/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9841466
Oh and I forgot to add that he owns his own lawyer office and hes not a total fucking retard with no scholarity.

>>9841466
Alright. How about this one:

It took more than 100 million years to sequester and store the carbon in the fossil record and we're digging it all up and putting it back in the atmosphere in a handful of centuries. Is that a concrete enough fact for you?

>>9841483
No shit, thats a fact but I need to debate the causes of that. I need to know causes that are irefutably only a correlation of the human race.

>>9841521
>Imagine being this retarded
The reason it was dug up and burned was to power our shit. Which part are you having trouble with?

>>9841466
What about the small ice age 1300-1800???

>>9841542
Dude youre literally a fucking retard. What youre saying is in no way an argument to debate wether global warming is real or not. Youre literally saying: " look at all the fossil resources we dug up in the last 100 years, we burnt it all". Im not debating if we burned alot of fuel Im debating wether that burned fuel is actually making the planet heat up you fucking single cell retard. You're really not fond or agrumentative philosophy and fallacies are you. This is what youre doing " hey dad, is it true that exposure to uranium causes cancer?" "Well son, weve dug up a bunch of it in the past century and we used it in alot of reactors".

Ice ages (technically, glacial maxima and minima) correspond very closely to Milankovitch cycles, which are periodic variations in the Earth's orbit that influence how much sunlight we get. Those have timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and right now we're in the cooling part of the cycle. And yet we're seeing rapid (century-scale) warming.

Additionally, the CO2 in the atmosphere is getting isotopically "lighter", which means that the CO2 being added is from organic matter (i.e. fossil fuels) rather than being released from the ocean or something. Because plants preferentially take up 12C over the rarer 13C, organic carbon is depleted in the heavier isotope relative to the background ratio.

>>9841600
>Confirmed retard
What do you think happened to all the CO2?

inb4plants

>>9841467
>Oh and I forgot to add that he owns his own lawyer office and hes not a total fucking retard with no scholarity.
At this point denialism driven solely by the desire to defend their egos from the fact that they were wrong and the hippies were right.

Global warming is small time compared to all the phosphorous we're sequestering in the ocean

This world will be a noxious algae ball

>>9841611
Not him but it's going into the atmosphere and getting absorbed by plants and water and shit? You're still not really that close to humans are the main contributor to "global warming".
But OP, as far as I know the best argument is that they can't make models that would explain what we're observing without major human contribution. This is still a bit iffy because as far as I know, these long term models can be quite inaccurate.

>>9841632
It's not being "absorbed" by anything, you moron. Biomass is carbon neutral and doesn't act as a source or sink and the ocean is releasing CO2 that was bound in the deep water because the temperature is rising.

Now that we've established that the only place it's going is in the atmosphere, would you like me to hold your hand on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Lrn2carbon cycle

>>9841663
I'd like "What is Photosynthesis" for 500 Alex. Higher concentrations of CO2 increases the growth of some plants which would mean that not all the CO2 we release ends up in the atmosphere.
Even ignoring that, "humans increasing the temperature of the planet" is not the same as "humans are the greatest contributor" or even "a significant one". I'd suggest you reign in your hormones lad.

>>9841618

am I the only one getting freaked out over her walking barefoot over what looks like electrical wiring and unknown service grates?

>>9841618
this picture turns me on slightly for some reasons

>>9841709
If they were live she'd already be dead.

>>9841663
>Biomass is carbon neutral and doesn't act as a source or sink
aayyyyy lmao.

>>9841466
>CO2 is a known green house gas
>CO2 concentrations shoot up like fucking crazy as soon as we start burning all that shit in mass
>Solar output has been mostly flat for like half a century, temperatures still shot up
>No natural cause can explain the sudden increase in CO2
HMMMMMM, what could be causing this warming I wonder?

>>9841700
>Imagine being so retarded you thought things just despawned when they died
Wew, lad. What is "decomposition" for like three and a half points? All of the CO2 that is photosynthesized into sugar is released during decomposition.

You should really learn anything about this subject before you pretend that you aren't entirely ignorant on it

>>9841745
Mah nigga. Solar insolation has actually been steadily dropping thanks to particulate pollution causing global dimming

Temperatures actually started dropping so "global warming" suddenly became "climate change".

A few decades ago climate "scientists" were preaching we were heading back into an ice age, what happened to that faggots? These glorified meteorologists just follow the trends of a dynamic weather system with infinite variables and make up some apocalyptic bullshit so that oil companies can make more money by controlling all energy sources.

It's so obvious that oil companies are complicit in the CO2 climate change hoax, they've been crashing their oil tankers for years now, they want to be seen as the bad guys when secretly they are the ones who will make the most profit out of climate change.

>>9841602
Thank you so much. And actual explanation instead of saying "MUH CARBON" and not saying why carbon consomption is doing this.

>>9842238
Literally the only people I've seen insisting "Global Warming" is now called "Climate Change" have been denialists.

also
>a theory suggested by a few scientists several decades ago that was quickly disproven is proof that something accepted almost unanimously among scientists for decades after must also be nonsense

>>9841611
You realise saying "what do you think is happening to the carbon" isnt a good argument. Youre just proving you know nothing of the subject. The point is to identify the negeatives of carbon consumption and not say " BECUZ WE BURN IT HURR DURR". WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT BURNING DOES YOUR FUCKFACE.

>>9842238
>Temperatures actually started dropping so "global warming" suddenly became "climate change".
When did temperatures start dropping?

>A few decades ago climate "scientists" were preaching we were heading back into an ice age
I doubt any scientist said this, considering we are currently in an ice age.

>These glorified meteorologists just follow the trends of a dynamic weather system with infinite variables and make up some apocalyptic bullshit so that oil companies can make more money by controlling all energy sources.
How does increased investment in alternative energy help oil companies? Why are oil companies funding deniers? Why would oil companies want to decrease demand for oil? This idiotic conspiracy theory makes no sense and you sound mentally ill.

>It's so obvious that oil companies are complicit in the CO2 climate change hoax, they've been crashing their oil tankers for years now, they want to be seen as the bad guys when secretly they are the ones who will make the most profit out of climate change.
What the fuck?

>>9842249

>>9842247
>Literally the only people I've seen insisting "Global Warming" is now called "Climate Change" have been denialists.
Why is it not called "global warming" any more fucknut?

>a theory suggested by a few scientists several decades ago that was quickly disproven is proof that something accepted almost unanimously among scientists for decades after must also be nonsense
Science isn't "true" because of consensus, science is demonstrable, testable and repeatable. Climate "science" is not science because it is out of the bounds of the scientific method.

Also, most climate "scientists" are getting their data from government sources, they are not collecting it themselves. This data can be easily distorted and the "scientists" would be none the wiser.

>>9842249
>Imagine being this retarded
We know what burning it does, moron. We know the effecacy of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and we know the average time that a given molecule of CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for (10,000 years btw).

I say "we" but obviously you don't

>>9842260
Because climate change is more accurate. As the average temperature increases the extremes in temperature also increase. Furthermore certain types of pollution cause a cooling effect instead, such as particulate pollution which forms large dirty clouds that block the sun from reaching the Earth. That's one of the reasons that food output per hectare has been declining over the past couple decades

>>9842260
It is still called Global warming and the only people insisting that's changed have been denialists like you. Search the news for "Global Warming" and you'll find plenty of articles calling it that.

The terms always meant different things, "Global Warming" referred, exactly as the term would suggest, to a temperature increase for the planet as a whole. "Climate Change", on the other hand, refers to more localised changes in specific climates (the clue is in the name).
For instance, Global Warming is expected to weaken the Gulf Stream, which would result in a drop in temperatures for Western Europe, but nowhere does this imply that the temperature for the world as a whole isn't increasing.

Your denial is out of the bounds of the scientific method, whereas Climate "science" has been repeatedly backed by observations.

>>9842256
Steve Goddard has proven that the 1930s were warmer than they are now, but the NASA data was changed to make the 1930s colder and the recent decades warmer. The models used to predict climate change are not validated and neither are the projections.

