/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9908786
The denial of climate change is not an "ism" it is an acknowledgement of political bias in what is supposed to be a non partisan issue, and the bias, mis representation and falsification of data for profit.

>>9908798
What do you mean by partisan issue? Curious...

>>9908989
Are you only pretending to be retarded?

>>9908798
This.

The anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is based on simulating PDEs of models which are largely semi-empirical and mean temperature data increments.

If you publish articles using the exact same models with improved or more accurately fitted data or to show inconsistently in the predictions is the same proof by simulation.

Yet these papers are being repressed by climate change journals due to to partisan politics.

It is a disgusting interference with the scientific process. And if athropogenic climate change is real then we are truly fucked because more accurate and unbiased models aren't being developed due to this religious oppression and the push for ineffective "green technology" which does pure fuck all to shed entropy from our atmosphere.

Didn't several of the leading models say we'd be dead by now?

>>9909035
Could you provide sources?

>>9908786
i'd rathrr talk about the psychology behind climate change alarmism, but its rather simple to understand.

Let's start from the beginning.

Who here DOESN'T think that digging up and combusting hundreds of billions of tons of carbon in the span of a few decades would have SOME effect on the atmosphere of the planet?

>>9909040
too red pilled for facts or sources

>>9909035
>Didn't several of the leading models say we'd be dead by now?
During the original outcry when data was still thin and people (probably not scientists) made shit up to get heard or to tell jokes at parties.
Meanwhile the general consensus seemed to arrive at shit starting to get serious after 2050 and to go to complete shit towards the end of the century if we didn't do anything.
Anyway, while this is a staggeringly fast processes in geological and climate terms, nobody seriously expected it to kill everyone within ten or twenty years.
If it did that, we wouldn't be having endless stupid debates about it.

>>9908786
The pope is against marxism you fucking retarded /pol/fag

>>9909044
If you mean an 3xtremely small % of the total atmosphere over the last 200 years in an incredibly complex system, then no I don't deny it.

>>9909083

>>9909083
I used this inane cartoon as an example, anon.

>>9908786
>What is the psychology behind climate change hysteria?

>>9909342
Controlling normies and wanting an artificially inflated sense of self worth without any effort.

>>9909120

The breathable atmosphere only extends 7000 meters above your head. See the graphic for a graphic visualization of how much a gigaton is.

In 2017 ALONE, we pumped the equivalent of the weight of three billion, eight hundred million african elephants in carbon gas into the atmosphere.

Complex system? Are you referring to the carbon cycle? Because we are FAR outstripping the ability of the planet to reabsorb the carbon we are emitting. By orders of magnitude.

The argument that people are pushing climate change for "profit" never made sense to me. Isn't there a lot, LOT more profit being made by people putting their head in the sand and continuing to sell oil?

>>9909373

Haha, ABSOLUTELY. It's called projection, Jung described it, and it's pernicious effects are at work at every level of discourse regardless of the subject.

>>9909359
WTF!!! Those numbers are big, that means they have a big impact. Now I love Global Warming™!

You're either a sophist or an idiot.

>>9908786
>What is the psychology behind climate change denialism?
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial-0

>>9908786
incapability of taking responsibility for one's actions because one is too far removed from the consequences of those actions.

that and religious/technology fueled hubris

>>9909420

Carbon in the atmosphere leads to radiative heating from trapped solar energy, do you deny it?

>>9909453
nope.

Do you deny that the earth radiates off more heat than it receives?

>>9909459

Ok, so you DON'T deny that carbon is a greenhouse gas. Good start.

Now let me address your question; Do I deny that the earth radiates off more heat than it receives? I don't know that. But I DO know that the amount of heat that gets trapped in our atmosphere will become greater and greater every year the more emissions we produce.

>>9909453
Not him, but I dont deny it. Also, by volume, the amount of co2 being pumped is minuscule. Also, radiative forcing changes temps differently at different elevations, so it's erroneous to say that x amount of extra energy correlates to y amount of total earth temp. Other effects such as extra wind, extra clouds, different composition in the atmosphere skew these figures one way or another. Our models don't take any of this in to account. Instead, we get a high level fit based on the past 50 years or so. Not saying it's wrong, but it is suspect, and should be investigated fully.

It's like the argument that banning plastic straws will reduce plastic pollution in the ocean. While strictly true, 95% of pollution comes from other countries so it effectively does nothing.

>>9909470
But don't you think it's weird that we had way more carbon in the air for millions of years and many ice ages in between before there was non-negligible carbon sequestration?

>I don't know that.
It is literally impossible for it to be cooler in between the center of the planet and the surface without that being true. Take a heat transport course if you don't believe me.

>But I DO know that the amount of heat that gets trapped in our atmosphere will become greater and greater every year the more emissions we produce.
ehhh... The ocean is pretty big, and the absolute amount of carbon is actually pretty small. Buffers are pretty effective. If we were to sudenly have all sequestered in the air tomorrow, I don't think it would be catastrophic. We would certainly lose some biodiversity, but that's pretty much it. And If we catalog/archive their genetics and physical examples, then it doesn't matter.

>>9909471

The amount of c02 being pumped out into our atmosphere, CURRENTLY, exceeds the volume and pace of the c02 being pumped into the atmosphere by the Siberian Traps Eruptions during the Permian Mass Extinction 250 million years ago, and whatever was responsible for the carbon in the atmosphere during the Eocene thermal maximum 55 million years ago.

In BOTH cases, catastrophic warming was the result and extinction the outcome.

>>9909488

There's more carbon in the atmosphere NOW, than there has been in the last million years.

Then it's true, then. It seems logical. The planet releases more heat than it takes in. But more heat WILL be trapped the greater the concentrations of c02.

The ocean is big, and unfortunately, that's where the vast majority of the heating is taking place.

>>9908786
Same exact reason people get addicted to things. The bloated consumers like to consume. Let's face it, its fun. Even if you manage to convince an alcoholic that alcohol is bad for them, its highly unlikely they'll stop drinking.

>>9909504
That graphic is shit. Cambrian was over 500 million years ago. That doesn't even go 1 million. I highly suspect there is trickery/sophistry (accusing image maker, not you) where 'highest previous concentration' only refers to the data on that graph.

Carbon concentrations reliably predict temperature increases. Those of you who are denying climate change but acknowledge the existence of a greenhouse gas effect are nursing a contradictory worldview.

>>9909346
Pretty bang on.

>>9909373
Eco-warriors want the money instead.

>>9908798
They are just stupid

>>9908786
i'm more concerned about the psychology of trading away one's well-being for future generations they won't be a part of desu.

>>9909083
there's a lot more evidence the pope is against christianity than evidence he's against marxism

>>9909373
it's more profitable to create carbon credit out of nothing then sell them, than to do the hard work of drilling for and refining the oil

>>9909582
I get this. People are assholes and the shittiest ones are breeding. Mother nature is a cruel bitch as well. A big part of me says fuck them, but on some level it just feels wrong.

>>9909547
Most deniers believe that there is an effect, but it is minuscule and undetectable because the climate sensitivity of the atomosphere is low.

>>9908786
Climate science is literally THE cargo-cult science par excellence. Future generations will look at it the same way we look at phrenology.

>>9909600
>hurr durr i only read headlines and fall for all the click b8 every time

Meanwhile in other "Christian" denominations

>>9909614

Mmm... I don't think so. The evidence suggests the sensitivity of the climate is actually very high, and that balance is achieved rarely.

If this weren't the case then the fossil record wouldn't be littered with the remains of the dead as a consequence of periods of increased volcanism, impact, and tectonic upheaval.

Keep in mind that almost ALL mass extinctions, including the worst one ever, have all been a result of climate change.

>>9909619
Nope. It’s fact that earth’s average temperature is increasing relatively quickly and that CO2 and methane emissions caused by human activities are the probable cause.

>>9909619
future generations of the ruling Chinese culture will look it with pride as the tool they used to help overthrow Western culture.

>>9909609
i know what you mean. but i have come to the realization that evolved empathy is what is actually wrong like with so many of these human biases. the only good part of it is being able to recognize other people's emotions but at the expense of it being a major vulnerability to my well-being. not a good trade. autism is preferable.

