people over to the Radical Right, that they have a chance of overthrowing the United States Government and establish a new world order with Spencer at the helm.

>>8613035
>Not a contradiction.
Yes it is. The fact you fail to see this proves that you exclusively browse /sci/. Let me break this down for you:

1. Stop posting these anti-science (sic) circle-jerk here.
2. Posting these threads is equivalent to going to /a/ to shit on anime.

By your logic, if you ever lurked /a/ for even a few seconds, you are telling me to stop posting threads typical of the board's threads because they are, by your horrible analogies, typical of the board's threads.

>>8613035
>Go self-fellate yourself on /pol/, for the last time.
Stop fantasizing about my dick. I don't swing that way.

>Your entire argument is in fact conjecture, nothing but a bunch of sourceless quotes
The names are given right there. Get the source yourself. And lets look at your "argument"

Ad hominem, "you're a conspiracy theorist" [because science has never been before]
Ad populum, "97% of 'scientists' say so" [because popularity = truth]
Appeal to authority, "listen to these people who are experts" [because designated 'experts' are always correct]

But the one thing you don't have is science. An unfalsifiabile theory is not scientific.

>nb4 hurr durr look at this website
Do you really have to waste my time with those strawman "falsifiable" conditions?

>>8613038
The issue with that is that there are a lot of facts to sift through. For the average person who isn't literate in climate science, heuristics and a broader perspective can be helpful.

Can you tell me why what I said is retarded? Specifically the part that wasn't simply "muh feelings". If this is so urgent and such a huge threat to humanity, shouldn't we be putting immense pressure (up to/including military action) on China to get them to curb their emissions? Shouldn't we control massive population growth in places like India and Africa?

And since you seem to know: are climate models actually accurate? I always hear they aren't, and I remember some zany predictions off-hand from the global warming crowd, but I really don't give a shit enough to check.

>>8596796
Droll. Very droll. And unhelpful.

>>8613052
>Ad hominem, "you're a conspiracy theorist" [because science has never been WRONG before]

>>8613027
Why are you on a science board if you're more interested in subjective interpretations of "faking it for social status" than hard data?

>facts end where my feelings begin!!!
go away /pol/

>>8613052

>>8613048
This type of thread is not typical of a /sci/ thread. It's the same exact thread every single time, probably the same fucking person that posts it every single time, same exact title every single time. Every single week there's 1-3 of these stupid ass threads here. How is coming here to start threads focused on "hoaxes" or conspiracies belong on /sci/, a board dedicated to scientific discussion which is the complete opposite of a conspiracy, which by definition lacks sufficient evidence to be a valid argument? Good science requires evidence, based on observational data. Again, you don't go to /mlp/ to shitpost about bronies, because it's not the place for that sort of discussion. Conspiracy crap like these threads belongs on >>>/x/ or >>>/pol/ where the discussion is allowed by the rules.

>>8613052
Never once appealed to authority. I don't give a rats ass about the "consensus," even though I agree with it. Consensus means NOTHING in science, only the facts, the EVIDENCE matters, which over-overwhelmingly supports what's that? THE CONSENSUS. The evidence supports, it is recorded in the scientific literature that is published every single year, tens of thousands of papers published on the subject of climate, all of this data pointing to the trend correlated with human activity. Looking at paleoclimate data that also correlates with the evidence. Basic physics and chemistry concepts that define the greenhouse effect that supports the science. If accepting the scientific evidence is an appeal to authority, then you clearly don't understand the scientific process.

You have no evidence. There is no consensus against climate change. There is no evidence that supports an alternative conclusion to the observed trends. All you have is conjecture and conspiracy to make your arguments. No, some shitty quotes don't count as evidence, only scientific literature does unfortunately for you. So go ahead, post some papers for us to read that challenge the evidence.