>A few decades ago climate "scientists" were preaching we were heading back into an ice age
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

>How does increased investment in alternative energy help oil companies? Why are oil companies funding deniers? Why would oil companies want to decrease demand for oil? This idiotic conspiracy theory makes no sense and you sound mentally ill.
Because oil companies own the green energy companies you dingbat. Of course oil companies want to be seen funding "deniers", they're playing both sides.

>What the fuck?
What don't you understand? Look up the list of oil tankers crashing every year. There are so many more oil tankers fucking up than any other ship/tanker. They're doing it deliberately.

>>9842272
Actually climate change does refer to all changes in climate and there is both warming and cooling happening. You are technically correct however because the net effect is definitive warming and the guy you're arguing with is wrong because he didn't wrap his tinfoil tight enough

>>9842270
How convenient. Don't normal clouds block the sun from reaching the earth too? Excuses after excuses.

>>9842272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>Global warming, also referred to as climate change

>>9842276
>Things that never happened
Great misrepresentation of facts, but NASA is not in a data fixing conspiracy, we are currently in an interglacial period and we are heading towards an ice age, most renewable energy companies are not owned by oil companies, and oil companies are not deliberately sabotaging their own profit margins.

>>9842279
>he didn't wrap his tinfoil tight enough
That's ironic because I bet you believe aliens exist, whereas I do not. Perhaps you are the one that needs the tinfoil hat to stop those aliens reading your pseudo-science filled mind.

>>9842281
Not any more than they usually do since atmospheric water vapor is a function of temperature. Why don't you educate yourself and come back when you have something to contribute?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

>>9842293
>He doesn't believe in Mexicans

>>9842276
>Steve Goddard has proven that the 1930s were warmer than they are now, but the NASA data was changed to make the 1930s colder and the recent decades warmer.
You mean more data was added to the records? Why is increasing the coverage of the data bad?

If you actually look at all the adjustments to the data and don't just cherrypick, you'll see that climatologists' adjustments have actually decreased the warming trend. Why would they do that?

>The models used to predict climate change are not validated and neither are the projections.
They have been accurate for decades.

>https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
I don't see any scientists predicting an ice age, just some popsci articles not understanding what ice age means and the vast majority of climatologists predicting warming.

>Because oil companies own the green energy companies you dingbat.
Which of these companies are controlled by big oil?

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-renewable-energy-companies-thomson-reuters-2017-11

>Of course oil companies want to be seen funding "deniers", they're playing both sides.
Why would they play both sides? They get bad press and they reduce demand for their own product. They could have good press and maximize their value by investing in renewables in proportion to demand. But they're not. In reality, they would prefer for no environmental regulations to be passed. That is how they maximize their value. You're not making any sense.

>Look up the list of oil tankers crashing every year. There are so many more oil tankers fucking up than any other ship/tanker. They're doing it deliberately.
Why?

>>9842290
>NASA is not in a data fixing conspiracy
https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
>oil companies are not deliberately sabotaging their own profit margins
They're improving them dingbat. Ever heard of the "Petrodollar"? Getting rid of oil would not only hurt oil companies, it would hurt the US as a whole, and the middle eastern countries who export it.

Why would the US harm so much? They aren't, they are doing it for a reason, a reason that will improve profits of ex-oil companies and hurt developing nations and nations that export oil.

>>9842301
>climatologists' adjustments have actually decreased the warming trend. Why would they do that?
Obviously it's to keep us unaware of how screwed we are so we don't do anything about it. The reptilians want the planet back and they're willing to wait.

>>9842303
>Why would the US harm so much? They aren't, they are doing it for a reason, a reason that will improve profits of ex-oil companies and hurt developing nations and nations that export oil.
How?

>>9842295
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Kek. If the temperature goes up we can blame it on CO2, if the temperature goes down we can blame it on aerosols. What a joke.

>>9842303
>https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
So his response to record temperatures being set is the percentage of days over 95F? This is a non sequitur.

>The raw data shows no warming
But it does show warming, Goddard is literally lying to your face. It's also funny how the raw data globally shows an even higher warming trend (see >>9842301) but I'm sure you will suddenly flip flop and say the raw data shouldn't be listened to. It's pretty pathetic how predictable your mentally ill denial is.

>>9842312
>Things have causes. What a joke.

>>9842303
>realclimatescience.com
>article is about weather
Wew. I hope you don't get your news from there

>They're improving them dingbat. Ever heard of the "Petrodollar"? Getting rid of oil would not only hurt oil companies
>Getting rid of oil would not only hurt oil companies
>Getting rid of oil would hurt oil companies
"Hey guys, I've come up with a great way to increase our profits. First we'll spend a barrel of oil to get another five barrels out of the ground, right? Then we'll put it on a boat to export it to a market with higher demand, okay are you still with me? But then, before it gets there, we SINK it! And we lose all the oil and the tanker and probably all of the crew and so we'll have to replace the tanker and pay for the funerals, but I'm telling you, dumping oil into the ocean instead of selling it is where the money's at."

>>9842301
>You mean more data was added to the records? Why is increasing the coverage of the data bad?
Should have been correct in the first place.

>If you actually look at all the adjustments to the data and don't just cherrypick, you'll see that climatologists' adjustments have actually decreased the warming trend. Why would they do that?
Because it's not global warming any more, it's "climate change", giving them carte blanche to blame all weather patterns on CO2.

>They have been accurate for decades.
If fudging the data after it's been wrong is accurate then I don't know what to tell you: https://realclimatescience.com/the-corrupt-history-of-nasa-temperature-history/
>I don't see any scientists predicting an ice age, just some popsci articles not understanding what ice age means and the vast majority of climatologists predicting warming.
There were "scientists" predicting cooling, this cannot be denied.

>http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-renewable-energy-companies-thomson-reuters-2017-11
All of them are invested in by large shareholders who will profit from "climate change".

>Why would they play both sides? They get bad press and they reduce demand for their own product. They could have good press and maximize their value by investing in renewables in proportion to demand. But they're not. In reality, they would prefer for no environmental regulations to be passed. That is how they maximize their value. You're not making any sense.
You just don't get it. Playing both sides means you win either way. We have to use oil whether we like it or not at the moment, so they will make money regardless, but eventually alternative energy sources come about and they will want to make money from those too.

>>9842307
Carbon taxes. Any country emitting a lot CO2 will be pressured to stop using them, halting growth.

>>9842313
So governments go to war for oil, but suddenly they care about the environment and produce "climate data" to support green energy. They're doing this purely from the goodness of their hearts, right? Give me a break.

>>9842337
How would that turn into profit for oil companies?

>>9842337
That's literally the point. Do you have the IQ of a fig newton? They simply need to adopt more renewable energy. Even wood would suffice.

>>9842343
inb4warforoilisameme

>>9842334
>There were "scientists" predicting cooling, this cannot be denied.
Not him, that is retarded. It is like saying that since some physicists believe that black holes weren't real, then relativity is wrong.

>>9842353
More like saying that because your generator needs energy to keep running it doesn't produce any at all

The average person is retarded and doesn't understand the green house effect.

>>9842317
Why is there an oil tanker crash every year? Usually more than one? Don't you think they'd get better at not fucking crashing all the time?

Then you see those pictures of seagulls covered in oil to piss off the environmentalists. It's interesting how "environmentalists" were basically just seen as tree hugging hippies and laughed at, yet nowadays even the most militant fedora tipping atheist is an environmentalist because "science" told them to be.

>>9841466
>it's another episode of "/pol/ larps as their opposition"

>>9842344
Controlling all energy sources, not just oil, will increase their profits ten-fold without developing countries buying oil off them. Developing countries not being able to buy oil is more a benefit for government though.

>>9841466
>" "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society."
He thinks China is better than white countries, kek

>>9842363
Because oil companies recognize that they are a boom-bust industry and so they skimp on maintenance. Same reason that company in California chose not to replace a seal and let natural gas leak into the air for more than a decade. The price of the fine (if they ever received one) plus the value of the natural gas lost over time was less than the cost to reply the seal which made it more economical to operate without it.

