/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8642279
fuck off retard

>>8642287
>>8642291
not an argument

>>8642298
Read scientifuc journals, we're not your tutor retard.

>>8642301
>implying all scientific journals agree that climate change is mostly the result of human activity

nice try schlomo. i guess no one can do it then?

>he thinks global warming is a bad thing

We can measure the abundance and estimate the climate forcings of every atmospheric component. We have about a hundred years of excellent temperature records and a couple hundred years of not great but serviceable temperature records.

If we account for all inputs to average global temperature, from sun cycles to cloud cover to atmospheric heat retention, the only factor that correlates even slightly with the rising heat is global CO2 levels.

We can measure the release and capture of atmospheric CO2 by natural sources and sinks and by artificial ones. CO2 content has risen without a corresponding rise in natural sources or decrease in natural sinks sufficient to explain the rise in atmospheric CO2. Only anthropogenic carbon release correlates with the rise in atmospheric CO2.

It's literally the only explanation that makes even the slightest sense without resorting to pixie-dust explanations.

>>8642307
I guess you'll never know what's in scientific journals if you can't even understand them. You expect us to explain the greenhouse effect to you for the 2000th time considering there's already a climate change thread on the front page?

>>8642279
>Scientific journals agree
Heh? Scientific journals generally don't take positions on anything. Every major scientific organizing has affirmed that AGW is real though. Here's the evidence:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml

>>8642307
Maybe if you tried actually reading journals and published work, attempted to understand the mathematics behind climate change, world temperature and rising sea levels, alongside the known information of our o-zone layer and genuine issues with air pollution - China, Paris etc, instead of presuming your epilogue of 'make me believe' can be gauged with no actual understanding

>>8642311
Oh, how cute. You think climate scientists measure things.

>>8642311
Glad you mentioned a hundred years of excellent temperature records. So explain to me how
1. The 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100 years. If the only factor that correlates slightly with rising heat is CO2 levels, why were the 1980's colder than the years before? Did we experience less burning of fossil fuels in the 80s? Seems highly unlikely. Not to mention the overall cooling trend from 1940 - 1980.

>inb4 muh aerosols

>>8642316
not an argument
although i do enjoy seeing how smug you fuckers are. do you sniff your own farts too?

>>8642279
> I want irrefutable proof
Except that you cannot convince someone who actively resists reality. I could tell you that water boils at 100 C. I could put water on a stove, stick a thermometer in it, and heat it, showing you the bubbles.

A /pol/ack would still claim that I'm a providing fake news with a trick thermometer.

You need to believe that climate change is fake. To believe otherwise would upset your fragile ego. When you are ready, you will find the truth.

>>8642340
Note how I said correlation and not "direct correspondence". CO2 is not the only input to global climate.

The effect of sulfate emissions on climate is well known, sulfate emissions were known to be higher in that time period, and the cooling effect associated with an increased aerosol layer can be estimated rather well.

>not accepting the reality of your own cognitive dissonance and bias regardless of political ideology and killing yourself.

>>8642362
No, they would call the thermometer a Jew and screech about cucks.

Same general idea, though.

>>8642362
>not an argument
another fart sniffer? geez maybe I shouldn't have told you guys I'm a /pol/ster. Listen buddy I came here because I wanted to question my beliefs and you're trying to shit all over me for asking for some proof.
>cannot convince someone who actively resists reality
right because by coming here and asking for proof I'm trying so hard to protect my "fragile ego" on an anonymous basket weaving board. grow up faggot

>>8642311
Such a shame that the Little Ice Age data is "just barely outdated" for these arguments. Kind of like terror statistics in the USA beginning on September 12, 2001

>>8642340
So explain to me how
>1. The 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100 years.
It wasn't. That was 1917.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/115/

>If the only factor that correlates slightly with rising heat is CO2 levels,
It isn't. There are many factors that affect the climate. CO2 just happens to be the most significant factor in the long term warming being observed. There are plenty of other factors that can overwhelm it in the short term like solar activity, ENSO, AMO, etc.

Anything else?

>>8642373
>sulfate emissions were known to be higher in that time period
sulfate emissions have clearly dropped off recently but are not even close to the levels they were pre 1940. Try again.

>>8642386
convince me that the earth is round
convince me that the sky is blue

>Heres the proof
>Hur durr not reading that proof its all kikery
You came to shitpost and not learn I see

>>8642386
>fart sniffer
>/pol/ster

EBIN TORL DETECTED

U SUR GOT ME

Question: If Trump came out tomorrow and said that AGW is real despite what he said in his campaign and president-elect days, would we still get these threads? Really makes you think.