>>8613052
thou art a dingus

>>8613068
to see if anyone can convince me it's true and deserves my urgent attention

most debates regarding this are stupidly emotional and butthurt. I don't really care about the subject because it smells like BS to me and there are some things I find fishy about it, especially the alarmism

I'm not emotionally invested either way, this isn't something I think about a lot

>>8613054
>up to/including military action
yeah let's get in a massive carbon-emitting war in order to force others to stop emitting carbon

you're retarded

>>8599478
And on this point, you are presumably aware that the much-referred-to "Roman" and "Medieval" warm periods happened while the WORLD climate was NOT warmer? Because that is relevant to findings for one area, like the continental US.

>>8613079
>to see if anyone can convince me it's true and deserves my urgent attention
why would anyone bother? you sound like an idiot who's going to follow your preconceived biases anyways and it's not like you have the power to do anything

>>8613035
>>8613029
>Always hilarious when denialists like yourself claim that climate science is politicized, when in fact it's people like you who politicize it, and conservative (and liberal too) shills that have politicized a scientific issue for decades.

You're right. There's certainly no politics here: >>8613014
And it has nothing to do with money: >>8612918

And what are the requirements of a quasi-religious belief system?

Unfalsifiable -- Check
Dogmatic -- Check
Unbelievers are evil -- Check

You've got it all.

>>8613089
>>8613014
>>8612918
All of these are propaganda created by think tanks to protect the interest of Fossil Fuel Giants.

>>8613052
No one ever said climate science was unfalsifiable. People are free to publish evidence that doubts the current observations. In fact, it's welcomed. Climate scientists don't exist in a bubble, they come from multiple scientific disciplines because climate science is an incredibly complex field. You have physicists, you have mathematicians, economists, earth scientists, geologists, oceanographers, biologists, etc. all working and publishing scientific data relevant to climate change. It's not just one specific type of scientists who studies climate change, it's a really large field with many different opinions and ways of studying the data, and climate scientists debate among themselves and question each others data, just like any other scientific field. You clearly have some sort of delusional conspiracy view of how climate science works.
Of course no one says that no scientist is unbiased, even climate scientists can of course be biased and hold to their own beliefs, but that is true for essentially every single scientific field in existence, yet no one is railing on physicists or chemists daily with complex conspiracy theories. Only climate science is targeted because it has such far-reaching repercussions on economics and our civilization in general. The fact that this has also led to its politicization has also allowed conspiracies to flourish.

If someone were to publish a paper that results in a complete paradigm shift in how we view the current warming trend, then they would win a fucking nobel prize. The problem is it's hard to do that when you have such a mountainous amount of evidence that points to human involvement.

>>8613071
>This type of thread is not typical of a /sci/ thread.
Do I seriously need to snapshot the catalogue for you? If you believe this board is an actual science board, you're naïve. The only threads here that ever get close to actual science and math are the mathematics generals. /sqt/ is just a lousy attempt on bypassing the no homework rule. Every other general such as /cg/ is already dead. Furthermore, most threads are shitposts that are either: linear system with free variable, probability of baby being born male on friday 1/2 or 1/3, did the EM-drive really create thrust, ELON MUSK A BEST, what is your IQ, tfw drop-out, post your uni guys, help me on my homework, and many more threads that do not include "evidence based on observational data" at all.

>Again, you don't go to /mlp/ to shitpost about bronies, because it's not the place for that sort of discussion.
Now you are proving that you not only have no clue about /a/, but also that you have no clue about some mysterious thing called fandoms being able to hate others in their own fandom.

>>8599320
Silly. China is replacing oldest, most-inefficient coal power plants, as should we all. And is adding solar & wind power capacity very quickly. India is different, but like China, cannot afford to build country-wide conventional power grids in any case, so must look at local power generation for all the rural consumers, hence solar, wind & battery are contemplated. Much as Oz gov't would like to sell increasing amounts of our coal to India forever, it will not happen.

>>8613086
I call B.S. Look at these global papers.http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx

>nb4 but SkS says different lengths of time, not exact same starting, ending points.
The averaged values create a Global Medieval warm period. And John Crook has zero credibility.