>>9842348
Building a renewable energy infrastructure isn't cheap, that's the fucking point.

>>9842369
And how will they would do it? And why would any government other than the USA be on board with it?

>>9842353
The point is that predictions are not science. Also, relativity is wrong.

>>9842375
You can just use wood in your gassified coal plants. No new infrastructure nessesary. That's the point

>>9842373
So with that logic, why do oil companies themselves believe man made climate change is happening? Do they have a financial reason to do so?

>>9842334
>Should have been correct in the first place.
This doesn't respond to what you're replying to. More data was added between then and now, so there is no expectation that the data set back back then is the same as the data set now.

>Because it's not global warming any more, it's "climate change", giving them carte blanche to blame all weather patterns on CO2.
No, it's still global warming, as the data clearly shows, adjusted or not.

>If fudging the data after it's been wrong is accurate then I don't know what to tell you
What data was fudged?

>There were "scientists" predicting cooling, this cannot be denied.
So we've gone from "climate scientists were preaching we were heading back into an ice age" to "some scientists predicted cooling while the vast majority predicted warming." Now what is your point?

>All of them are invested in by large shareholders who will profit from "climate change".
That doesn't answer my question, which ones are controlled by oil companies?

>You just don't get it. Playing both sides means you win either way.
It means you lose either way. If oil companies were trying to get control of renewables, they would significant stakes in renewable energy and they would not be reducing demand in them by sponsoring deniers. If they were trying to preserve their current business model, they would not be reducing demand in their own product by making up AGW. So let's recap, your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense, you have presented no evidence of either oil companies being in control of climatology or of any fraud. You literally have no argument, just mentally ill babbling.

>>9842390
They deny it at every turn and pay people to say it doesn't exist. You're really reaching here

>>9842390
>So with that logic, why do oil companies themselves believe man made climate change is happening? Do they have a financial reason to do so?
So do, for the same reason that cigar companies admit that smoking causes lung cancer. Others deny it.

>>9842343
How does this respond to what you're replying to? Are you admitting that Goddard is bullshit? Thanks.

>So governments go to war for oil, but suddenly they care about the environment and produce "climate data" to support green energy.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Iraq war was designed and fought by climatologists... Yes scientists can only have the same priorities as the current President and the oil companies. Good thing Trump is now in office and all the scientists are now saying global warming is a hoax, right?

>>9842393
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html

Sure they do...

>>9842399
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+companies+deny+climate+science

>>9842381
>The point is that predictions are not science. Also, relativity is wrong.

>>9842391
>This doesn't respond to what you're replying to. More data was added between then and now, so there is no expectation that the data set back back then is the same as the data set now.
So how can you be so sure that the data is correct now when they've already go it wrong?

>No, it's still global warming, as the data clearly shows, adjusted or not.
But Al Gore told us what "global warming" was going to lead to, and none of it has come true. So now it's "climate change".

>What data was fudged?
https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

>So we've gone from "climate scientists were preaching we were heading back into an ice age" to "some scientists predicted cooling while the vast majority predicted warming." Now what is your point?
That predictions are not science.

>https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html
Notice it says part of their plan is creating "low carbon businesses". They have the money to invest or create these businesses.

>It means you lose either way. If oil companies were trying to get control of renewables, they would significant stakes in renewable energy and they would not be reducing demand in them by sponsoring deniers. If they were trying to preserve their current business model, they would not be reducing demand in their own product by making up AGW. So let's recap, your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense, you have presented no evidence of either oil companies being in control of climatology or of any fraud. You literally have no argument, just mentally ill babbling.
Which "deniers" have they sponsored?

>>9842410
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+companies+sponsor+climate+change+denial

>>9842410
>So how can you be so sure that the data is correct now when they've already go it wrong?
Constantly improving data coverage and correcting mistakes doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to the data, that's just how all science works. We're constantly improving our understanding. Why are you so sure that global warming is not occurring?

>But Al Gore told us what "global warming" was going to lead to, and none of it has come true. So now it's "climate change".
Who is Al Gore and why should I listen to him on science? This is the science board, not the politics board. Try again.

And it's still global warming, as the data shows.

>https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/
This just shows that more data has been added to the temperature record. What data was fudged?

>That predictions are not science.
They are published in peer reviewed scientific journals, based on fundamental chemistry and physics and direct observation of the atmosphere, and they're accurate. How is it not science?

>Notice it says part of their plan is creating "low carbon businesses". They have the money to invest or create these businesses.
So which top green energy companies do they control? What percentage of the industry do they control? Why do you keep avoiding my questions when I am simply asking you to back up your claims? Is it because you know that you have nothing to back them up?

>>9841466
Yes it's getting warmer at a surprising rate
Yes emission of carbon probably has something to do with it
Yes climate scientists are too full of themselves
Yes the press is retarded as always
Yes we are far from understanding everything
No the model is not falsifiable

>>9842415
Can you provide the specific papers that were funded by big oil?

>>9842430
What's wrong with the sources in the numerous news articles?

>>9842410
Can you explain to me why the net affect of the adjustments to the data has been to reduce the global warming trend? See >>9842301

Why are scientists reducing the trend if they are fudging the data?

>>9842424
When the data is literally being corrupted then no, you shouldn't listen to the data.

>Who is Al Gore and why should I listen to him on science? This is the science board, not the politics board. Try again.
Al Gore is the fraud who kick started this whole global warming hysteria in the first place.

>This just shows that more data has been added to the temperature record. What data was fudged?
50% of the global data used by NASA and NOAA is fake.

>They are published in peer reviewed scientific journals, based on fundamental chemistry and physics and direct observation of the atmosphere, and they're accurate. How is it not science?
Computer models are not science.

>So which top green energy companies do they control? What percentage of the industry do they control? Why do you keep avoiding my questions when I am simply asking you to back up your claims? Is it because you know that you have nothing to back them up?
Because banks are the largest shareholders in oil companies. Vanguard are the largest share holders in Exxon.
>In November, Vanguard announced that it would push companies it holds shares in to disclose climate risks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-renewable-energy-companies-thomson-reuters-2017-11
The first company in that list, Canadian Solar Inc, guess who the largest shareholder is? JP Morgan and Chase. Perhaps it's misleading to call them "oil companies" when really they're owned by the banks.

>>9842439
Please can you link one?

>>9842469
I linked a Google search listing a plethora of articles. How about you pick out one from a source you trust?

>>9842464
>Al Gore is the fraud who kick started this whole global warming hysteria in the first place.
Climate change was already in the public imagination when An Inconvenient Truth hitted the shelves. See, for example, Roland Emmerich destroys the Big Apple aka The Day After Tomorrow.

>>9842472
I can't find any, can you help?

>>9842479
Yes, but "An Inconvenient Truth" purported to be based on real science, not entertainment, whereas "The Day After Tomorrow" was just a movie.

Al Gore has made billions out of "global warming" by the way, funny that.

>>9842483
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/big-oil-heartland-climate-science-misinformation-campaign-koch-api-trump-infographic

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environment/exxonmobil-funds-climate-change-deniers-exxon-oil-gas-a7818626.html%3famp

https://www.upf.edu/web/thinkclima/independents-reports

For the love of Christ, there's even a Wikipedia article on the subject
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Funding_of_climate_change_denial

Are you some kind of shill?

>>9842464
>When the data is literally being corrupted then no, you shouldn't listen to the data.
And how is it being corrupted?

>Al Gore is the fraud who kick started this whole global warming hysteria in the first place.
Global warming was discovered by scientists.

>50% of the global data used by NASA and NOAA is fake.
How do you know?

>Computer models are not science.
Computer models are used a lot in science. You don't know what you're talking about.

>Because banks are the largest shareholders in oil companies. Vanguard are the largest share holders in Exxon.
Vanguard is an RIA, not a bank. Private equity funds are the largest shareholders of most publicly traded companies. And being the largest shareholder doesn't mean you control the company. You have to have a majority of the shares to do that. This is a non sequitur and you know it. But thanks for completely devolving your argument into nothing.