Regardless, reported for spam as there's already a fuckload of climate threads open.

>>8642398
>not even close to the levels they were pre 1940
And? CO2 emissions have been rising steadily. We had a peak of sulfate emissions around that time that temporarily outweighed CO2, but then CO2's effect outpaced it, aided by sulfate's modest drop.

>>8642393
1. okay you got me there, but still there was a cooling period roughly from 1940 to 1980
2. >the only factor that correlates slightly with rising heat is CO2 levels
this claim was originally made by a /sci/fag not me. So thanks for helping me debunk this.
>there are plenty of other factors the can overwhelm it in the short term like solar activity
so what you're saying is that climate change is not largely the result of human activity? thanks

>>8642407
>>8642409
>>8642411
>>8642416
not an argument

>>8642421
i fucked up my green text someone call me a newfag

>It's another climate change thread on /sci/

I'd have no problem with these threads if they had intelligent discussion. Unfortunately, there is hardly any to be found in these threads and it's only shitflinging, name calling and other assorted shit arguments that belong on /b/ or /pol/.

I saw that the mods actually deleted one of the threads yesterday, which means there is a mod on /sci/, maybe start cleaning up these threads and banning the shitposters please?

>>8642429
epig shidposting xD
Remember to blogpost on /pol/ how you BTFO us

>>8642429
>not an argument
it was cool the first few times, then it became a cringey tryhard alt-right retort that marks you for humiliation

>inb4 not an argument

>>8642416
Trump won't ever do this, look at the people he has had advising him on climate change; William Happer and Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a fossil fuel funded libertarian / free market "think tank."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/13/trump-meets-with-princeton-physicist-who-says-global-warming-is-good-for-us/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-paris-climate-change-deal-myron-ebell-us-president-america-pull-out-agreement-a7553676.html
http://conservativetransparency.org/recipient/competitive-enterprise-institute/
https://www.desmogblog.com/myron-ebell

Trump has no intention of changing his uneducated and misinformed world views. He wants to pull the US out of the Paris agreement.

>>8642440
>>8642444
>>8642445
don't know if you guys noticed, but we are actually having a discussion. It is faggots like you coming here ruining the quality of the thread. If you don't like the thread you don't have to participate. simple as that

Earth is a
rhombus pls
respond

>>8642457
I actually participate in these threads probably more than anyone else. Doesn't change the amount of shitposting they contain.

>>8642445
>"not an argument" is an alt-right retort
yes brother man you got me

>>8642457
Spamming not an argument isnt a discussion. You made a shitpost thread, now go lie in it.

>>8642279
Nothing is wrong.
There is no such thing as climate change.
You have nothing to worry about.

>>8642463
Have you not read the thread? I'm actually responding to you /sci/guys and the only people shitposting in here are you faggots. GTFO of my thread if you aren't going to contribute

>>8642468
Not an argument

>>8642471
thanks for proving my point

>>8642472
>Its not shitposting when I do it
Read the studies done

>>8642313
>citing the ipcc
hahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/IPCCmistakes.htm

>>8642478
I've read some studies faggot. I've also read some studies that say climate change is NOT largely the result of human activity and that the effect is minimal at best

Hi /pol/ack, /sci/entist here, prove without a doubt one of these:
1) increased CO2 reduces or maintains temperature.
2) CO2 has been decreasing or remaining stable since the start of the industrial revolution.
3) Temperature has been decreasing or remaining stable since the start of the industrial revolution.
4) CO2 has been increasing mainly due to sources outside of human emissions.
5) Temperature has been increasing mainly due to sources outside of CO2 increase.

Make me a believer of the conspiracy that (((they))) don't want me to know about.

>>8642407
>convince me that the earth is round
it's not you retard it's oval
>convince me that the sky is blue
it's not blue you fucking mongol

>>8642488
>99.999% of the world's scientists whose expertise is at all relevant to the subject of global climate, of diverse political and geographical background, not connected by any corporate interest or funding source: "Increased CO2 emissions by mankind are causing the global temperature to rise"
>a handful of scientists employed by companies that profit off of fossil fuels: "nah it's just totally normal for the CO2 levels to rise astronomically with no appreciable source and even though the heat trapping effect of CO2 is easily measurable by anyone with basic lab equipment, it totally won't make the earth any hotter keep buying gas guys"

>>8642482
>Citing an economist blog article
>Citing some webpage that looks like it was written in 1992

Honestly, I really don't have the energy to respond to you faggots anymore. How many previous threads have I responded with links to literature and get ignored, I can't even fucking count. I'm just so tired of you people coming here, spouting the same fucking shit that has been dragged and debunked time after time, and having to write up long, detailed explanations supported by evidence why you are wrong only to be ignored. Fuck this shit.