>>8613082
you think a single war would release more carbon than decades of China's entire output? the fate of the world is at stake here, isn't it? there's never been a more justified case for war.
>>8613087
so you have nothing. this is why people disregard the alarmist bullshit. you treat it like a religion. sorry to say you're the idiot here.

>>8613100
>No one ever said climate science was unfalsifiable.
of course their not going to say it; because it is! You haven't given a plausible falsifiability condition. One that clearly distinguishes from natural climate variability.

But what did you do instead?
>delusional conspiracy view
It seems that anyone who doesn't have faith in your belief is a delusional conspiracy theorist? How self serving. KInd of like the way the old Soviet Union said that anyone who didn't believe in Communism was mentally ill.

All you've got is ad hominem buddy.

>>8613105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

>>8613106
>I follow my feelings and don't care about the science behind any of it, I trust my "gut" on this kind of thing because my perceptions of social status and politics are more accurate to me than empiricism!
>you need to convince me without using hard data!
>but you are the irrational idiot, not me!
Nobody is going to waste their time trying to convince a moron, it is a waste of time to attempt to "convince" you since you've made it clear that you're not arguing in good faith and you're more willing to go with your preconceived biases than believe any actual evidence.

>>8607932
No, it is better to look into the feed additive that reduces cow's methane output. Last item I read suggested the cost would be cents per week per animal, iirc.

>>8613117
>All you've got is ad hominem buddy.
>Global warming is all a conspiracy! It's a religion!

Do you have no sense of Irony? Do you know what the definition of ad hominem is? Maybe you should look to your own "arguments" and see if they are ad hom as well... Hmmm?

>>8609835
It doesn't dictate, it uses the (god-given) market mechanism to produce aversion to using the least-efficient, most-polluting sources of power. Like a capitalist system should.

>>8613120
Wow, great circular science. We heavily tampered the data, so now it no longer fits with solar activity (we also ignored ocean cycles, but who cares). And we assumed that only solar irradiance counts and blah, blah, blah...

You call tweaked models, goal seeked to justify huge research budgets science?
Unfortunately you probably do.

>>8613132
>Do you have no sense of Irony? Do you know what the definition of ad hominem is?

I'm not the one who shouts "conspiracy theory" to anyone who doesn't believe in an unfalsifiable, politicized "science." That would be you.

>>8612366
We are currently in an inter-glacial period, not an Ice Age.
(You noticed the lack of miles-thick ice sheets covering North America & Europe, right?)

>>8613123
I'm not asking for evidence. Both sides could present me with stuff I wouldn't take the time to understand.

I'm asking you to explain why we aren't doing more to pressure other countries to curb their emissions. Specifically, China. And why aren't we enacting damage control by policing high population industrializing regions like Africa and India that may be huge problems in the future?

>>8612461
You will be interested to hear that the Maunder Minimum is being eroded by research into non-European sun-spot recordings; it is no longer as dramatic as it once seemed, and so is losing its explanatory power.

>>8613117
No, you are a delusional conspiracy theorists because you don't attack the evidence of climate change, nor do you scientific evidence of your own to discredit it. You do nothing more than post links to shitty blogs, you can't ever present a scientific paper, because in your view all science is corrupt somehow. This is where your argument just dies honestly, you have no credibility once you claim that an entire scientific field of study, which I already explained above, is incredibly vast, is corrupted so far that everything produced in that field is false.

>>8613139
It has to be confirmed that this is the same guy in every single thread right? Down to the same images you post time and time again, down to how you fail to respond in a, dare I say "scientific" manner every single time, resulting in nothing more than "ad hom" attacks and conjecture? You post the same old images that have been debunked again and again in previous threads, it's hilarious. The best part is you clearly have no intention of changing your worldview. You are so steeped in your own echo chamber of delusion.

