/sci/ - Science & Math

Same as you, spending my twenties shitposting on the interweb.
It is too late anyway, and any effort made will turn nil because of the USA, China, India and Brazil.
Shit is going to hit the fan and likely there will be climate wars under the disguise of refugee from archipelagos and drought regions.
It's not like my actions matter in the grand scheme of things, but I won't make any beyond trivial effort as long as the "victims" and the indians didn't make their demographic transition.

>>9915020
It feels to me like people were given the choice and rejected the idea of saving the planet's wildlife some time in early 2015. Anyone else?

>>9915020
>forests in the Arctic
sound good

>>9915020
>nytimes.com
any non popsci links?

>>9915020
I think one of the problems is actually the extremely poor quality of scientists around today. If some rational, intelligent, and well spoken researchers honestly discussed the data, people would be much more passionate and confident about climate change. Instead, we have Bill Nye

The Great Filter is upon us.

>>9915020
Is it just me, or has public discussion around climate change turned into “Fuck, it’s too late” around one or two months ago?

In one of the cleanest countries on the planet, autoflagellating for our environmental sins and killing our quality of life for a .001% reduction in global pollution while China kept going

>>9915020
I'm a climate change supporter. Runaway global warming will be good for humanity in the long run.

>>9915158
>// APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION

>>9915158

I think it has been for a while. What we have to do essentially right this second in order to not have a "crisis" temperature rise is most likely not going to happen. Solar still sucks, nobody likes solar thermal even though I'd be a good temporary solution, everybody hates nuclear for no reason, electric cars have a long way to go, and hydrogen isn't getting many public progress reports so who knows. Funnily enough, whilst everybodys doing little to nothing and just bullying china for transitioning into a modern country in milliseconds, they're one of the greenest countries on earth, not only having many economically friendly power sources but they're dumping money into research. I'm to lazy to cite anything I just mentioned, but if you care just look up the statistics on wikiped

Yes we are cooked.

>>9915207
>Everyone hates nuclear for no reason

This one pisses me off so much
It's right there as a great alternative and yet we can't do it because it went badly when the Soviets fucked it up once

I mean if that's an actual argument why are the same politicians still trying communism?

>>9915182
>implying your country's meme-conomy could function without china

>>9915207
>everybody hates nuclear for no reason

No, for the thousandth time nuclear power failed because its uneconomical. For example:
>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/iowas-only-nuclear-power-plant-to-close-the-latest-blow-to-a-fading-industry
>NextEra Energy said it would shorten the term of their power purchase agreement with Alliant Energy by five years, prematurely ending the life of the 615-megawatt Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo.
>The plant has been producing nuclear power since 1975.
>“The eventual closing of the Duane Arnold Energy Center is a difficult decision because of the approximately 500 highly skilled men and women who consistently have made it one of the top-performing nuclear facilities in the county,” NextEra’s President and CEO Armando Pimentel said in a press release.
>Alliant Energy, a public utility, said the move to close the nuclear plant early would save Alliant’s customers about $300 million over 21 years, starting in 2020.
>A spokesman for Alliant told an Iowa newspaper that nuclear power has become more costly than renewable energy sources, especially wind. Iowa gets more than 35 percent of its electricity from wind, one of the highest rates in the country. As part of the agreement to close the nuclear plant early, Alliant will purchase about 340 megawatts of energy from four existing NextEra-owned Iowa wind facilities.
>Nuclear’s struggle in Iowa follows a national trend, which the Trump administration is concerned about and wants to address. The Energy Department, on the orders of President Trump, is considering using emergency powers to subsidize coal and nuclear plants slated to close
>... wind and solar, which have seen huge reductions in development costs, are ready to replace nuclear power.
>Most of America’s new power-generating capacity over the past two years has been wind and solar.

Stop pushing the strawman that any criticism of nuclear power is because """hippies are afraid of science"""

>>9915213
>It's right there as a great alternative

Absolutely not.

>>9915020
Stop buying things made from non-renewable resources that's the main thing. It's not exactly possible to do that but that's the overall idea behind environmentalism.