>>8642488
Cite them, go ahead please.

I can actually cite several studies on Earth Energy Balance, radiative forcings of various climate change factors, and climate sensitivity of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that unequivocally show that human emissions are driving the current trend:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_be02100q.pdf
https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/improved-constraints-on-21st-century-warming-derived-using-160-years-of-temperature-observations.pdf

>>8642393
>There are plenty of other factors that can overwhelm it in the short term like solar activity, ENSO, AMO, etc.
If our discussion is the cause of long-term climate change, it doesn't make sense to consider short-term oscillations, especially when we already know they're garbage at predicting long-term variation.

>>8642497
1) I'm not making the argument that CO2 reduces or maintains temperature, just that the effect is minimal at best at current levels
2)not denying CO2 has increased since the start of the industrial revolution
3)from roughly 1940 to 1980 there was a global cooling period, another /sci/guy pointed out 1917 was the coolest year on record. the industrial revolution started in 1820-1840. I'm not denying that temperature has increased as well. Once again I never made the claim that temp. has been entirely stable/ decreasing since the IR. why are you asking me to prove things I didn't claim?
4)Again, never made the claim CO2 increasing was from outside sources
5) this is the one that really makes you look retarded. The consensus on /sci/ seems to be that global warming is caused by human activity and rising CO2 emissions. I simply came here asking for proof of that statement. The burden of proof is on YOU to back up that statement. It is not on me to prove that temp is rising due to something else. learn2debatefaggot

>OP identifies himself as /pol/tard
>people still respond to him anyways

>>8642510
>January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who had been an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the portion of the IPCC to which he contributed had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns.

>A 2008 Report for the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) suggested that the IPCC report may have been 'overconfident' with its uncertainty estimate for the total aerosol forcing.

Are you denying there have been several noted problems with the IPCC report from reputable sources? Seriously?

However I must say THANK YOU for linking those sources to me, I'll take a look. Finally someone who has provided what I asked for - simple proof. I'll be taking a look at all of those, but for the sake of time and the thread, do you want to pick one which is most the convincing to you and we can discuss the validity of it?

>>8642520
Not an argument.

>>8642279

I think you are just too dumb to understand evidence.

You need something you can see with your eyes.

Check out 1:20,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iH-W3gYx8vY

>>8642540
OMG WOW why didn't anyone show me this before?!?!?!?!?! If only I could just SEE that carbon dioxide comes out of cars, surely this would be irrefutable proof that rising global temps are the direct results of CO2 emissions!!!! Thanks Anon!!!!!!!!!! You got any cool Bill Nye videos I can watch next?

>>8642520
You created this thread right? How can anybody be making claims when a thread didn't exist before now? What proof do you have that /sci/ believes anything? You started a thread making claims and are accusing others of doing that instead. How does burden of proof fall on anyone but OP?

>>8642544

So you just created this thread to troll /sci/?

>>8642564
I'm actually a /b/tard, it's so fucking easy to troll /sci/ you guys don't even present a challenge to me. Now it's time to troll /soc/ since they're next on the board list. See ya.

>>8642549
>you started a thread making claims
really? what was that claim?
I simply asked for proof of a claim I see on /sci/ a lot. and if you're denying that the majority of /sci/ believes global warming is caused by human activity you're either retarded or a newfag

>>8642564
>posts video of carbon dioxide coming out of cars
>claims this is proof that global warming is largely the result of human activity
lol and I'm supposed to be the troll? please kid, let the adults have a discussion

>>8642572
this is not OP

>>8642584
Disregard that I suck cocks.

>>8642340
>the overall cooling trend from 1940 - 1980

That was because of the Cold War, the Earth is heating back up now that it's over.

>>8642583

You ignore this monolithic thread and the dozens that came before it on daily basis, >>8628683

How are you not a troll or a retarded person?

>>8642564
all he's saying is that visualizing carbon dioxide doesn't prove anything on a global level. you get the same visualization when its cold outside and you can see the exhaust of cars, etc. but that doesn't show the global impact, which is the topic of the thread

>>8642609
Fuck you I'm allowed to make threads if I want to now debate me motherfucker.