>>9842489
Except that your claim was that Al started the hysteria, despite climate change already being in part of the public imagination by that point.

>>9842464
Can you explain to me why the net affect of the adjustments to the data has been to reduce the global warming trend? See >>9842301

Why are scientists reducing the trend if they are fudging the data?

>>9842491
You're that same snarky fucking asshat again.

You really must have drawn the short straw at shill inc. to be the one working the 4chan climate science division, huh? lol

>>9842490
I'm trying to find a published scientific paper denying CO2 warming that was funded by an oil company.

>>9842516
Oh boy, no argument left huh? Thanks for playing, retard.

>>9842464
>Perhaps it's misleading to call them "oil companies" when really they're owned by the banks.

Everything is owned by the banks. Including this guy:>>9842491

>>9842521
I'm not him. But you're welcome to try again, shill.

>>9842518
Good for you. That's not the claim being made here though.

From the Wikipedia article

In 1989, shortly after the presentation by the Exxon's manager of science and strategy development Duane LeVine to the board of directors which reiterated that introducing public policy to combat climate change "can lead to irreversible and costly Draconian steps," the company shifted its position on the climate change to publicly questioning it.[1][20] This shift was caused by concerns about the potential impact of the climate policy measures to the oil industry.[1]

Of the major oil corporations, ExxonMobil has been the most active in the debate surrounding climate change.[22] In 2005, as competing major oil companies diversified into alternative energy and renewable fuels, ExxonMobil re-affirmed its mission as an oil and gas company.[23] According to a 2007 analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the company used many of the same strategies, tactics, organizations, and personnel the tobacco industry used in its denials of the link between lung cancer and smoking.[24] ExxonMobil denied similarity to the tobacco industry.[25]

During 1990s and 2000s Exxon helped advance climate change denial internationally.[26][27] ExxonMobil was a significant influence in preventing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States.[28] ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon was a founding member of the board of directors of the Global Climate Coalition, composed of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation.[29][30][31]

Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.[37]

Continued

>>9842527
>shill
>shill
>shill
Ah I see we've hit rock bottom in the denier playbook.

>>9842521
You really do suck at this, shilling thing though. You'd think you'd try writing in a less ugly (for lack of a better word) manner if you were being paid to do it. But I guess a zebra can't change its stripes.

>>9842518
>>9842531
Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[38] Of 2005 grantees of ExxonMobil, 54 were found to have statements regarding climate change on their websites, of which 25 were consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change, while 39 "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence," according to a 2006 letter from the Royal Society to ExxonMobil. The Royal Society said ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[39] According to Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, ExxonMobil contributed about 4% of the total funding of what Brulle identifies as the "climate change counter-movement."[40] The Drexel research found that much of the funding that direct sourcing from companies like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries was later diverted through third-party foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital to avoid traceability.[41]

In 2006, the Royal Society expressed "concerns about ExxonMobil's funding of lobby groups that seek to misrepresent the scientific evidence relating to climate change."[43] Between 2007 and 2015, ExxonMobil gave $1.87 million to Congressional climate change deniers and $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ExxonMobil denied funding climate denial.[44] ExxonMobil is a member of ALEC's "Enterprise Council", its corporate leadership board.[45]

In May 2008, ExxonMobil pledged in its annual corporate citizenship report that it would cut funding to "several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention" from the need to address climate change.[48] In 2008, ExxonMobil funded such organizations[49] and was named one of the most prominent promoters of climate change denial.[50]

Continued

>>9842532
Just because I think you're an asshat and a shill, doesn't make me a "denier". Now would you like to either a) deny that you're shill, or b) try again?

>>9842518
>>9842531
>>9842536
According to Brulle in a 2012 Frontline interview, ExxonMobil had ceased funding the climate change counter-movement by 2009.[40] According to the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, ExxonMobil granted $1 million to climate denial groups in 2014.[51][52] ExxonMobil granted $10,000 to the Science & Environmental Policy Project founded by climate denial advocate, physicist, and environmental scientist Fred Singer[53][54] and earlier funded the work of solar physicist Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, who said that most global warming is caused by solar variation.[55]

In the fall of 2015, InsideClimate News published a series of reports on an eight month investigation based on decades of internal Exxon Mobil files and interviews with former Exxon employees, which stated "Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed."[56]

From 1989 till April 2010, ExxonMobil and its predecessor Mobil purchased regular Thursday advertorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal that said that the science of climate change was unsettled.[58][59][60] In 2000, responding to the 2000 US First National Assessment of Climate Change, an ExxonMobil advertorial said "The report's language and logic appear designed to emphasize selective results to convince people that climate change will adversely impact their lives. The report is written as a political document, not an objective summary of the underlying science."[61] Another 2000 advertorial published in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal entitled "Unsettled Science" said "it is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature increase to human activity."[62][63][64]

Continued

>>9842534
>>9842539
Care to respond with any substance? No? OK then you admit I'm right. Thanks.

>>9842518
>>9842531
>>9842536
>>9842544
Harvard University researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that "83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents [from Exxon] acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt". The research concluded that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science but promoted doubt about it in advertorials.[65][66]

Lee Raymond, Exxon and ExxonMobil chief executive officer from 1993 to 2006, was one of the most outspoken executives in the United States against regulation to curtail global warming,[68]

In February 2001, the early days of the administration of US President George W. Bush, ExxonMobil's head lobbyist in Washington wrote to the White House urging that "Clinton/Gore carry-overs with aggressive agendas" be kept out of "any decisional activities" on the US delegation to the working committees of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and recommending their replacement by scientists critical of the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change. The chairman of the IPCC, climate scientist Robert Watson, was replaced by Rajendra K. Pachauri, who was seen as more industry-friendly.[56][69][70][71] A spokesperson for ExxonMobil said the company did not have a position on the chairmanship of the IPCC.[72]

On June 14, 2005 ExxonMobil announced they would hire Philip Cooney, four days after Cooney resigned as chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Bush White House, two days after the non-profit Government Accountability Project release documents which showed that Cooney had edited government scientific reports so as to downplay the certainty of the science behind the greenhouse effect.[73][74][75]

>>9842545
I'm just saying I, it's not worth my, or anyone else's, time responding to you. You're not here to educate people you're here to belittle people for their opinions.

>>9842553
>You're not here to educate people you're here to belittle people for their opinions.
and this is why you make a crappy shill. You literally suck at it.

>>9842545
Thanks for not denying that you're a shill....

>>9841466
well the temperature record correlated with the delta 18O ice core records is the direct evidence for global warming but deniers deny the authenticity of both

>>9842491
>And how is it being corrupted?
By artificially creating warming.
>Global warming was discovered by scientists.
And none of their predictions have come true.
>How do you know?
Because they are missing 50% of temperature coverage of the earth.
>Computer models are used a lot in science. You don't know what you're talking about.
Not ones that keep being wrong.
>Vanguard is an RIA, not a bank. Private equity funds are the largest shareholders of most publicly traded companies. And being the largest shareholder doesn't mean you control the company. You have to have a majority of the shares to do that. This is a non sequitur and you know it. But thanks for completely devolving your argument into nothing.
Vanguard are incredibly powerful, if they weren't oil companies would publicly deny global warming.

>>9842553
>>9842555
>>9842557
See >>9842545

I suggest you to read this: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549.. It's a concise and clear explaination of the problem that presents some undeinable proofs of human-caused global warming. It aslo presents some common counter arguments to the facts presented and explains why those conter arguments are wrong.

>>9842260
so it's the government now and not the oil companies?

>>9842555
but I guess maybe belittling people is a huge part of the shill playbook, because when you're playing from the perspective of selling something, educating people on the full truth of of the matter might not always be the best move.

>>9842562
The substance of my argument is that you are a shill, and a nasty one at that. And you won't deny it so it seems like a reasonable assumption

>>9842492
Al turned it from imagination to "reality".