>>9909619

That doesn't seem likely. Phrenology doesn't operate on the same level of proof by evidence that climate science does. The greenhouse effect, for example, is very well understood from a scientific perspective, whereas Phrenology is not.

>>9909625
>If this weren't the case then the fossil record wouldn't be littered with the remains of the dead as a consequence of periods of increased volcanism, impact, and tectonic upheaval.
Consider the following: Most things that have died have died without those conditions.

>>9909622
>hurr durr posting image that says nothing about the pope

>>9909629

I think nature will select for empathy in situations where survival isn't a given and depends on cooperation.

>>9909636

Truly, but the times that they did die en masse were as a result of these.

>>9909641
the reason it evolved makes sense. but that's the thing with evolution is it works on populations. it's population optimization or filtering. it's not about optimizing the self which is all that matters from our conscious perspectives.

>>9909636
Irrelevant. Consider the fact the greatest ecological catastrophes and losses of biodiversity were due to extreme climate change.

>>9909632
Carbon dioxide is literally less than 0.05% of the atmosphere... The greenhouse effect is literal pop-sci that is modeled by using literally impossible levels of co2.

>>9909504
>ppm
>no specification
Why are brainlets such faggots?

>>9909650
and you are literally literally literally a literal retard

>>9909650
Yes, carbon dioxide is a really small part of the atmosphere. That’s why it’s such a dangerous greenhouse gas, having these dramatic effects despite being a small portion of the overall mass.

So in my mind I feel climate change is real and that there is a human component to it. That isn't in question as co2 raising atmospheric pressure can be proven through basic experiments.
The issue is HOW MUCH of an impact do humans have on climate change and to what extent are we willing to cripple our economies in pursuit of this goal?
Further, how can we justify the crippling of our own economies while allowing China and India can literally shit into the ocean and pollute on a massive scale based on some arbitrary measure of economic development. If climate change is as big a thing as it's made to be there there should be no exceptions. Everyone regardless of their economic conditions must reduce their emissions globally for the good of humanity.

I've also got some questions in regards to the trend lines being drawn between historic temperature measurements with inaccurate tools by sometimes untrained hobbyists against modern tools that are accurate within thousandth of a degree Celsius measured by computers. But the first part is more important than this. Given that co2 absolutely impacts global temperatures how can we justify ignoring the third world and their actions that undermine our efforts? Even if climate change weren't real, nobody can argue against less pollution.

>>9909672
Human-produced CO2 and methane as it’s sidekick are the primary driver of the current warming trend. Volcanos are ant piss in comparison to the quantities we produce, and solar radiation is trending downward, so there’s no other plausible source.

>>9909373
If you think oil profits are large, try the profits from taxing first world economies for their sin™ against the planet.

>>9909679
I'm not arguing for muh volcanoes or solar maximum or anything like that. Just asking for a scientifically defined percent estimate of what percent of the warming is anthropogenic. Is that 100%?

>>9909664
not knowing what ppm means
>the absolute state of people denying global warming

>>9909694
By mass? By volume? By mol?
Imagine being this much of a sophist/kike/brainlet...

>>9909664

I don't know, take it up with the institutions responsible for the graph... without being SPECIFICALLY identified, I think it's pretty clear that the parts per million refers to concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere as a whole. These recordings were taken from Mauna Loa, which is thought to be a relatively pristine location to take atmospheric samples from... Would you be content if they were taken from a weather balloon or someplace else, since you seem so difficult to please?

>>9908786
Its a lie propagated by greedy sneaky liberals to tax and control business

the scientists behind it are the same ones who deny god

the weather cant really change, come on, it was beautiful yesterday

scientific illiteracy

>>9909700
>Would you be content if they were taken from a weather balloon or someplace else, since you seem so difficult to please?
I want to know what it refers to. Concentration with respect to what?

Its a lie propagated by greedy sneaky liberals to tax and control business

the scientists behind it are the same ones who deny genetics

the weather cant really change, come on, it was beautiful for a few hundred million years with way more co2 in the air than we have now.

scientific illiteracy

>>9909701
a rejection of guilt politics

>>9909679
But still you didn't really answer my question. Let's assume climate change is 100% anthropogenic for the sake of argument. How can we then justify writing in provisions for developing nations? They aren't gonna fucking develop if the planet is destroyed. How do we square that circle??

>>9909692

...For all intents and purposes anon, it's 100%. To put it into perspective, we're cranking out more C02 faster than than the most violent volcanic episodes in earths history did in a fraction of the time.

I mean it makes sense, doesn't it? All work is the result of energy, and the surface of the planet as a result of human civilization is the most energetic it's ever been, and eighty PERCENT of that energy is the result of the combustion of fossil feul?

Come on, come on, come on...

>>9909707
what right do you have over them? being there first? this is a silly argument

>>9909701
This straw man better be bait.

>>9909679
This.

>>9909707

What are you asking? Really? Should we kill all the shitskins? Is that it? Get the point and stop dancing around it.

>>9909716
nope, break it down

>>9909713
The heat flux from work is virtually non-existent relative to what we receive annually.
Also explain carbon levels without reverting to smoke and mirrors sophistry and refusing to look more than 1 million years in the past.
(different anon than you replied to)

>>9909721
He isn't saying that, your logic is.

>>9909622
>using Brietbart as a legitimate source

>>9909714
That's not the point. If climate change is 100% caused by humans and not curbing it will result in the death of billions of humans due to catastrophic change to the climate, how can we possibly say " everyone but China and India please pollute less because they don't have a lot of money". It makes no fucking sense and gives the impression that it's politically driven bullshit.

>There's a piano on a rope that will fall and crush us all
>Everyone needs to stop taking pieces of the rope so the baby doesn't for
>The poor kid in the neighborhood can keep taking pieces of the rope because he doesn't have much
Either the piano was never going to fall on us or we're willing to kill ourselves out of retarded altruism for brown people. Which is it?

>>9909702
Before anyone screeches "muh climate denial," this anon raises a valid point. It could be mass, volume or molar ratio but parts-per notation is the laziest set of units.

It's most likely mass, given that gases at this scale are most commonly measured in tonnes.

>>9909723
No wonder scientists can’t take the right seriously.

>>9909721
I'm asking why if climate change is as big as issue as is claimed would we provide provisions for literally anybody to reduce emissions at a slower rate. It should be globally mandated that all nations reduce to a maintainable level for the good of the planet. Why isn't that the case?

>>9909701
God’s not real lol

>>9909744
Define "real"

>>9909729
you said it, everyone

>>9909738
You underestimate the retardation of General humanity.

>>9909744
read the thread title

>>9909747
Are you serious? Actual, present in our reality, our universe, in existence.

Denialists like the people in this thread are why I go to reddit for scientific topics. Even they know science despite how bad they are

>>9909726

The heat flux from work is virtually non existent relative to what we receive? What does that mean?

Explain carbon levels without reverting to smoke and mirrors sophistry...

It comes from our industry. I thought that was made abundantly clear?

Anytime anybody takes the ad hominem approach projection is never behind. Everything you say that I'm doing you're actually doing.

Fossil fuels are the source of carbon emissions. It's obvious. You guys have a political agenda and it's getting in the way of your reason.

>>9909757
Is 4chan "real"? Does it exist in our universe?
>Yeah but it's bits on the internet
And God is ideas written on paper.

>>9909765
In that sense, sure. God is “real” like Harry Potter, Sauron, and Jesus are real.

>>9909750
I get that people are stupid but you can't expect me to chop off my foot to save the world when the other countries are continuing to fuck things up. China is a huge contributor to global emissions. If they don't stop then it's kind of pointless. Hell. They should be held responsible for all the plastics they've dumped into the Pacific.

>>9909768
Ok then. What's your point? Just being edgy and retarded all at once?

>>9909760
>What does that mean?
It means that the waste heat from the work is negligible in relation to the heat received by the sun. So the energy effects of humanity are literally irrelevant.