>>8642584

I like to pleasure myself as I leave my humvee running in the drive way and sniff the exhaust.

Okay, sometimes I stick my dick in there. Oh damn! You got me! This is me, OP,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0S642NtHtE

>>8642301
This. We're not obligated to teach our degrees to Joe Plumber who is just looking for a new way to vent anger at his wife.

Fuck off /pol/nigger

>>8642362
/Thread

>>8642279
>believer

do you idiots actually think that people "believe" in science? like it's a religion or something... lmao

So to sum up this thread so far -
I came here acknowledging that I was skeptical of the claim that "human activity is largely responsible for global warming" and what happened? I got snobby ass responses with no arguments, and the responses I did get with a little bit of argument were easily refuted. One of the only quality posts linked me to several studies that I would have to buy to even read past the first paragraph. You /sci/guys like to act you're the smartest pieces of shit on this earth, when in reality when someone calls on you to defend your beliefs, you act like a bunch of children and can't answer the call. If climate change is so obvious and everyone that doesn't agree with you is so stupid, then why is not so easy to prove it? Why do you hold so much contempt for people that simply ask for proof? Could it be because its an extremely complex issue that even the scientific community doesn't have a clear consensus on? No no god forbid you guys admit that the majority of climate scientists actually disagree with the idea that current global warming is due mostly to human activity. Instead you act like my 12 year old and demand a safe space "why aren't the mods deleting this thread" when ever someone disagrees with you.
Why don't you faggots face reality:
the majority of climate change scientists DO NOT agree with the idea of man made global warming:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#373686e3171b

>Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

>>8642622
You would be surprised. Climate deniers claim that global warming is a "religion" or a "cult," and call proponents of the evidence "warmists." Funny, as they hate the "d" word Denier so much, yet spew out shit like that.

>>8642616
Confirmed retarded person.

>>8642622
it is true. some people treat science like a religion. just because someone says "I read a study that says X" they believe that X is now an absolute truth embedded into their reality

>>8642623
Not your personal professor, if you want to learn science then enrol in college or self educate like the rest of society, retard.

>>8642623
>You /sci/guys like to act you're the smartest pieces of shit on this earth, when in reality when someone calls on you to defend your beliefs, you act like a bunch of children and can't answer the call.

See. This here is why no one wants to talk to you.

Your fundamental thinking process is flawed and biased.

You just want to blow off steam after reading some alt-right tabloid that got your panties in a bunch.

>>8642616
not op
>>8642618
not an argument
>>8642619
never said you were obligated faggot. no one forces you to participate in this thread but I see you came here to find validation on a japanese underwater basket weaving board so I'll give it to you: WOW UR SO SMART U HAV A STEM DEGREE HOW MUCH DO U MAK A YEAR?

>>8642634
you are demonstrating his point perfectly

>>8642634
I still have not seen one credible shred of evidence in this thread and yes yes good goy ignore that the majority of climate scientists in the world do not agree with you

>>8642352

>I want irrefutable proof that current climate change is largely a result of human activity and CO2 emissions.

Proof or evidence?
We have evidence but no proof.

>No pussy shit like running my car makes the earth heat up .000000000000001 degrees.

Mechanism is different.
CO2 traps heat
That's it.
Your car puts CO2 and then that traps heat.
For 17000 years.
The effect accumulates because the soil has Co2 bound in it.
Heat a little and a little more is released.
A runaway effect so to speak.
So its not about heating the planet.
Its about making it so that heat can't leave the planet.

>I want proof that the rise in temperature is almost entirely due to us during fossil fuels.

Evidence for the claim that burning C02 creates climate change is this.
You take air and see the amount of C02 it has.
You do this every year.
If it is increasing and the global temperatures are also increasing you got evidence that they are related.
Correlation is not causation though so we don't have proof.
Only evidence.

>Can /sci/ make me a believer?

Don't believe us.
We have a model to explain climate change.
Unless you bring a better model to us we will hold it to be true.

(Better here meaning a model that have less assumptions and explain more facts)

>>8642631
there isn't anything to believe. stop using that word. it doesn't make sense in the context you're using it. there is nothing to believe in science. it is a collection of findings by people highly educated and knowledgeable in their very specific field of study, not some cult recruiting people and requesting handouts as they tell you to believe in a spaghetti monster as they fuck a 7 year old up the ass. they couldn't possibly be any farther from each other.

>>8642636
This is a board for discussing science, not a homework board. If you want to learn something for your high school project the information is readily available on the internet.