I suggest you to read this: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549.. It's a concise and clear explaination of the problem that presents some undeinable proofs of human-caused global warming. It aslo presents some common counter arguments to the facts presented and explains why those conter arguments are wrong.
It doesn't rely on any model or prediction but only on direct observation of the current situation.

>>9842571
Debate about climate change predated Al Gore(see Philip Cooney's resignation), and even then if Gore actually did started it it would be utterly irrelevant about the actual science behind it.

>>9842560
>By artificially creating warming.
That doesn't answer my question. How is the data being corrupted?

>And none of their predictions have come true.
Wrong.

>Because they are missing 50% of temperature coverage of the earth.
How is the data fake?

>Not ones that keep being wrong.
They keep being right.

>Vanguard are incredibly powerful, if they weren't oil companies would publicly deny global warming.
They don't deny it publicly because that would generate bad PR for them. They do try to spread doubt by funding lots of denial of the scientific evidence. Unfortunately for them, several deniers had to reveal their sponsorship in court. So let's try this again, what evidence is there of oil companies controlling climatology and climatology being fraudulent?

>>9842570
>The substance of my argument is that you are a shill
This is a baseless ad hominem attack, not a substantive argument. Therefore there is no need for me to respond to it. Try again, with a substantive argument this time.

>>9842550
>Harvard University researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that "83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents [from Exxon] acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt". The research concluded that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science but promoted doubt about it in advertorials.[65][66]
Now why would they do that? Why would they fund scientific research that does the opposite to what they want? Publicly doubting it but privately supporting it. Playing both sides.

>>9842588
Try harder.

Oil companies and tobacco companies have more or less hired shills for decades. Why is it so hard to believe the other side would hire shills as well?

>>9842566
What's the difference?

>>9842596
See >>9842545 and >>9842588

>>9842583
Who or what funded the science behind it?

>>9842334
>Should have been correct in the first place
I can’t imagine saying something this embarrassing on a science board. I hope you’re shitposting

>>9842599
Still no denying you're a shill? Is that against the rules or something? You're not gonna try and play around with 'oh, it depends on what the definition of shill is'? Well that's nice, at least.

>>9842594
Because they were hoping that the scientific research would come to the conclusion they wanted. When it didn't, they spread doubt about it. That's what the paper concluded: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

>>9842603
A mix of public and private funding?

>>9842606
Thank you for admitting that I'm right.

>>9842369
why would they waste their money in sinking their own tankers instead of investing it in renewables?

>>9842612
Thank you for not denying you're a shill. It would be so simple just to say it
>I am not a shill, as per the 2018 websters dictionary definition of the word
but you can't do that for some reason.

>>9842620
I'm not a shill, thanks for admitting I'm right though.

>>9842624
Yes, you are.
Try again.

>>9842585
>That doesn't answer my question. How is the data being corrupted?
Yeah you're right, it's squeaky clean.
>Wrong.
How?
>How is the data fake?
Because it's not based on real, empirical measurements.
>They keep being right.
What? When they keep changing them?
>They don't deny it publicly because that would generate bad PR for them.
As if they've got great PR already...
>They do try to spread doubt by funding lots of denial of the scientific evidence.
And what denial would that be?
>what evidence is there of oil companies controlling climatology and climatology being fraudulent?
Oil companies have major shareholders that also are major shareholders of green energy companies. Oil companies are investing in/creating green energy companies, as well as funding climate "science" that "backs up" man made warming.

>>9842627
>still no argument, just baseless ad hominem
You're pathetic.

>>9842608
Why would they publish it in the first place? That's utterly retarded. They wanted it published.

>>9842464
It is the banks now, how precious

>>9842632
>Oil companies have major shareholders that also are major shareholders of green energy companies. Oil companies are investing in/creating green energy companies, as well as funding climate "science" that "backs up" man made warming.
Not him, but you already hinted in your post about why they do this. PR. I'm not looking it up but the funding they give to green energy/climate science is literally a drop in the bucket out their total budget.

>>9842611
Got any names?

>>9842638
Instead of the sarcasm, why not look into how much of the shares of various companies are in fact owned by banks?

>>9842614
They are investing in renewables. Sinking their tankers just speeds up the adoption of renewables, it's an investment.

>>9842633
>>still no argument, just baseless ad hominem
>You're pathetic.
Oh ya, cuz that is definitely an argument and not a baseless ad hominem.

>>9842632
>Yeah you're right, it's squeaky clean.
You're avoiding the question again, because you know you're wrong.

>How?
Look at the model in the picture.

>Because it's not based on real, empirical measurements.
It is based on real empirical measurements.

>What? When they keep changing them?
Models are always being improved, that's how science works.

>And what denial would that be?
Try reading the paper, smart guy.

>Oil companies have major shareholders that also are major shareholders of green energy companies.
You mean investors participate in diversified private equity funds that are invested in both oil companies and green energy companies? So what? How does this show any kind of influence or conspiracy? Shareholders don't generally control how oil companies operate. No shareholder told Exxon to spread doubt about global warming.

>Oil companies are investing in/creating green energy companies, as well as funding climate "science" that "backs up" man made warming.
What percentage of the green energy industry do they own? What percentage of climatology do they fund? You still haven't answered these basic questions that I asked in the beginning of the thread. You know answering them would destroy your argument, because the oil companies don' control green energy and they don't control climatology. So your idiotic conspiracy theory fails on the basic facts.

>>9842639
Kek. So the bogeymen oil companies are funding "science" that backs up man made warming, while also funding "deniers" of this very science they have funded. Ridiculous.

>>9842646
A non-argument gets a non-argument in response, you have only yourself to blame.

>>9842656
>Ridiculous

Ya, that pretty much sums up the world of multibillion dollar corporations throwing money around.

I'm starting to think you never talked to your uncle at all

>>9842658
I see your non argument, and raise you a 'fuck off, shill'

>>9842637
Because if they suppressed it then it could come out and become a huge news story. Allowing it to be published meant that only a few people read this research anyway. Million of people on the other hand have seen their advertising spreading doubt and the polemics of deniers they funded.

>>9842642
Okay, oil companies, the government and banks are in a huge conspiracy to fake data which actually predicts current developments to make money in a way you tried to provide, but failed miserably. Are they trying to make us think global warming exists by actually making the world warmer then?

>>9842641
>Public
Uncle Sam
>Private
Rich individuals, NGOs.

>>9842643
>Oil companies are sinking their own tankers
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, any evidence?

>>9842675
Thanks for admitting I'm right again, you can stop now.

>>9842643
how? i don't see how spending a shitload of money for rescue teams, funerals, tons of oil, environmental damages and replace frigging expansive tankers boosts their investment power.

>>9842679
>conspiracy to fake data which actually predicts current developments to make money in a way you tried to provide, but failed miserably.

Can you please rephrase that? I'm having some trouble deciphering what you're trying to say.

>>9842648
>You're avoiding the question again, because you know you're wrong.
Yeah you're right. The data has never been corrupted, it's just been wrong, and has since been corrected by adding more data. It's definitely correct now.
>Look at the model in the picture.
Is that a graph of green energy stocks rising?

>Models are always being improved, that's how science works.
I'm afraid science works through observation, testing, and repeating of physical substances. Not fiddling about with shitty computer models.
>Try reading the paper, smart guy.
Just give me one example of an oil funded denial of man made global warming.
>No shareholder told Exxon to spread doubt about global warming.
Sure they did, while Exxon also funded climate studies to support global warming.
>What percentage of the green energy industry do they own?
Zero.
>What percentage of climatology do they fund?
Zero.

>>9842666
It's ridiculous to think they are not in on the scam.

>>9842677
Why would they fund it in the first place? If the scientists concluded it wasn't happening, no one would believe it because it was funded by oil companies, and if the scientists conclude it is happening, then it "harms" them even more. It's a lose lose situation.

>>9842682
>Uncle Sam
Very trustworthy.
>Rich individuals, NGOs.
Such as?