>I thought that was made abundantly clear?
Sick sophistry my dude now try reading it again. "without reverting to smoke and mirrors sophistry and refusing to look more than 1 million years in the past."

>Anytime anybody takes the ad hominem approach projection is never behind. Everything you say that I'm doing you're actually doing.
No U.

>reddit spacing shitpost
See above.

>>9909772
That’s the problem. Some people are cunts, and want to shit the bed they share with the rest of humanity and trillions of other animals.

>>9909774
>>9909701

I’m not the one that brought up God.

>>9909738

Why would we provide provisions to anybody to reduce emissions at a slower rate?

Why would WE provide provisions to reduce emissions at a slower rate?

How do you reduce emissions at a slower rate? You mean reduce emissions at a HIGHER rate? Because that would mean reducing emissions overall. Reducing emissions at a slower rate is the opposite of what we want.

It should be globally mandated that all nations reduce to a maintainable level for the good of the planet, why isn't that the case?

Well first of all, The United States is actually getting in the way of this by not setting the example. Third world nations would prefer not to shit into holes they dig in the ground util the end of time, so they are hard at work developing their industry and economies, and unfortunately, fossil fuels are the easiest and cheapest way to get there.

>>9909787
Kill the entire third world.

>>9909035
>anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is based on simulating PDEs of models
From what source did you memorise this gibberish?

>>9909780
Right. But if we're writing legislation to save the global mattress problem why write in a provision that says the two people solely responsible for a majority of that bed shitting not be expected to reduce their bed shitting or pay the tax for the new mattress. How can you then blame people for thinking it's a politically motivated tax on people that don't shit the bed to give an advantage to those that do?

>>9909120
>an incredibly complex system
Incredible to ((you)) perhaps, but not to actual /sci/entists.

>>9909800
Double think, newspeak, wrongthink, and useful idiots.

This is just the atheist's version of the apocolypse. HEED THY WARNING OR THE END TIMES ARE UPON US!

What do they have to back this up? Shitty "semi-empirical" computer models that they tweak around with whenever they want, corrupt data that has been manipulated to make previous temps colder than they were, and 50% of temperature data being made up because they don't have the surface coverage.

All in all, a completely agenda driven load of shit powered by new age scientism.

>>9909777

Ok, so, fossil fuels are being burned. That reliably increases global temperatures based on historical precedent and geological evidence. You can't set false parameters for an argument and decide what evidence gets used and what doesn't. That's called rigging the debate.

You trying to get coercive with me there, guy?

And as for the heat of the sun... you didn't specify where the energy was coming from, so I had no idea.

Ok, so the sun is actually the DIRECT cause of global warming because the energy FROM said sun is being trapped by the accumulation of carbon gas in our atmosphere which is being RELEASED by... human activity. So although we are the INDIRECT cause, factoring us out of the equation is like factoring out the physical trauma from an infection. Yes, the bacteria cause the infection, but it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't cut myself. Make sense? There's a direct causal relationship there.

>>9908786
>>9909810
/thread

>>9909800
The only way to enforce this would be economic punishment that would harm the punishing countries or an actual invasion. Does anyone feel like attacking China?

>>9909814
The sun is where the heat comes from, obviously, but solar radiation is on a down trend, so the warming trend we experience has to be something local.

>>9909420
>You're either a sophist or an idiot.
((you)) have now fled to the Final Refuge of the Nay-Sayer.

>>9909814
I have trips, you're a sophist faggot.

>You can't set false parameters for an argument and decide what evidence gets used and what doesn't. That's called rigging the debate.
... you're the only one doing that. I'm asking for non-cherry picked data. And then I'm calling you a faggot because you don't want to and then try to misrepresent what I said.

>And as for the heat of the sun... you didn't specify where the energy was coming from, so I had no idea.
Are you retarded?

>line 4
Fucking irrelevant. Stop reddit spacing.

>>9909810
>Muh conspiracy

>>9909787
Did you read the Paris Accord? Even if you didn't the example you just gave is the problem with it?
>Carbon immission from fossil fuels will kill us all
>But you can add to the pile that will kill us because you never got a chance before
That makes no sense. Either it's not as big a deal as we make it out to be if we're willing to allow the same shit that got us where we are to continue or it is real but highly politically motivated. There are no other logical conclusion that can be drawn if we're allowing the same dangerous behavior for let's Every developing nation on Earth to continue unimpeded. Do you realize how many people DON'T live in the first world? Anything we do to curb our emissions would be undone by billions of other people joining the global economy and burning carbon fuels at higher rates than could ever be achieved during the industrial revolution. If it's really gonna kill us, everyone would reduce to the same level and an effort to figure out fusion as an alternative should be pushed. But I'm sure the same people are against nuclear because "reasons".

>>9909828
>>9909828
>WOAH!!! Look at these big piles. They are big.
>They're so big! If you don't act like a mindless sheep, you're anti-science
... You got me. How will I ever recover?

>>9909835
>Science, particularly government funded, will never have an agenda.

>>9909833

>I have trips, you're a sophist faggot.

And the doubles right afterwards?

Yeah, i can't compete with that. You win, guy. You win.

One last thing though, cherry picking is when you have an entire spread of data laid out in front of you, and then you 'pick' which aspects of said data you want to keep and then discard all of the rest.

By saying to me, "HEY RETARD SOPHIST FAGGOT, YOU CAN ARGUE WITH ME, BUT ONLY WITHIN THESE BOUNDARIES THAT I'VE ESTABLISHED."

Well, yeah, I mean, you're only going to win if you're going to force me to play games with rules you invent. A few years ago I might indulge you because it's always fun to watch tyrants go on an ego trip, but I'm seriously concerned about my world right now and I don't have any time to play with you.

>>9909818
What a fucking milktoast approach to a problem that should hypothetically lead to the death of billions world wide. Yes. Punish China and India and anybody that doesn't comply economically and if they refuse then invade them. Is this problem as real as you state? Then it's justified? Their actions are tantamount to murder of billions. It's one or the other.

>>9909853
I'm literally telling you to expand the data to all the data available instead of cherry picking... How the fuck could you construe that as me cherry picking?
I'm sorry faggot anon, I'm done responding to bait.
(You)

>>9909420
>You're either a sophist or an idiot.
irony

>>9909859

lol, Alright big guy! Take it easy.

>>9908786
nobody wants to change.

even libtards deny it, they refuse to stop consuming and buying cheap chinese shit.

>>9909859
welcome to climate cultists, human level intelligence is alien to them
I personally would enjoy hearing about their ideas for industrial scale carbon capture, their ideas to get funding to fusion research as fusion is an extremely potent yet completely environmentally friendly power source
yet neither of those ideas exist, instead they just go on and on about how we need to be taxed into oblivion and shower china, india with more and more money, even though both already pollute hard enough to be a casus belli

Anyone care to respond to the discrepancy between modern accurate measurements on a global scale as compared to historic inaccurate data?

>>9909916
If it fits the model, then it's good data. If it doesn't fit the model, then it's bad data and needs to be adjusted. That is unironically how it works.

>>9910029
And this is why I'm sceptical. The data probably suggests a warning trend but not enough to be alarming so they need to fudge it a little to get the first world to pay out while ignoring the sins of the third world.
Bullshit

>>9910080
economists are the ones that want need to incorporate the 3rd world into everything because "globalization". Climate scientists want nothing to do with it.

>>9908786
I've heard several times that when production and disposal is taken into account, there still isn't a renewable energy tech that produces less greenhouse gasses than old school power generation. Any truth to that?

>>9909735
It doesn't matter if I weigh my pepper in grams or if I dole it out by volume, if the value is increasing It's going to get hotter.

>>9910164
Depends. Tons of the shit is just obfuscation, but the actually viable shit is ignored because eco-terrorists are sub-85 IQ niggers. Parabolic troughs and salt loops are the best form of renewable energy, but they don't get shilled because they actually work and last forever and can easily output AC.

>>9910171
>it's cool that they're effectively using random numbers that sound the scariest
>the outcome is the same
WEW

>>9910180
>random numbers
If you don't understand the difference between numbers and units you should honestly kill yourself.