>>8642638

Stop spamming /sci/.

Once you are done reading through,
>>8628683 , leave your counter argument, and then someone will likely respond to you.

I wish mods would delete more of these spam threads.

>>8642623
seriously guys lets keep ignoring reality:
The majority of funding for the study of man made climate change comes from left wing or gov't sources. Are you people really so blind that you cannot see the power structure here? They grant that money to researchers hoping for a specific outcome of the study so they can use it to push their agenda. If the outcome of the study does not help push the agenda they are no longer given funding. It doesn't have to be some /pol/tier jewish conspiracy. This power pull is well known in the community and you're being disingenuous if you deny this. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

>Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment. “Soon’s integrity in the scientific community shines out,” says Ebell. “He has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.”

>>8642645
but that's exactly what I am saying. many people I know even at a university level who will read something and as long as it says the exact phrase "Studies show that ____" then they take it in a similar way you would imagine a cult would take the word of their deity

>>8642637

How? Does this look like he wants to learn or talk?

> Fuck you I'm allowed to make threads if I want to now debate me motherfucker.

He's just jacking himself off as he blows off steam.

If he was really interested in learning, he would have put a minimal effort of reading before spamming.

>>8642645
I agree with you that something like "2 + 2 = 4" is not really a belief, its a fact. But this issue is not that simple. manmade climate change is not accepted as fact in the scientific community and there i still much debate around it. Suggesting that its a fact and not a belief is stupid and irrelevant. I came here to argue science, not semantics.

>>8642660
>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
Not a scientific argument. >>>/pol/

You need to engage with these ideas.
Even if you think he won't ever be convinced, there are people lurking who will be convinced.
Good job to those that provided evidence.
Fuck you to those of you who took it as an opportunity to jerk yourself off.
Also there's 2 other threads up on this topic.

>>8642664
that wasn't me that posted that retard

>>8642664
so you are just too lazy to give him a good response or what? if you gave him undeniable evidence and proof then I'm confident OP would be convinced. and yes it is extremely frustrating to have a science board that doesn't discuss anything but gets offended by queries

>>8642671
"lalalalalala i don't want to accept that there is bias in the scientific research community llalalalalala go back to your containment board this is my safe space lalalalalalalala"

>>8642623
Explaining climate change simply to someone who knows nothing about the science is very difficult. There are a vast array or resources on the Internet that could help you understand the phenomenon.

>the majority of climate change scientists DO NOT agree with the idea of man made global warming:
Literally a false statement.
First off, what is a "climate change scientist," because last time I checked, there are a wide variety of Earth scientists that study climate change, from atmospheric physicists and chemists, to geophysicists, to oceanographers, to mathematicians and statisticians. Surveys that study the actual published, peer reviewed evidence show that when authors of papers publish on the topic of human role in climate change, the papers have a strong consensus of supporting the evidence that humans are causing the changes via greenhouse gasses and positive feedbacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

That "97%" figure you hear cited so much comes from several consensus studies, and it refers to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, not fucking random people with a BS or MS degree, or engineers for that matter, it refers to people within the atmospheric sciences itself and what they understand to be the causes of climate change.

Please don't go and cite the debunked Oregon study by the way, that list that literally anyone with a BS can submit to that has hundreds of fake signatories on it. It's completely meaningless.

>Citing a James Taylor forbes blog as proof
kek, you guys never fail to amaze me. Taylor is nothing more than another Heartland shill, on their payroll to spread disinfo.

>>8642672
this

>>8642672
I'd have to say anyone lurking would really question the idea of manmade global warming. There's been like 5 posts actually debating with OP of which most were refuted and one of them linked a bunch of studies that you have to buy

>>8642682
Meanwhile, for actual studies refuting AGW: see pic related.

>>8642674
> implying that OP even cares about Logos or Pathos when he has already proven himself to be too lazy to read through EXISTING threads
> asking /sci/ to be happy with b8 threads

>>8642688
> *Logos or Ethos

>>8642678
Not an argument.

>>8642679
Furthermore, here's an analogy for you that I've made in previous threads.

If you are sick, let's say you have chest pains, do you go to a dermatologist? No, you go to a cardiologist. If you want to understand climate science, do you ask a mechanical engineer, or a theoretical physicist? No, you ask someone who is an expert in their field like a climate scientists.