>>8613143
You're the one that shouts "MUH RELIGION!" every time you are challenged. You really do have no actual scientific argument, all you can back up on is conjecture and conspiracy every single time. Present evidence, valid, scientific papers for us to study, that disproves all the peer-reviewed evidence collected over the past few hundred years, or get the fuck out. Stop wasting time with these pointless arguments, you want to have an actual, real discussion on the merits of climate science, then have that discussion properly.

>>8613146
Because foreign affairs are like walking on eggshells and developed countries can do the most to curb their own impacts

>>8613146
>I'm asking you to explain why we aren't doing more to pressure other countries to curb their emissions
We were until Bush II reneged on Kyoto.

>And why aren't we enacting damage control by policing high population industrializing regions like Africa and India that may be huge problems in the future?
Why would those countries agree to be 'policed' by countries that don't practice what they preach? You can see how this raises thorny issues of sovereignty, right?

>>8613146
Because the solution to climate change is incredibly complex, and every nation wants to get ahead of others by any means possible. China wants to keep growing its economy, despite any emissions they create, same goes for India and developing African countries.

We won't be able to stop climate change, that's just a fact, the CO2 that has already been released over the past few hundred years is causing positive feedbacks as we shitpost in this thread. It's going to stay in the atmosphere for a long time, and the positive feedbacks add more, as well as Methane.

The only thing we can do is work to reduce emissions worldwide to reduce future impacts and slow the temperature increase over time, we can do this by slowly switching to alternatives for our energy generation, as well as developing advanced nuclear technologies. The world can run on Solar, Hydro, Wind and Nuclear, but it will take a very long time to transition most of the developed, yet alone the developing world to new energy technologies due to our economic dependence on fossil fuels.

The Earth is not fucked. It has survived many mass extinctions and life has survived and adapted. What's at stake is our civilization, especially since so much of it is centered on coastlines that are vulnerable to SLR. The cost of climate change will be incredible to our coastal cities, as we will have to build and develop infrastructure to protect them, or relocate billions of people over decades. This isn't an issue that's going to go away, future generations will be dealing with the consequences unless we come up with engineering solutions.

>>8613054
Look up some stuff. China IS making steps (large ones) to reduce emissions. India, less so, but still is not ignoring AGW or running 'business as normal'. Sheesh.

>>8613106
I don't know about a war's co2 output, but it would likely slow/stop China from continuing to install solar & wind plants. That alone is a bad thing.

>>8613167
China has a shit ton of problems, but yes, at least they are taking it seriously somewhat, and are investing heavily into solar. Helps when you have an authoritarian government, and politicians who have actual scientific degrees and can understand the issue a little better, as opposed to a bunch of fucking lawyers that never took a serious science course in their lives.

>>8613139
Have you ever seen the movie "merchants of doubt"? Industries that benefit from things that have been scientifically proven to have undesirable consequences seek to cast doubt on the science because they can't outright refute it and continue with business as usual. A good example of this is when it was found that smoking causes cancer. I have strong negative feelings towards any group that seeks to obscure progress just to push it's own agenda.

"Organized Climate-Change Denial",
Dunlap and McCright

>>8612918
>$100B
If you had read any of your own links, it would be immediately obvious that no-one is suggesting giving the money to the UN.

>muh politicians never lie
>muh politicians don't want power or money
Did you even read my post? I said the exact opposite of that.

You're doing a wonderful job of presenting "climate sceptics" as unable to actually read more than two sentences long without seeing what they want to see.

>>8612936
>What did she say in her blog?
She threw a little tantrum to try and stir up a bit more attention, and sound like a persecuted Galileo figure.
Nothing she said actually contradicted my point though - She willingly retired after a long and highly successful career.

>At least if its government or UN funding.
As I already pointed out, the whole "governments are faking AGW to raise taxes" argument is incoherent. Most politicians involved don't actually have the financial motivations to go along with it: there are simpler ways to raise taxes, raising taxes doesn’t get them more money, and most of their personal gain comes from sucking up to people who would be harmed by taking action against AGW.