>>9909701

>>>/pol/

You have to go back.

>>9910190
>if a value is unitless, I don't have to actually say what the number refers to.
... No.

>>9910195
Concentration (ppm) = 24.45 x (mg/m^3) ÷ molecular weight.

Are you now able to analyze the data properly?

>>9910214
You know damn well someone picking at units wasn't able to analyze the data regardless.

>>9910218
Yeah I also know that if you pull enough bricks from the bottom of a tall tower the top will come meet you soon enough.

>>9910218
you know that there are three types of ppm, right?

>>9910164
Nuclear is the only option if we want to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the near future. We are still far away from being able to replace all energy production with renewables. The problem is that there's a really bad stigma with nuclear and most people are too retarted to be rational about it.

>>9910243
You know that it does't actually matter which one you use here, right?

We are showing a correlation between data points, absolute values don't interest us, since we don't know what they mean anyway.

>>9910274
Consider the following: Other data exists that it could be compared against.
There is no non-sophist reason to not include the units.

>>9909916
>>9910080
I know many environmental scientists personally and they aren't getting paid big bucks brother.
Hell, if a scientist could disprove global warming can you even fathom the amount of money they would get from oil companies and the Chinese government?
Hell any government for that matter.
Understanding the scientific process would allow the public to understand that conspiracies are practically impossible in science.
If there's a big theory in science it has a target on its back, attacking it only makes it stronger really since your only killing off the weak parts and bolstering the model.

>The data probably suggests a warning trend
Not to be an ass but can you understand the amount of ego you must have to be able to NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE DATA but still say that a group of thousands of trained professionals who have been studying this the better parts of their lives are completely wrong?
This isn't politics, this is logic. There aren't too many factors in heating our atmosphere, and carbon sequestration takes a hell of a time to work.
I think a lot of people have problems with the idea that humans can have a large affect on something as big as the Earth, what they don't understand is that there are billions of us and the amount of energy that is required to fuel our modern lives is ludicrous.
Before anyone even got political we knew that a mega-volcano could extinct many species, now we're making natural emissions look like a bitch.

>>9910285
We're well below the historical levels and will take hundreds of years to approach them, and I don't give a fuck about biodiversity because DNA can be digitized and recreated later for genetic engineering.

>>9910285
Basically my problem is that climatologists are literal sophists. They're probably right, but because they're faggots and engage in absurd levels of dishonesty, only brainlets and partisans blindly believe them.

>>9910292
So if an asshole tells you the sun is going to rise tomorrow, you deny it?

>>9910297
If he predicates the claim on the analogy of "i toss a ball up, and it comes back down. The sun is the exact same way", then yes.

>>9910290
>DNA can be digitized and recreated later for genetic engineering.
Not as easy as you think, not only do you have to create the animal (costly and hard as fuck) but introduce it back into the environment, hoping to god it can refill it's probably already filled niche.

>>9910292
You sound like a child, and I'm not saying this to insult or strawman. It is a child's argument to point at someone they don't like and say they refuse to listen to them.
"I know they're probably right but f-fuck them!".
Scientists aren't politicians, they're scientists. Al Gore spouting nonsense doesn't make a theory untrue.
You need to separate the message from the messenger, many big name scientists are dickheads... but it doesn't matter.
What matters is the actual theory.
America isn't the only country brother, other climate scientists who are in countries that have far less argument over this still hold true to the science.
If a climate scientist was able to discover a large flaw in the theory, they wouldn't hide it.
They would publish the fuck out of it and make bank, and be respected by fellow climate scientists since they made such a huge find.

I can't remember the quote but it goes something like "if it affects the most powerful people in the world then it's probably not a conspiracy".
Cancer kills CEO's and the dictators, probably real.
Climate change is getting the most powerful politicians and business men freaking out, maybe real.

>>9910298
Analogies are only given to people who aren't learnt in that field.
Climate science doesn't rely on an analogy, if you actually want to understand it read up on it and study the methods used to acquire and interpret the data.
Until you read on the actual literature and learn about the methods used your opinion doesn't matter too much desu. I'm not saying you have to get a degree, but you have to at least put some effort in.

>>9909459
AHAHAHAHAH if it radiated off more heat than it receives then we would live in a fucking ice cube you dip shit HAHAHAHAHA

the real answer is that it reaches an equilibrium temperature where it neither gives off or receives more heat! The equilibrium temperature is the global average temperature. brainlet scum

>>9910309
Consider the following: molten metal/rock is hot

>>9910305
>Analogies are only given to people who aren't learnt in that field.
>Climate science doesn't rely on an analogy, if you actually want to understand it read up on it and study the methods used to acquire and interpret the data.
>Until you read on the actual literature and learn about the methods used your opinion doesn't matter too much desu. I'm not saying you have to get a degree, but you have to at least put some effort in.
You're reading too much into my statement. I'm saying that sophistry should be opposed even when the sophists are right.
You can't deny that climatologists engage in absurd levels of dishonesty that isn't seen in any legitimate field.

>>9910298

Well I mean, technically, that's exactly the reason.

>>9910298

... of course we're the ball, but why ball go up and then come down is the foundations of the Calculus.

>>9910326
>You're reading too much into my statement. I'm saying that sophistry should be opposed even when the sophists are right.
We're talking about making large parts of the world uninhabitable and causing great suffering for all life, maybe you're autistic but I'm not going to oppose a cause for good because some bullshit from a few of the scientists.
And yes, I do deny that climatologists engage in absurd levels of dishonesty. The vast vast majority of them aren't dishonest. It's just that every field has a few dishonest pricks, and unfortunately when you have a science that's very popular at the time those people spout their bullshit.
Same goes with astronomy, the "pluto killer" is one the biggest jags in the scientific community, doesn't make astronomy full of liars.
The reason you're seeing through this lens is because you only see sensational bullshit, there is so much good science being done and people and politicians will always use the most heavy-hitting study they can find to support their claims.

Scientists are not what the normal person thinks they are, they are under-payed nerds who work at universities or institutions who are trying to get published. I've seen some skeezy things in the academic world but there are no conspiracies about everyone lying for money.

Not to worry. All will be settled.

The good thing about the truth is that it's the truth whether you believe in it or not.

The clathrate gun is entering it's firing sequence as we speak.

All will be settled.

>>9909859
>I'm done responding to data
Where have we seen this response before now?
Oh yes ... in every AGW thread.

>>9910346
>We're talking about making large parts of the world uninhabitable
Very very very debatable.

>maybe you're autistic but I'm not going to oppose a cause for good because some bullshit from a few of the scientists.
Again you're reading too into it. I'm saying to oppose the useful idiots that are right for the wrong reasons.

>>9909637
>reading comprehension

>>9910362

Even the name sounds like a joke. It's like they deliberately chose as aurally dreadful a word as possible and tacked "GUN" to it.

BY THE YEAR 3000 THE CLATHRATE GUN WILL HAVE BESIEGED OUR TENEMENTS WITH SO MUCH HYDROXYSLUDGE AND WILL HAVE RAINED DOWN UPON US SO MANY MUTED PLASMA SCOURGES FOLLOWED BY CRACKLINGBELLOWINGBOOMING SONICBOOMBOMBS AND CIRCLAR DEATH ATHMOSPHERIC SPIRALS THAT THAT THAT THATTHATTHATTHATTHATTHATTHATTHAT...BY THE YEAR 4000 YOU'LL BE CRUSHED BY SO MANY AISDGBASDYGA8ID7G8O73RYWOHRSIUDF DKJFH SKDFGFGSKU~!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!1

>>9909772
China is the biggest investor in green technology.

>>9908786
i dont think anyone really denies it, its more the fact that other countries are far worst and they show zero sign of stopping so what's the point

>>9908798
>The denial of climate change is political bias in what is supposed to be a non partisan issue, and the bias, mis representation and falsification of data for profit.
ftfy

>>9909120
Most of the atmosphere keeps the earth from being a viable ice ball. What does our emissions being 3% of that have to do with anything? It's the change from the temperature climate that's worrying, not the change from being a giant ice ball.