>>9842710
>Yeah you're right. The data has never been corrupted, it's just been wrong, and has since been corrected by adding more data. It's definitely correct now.
Constantly improving data coverage and correcting mistakes doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to the data, that's just how all science works. But I'm glad you can admit it's not corrupted.

>Is that a graph of green energy stocks rising?
So you're admitting our models are accurate?

>I'm afraid science works through observation, testing, and repeating of physical substances. Not fiddling about with shitty computer models.
I don't know what "repeating of physical substances" is supposed to mean, but testing computer models against observations is indeed part of science.

>Just give me one example of an oil funded denial of man made global warming.
See >>9842536 >>9842544 >>9842550 for several examples.

>Sure they did, while Exxon also funded climate studies to support global warming.
Which shareholders told Exxon to do this?

>What percentage of the green energy industry do they own?
>Zero.
>What percentage of climatology do they fund?
>Zero.
That would mean your conspiracy theory is false.

>>9842717
One of the many vice presidents at PetroPlus Energy Inc., has a meeting with several executive COO's and they decide that Becky from secretarial/accounting should head the new climate outreach program.

Why is it so hard to believe? It's not really a scam so much as a bunch of rich fucks trying to decide what to do with all their money.

>>9842723
>Why would they fund it in the first place?
Because they were hoping to find that fossil fuels were not causing issues. If they had, they would publicize it. They didn't so they did not publicize it and instead spread denial. It's really not that hard to understand.

>If the scientists concluded it wasn't happening, no one would believe it because it was funded by oil companies
Plenty of people believe the deniers that oil companies fund.

>if the scientists conclude it is happening, then it "harms" them even more.
No one would read it because they wouldn't publicize it if they didn't get the result they wanted, it's a win win situation.

>>9842705
you have yet to explain how oil companies, banks and the government, let's call them team trinity, makes money off of making people believe that climate change exists.
You failed to provide a coherent theory. Instead you descriped how a mostly free market reacts to real global warming.

Also >>9842710
>Yeah you're right. The data has never been corrupted, it's just been wrong, and has since been corrected by adding more data. It's definitely correct now.
More data increases accuracy, so it is more propable to be correct yes. You've just discovered the wonders of statistics. And as provided by some other anons, the data has not been incorrect, but actually predicted current developments.

>>9842683
The majority of oil spills occur by collision - how many other vessels crash into each other year after year? Are they captained by drunken fucking sailors?

>>9842742
What percentage of crashes are oil tankers? What percentage of all vessels are oil tankers? What percentage of crashes involve large, hard to maneuver vehicles?

Oh you don't know, because you're making this shit up as you go along.

>>9842693
It serves the purpose of making oil companies the bad guys so that renewable energy is adopted faster, which oil companies are invested in.

>>9842742
>how many other vessels crash into each other year after year?
many

>>9842740
I suggested the other poster might be right when he said that banks own a significant amount of the shares of oil companies. And now that you mention it, governments probably do too.

I didn't mention anything about a conspiracy or making money off climate change.

>>9842752
they would make more if they keep their tankers, increase capital and go buckwild in renewables. This is what some oil companies are doing.
They would also make more by letting oil slide, investing in renewables now and be heroes in the public to kickstart their sells.
This is what many oil companies are doing.

>>9842731
>Constantly improving data coverage and correcting mistakes doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to the data, that's just how all science works. But I'm glad you can admit it's not corrupted.
You call it wrong, I call it corrupted.
>So you're admitting our models are accurate?
Yes, extremely accurate. No need to change them, leave them as they are.
>I don't know what "repeating of physical substances" is supposed to mean, but testing computer models against observations is indeed part of science.
Repeating experiments using physical substances. For climate "science" to be science, you need another earth where you can pour CO2 into the atmosphere and see what happens. Because this cannot be done, it is not science.
>See >>9842536 >>9842544 >>9842550 for several examples.
Is there anything beyond "doubting global warming"? With the kind of money they have you think they could do better than that.
>Which shareholders told Exxon to do this?
Vanguard.
>That would mean your conspiracy theory is false.
Of course. This is a war between honest, real scientists funded by honest governments and oil companies, against those pesky oil companies who are fucking up our world. The scientists and governments will save the world and the oil companies will go out of business. It really is as noble as that.

>>9841700
>increases the growth of some plants
Either "some" is not enough or "some" is enough such that biomes will change.

Either way it's fucked.

>>9842737
>Because they were hoping to find that fossil fuels were not causing issues. If they had, they would publicize it.
And everyone would believe it. A study funded by oil companies has proven that man made global warming doesn't exist. You can't be that naive. This also shows the unscientific nature of global warming because if an oil company funded a study that did genuinely disprove its man made cause, no scientist would take it seriously.
>It's really not that hard to understand.
It's hard to understand how they could come up with such a retarded plan. Their reasons were self-serving.
>Plenty of people believe the deniers that oil companies fund.
And even more people believe the climate "science" that oil companies fund.
>No one would read it because they wouldn't publicize it if they didn't get the result they wanted, it's a win win situation.
They publicize it by publicly denying it, that's how it works.

>>9842264
Thats why theres a thread you moron. "Hey dude whats the speed of light" "the speed of light dumbass". Thank god you're not a teacher you fucking incel

>>9842732
>It's not really a scam so much as a bunch of rich fucks trying to decide what to do with all their money.
Make more?

>>9842249
"what do you think is happening to the carbon" isn't an argument but it is a tool to extract terms and knowledge that the listener is familiar with, and then you can build an argument on those.

>>9842750
When was the last time you heard about a ferry colliding with another vessel?

You'd think these oil tankers would be aware of other vessels around them, and they would have the technology to avoid collisions year after year.

Alas, they keep employing retarded tanker drivers who fall asleep on the job. Just one of those things, right?

>>9842753
As many as oil tankers do?

>>9842791
>You call it wrong, I call it corrupted.
I am still waiting for evidence that it's corrupted.

>Yes, extremely accurate.
OK great, but they can always be improved. I'm glad you admitted you were wrong.

>Repeating experiments using physical substances.
Is the atmosphere not a physical substance?

>For climate "science" to be science, you need another earth where you can pour CO2 into the atmosphere and see what happens.
We already have that Earth, it's called the past.

>Because this cannot be done, it is not science.
So evolution isn't science either right?

>Vanguard.
Vanguard told Exxon to spread doubt about global warming? Where is the proof of this?

>This is a war between honest, real scientists funded by honest governments and oil companies, against those pesky oil companies who are fucking up our world.
Apparently that's what you believe since you have refused to show any evidence that the science is dishonest.

>>9842761
>they would make more if they keep their tankers
So why do they keep crashing?
>They would also make more by letting oil slide, investing in renewables now and be heroes in the public to kickstart their sells.
>This is what many oil companies are doing.
Yes, let's allow oil companies who are purely driven by profit to control more energy sources. Can't think of anyone better.

>>9842807
>And everyone would believe it. A study funded by oil companies has proven that man made global warming doesn't exist. You can't be that naive.
Not everyone would believe it, but it would definitely help them convince the government to not regulate fossil fuels. Don't be so naive.

>This also shows the unscientific nature of global warming because if an oil company funded a study that did genuinely disprove its man made cause, no scientist would take it seriously.
Your delusional imagination of how scientists would react to genuine research shows nothing. But your observed reaction to the genuine research that shows global warming is manmade shows how unscientific your denial is.

>And even more people believe the climate "science" that oil companies fund.
No one even reads it.

>They publicize it by publicly denying it, that's how it works.
They don't even refer to their own research, so it doesn't publicize it.

>>9842829
>When was the last time you heard about a ferry colliding with another vessel?
Wow, I can't argue with such a scientific analysis.

You are truly mentally ill.