The opinions of people on scientific areas that are well outside the bounds of their expertise are pretty much worthless. When you train in the sciences, you don't train to be an expert at every single scientific topic. I have training in geology, but I'm not trained to be an expert in oceanography of climate science, my field of expertise is in mineralogy and crystallography, not the climate, therefore I defer opinions about climate science to the scientists themselves and trust in the scientific process to present evidence the way every other scientific field presents their findings, observations and models.

This is why so many of these "experts" that claim that global warming is a fraud have little to no credibility. dd in their ties to the fossil fuel industry and you see the bigger picture - they are nothing more than shills for an industry that has a lot of capital to spread disinformation and doubt about climate change.

I would also like to point out that in general, consensus is meaningless. It's a useful gauge to see what scientists in their respective fields believe, but outside of that it's useless in actually quantifying the scientific evidence, the peer reviewed literature does a much better job, and it's where you should look if you want to understand the evidence.

>>8642679
The "97%" figure was based on a study that used a very wide ranging definition of what is considered "man-made" and that study was debunked a long time ago by several others. You honestly believe that bullshit? top kek my friend

>>8642672
>Also there's 2 other threads up on this topic.

And that's why this thread is a joke. It's spam that is constantly flooding /sci/

>>8642697
Source on the debunking, you made a claim now back it up.

>>8642697
The study passed peer review. That's a lot more that can be said compared to your precious oregon petition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

>>8642700
Don't bother, it will just be links to WUWT or some other climate denial blog.

>>8642421
>so what you're saying is that climate change is not largely the result of human activity?
that isn't what he said at all you absolute brainlet

jesus christ why do /pol/tards use the same tactics as kikes

>>8642703
"But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming."

funny you won't even read the sources I post or refute the info contained in them but you'll blindly believe anything you read on skeptical science.com written by John Cook

>>8642279
fuck off you oil shill

>>8642462
Not an argument

>>8642714

Don't fall for it. If OP was interested in conversation, he would have joined previous threads.

OP is just an attention whore that is having fun jerking /sci/anons around.

>>8642279
Nigga, methane from livestock does more damage than co2
Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas's produced by our silly ways of doing things

>>8642714
Because JIDF won and old /pol/ is dead. Notice all the trump support? Trump is the most pro-Israel politician ever. Every surname thread shows they're all Jewish as well.

>>8642722
read the thread you utterly pathetic faggots. I am engaging with those that engage with me. the only people shitposting are arrogant /sci/guys who think anyone who disagrees with you or isn't sure is a troll. The other thread being linked here started out with "is this change reversible" I don't want to discuss that and if you think thats the same discussion we're having here you're fucking retarded

>>8642727
shill

>>8642727
Stop spoonfeeding the brainlets that won't educate themselves. They aren't welcome here.

>>8642690
Speaking of ethos see my comment here >>8642660

Gotta say I expected a lot more from you guys. Your arguments are nonexistent or weak at best.

>>8642279
Here you go:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

Pic related sums it up. To understand the actual science behind it, and you seem to suggest that you actually want that, then you need to read the above articles. Use sci-hub to get access for free if you don't already have university access. Come back in a few days when you've actually read them, and we can discuss them in detail. If you don't want to read them, then you're disingenuous and a discussion is pointless.

>>8642279
if the ample evidence presented to us daily hasnt made you believe then nothing will. like most /pol/acks, you've distorted skepticism from a virtue into an ideology

>>8642736
Happy to disappoint you retard.

>>8642727

The only arrogant shitposter here is the OP who thinks he needs a thread dedicated to himself. Everyone else is just shitting along in a useless thread.

Nobody owes you anything, nobody needs to prove to you anything.

>>8642715
Read the recent paper by Cook et. Al in response to Richard Tol from last year:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology. This is supported by multiple independent studies despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature or of citation networks. Tol (2016) obtains lower consensus estimates through a flawed methodology, for example by conflating non-expert and expert views, and/or making unsupported assumptions about sources that do not specifically state a position about the consensus view.

Read the actual fucking study you retard. Cook's study has passed peer review, it is legitimate and nothing you say is going to change that, especially some uninformed Forbes blogger.

The entire argument against Cook's consensus boils down to this idea, that because there are many papers published in the field of climate science, most of them having nothing to even do with climate change, that these papers that state no opinion on climate change matter in regards to the consensus. The consensus is based on papers that are explicitly about anthropogenic climate change and the human role in it, and the people that are publishing papers on human activity's role overwhelmingly find results that agree with the scientific evidence.