>>9909518
>500 million years ago, when humans didn't even exist
I can't wait to go back there.

>>9909698
It's by particle, /pol/tard. Read a book.

>>9909042
Yeah, it's called common sense.

>>9909847
>Any science I don't like has an agenda
Prove a conspiracy or fuck off.

>>9908786
Not giving a shit and knowing that it won't affect you because you're above a certain threshold of wealth.
Any other climate change deniers are just a sad casualty of politicized and falsified media, and have little-to-no grounding in reality.

>>9909547
all gasses trap heat, fixating on co2 when its not even that good at it compared to others is kind of silly.

>>9909035
What are your comments on ocean acidification? An issue that is measurable now

>>9908786
When you agree on the science, people then respond, "well, then you agree on my policy proposals, too." No. I think all of your policy proposals to fix the problem are garbage that put undo burden on the poor and people in rural areas. Its just easier to disagree on the science.

>>9908786
Because you fucks can frigg off with your carbon taxing garbage.

It is a game you want people to say "yes we need you to do something" so you can offer up your carbon taxing garbage that you had queued up from the very beginning.

>>9908989
You know the drill only "conservatives" deny their lust for carbon taxing.

>>9909342
Their communist garbage failed before so this time they have to sell it to people as being a tool to save the earth.

They want the global government to manage the means of production globally so they can manage the carbon.

How are they going to fund this global bullshit?

Carbon taxing.

>>9909373
>putting their head in the sand and continuing to sell oil?

None of the current alternate fuels can meet our needs.

That is the bottom line that you guys refuse to accept for some reason.

>>9911884
>When you agree on the science, people then respond, "well, then you agree on my policy proposals, too."


This is another way to put it.

What solution do you faggots have?

White people are already not having enough children to reproduce themselves so you can fuck right off with "have less children".

>>9909373
The "profit" is that they get to dictate to others how they live their lives. "You can't own that car. You must use the straws I approve of." It really is a big power trip.

>>9909373
>people putting their head in the sand and continuing to sell oil?


Explain to me, why the fuck do you sacks of shit think we can just stop using oil?

Since the 1940s individual home ownership has been pushed as the 'American Dream'. To live in suburbia is therefore is a fulfillment of the American Dream.

Your lawn, your 2 car garage, your 2 kids, your wife cooking a good American stew for dinner. This all requires coal for electricity and oil to bring ingredients to your dinner table and drive your car.

An attack on coal and oil is an attack on the American dream itself. People DO NO want to be told that the American dream is corrupt or is killing people. Enter confirmation bias where any little excuse they can latch onto will be better than facing a reality where our collective actions in living the American dream are destroying our world.

>>9911960
The worst polluters are now the developing world; China, India, Africa, and Indonesia. There is no point in Americans cutting back when China burns enough coal to cause global warming by itself.

>>9911960
Life is a side-effect of breaking down energy in useful forms into useless forms. The act of living, for any living creature, is "destroying our world". Most creatures don't care because they are so small scale, in and of themselves. We only see the results as societies, as very large collections. All living things must destroy their environment to be living things. There is no liberal, hippy living-in-harmony-with-nature. Corpses live in harmony with nature.

>>9911906
Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?

For the cost of the 2008 bailout we could have built solar updraft towers to cover all the energy needs of the entire planet. Or we could have built dozens of nuclear power plants.

The biggest issue is suburbia. If we all stopped trying to live in a house of our own with a lawn and a two car garage we could have completely converted to alternative fuel long ago.

>>9911982
>For the cost of the 2008 bailout we could have built solar updraft towers to cover all the energy needs of the entire planet.

Absolute bullshit.

Dozens of nuclear power plants?
Yeah right, your confederates would protest against that for sure.

>>9911971
This isn't remotely true. Only China beats us and they have quadruple our population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

And, thanks to The Donald they're now the leaders in alternative energy.

>>9911982
>If we all stopped trying to live in a house of our own with a lawn and a two car garage we could have completely converted to alternative fuel long ago.
>>9911916
>The "profit" is that they get to dictate to others how they live their lives.
QED

>>9911982
>For the cost of the 2008 bailout we could have built solar updraft towers to cover all the energy needs of the entire planet.


I cannot even fucking believe you think that.

>>9911984
You either
A. Do not know what a solar updraft tower is or
B. Do not realize the cost of the bailout

Bro we just gotta like take all the money from the rich and then make matter energy conversion.

It is just greedy white corporations that keep it from happening.

>>9909604
It's also profitable to let negative consequences of your business activities be externalities affecting the environment, but that doesn't mean that the destruction of the natural world comes without real economic cost in the long term. Credits would be a way of valuating those externalities. Everything denialists accuse environmental activists of, they are even more guilty of.

>>9911992
>>9911984
Bailout anon is wrong, but you can't deny that we could have spent the trillion dollars wasted on things like the Iraq war much better.

>>9912007
credits are a way to tax those out of favor and give to those in-favor. like how china and india got credit for canceling the build of a coal power plant they claimed they were going to build, which gave the carbon credits for doing nothing

>>9912043
How else do you punish excessive pollution and emissions and avoid destroying the natural world? Unfettered capitalism will not save us, and you speak as though all regulatory mechanisms are predestined to fail. It's just one idea, but it's not a bad one if you are serious about not raping the planet into a literal hellscape. China and India have a vested interest in not destroying the environment as well, if everyone can be serious about the problem at the same time.

>>9911915
Petition local business and government to install carbon capture devices.

>>9911915
Liberty and human dignity demand that we drive the bus off the cliff, burying the dead and letting the survivors survive.

It's like a trolley problem, but the trolley is the entire world. We can either kill an unknown number with forced poverty by diverting the trolley, or we can let die an unknown number with climate change by not diverting the trolley.

>>9912050
let's just get real serious about greenhouse gases. pay people to capture and bury water vapor.

>>9912135
>hurr durr water vapor exists so nothing means anything
Water vapor has by far the most complicated relationship with the climate due to precipitation, oceans, and albedo of ice. Other greenhouse gasses are very straightforward by comparison; they stay in the atmosphere for a long time.

>>9909373
Because taxing literally everyone for just driving their car ON TOP OF the oil prices they pay? Nigger youre getting fucked by both sides. People aren't just going to abandon their cars lmao no matter how "great" you make public transport. (It still sucks just look at NY)

>>9912024
The total bailout of 2008 was 29 TRILLION dollars.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390

Each solar updraft tower is between 500-700 million dollars ad produces 200 megawatts of power.

We could have built over 40,000 of them!

You either
A. do not fucking know what a solar updraft tower is or
B. do not fucking realize the cost of the bailout

>>9912311
>The total bailout of 2008 was 29 TRILLION dollars.
And the heli-skiing industry couldn't believe its luck!

>>9912381
oh and just to connect the dots for you the obfuscators
>the heli skiing industry didn't get the bailouts
what do you think bankers spend their money on?

Make no mistake, the bailout was to keep the most prodigious consumers to consuming, despite their epic greed, and moral and competency failure.

>>9909471
>95% of pollution comes from other countries so it effectively does nothing.
Do americans just not learn about environmental footprints?

>>9909582
>psychology of trading away one's well-being for future generations they won't be a part of desu.
This is standard evolutionary psychology, kin selection.

>>9909619
You think that isnt preferable to "sorry guys we trashed the environment so hard our civilization was btfo"?

>>9911894
>>9911901
Guess we should just let Nature collapse then. Wouldn't want to implement any policy changes to prevent it since they will be abused by some individuals.

>>9909729
Stop parroting this fucking retarded narrative that china and india dont care about pollution and climate change, both countries populace are more aware of it than westerners will ever be on account of their population density. China in particular is going hard on it because big surprise they dont want to live in city where it isnt safe to breathe unfiltered air.

>>9911977
>I never learned what an ecosystem is in middle school

>>9910326
Not that non and while they definitely do, I give them a pass because its the pleb masses they need to convince and they arent going to do so with the actual data.

>economic models
>even once
These dicks make the weather forecasters look trusty.