>>9842829
A ferry sank after crashing with another boaless than two weeks ago:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/world/asia/indonesia-ferry-lake-toba.html

>>9842833
>I am still waiting for evidence that it's corrupted.
By making the 1930s much cooler than it actually was, making warming in recent decades look comparatively sharp. "It was just missing data" isn't an argument because they would have already had all the data for the 1930s, so it was deliberate. Plus, how can you trust temperature data from the early 1900s and before? It would have been extremely sparse without satellites.
>OK great, but they can always be improved. I'm glad you admitted you were wrong.
No, it doesn't need improving, it's already extremely accurate, please make sure the "scientists" leave it alone now.
>Is the atmosphere not a physical substance?
It is one where you cannot control all the variables. You can't recreate earth's atmosphere in a lab. Instead you resort to computer models which is not science.
>We already have that Earth, it's called the past.
>So evolution isn't science either right?
Science doesn't work in the past, it works in the present moment, which can then be used to explain past events. For example, if I see a melted candle, then I can conclude confidently that it had heat applied to it, because I can apply heat to candles in the present moment and observe the effects, repeatedly.

Climate "science" however will conclude that rising temperatures faster than has been recorded before will end in catastrophe, yet this cannot be reproduced scientifically.

And no, evolution isn't science either. Pic related.
>Vanguard told Exxon to spread doubt about global warming? Where is the proof of this?
Vanguard has published it because they want everyone to know.

>>9842851
>Not everyone would believe it, but it would definitely help them convince the government to not regulate fossil fuels. Don't be so naive.
So the government would be willing to expose the science they have funded themselves supporting global warming by one study funded by oil companies. Makes a lot of sense.
>Your delusional imagination of how scientists would react to genuine research shows nothing. But your observed reaction to the genuine research that shows global warming is manmade shows how unscientific your denial is.
Scientists have egos too, there is not a chance in hell they would accept a study funded by oil companies over studies they themselves have produced. How delusional are you?
>No one even reads it.
How scientific.
>They don't even refer to their own research, so it doesn't publicize it.
Other people can. They are providing ammunition against themselves.

>>9842854
You think the world will end because of CO2 and I'm the mentally ill one?

>>9842860
It crashed into a wooden boat and sank? Was it made of fucking paper?

>>9842903
Not him, but what do you think the world will end by?

>>9842906
You're right, it must be part of the conspiracy.

>>9842920
Nothing.

>>9842875
>By making the 1930s much cooler than it actually was, making warming in recent decades look comparatively sharp. "It was just missing data" isn't an argument because they would have already had all the data for the 1930s, so it was deliberate.
If it wasn't missing data then it was adjustments to the data, but adjustments have cooled the global warming trend. See >>9842301. If you actually look at all the adjustments and don't just cherrypick them as Goddard did, you'll see that adjustments made the 1930s warmer.

>It is one where you cannot control all the variables. You can't recreate earth's atmosphere in a lab. Instead you resort to computer models which is not science.
How is it not science? Computer models are used in most fields of science.

>Science doesn't work in the past, it works in the present moment, which can then be used to explain past events.
Yes, data collected in the present tells us about the climate of the past, which tells us what the climate was like before we started dumping CO2 into it. Thank you for agreeing with me.

>Climate "science" however will conclude that rising temperatures faster than has been recorded before will end in catastrophe, yet this cannot be reproduced scientifically.
Reproduce what? All scientific theories produce testable predictions. We are currently testing whether models based on our current understanding of the climate can accurately project the temperature. So far, it has. I don't understand what your objection is.

>And no, evolution isn't science either. Pic related.
This is just the reservoir effect, which is well known by scientists and easily accounted for. And attacking radiocarbon dating does not affect evolutionary theory. There are plenty of other methods of dating that are more appropriate for evolutionary timescales. Why are you on the science board?

>Vanguard has published it because they want everyone to know.
Published what?

>>9842903
Where did I say the world will end? Making up straw man is not an honest debate tactic.

>>9842944
>If it wasn't missing data then it was adjustments to the data, but adjustments have cooled the global warming trend. See >>9842301. If you actually look at all the adjustments and don't just cherrypick them as Goddard did, you'll see that adjustments made the 1930s warmer.
Oh I see, it was just "adjustments". Now where were NASA getting their adjustments from regarding temperatures in the early 1900s? Did they travel back in time?
>How is it not science? Computer models are used in most fields of science.
Computer models are not physical reality.
>Yes, data collected in the present tells us about the climate of the past, which tells us what the climate was like before we started dumping CO2 into it. Thank you for agreeing with me.
And yet data in the past is being changed, or "adjusted" as you like to call it.
>Reproduce what? All scientific theories produce testable predictions. We are currently testing whether models based on our current understanding of the climate can accurately project the temperature. So far, it has. I don't understand what your objection is.
Why is global warming a bad thing again? These are the predictions we're interested in.
>This is just the reservoir effect, which is well known by scientists and easily accounted for. And attacking radiocarbon dating does not affect evolutionary theory. There are plenty of other methods of dating that are more appropriate for evolutionary timescales. Why are you on the science board?
Pic related.
>Published what?
Exactly.

>>9842945
What will happen if we continue to release CO2 please?

>>9842998
If you're a computational chemist studying transition states and predicting ways to bias stereoselectivity of reactions, then computer models are better than "physical reality" because we can study them at high resolution on the femtosecond timescale.

Just because the only thing you know how to use your computer for is shitposting on an Iranian crockpot swapping forum doesn't mean everyone is retarded.

>>9842998
>Oh I see, it was just "adjustments". Now where were NASA getting their adjustments from regarding temperatures in the early 1900s? Did they travel back in time?
The adjustments correct various sources of error such as station moves, instrument changes, and time of observation changes. I suggest you read https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>Computer models are not physical reality.
Computer models get compared to physical reality to see if scientists understand physical reality. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

>And yet data in the past is being changed, or "adjusted" as you like to call it.
You're confusing proxy data with instrumental data. The two have very different analysis processes. If you would like to explain to me how exactly either process is wrong, go ahead. But we both know you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Why is global warming a bad thing again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

>Pic related.
Wrong. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

>Exactly.
So Vanguard did not tell Exxon to spread doubt about global warming. Thanks.

>>9843000
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

>>9842930
So you think human being will endure for ever and ever, and colonize the cosmos or something then, huh?

I don't think so. I think humans will end fairly soon geologically speaking because of depletion of natural resources - likely a bigger threat than global warming (not to downplay the threat of global warming). The humans alive today seem as if they are no longer mentally and physically equipped to survive stone or even bronze age conditions, and even if they were, it's unlikely there will be any big game to hunt with bows and spears, healthy lakes and oceans to fish, or arable land to farm. Humans are essentially fucking with exponential growth without giving a rats ass about the long term consequences and it can only end in total disaster. It's likely that from an evolutionary perspective, the industrial revolution was trap leading to inevitable extinction - i.e. the worst thing that ever happened to the human race and probably even every ecosystem on Earth. I could dig up scientific studies that back up all this, but I can't be bothered right now so it's essentially just my 2 cents.

>>9842998
>Computer models are not physical reality.

Ya, and model airplanes can't fly. But they do sort of look like real airplanes don't they. A model is a model and reality is reality.

>>9843074
>But muh industrial revolution has risen more people out of poverty than bla bla bla bla
Ya ok thanks einstein.

>>9842998
>Oh I see, it was just "adjustments". Now where were NASA getting their adjustments from regarding temperatures in the early 1900s? Did they travel back in time?
They use an understanding of the processes that generated the data, plus comparisons against other datasets.

>And yet data in the past is being changed, or "adjusted" as you like to call it.
They're not going back and secretly altering old records, or burning the original documents. Adjustments are done by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and the methodology and justifications are made public.

Do you have a specific objection to a particular adjustment, or are you just throwing around conspiracy theories?