>>8612953
That's a remarkably pathetic collection of sources you've got there. Why would you expect anyone who disagrees with you to regard them as reputable?

>>8612969
>And she was still driven out of academia.
She retired.

>CLIMATEGATE
>SHILL
>CTR
Just fuck off back to /pol/ already.

>>8613014
I know for a fact the Ottmar Edenhofer quote is a spectacular quotemine from a poorly translated article, so that's a fantastic start. As for the rest:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
You just copied and pasted from an opinion piece in Forbes. Why would you expect anyone to take this shit seriously?

>>8613052
>The names are given right there. Get the source yourself.
The "source" is a random Forbes opinion piece by a guy I wouldn't ask for the time of day.

>Ad hominem, "you're a conspiracy theorist" [because science has never been before]
Jesus fuck. You're not a conspiracy theorist because you disagree with current scientific knowledge, you're a conspiracy theorist because you're throwing out conspiracy theories that are backed up up by pure conjecture.

>Ad populum, "97% of 'scientists' say so" [because popularity = truth]
Consensus is a gauge of the overall views of a group of experts. It's a guide for non-experts, no-one is proposing it as a road to truth.

>Appeal to authority, "listen to these people who are experts" [because designated 'experts' are always correct]
Appeal to authority isn't even a fallacy if the authority in question is an actual expert.

>But the one thing you don't have is science. An unfalsifiabile theory is not scientific.
AGW is definitely falsifiable. All you would need to do is show that human CO2 wasn't driving the observed increase in radiation forgings. That's something we've actually measured.

>>8613089
>There's certainly no politics here:
>And it has nothing to do with money:
Except both of those posts are complete bullshit. They're not even NERW bullshit, they get copy-pasted into each and every AGW thread (and shot down in each of them).

>And what are the requirements of a quasi-religious belief system?
Supernatural views?
A code of morals?
A uniquely-held pathway to "truth"?

>Unfalsifiable -- Check
No. AGW is no more unfalsifiable than evolution is, but people who deny them like to throw that buzzword around.

>Dogmatic -- Check
So, where exactly are the hooded climate inquisitors? Is there a list of names for people jailed or killed for heresy?

>Unbelievers are evil -- Check
God forbid we complain about those who lie for personal gain, and harm others in the process.

>>8613105
>http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
You've posted that bullshit before. No only is it wrong, but the people who made it are actually on the payroll of Exxon and Peabody:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
>According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.
>Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.
>The center was also funded by Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company.

>nb4 but SkS says different lengths of time, not exact same starting, ending points.
Those are all very legitimate concerns, though. You can't just "nb4" and pretend that actually addresses the objections.

>The averaged values create a Global Medieval warm period.
That's not in that page. You would actually need to demonstrate that.

>And John Crook has zero credibility.
He's more than qualified to call bullshit on something that smells that bad.

>>8613139
>We heavily tampered the data
The "tampering" is both documented and justified in the papers that provide the data. If you want to claim it's bullshit, you would actually need read said papers and point out the parts that are wrong. "They did something, therefore they're lying" is obviously not convincing.

>>8613145
>We are currently in an inter-glacial period, not an Ice Age.
We're actually in both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
Interglacials are warmer patches that occur during ice ages.

>>8612461
>temperature
>1998-present
o i am laffin

>>8613105
>Look at these global papers.
one, those aren't papers. they're individual figures. two, they're unsourced and shrunk down so far as to be unreadable. three, how do you know what the averaged values look like? why not just post a picture of THAT?

>>8613117
>a plausible falsifiability condition
how about a sustained neutral/cooling trend observed while manmade CO2 emissions continue to rise, in the absence of any obvious forcings towards cooling?
that sort of thing has been posited before (in the spirit of the precambrian rabbit) and of course you deniers completely ignore it, because you'd much rather whine about how no falsifiability criteria exist than actually learn about the criteria that do.

>>8613146
>I want people to explain things to me in a way that won't require me to do any thinking