>>9909890
There are literally dozens of active areas off research connected to climate change, that you refuse to read about them makes no difference. Moreover we should not rely on technology to magically fix all our problems because there is a chance that technology doesnt come in time or is impossible to achieve. You claim human level intelligence is alien to climate scientists but your stance is literally "lets gamble everything with unknown odds with no contingency plan" all because you refuse to consume less. Given the possible severity of the issue and its likely timetable we should be pursuing all reasonable avenues available to us.

>>9912485
It's not the sterile West that's the matter, it's the burgeoning third world. Environmentalism taken properly ends up at curtailing the third world, which populate and pollute the most.

>>9912471
Oh yes, we all eat each other's shit. Nearly all energy on Earth comes from the death of our star, and there's nothing renewable or (super-long-term) sustainable about that.

>>9912515
You're right. In a billion years this will be an unsolvable problem.

>>9909858
>milktoast

Daily reminder cruise ships pollute as much as 1 million cars a day and are completely unnecessary to society.

>>9912504
>and pollute the most.
To meet first world demand, and even taking in those factors, the USA is still the second biggest contributor to global pollution.

>>9909727
His logic is leading him to the only conclusion the other anon was tapdancing around. Find another interpretation of his argument against China and India that doesn't boil down to their value as a human.

>>9912636
So why de industrialize if other nations will instead pollute on our behalf? The freight savings alone would offset.

>>9912647
Not that anon, could you clarify what you mean by de-industrialize? Cause I don't see anyone calling for that, just to regulate out of control corporate waste (and governmental desu) and pollute less.

>>9908798
fpbp

>>9912504
Can you guess where all the products they are making go?
>>9912647
>De industrialize
Immediately this flags you as a cretin who forms opinions based on instinct and narrative. This isnt even possible while retaining our current society. What people advocate for is to make more sustainable choices wherever possible. Bring your own bags to grocery store, stop buying imported fruit in the middle of winter, carpool more, drive less, grow a garden, eat less meat, stop purchasing shit you dont need.

>>9908786
>having to label the pope and marx

>>9909390

>>9909083
> current pope
> not marxist
You need to be observant to fit in here buddy.

>>9909470
Want to answer his question or not?

Just sad. I belive in climate change but you read a thread like this and you end up on the side of the people denying. People who support it need to be less obtuse and arrogant. I still believe it's true but i can see how so many don't with this calibre of debate.

>>9909582
Well you first have to realize that most of the luxuries you enjoy in life were sequentially invented by many people who lived and died before you. Those people faced the same conundrum and decided to benefit future generations. If you enjoy the luxuries brought by past generations and feel grateful, then I suppose you shouls care about future generations. If you dont feel grateful then be a degenerate hedonist who will likely not reproduce and your genes that select for an antisocial personality type will hopefully leave the gene pool so humanity can progress unimpeded by pieces of shit like you.

>>9912911
>being this retarded

>>9909672
Nuke sub-saharan africa, I doubt anyone would care.

>>9912920
> believes in equality of all
> believes in forcing this end state by redistribution of wealth
> does not believe in individual liberty and power
> does not believe in superiority of western civilization
> enacts social policy that supports foreign populations by parasitism

No you're right, he's basically Howard Roark.

>>9909714
No it isn't, it's the efficient answer. We already have the infrastructure and are innovating, It would be stupid to risk future progress of humanity over peoples that would only cause regression.

>>9909794
unironically this.

>>9912932
Objectively it would be best for the world to kill off all african, arab and indian populations but we don't operate on a purely rational framework, the world would be miserable if we did and where would it end? If we had no empathy or mercy even life among those populations who do sustain civilization would have no purpose. It is a spectrum but to be so far as to kill most of the human population on earth is at the far end that there would be no space those qualities.

>>9909600

Only in the minds of those who chimp out because he isn't advocating the death of all Muslims or what they think Western Civilization should be.

>>9912939
Probably because he's advocating the death of christians

>>9912937
I thought we we're talking about doomsday climate change, and quickly getting rid of carbon output. I would hope for humanity's sake, that would be a viable option.

>>9912944
I live in a town with an active arab grooming gang raping children which is acknowledged by those i know who work in social services but is ignored by police. If people raping your children doesn't stir you to action then some nebulous logic at a time of climate crisis will never lead westerners to make such a decision.

With the Dispilo tablet in greece and dna sequencing of pharoahs it's clear Europeans used to occupy a huge portion of the earth and have been consistently losing ground, its a dying useless race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2O-BGi-_bs

>>9912916
Does that excuse adults from responsibility and not practicing environmental sustainability? "They're mean" is a bogus copout. That excuse is what deniers want mostly.

>>9912844
The ultimate basis is overpopulation, not production. The West can do whatever it likes provided the r selected people aren't acting like r selected people. You are address this ultimate issue. You dont want to admit it is misanthropic, you want to obscure it and only hit acceptable targets.

>>9908786
>that image

>>9913054
This isnt legible english anon, I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to communicate.

>>9908786
>What is the psychology behind climate change denialism?

most people are really dumb
most people want to believe the story that makes them feel the best about themselves

fossil fuel companies push effective propaganda with a narrative that retards would rather believe.

Hey remember when people denied that humans were causing the hole in the ozone layer and we didn't ban CFCs to fix the problem?

>>9913367
>useful idiots are one sided
That's religious thinking ms fucking loves science.
Nice eschatology you got there be a shame someone cross examined it. Academia is equally and opositely compromised.

>>9913412
>false equivalency
>irrelevant "yeah but what about"

just follow the money and look at the facts

>>9913425
They're called gubmint grants you are naive to consider white coats can't be grifters.

>>9908786
The psychology of "denialism" as you crudely put it is that there exist human beings who are driven by the desire to know the truth.

Here's a better question. What is the psychology behind sycophantry?

>>9911982
>we could easily switch over to alternative energy!
>all you have to do is give up your ease of living and your most valuable possessions
Communists should be gassed

>>9909810
This is what happens when you allow idiots to post here.

>>9912504
>t. Radical /pol/lack

>>9911977
Were you asleep during your biology classes? It clearly shows here

>>9912504
[citation needed]

>>9911211
So fucking this.

I hope there's really an afterlife so these fuckheads cand facepalm for an eternity at how idiotic they were in life.

>>9913555
Peep the footnotes.
Coloreds are ecological pestilence.

>>9913566
It's reciprocal. Advocates don't have their nose clean and earn suspicion, because that is the default of the scientific process

>>9909373
They play both sides of the field m8. The same people selling you oil, are the same people who will be selling you electric cars when the oil runs out.
It’s genius, really

>>9908786
I get suspicious when the same media that tells me drumpf is hitler and there are 54 genders tells me that climate will kill us all unless I stop having children and let in niggers

>>9913842
> climate will kill us all unless I stop having children
> stop
How many children do you have?

If n > 2, then you don't need to let in niggers. You are one.

>>9913842
>that climate will kill us all unless I stop having children and let in niggers
Name one article from a reputable MSM (lol) publication

>>9914293

>>9910305

Let me tell you what's happening. The whole issue is clearly a political football. There are cheap, efficient ways to lower global temperature. Take your pick: sulphate aerosols, dumping iron in the ocean, any number of geoengineering solutions.

These options, if pursued with a fraction of the energy devpted to mitigation would allow us to control global temperatures, lower them as required. Instead we pursue mitigation policies which we know don't work and cannot work. Lowering emissions will not lower temperature. If the issue was serious, then geoengineering would occur. But it isn't. The same kind of liers who told us about peak oil are blaming every bit of bad weather on climate change in an effort to justify a movement towards resource independence from Saudi Arabia and Russia.

>>9914388
>Lowering emissions will not lower temperature.
I mean, stopping emissions _would_ stop the issue from accelerating but the drastic levels of cuts that would be necessary are practically impossible. Nobody, neither governments nor citizens, would be willing to give up enough, and you'd need everybody to do it.

>>9914388
>There are cheap, efficient ways to lower global temperature. Take your pick: sulphate aerosols, dumping iron in the ocean, any number of geoengineering solutions.
>cheap and efficient
no

You know what is efficient? Not spewing as much shit into the atmosphere every year. It starts with admitting we have an energy addiction and consumption problem.