>>9841466
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU

>>9841624
>t. brainlet who doesn't understand nutrient circulation, photic/aphotic zones, or anything really relating to ocean ecology

>>9842260
>science is demonstrable, testable and repeatable. Climate "science" is not science because it is out of the bounds of the scientific method.
lemme just translate that into non-brainlet:
>IF YOU CAN'T DO IT IN A TEST TUBE IN A LABORATORY IT'S NOT SCIENCE
pic related: it's what you think science is

>>9842276
>Look up the list of oil tankers crashing every year. There are so many more oil tankers fucking up than any other ship/tanker. They're doing it deliberately.
so what you're saying is that there are thousands of tankers, making up 35% of the deadweight tonnage of THE ENTIRE MERCHANT FLEETS OF THE WHOLE WORLD...and the properties of their usual cargo are so bad for ecosystems that any spill receives a lot of news...and you're surprised that you sometimes hear about one running aground?
there are hardly any spills attributable to tanker accidents, actually. most spills are the result of pipeline leaks or wellhead/refinery accidents. it's just when tanker spills do happen, they tend to be fucking BIG.

loosen your tinfoil a little.

>>9842710
>Just give me one example of an oil funded denial of man made global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#2011:_Funding_controversy

>>9842875
>dumbass pic
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17783523
>Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO(3)(-) with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium. Recognition of the existence of such extreme deficiencies is necessary so that erroneous ages are not attributed to freshwater biogenic carbonates.
Radiocarbon dating only works when organisms get their carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or by eating plants). In a mineral spring environment, you're getting "old" carbonate that's been sitting in the ground for a while already. 14C radiochronology doesn't tell you how old an object is; it only tells you how long it's been since its carbon was in exchange with the atmosphere!
Turns out you can make the evidence say anything you want if you're too fucking stupid to understand what you're measuring.

>>9841700
He just fucking said that biomass is carbon neutral, and you pull "muh plants"?
Not to mention that there are less and less forested areas as time progresses due to humanity's other shenanigans?

>>9842260
>Science isn't "true" because of consensus, science is demonstrable, testable and repeatable.
And what the fuck do you think the consensus is based upon?
>muh scientific method
Literally the brainlet normie definition of what the boundries of science are
Yeah let me just replicate this experiment over a fuckton of years with a fuckton of Earths lmao

>>9842260
>Also, most climate "scientists" are getting their data from government sources, they are not collecting it themselves.
Those "government sources" are just other scientists.

>tfw the very first global warming model made three decades ago was correct

>>9841466
>I know nothing about the subject and had no idea what to tell him.
How? Have you been literally living under a rock for the past 20 years?
>I was wondering what were some stone cold facts that smash [his] argument
Why do you want to smash his argument? Why do you not want to know the actual truth either way? You're not by any chance a fledgling shill?

know anything about chemistry?

In a chemical reaction that involves multiple ingredients, usually one ingredient runs out first. This means that in the solution, there will be an excess of the other ingredients, and a huge dearth of that one scarce resource.

For example
Ca(aq)+PO3(aq)→Ca3(PO4)2(s)


Here you have Calcium and Phosphate, both liquid, combining to form Calcium-Phosphate, a solid.

Let's say that add 1 gallon of Calcium and 2 gallons of Phosphate. The reaction would progress, but would stop once it runs out of Calcium (because this is the scarce ingredient). You let the reaction complete, and then measure the amount of Calcium and Phosphate in solution.

There will be an excess of Phosphate, but only a trace amount of Calcium. This is always the case with the scarce ingredient. Let's say you have a complex reaction with several ingredients A, B, C, and D. You let the reaction complete, and measure the solution. You find 10 ml of A, 6 ml of B, 7 ml of C, and 0.0001 ml of D. Therefore, we conclude that D ran out first, and D is the limiting ingredient.

Life on planet Earth is a chemical reaction, governed by the Carbon cycle. There are many ingredients, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Water, and Carbon Dioxide which combine to produce all life on Earth.

Which is the limiting ingredient?

>70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water, that's probably not the limiting ingredient
>20% of the atmosphere is Oxygen, that could be the limiting ingredient, but it seems like it's too much
>70% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, this is a great excess, very doubtful this is the limiting ingredient.
>0.04% of the atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide.....bingo. This is the limiting ingredient.

What does this mean? It means that Carbon is the great limiting factor to life on Earth. Adding more Carbon to the system will only help the ecosystem.

>>9845051
>Adding more Carbon to the system will only help the ecosystem.
Imagine being so retarded that you thought temperature was an unimportant factor in the ecosystem

>>9845059
Let's take my example again, you add 1 gallon of Calcium and 2 gallons of Phosphate

You let the reaction complete. Then you measure the solution. You find 1 gallon of Phosphate remaining, and 0.001 gallons of Calcium.

What happens if you add more Calcium?
Dump in 1/2 a gallon of Calcium, then measure the solution again. This time you find 1/2 a gallon of Phosphate remaining, and 0.002 gallons of Calcium.

The amount of Calcium hanging around in solution barely increased. Because all of it is being consumed by the chemical reaction.

This tells us that adding more Carbon into the ecosystem will probably not change the amount of carbon hanging around in the atmosphere. For the most part, the Carbon will become new life forms.

In the air above a grassy field, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide is half that in the atmosphere. Why? Because the grass is hungrily sucking the CO2 out of the air as fast as it can.

In greenhouses, they will artificially increase the amount of CO2. They will bump up the CO2 levels to about 1200ppm, leave it overnight, and the plants have sucked it all out of the air, leaving CO2 levels back down at 400 ppm. You will also notice the plants growing way faster as they greedily suck up the extra CO2.

We know that in the dinosaur days, CO2 levels were far higher than today. And what do you know, the earth was a tropical paradise. The land was so productive, it could support massive creatures the size of a house. The jungles of the Jurassic make the Amazon rainforest look like your grandmother's flower garden

>>9845051
>>9845063
Imagine being so dumb that you think the formation of calcium salts makes a good model for the ecology of an entire plant.

>>9845074
simple example to communicate a larger concept

pic related, imagine the size of the trees, the scale of life was so much larger back then. We are ants in comparison

>>9845063
>Imagine being this retarded
How about my example?

>Quintuple atomspheric CO2
>Greenhouse effect heats the Earth a couple degrees
>Fish and frogs can no longer spawn in rivers
>entire ecologies collapse
>All but the tropical fish die off in the oceans
>Entire countries starve
>Weather patterns get shrekt
>Agriculture struggles to move entire farms to shrinking fertile land
>More people starve

>>9845074
Some of what he’s saying is true. Forests and tree farms are growing at record rates. The USFS is authorizing harvesting that wasn’t scheduled for years.

>>9845063
>And what do you know, the earth was a tropical paradise. The land was so productive, it could support massive creatures the size of a house. The jungles of the Jurassic make the Amazon rainforest look like your grandmother's flower garden
That would be great if humans as or ecosysten were like dinosaurs that evolved for millions of years to thrive in that climate, essentially creatures *made* by that climate. But we're not, we're made for this climate.

if global warming isnt real why would people be talking about it?

>>9845063
Plants only use CO2 while photosynthesizing at night they consume O2 and produce CO2 via aerobic respiration just like we do

>>9845247
>The USFS is authorizing harvesting that wasn’t scheduled for years.
I don't think that's because the trees grew faster than expected. It's because they underestimated future demand for lumber.

Global warming shows that the average person really is a brainlet. Global warming is easily one of the most easily understood and confirmable concepts a person is likely to find in science. Yet
>CO2 making temperature go up
Is too complicated and instead they decide to side with their politician of choice over actual science.

>>9845051
>70% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, this is a great excess, very doubtful this is the limiting ingredient.
imagine being so retarded that you thought diatomic nitrogen is readily available for use in biomass
I bet you also think polar bears never have to worry about thirst, since they're surrounded by water and ice.

>>9845063
>This tells us that adding more Carbon into the ecosystem will probably not change the amount of carbon hanging around in the atmosphere. For the most part, the Carbon will become new life forms.
and yet the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased substantially, far outpacing the ability of biological sinks to remove it.
>In the air above a grassy field, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide is half that in the atmosphere.
literally a lie.

>>9845076
>imagine the size of the trees
there is no evidence that trees in the Mesozoic were larger than today's trees.
>the scale of life was so much larger back then
the largest vertebrate ever to have lived is extant today.

imagine being this retarded...