Richard believes that papers taking "no position" on climate change is equivalent to saying that those papers support a non-anthropogenic explanation to climate change. The 97% consensus specifically refers to papers that expressed an opinion on climate change being anthropogenic. Of those papers, 97% of them presented evidence and agreed that mankind is responsible.

>>8642660
>nationalreview
>who have been known to have major connections with the Rothschilds
>Henry Payne, the writer of the article, who has been known since his days in the Nassau Weekly to take bits and pieces out of context, exaggerate, and even flat out lie, just to support his agenda
>also is an anti-semite

wow, really gets the noggin joggin

>>8642749
sorry, meant to say that he speaks out against anti-semitism

he's a literal kike puppet

>>8642744
why do you faggots act like I'm demanding answers?? I started a thread to discuss a topic and invited people to join. no one is forced to. how in anyway is this thread "dedicated to myself" ITS AN ANONYMOUS IMAGEBOARD

>>8642751
>I want irrefutable proof that current climate change is largely a result of human activity and CO2 emissions. No pussy shit like running my car makes the earth heat up .000000000000001 degrees. I want proof that the rise in temperature is almost entirely due to us during fossil fuels. Can /sci/ make me a believer?
Hurpadurpa

>>8642738

This.

>>8642749
>rothschilds
>literally biggest shills for climate change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5B5Kmb4nnY

>>8642751

>why do you faggots act like I'm demanding answers??

I want irrefutable proof that current climate change is largely a result of human activity and CO2 emissions.

>how in anyway is this thread "dedicated to myself"

Can /sci/ make me a believer?

>>8642760
regardless, you know this is an anonymous board right? The suggestion that I made this thread to get attention is ridiculous, regardless of whatever bait I used to reel you faggots in

>>8642727
Use the catalog, faggot. If you're going to make a duplicate thread and make ridiculous statements, you're going to get called out for being an attention whore.

>>8642762
>is climate change reversible is the same discussion as is climate change manmade
is /sci/ this stupid?

>>8642759
except they flip flop constantly to create chaos you utter brainlet and david isn't even representative of what they actually think

and if you think alex jones isn't compromised as well, you're blue-pilled cuck

>>8642761

You obviously don't since you label yourself at the very start of the thread.

>>8642772
also hmmmmm they would continue to support nationalreview even though they're, according to you, going against everything they say

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm somethings not fishy here

>>8642738
finally a quality post, I appreciate it. I will take a look at all of these sources.Like I said before, for the sake of argument and the thread. Do you want to pick one study for us to focus our discussion on?

Go watch Potholer54 for on youtube, you will habe hours of viewing pleasure on the topcic of global warming. That way, we don't have to spend time redpilling /pol/trash while you educate yourself. Now be lost.

>>8642780
>Potholer54
He's Jewish and has been known to fabricate excerpts from papers

>>8642780
ahhhhh so thats where you get your sources from? /sci/ shows its true colors

>>8642784
Why do we even bother. This is the type of person we are arguing with here. Honestly, every single post you have made in this thread shows that you are not here for a rational conversation. This is what happens when your brain gets fried from spending years on /pol/, you are a shitposting example of Poe's Law.

Whilst it's a given that there is man-made influence in global climates, is there not still evidence to suggest that such changes are cyclical?

If so, is the degree of change in the climate caused by artificial means enough to upset such a cycle?

>>8642786
not an argument

>>8642771
Do you need me to link it to you? Why is /pol/ this fucking stupid.

>>8642660
love how nobody acknowledges the obvious conflict of interest in regards to where the money for funding comes from

>>8642797
probably because the author of that article is a an actual non-meme shill

>>8642776
>Do you want to pick one study for us to focus our discussion on?
In my opinion, that's the wrong approach. Evidence in science is only strong if it is replicated, and thus to get a complete picture one has to consider all the evidence together. That's why I posted a lot of articles. I strongly recommend that you read all of them, if you are genuine in wanting to understand the reasons for scientists to claim that climate change is caused by human activity. Also, though already quite a reading list, this is only a selection of the most recent and most important papers on the topic. Use the reference lists of these articles to find additional primary literature if needed.

>>8642799
there's hundreds of other sources on this. Entire books have been written about it.

>>8642804
with the majority probably backed by big oil shills

>>8642780
Potholer is good, but there are plenty of good lectures on Youtube from actual climate scientists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iEj76iX-xE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8&

>>8642794
The funny thing is, I've been posting on /pol/ since before it was /pol/, back when it was /new/ before it was deleted twice, yet I've somehow come out unscathed as I never took it seriously. You on the other hand have clearly taken the ironic shitposting seriously, as have many other /pol/ posters to the point at which you have become incapable of having actual, coherent and rational conversations without resorting to /pol/ memes and conspiracies.