>>9914424

Wrong. You are willfully ignorant. You do know that 'stopping spewing shit' does nothing to what's already in the atmosphere? You know that the CO2 will continue to heat the atmosphere?

Go read about aerosols:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php

Your proposed solution cannot work. It's physically impossible.

>>9914432
>Wrong. You are willfully ignorant. You do know that 'stopping spewing shit' does nothing to what's already in the atmosphere? You know that the CO2 will continue to heat the atmosphere?
Wow, really? I had no idea. Clearly that means that more GHG emissions will not exacerbate the problem. Dumb fucking faggot.

>>9914439

This idiot can't even read. Why are you posting on /sci? A 9 year old could understand the clarification I made.

>>9914450
You implied that I don't understand that shit in the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere for a characteristic lifetime. Most GHGs excepting water vapor have timescales of hundreds or thousands of years. Of course you knew that I do know such an obvious fucking point, just like you know why you received the response you did. Go ahead, try some sophist tactics bolstered with smug condescension again. It will have no effect on your incorrect argument.

>>9914454

This is your mind on climate change mitigation. All he wants do is limit world growth, preferably by limiting our 'energy addiction' and 'consumption problem'. He's been told this will prevent the apocalypse, that it will slow the increase in temperatures. He knows it's not going to work, deep down, but it isn't his fault (it's the climate change deniers)

What I want is to lower temperatures to pre industrial times. Sure it isn't easy but it's a lot easier than waiting for the inevitable (or mitigating it slightly). It is however, a solution to the problem. It is the only solution to the problem.

Mitigating emissions cannot lower temperatures. Lowering temperatures is the goal. That is why I am right and you are wrong.

>>9914475
>Mitigating emissions cannot lower temperatures.
This is the crux of your argument, and precisely where it fails. Or did you mean that because it's not "lowering," that "lessening" will do nothing? Because that's very silly considering that greenhouse effect is roughly proportional to amount.

>>9914483

Quick tip: lowering and lessening mean the same thing. Obviously lower emissions are good, but lower temperatures are BETTER. You complain about me deliberately misinterpreting your argument and then say that?

You think that if we stopped emitting CO2 temperatures would fall? I mean, there are negative feedback loops, but general consensus is that positive feedback loops are greater, certainly in the short term. Everyone else in this thread is talking clathrate guns, antarctic apocalypse etc... but if you wanna argue that, go ahead

So yes, I do think that lowering emissions can't lower temperatures, outside the very long term. I accept that lowering emissions can reduce the increase in temperatures but I maintain that isn't good enough.

>>9914509
>You complain about me deliberately misinterpreting your argument and then say that?
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but "lessening" and "lowering" aren't exactly the same by what I meant; mitigation could slow the rate of change while still increasing temperature, but "lower" would imply a net decrease.
>You think that if we stopped emitting CO2 temperatures would fall?
Not in the sense of a net decrease in temperature, no.
>I mean, there are negative feedback loops, but general consensus is that positive feedback loops are greater, certainly in the short term.
Negative feedbacks tend to reach a "stable equilibrium," while positive feedbacks tend to "hit the rails," whether high or low.
>Everyone else in this thread is talking clathrate guns, antarctic apocalypse etc... but if you wanna argue that, go ahead
No thanks. The verified problems are bad enough without bringing speculation into it.

>>9914340
Didn't realize that Mexicans and Arabs were now covered by that word as well. Also
>cover headline =/= content
Titles are often provocative, show me the text where they say to stop having babies. Can you? I doubt it. Rather, what they're probably saying is that in this time of lessened salaries and expensive housing, a lot of people aren't having kids because that means more money for themselves and less responsibility.

Also again
>describing a thing=/=agreeing with it
Did you actually read these magazines at all, or did you just save a picture of the cover off /pol/

>>9908786

I don't deny climate change, nor do I deny an anthropogenic role in its origin. However, I have little confidence in the objectivity of some atmospheric scientists, especially those who seem fond of the limelight.

I suspect -- but certainly can't prove -- that many Americans would be quite open to a serious discussion about effective ways to curb CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions if this issue had not be turned into a political litmus test.

OP is part of the problem. His thinly veiled suggestion that "denialism" is a mental illness nicely illustrates why more than half the American populace (and a sizable fraction of the rest of the world) is hostile to climate scientists. Remarkably, many people don't like being called stupid, deplorable, or crazy.

>>9908786
Objective reality.

>>9914602
>many Americans would be quite open to a serious discussion about effective ways to curb CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions if this issue had not be turned into a political litmus test.
Unfortunately, it became "denialists" vs. "alarmists" very quickly as the two largest groups. I really just wish people would think more about their impact on the environment, whether it's energy use (heating, A/C, fuel and transportation, appliances, consumer purchases, etc.), pollution (littering and improper trash disposal, no recycling, etc.), overexploitation of natural biological resources such as fish and forest, topsoil loss and erosion, the list goes on. Or at least that policy would move towards rational responses to these challenges. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris accords is not very encouraging.

>>9914602
>I suspect -- but certainly can't prove -- that many Americans would be quite open to a serious discussion about effective ways to curb CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions if this issue had not be turned into a political litmus test.
It was turned into a political litmus test when the right decided they had to deny science in order to win. There is no way to convince someone to solve a problem that they deny exists in the first place.
Saying that people are hostile to climate scientists because they get called out for denying climatology is bullshit. The causation doesn't make sense.

>>9908786
>Let's ignore temperature the past 10000 years
>Let's ignore temperature the past 500000 years
>Let's ignore temperature the past 500 million years
>Let's look at temperature the past 200 years
>Let's ignore the ice is growing on the south pole
>Let's look at the ice melting at the north
Gee I wonder where all this denialism is stemming from.

>>9914679
>Let's ignore the ice is growing on the south pole
I have been looking for a reputable source on Antarctic sea ice, volume and extent. Do you have one?

>>9914679
>>Let's ignore temperature the past 10000 years
>Let's ignore temperature the past 500000 years
>Let's ignore temperature the past 500 million years
How have these been ignored? Climatologists study them.

>Let's look at temperature the past 200 years
So has temperature not been increasing rapidly since the industrial revolution?

>Let's ignore the ice is growing on the south pole
Let's not.

>>9914698
>>9914707
"Unlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1?af=R

>>9914715
>the very next line in the abstract
>However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist.
kek, did you just read the first line?

>>9914715
Arctic ice loss is 3 times as rapid as Antarctic ice gain. Look at >>991470 again.

what we need is cloud seeding in the arctic, sulfate injection into the atmosphere, and prayers to Ouranos, the god of the sky.

>>9914718
>What is Scientific fairness and Sokal level of hysteria?

>>9914755
>what is denialism?

>>9914650

You're correct. Under your assumptions, the causation doesn't make sense.

The problem is that both of your assumptions are false.

>>9914755
>scientific fairness
>forms conclusion without actually reading data
>is too much of an idiot to realize that comparing ant arctic to arctic ice 1 to 1 is meaningless

>>9908786
Learning how to name names, namingly.

>>9914581
*handrubbing intensifies*

>>9909622
>his source is a literal tabloid
>that click-bait headline
Hard to believe I'm on /sci/

>>9914891
>forms conclusion without actually reading data
How hypocritical of an alarmist.

>>9909035
>Didn't several of the leading models say we'd be dead by now?
At least the polar ice should have gone, years ago. It refuses to go in a highly unscientific manner. UN must go in and remove the ice so we can see the beauty of the hypothesis of a theory.

>>9915266
That's incorrect. Models predicted sea ice disappearing more slowly than it has been.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16307-arctic-melt-20-years-ahead-of-climate-models/

>>9909044
There is no doubt that CO2 would be released.

Where the disagreements lie are
- how much is absorbed by the oceans
- how much of the dissolved CO2 is neutralised by naturally occurring minerals?
- how much of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by plants and trees and algae?
- how much remains in the atmosphere?
- how much of this atmospheric CO2 closes the already obstructed radiative CO2 windows?

Even greening of the planet is disputed.