I really suggest you just take a step back and see how ridiculous some of the things you post are, read them out loud and see if that would be something worth espousing in a normal conversation. You can't be that far gone, can you? Come back to us please...

>>8642660
>Citing Moron Ebell, head of the CEI, an organization that literally takes in millions in funding from the fossil fuel energy industry

>>8642797
I guess it's a conflict of interest when a geologist gets a grant to do research for the USGS too according to your conspiracies, right? What about when a government employed physicist gets a government grant to do research on particle physics in a national laboratory?

There are literal financial money trails from the fossil fuel industry to the """experts""" of climate change denial and their various connections to think tanks that pay them for lectures, research, etc.

Look at Willie Soon for example, made a millionaire by the industry to do research that props up solar activity as responsible for climate change, work that has been widely discredited, partly because Soon did not disclose his sources of funding when publishing:
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1


Read more about climate change denial funding here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html
https://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263114280_Institutionalizing_Delay_Foundation_Funding_and_the_Creation_of_US_Climate_Change_Counter-Movement_Organizations

>>8642482
>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report

>"The PBL report does not prove or indeed suggest systematic bias, and it stresses that it has found nothing that should lead the parliament of the Netherlands, or anyone else, to reject the IPCC's findings."

Lol maybe next time read your sources before you cite them?

>>8642823
When gov't agencies stop giving funding to researchers who find different outcomes in their studies than the currently accepted narrative, yes, there is a conflict of interest

>>8642823
>"""experts"""

Just out of curiosity, why do you put triple quotes?

>>8642440
>climate change is not science

>>>/pol/

>>8642738
DAYUM #REKT

>>8642830
Scientists don't make much money finding results that don't show anything new. If you want to make it big you need to make waves. Why is trump muzzling scientists and slashing funding instead of funding research to find out if AGW is actually real?

>>8642660
Also, T O P K E K
>Citing Soon, Patrick Michaels, Lindzen or Pielke as "top climate scientists."

There's a reason those guys are seen as jokes among their colleagues, Lindzen is the only one of which has even published anything even remotely important, and Lindzen's own work on cloud formation's role in climate change has been discredited:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049236/abstract
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ngavUkmis

For years Spencer and Lindzen harped on about how clouds were driving climate change, when it's been shown that cloud feedback plays a relatively minor role in temperature amplification.


>>8642830
Soon was accepting money from the petroleum industry to perform his research and not disclosing this, not to mention this whole affair...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

Lindzen retired, and most of his work has been discredited regardless, see above.

>>8642833
Because most people touted around as experts on climate science by deniers aren't even educated, nor do they have scientific educations, and those that do have never published in the field. For example, Anthony Watts, a college dropout and weatherman who runs the most popular climate science denial blog, or Marc Morano, a publicist who worked for Inhofe (snowball senator), who runs climatedepot and has published information on climate scientists over the years leading to harassment.

Even the most qualified scientists they have, like Singer, Seitz, etc. are literally paid shills, look at their history with the Tobacco industry for example.

>>8642854

No, I meant are triple quotes a thing? Why not 1 pair of quotes or even 2? Why 3?

Every time I see a triple quote, I assume it is the same anon (i.e. you), especially because the triple quote users seem to share the same view.

One of the favorite topics of the triple quote user is this topic (i.e. climate change evidence being fraudulent).

I was just curious. I don't really have a point.

>>8642866
Probably the same reason as the ((())) meme.

>>8642866
Jesus Christ, are you autistic? Using 3 quotes is nothing new on 4chan, it's a meme to create greater emphasis when shitposting, how new are you?

>spike in atmospheric CO2
>spike in population
>industrialization
>spike in temperature
People always come here to shit on each other and call each other deniers or believers, but all I want to know is, how much do the above things influence each other? How well are they connected? To me they all seem like symptoms as opposed to 3 of them causing the other.

>>8642872

Well, I have seen the triple parens meme, but I was not aware of the triple quotes meme. I figured it was a derivative that a particular anon made up.

>it's a meme to create greater emphasis when shitposting

Ah, that explains alot.

>>8642869

I see. Thanks.

>>8642279
>/pol/ here
>spoonfeed me information that requires one google search to find despite the fact that I will still dismiss it

Nah, fuck off, we have retards like you every day