>>9915276
I am talking about old articles that without reservations promised us ice free arctic.

One thing that really hurts the credibility is the absolutist certainty followed by belated revisions.

>>9915162
It's true
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/biskopen-vill-ta-bort-kristna-symboler-i-sjomanskyrkan

>>9912943
No.

>>9915281
Maybe what you're referring to is before I started paying attention, but I do know the models have been improving over time as the computers that run them get better.

>>9912930
>projecting nonsense as fact

>>9909504
>There's more carbon in the atmosphere NOW, than there has been in the last million years.
In that case you should have provided a figure that extends more than 0.8 million years back.

>>9915287
https://www.tv2.no/a/4096205/
In 2015, expecting North Pole to be ice free in 2 years. It is now 2018.

>>9915308
that link looks sketchy. no thanks

>>9915313
A quote from Al Gore (no idea where he gets his sources from):
https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/spadde-et-isfritt-nordpolen-i-2014-4195604

>>9915317
whatever.

>>9915313
If you prefer BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm
>By the end of last year, one research group was forecasting ice-free summers by 2013.

The ice is still there.

>>9915319
>whatever
And that is the thing, really.

In real sciences you cannot prove something. you can only disprove. And when you succeed in that the hypothesis is stone cold dead. Only two "fields" demand an exemption from a process that has served science and society for centuries: string theory and global warming. You attitude where disproving something is shrugged off is a sign of sickness.

>>9915321
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm
Let me ask you this: Does that graph titled ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT suggest to you that it'll be gone by 2013?
Who gives a fuck what "1 research group was forecasting"? Media/politicians like to cherry-pick the dramatic shit for ratings right.

>>9915328
>Who gives a fuck what "1 research group was forecasting"?
I do.

The fact that, as you point out, their position was not compatible with the graph, makes it even more bizarre.

>>9915339
whatever.
its not like there is only one research group in the whole world

>>9909035
>shed entropy from our atmosphere
What? Do you want to freeze the atmosphere or something?

>>9909035
>repressed
Don't you mean weeded out by peer review?

>>9915324
>Only two "fields" demand an exemption from a process that has served science and society for centuries: string theory and global warming.
Nice false equivalence, and outright lie.

>>9915281
>I am talking about old articles that without reservations promised us ice free arctic.
You said models, not articles. Where are they?

>>9915279
Whose disagreements are these? Are they between scientists with conflicting data? Or are they in your head?

>>9915324
>Al Gore was wrong
>therefore AGW is scientifically falsified
Deniers, everybody.

>>9915456
>Nice false equivalence, and outright lie.
Lacking arguments. Warmer detected. Error. Error.

>>9915574
>Muh Al Gore
Not an argument.

>>9915574
>correctly pointing out logical fallacies and lies isn't an argument
Okay you pathetic sophist fuck. You faggots can never argue honestly, every last barb you have is a distortion or intentional misrepresentation of what is actually being said. If you had approached the argument in good faith, you would understand what is being said, but your only concern is a tactical search for which would be the best way to cast doubt, no matter how much of a lying piece of shit you look like for doing so.

>>9915595
>It is my privilege to blurt out whatever I feel like with no argument. And that is MY prerogative. Mine and mine alone.

>>9915456
>he forgot psychology, therefore his argument is invalid
Stop being a faggot and engage in good faith.

>>9915603
>pointing out fallacies and lies isn't a logically sound rhetorical response
This is the difference. This is why you are a sophist. Do you understand?

>>9908786
It's a tribalist notion related to political affiliation. The political party that created the misconception was chasing the incentives handed down by major energy corporations.

>>9909504
>Y axis doesn't start from zero

propaganda

>>9916131
Can't tell if trolling or pic related

>>9908786

That earth is in an interglacial period.

That man made carbon dioxide emissions are not the cause of increased global warming.

That man made carbon dioxide emissions are often dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from volcanic activity or methane from the sea

That some improvements in technology like renewable energy are not more cost effective and DO NOT reduce carbon emissions in the overall but should be developed and used.

taking a car to the store is more carbon dioxide efficient than riding a bike and eating an avocado

organic farming can be seen as less efficient but it doesn't mean it should not be developed.

Western nations are overtaxed for these projects and it does not serve the world at large to cause the west debt.

Gas is already overtaxed and inefficient non-renewables like oil sands are overly subsidized.

>>9909044

WHO THE FUCK DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS VASTLY MORE EFFICIENT THAN BURNING FUCKING WOOD

>>9909505

Okay my holistic friend. Live off of locally sourced venison and ride a bike and see if the earth cools off.

How do you account for the Sahara desert drying out over tens of thousands of years?

While I admire the thesis that man might have deliberately set the whole thing ablaze its still awfully large in relation to the modern population size with no sign of re-greening

Take Tassilli-Najjer, there are cave paintings of a more diverse fauna and wetter times. But even there -with proof of longstanding human habitation- there is still green lushness because of the climate.

What am I saying?

C02 emissions were not the cause of that warming.

>>9916253
>That man made carbon dioxide emissions are often dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from volcanic activity or methane from the sea
not true in the long term btw

>>9916253
>That some improvements in technology like renewable energy are not more cost effective and DO NOT reduce carbon emissions in the overall but should be developed and used.
Come on you fucking liar, the manufacturing of renewable energy devices has a carbon footprint miniscule compared to literally tons of coal powering a turbine. Idiot.

>>9908786
A statement of the form "X is, so we ought to do Y" is a philosophical statement, and not a scientific statement (Hume's guillotine).

>>9916253
>That earth is in an interglacial period.
We're in the cooling phase of an interglacial period. We were in the warning phase thousands of years ago and now we are warming even faster when we should be cooling.

>That man made carbon dioxide emissions are not the cause of increased global warming.
But they are. We can measure directly how much incoming heat is from CO2 and we know we are the source of increasing CO2. This tells us that we are wholly responsible for the change in radiative forcing. In fact there would be even more warming of natural sinks weren't absorbing some of our CO2.

>That man made carbon dioxide emissions are often dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from volcanic activity or methane from the sea
They aren't. We emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes and 20 times more methane than the oceans.

>That some improvements in technology like renewable energy are not more cost effective and DO NOT reduce carbon emissions in the overall but should be developed and used.
Taking into account the damage caused by carbon emissions, they are definitely more cost effective, and they generally are carbon neutral. Implementing an optimal carbon tax and replacing fossil fields with nuclear and renewables would save a lot of money in the long run.

>>9916308
>if current global warming is caused by man then all climate change in the past must be caused by man
Are you OK, buddy?

>>9916362
>I don't want to do Y, therefore X is false

>>9913141
Some cultures breed like rabbits. Specifically Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. These cultures are also developing, meaning per capita, their energy use is increasing. The best way to keep emissions down is to get the Patels and mKembes to stop having 12 kids each.

>>9916444
Per capita carbon emissions from energy use are highest in the US, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia. By a lot. What the developing world is doing does not absolve us of responsibility.

>>9916451
The developing world's emissions per capita are increasing faster than ours. Further, they outnumber the West as well.

Further, every climate accord seems to give them exemptions for some reason. If Global Warming really is a big deal threatening us all, there should be no exemptions from the rules. These rules should ultimately be backed by force too. If Global Warming stands to kill billions, a war that prevents it but kills millions is justified.

>>9916467

>Declare war on the shitskins

How does it always come around to this? You guys aren't even tough and you're advocating genocide.

>>9916543
>You guys aren't even tough and you're advocating genocide.
No, I'm not. I'm fine with brown people existing. But there's no excuse for letting them doom us all.

One of two things is true.
A) Global warming is real, threatens us all, and so there are no exemptions from the emissions rules. Continued violations must be stopped. You wouldn't let a retard jump around on your lifeboat, and if he kept doing it, you'd be well within your rights to forcibly stop him.

Or B) Global warming isn't real.

>>9916559
Reality is observably option c

C) Global warming is real, no one cares because humans are garbage

Global geo politics doesnt care about what you think "should" happen.

>>9916576
Well defeatism, apathy or extreme pessimism won't help anything either.