>>9915252
The idea is to buy less, and to think hard about whether you really need it or not.

>>9915247

it is you retard

France was mostly powered by nuclear back in the 80s, a feat that renewables are still far from even matching, much less exceeding

statistically it is the safest form of power per TWh produced and there is enough uranium and thorium to last for centures, millions of years with breeders

forget fossil fuel lobby, those anti-nuclear activists will be the main reason why catastrophic global warming will be a reality

>>9915173
Yes, so soon this >>9915197
can be let out of the bag

>>9915256
That's just destroying the world slower

>>9915265
>those anti-nuclear activists
that's a funny way of saying "the general public".
look buddy, the general public likes their economic growth, and they like their fossil power toys. get over it. even if you were right about nuclear (and you're not), the public doesn't believe you and doesnt give a shit about global warming anyway, so it'll never happen. is what it is.

I wasn't born. It was lost back in the 1960's. Scientists were warning about the long term impacts of population growth, and the accompanying consumption, increased pollution and environmental degradation even back then.

It was lost when no one would accept the correlation between population growth and environmental impact. Why? Because the basis of all our economies, banking systems and wealth creation, which gives us the standards of living and life expectancy, is based entirely on population growth.

The only way out would have been if countries were run by environmentally aware scientists. The greatest failure of science has been to ignore the prime criteria of affecting change: Political power. You can write books, give seminars and issue warnings until the cows come home, but if you lack the political power to effect change then you have failed.

Even then it may still have been doubtful. For any solution would have also required global cooperation between most nations. Either forced by the hegemony of one super power, or imposed by a powerful and unchallenged world government.

Of course such a a scenario would be politically repugnant to most people alive today. For it would have meant an authoritarian regime lead by one dominate, albeit benevolent, civilization. One which would have done "crazy things", like outlawing any colonization, of imposing strict population limits and resource consumption limits on all peoples of the world. The sort of people who upon the discovery of the Americas would have declared "Most of it is off limits, its lands and indigenous people are a nature reserve." A regime who would have insisted, by force if necessary, that nations limit their population growth to within careful crafted criteria, and in some cases experience negative growth if that was deemed necessary.

Could you imagine that?

>>9915299
>and in some cases experience negative growth
apparently, that happens naturally once a society reaches a certain level of technological development.

>>9915299
hence, none of your super scary draconian doomsday commie crap scenario is actually necessary.

Problem: rising sea levels will cause the destruction of coastal cities

Solution A: force all of the world's industries to be more environmentally friendly which will raise the prices of most products in every store worldwide, and force most people to throw away their vehicles and buy expensive new electric or hybrid vehicles

Solution B: move out of the coastal cities

Most people don't care about global warming because the vast majority of people do not live in coastal cities.

>>9915335

They will when los Angeles moves to Kansas.

Pray for fusion.

>>9915020
>climate change
Threadly reminder. Anyone who buys any of the climate change bullshit is a retard.
If climate change was a thing and there's SO MUCH EVIDENCE for it then why the fuck did they have to fuck the numbers just to show that temperatures are increasing?

>>9915368
Los Angeles will just keep continuously rebuilding itself on the new coastline (using taxpayer disaster relief funds and $4/hour illegal alien labor) so that they never have to stop being the victims and being as big of a burden on the rest of the country as humanly possible.

>>9915020
bitches sayonara im going to mars lmao

>>9915368

los angeleres will evolve over time, reaching their ultimate stage.

>>9915158
>Instead, we have Bill Nye
He's not a scientist. Actually scientists conduct high quality research using satellites, weather reports all over the world, ice core samples, emissions data etc.
Bill Nye is just a TV personality -- you can't discredit all science because you disagree with one TV guy.

>>9915386
and that's a good thing

>>9915182
>same fucking argument AGAIN
This is just pathetic. "Muh China" has little to do with our personal best course of action. You just haven't taken the blackpill that our rate of energy and resource consumption is unsustainable PERIOD. Economic growth be damned, or we will be.

>>9915297
>look buddy, the general public likes their economic growth, and they like their fossil power toys. get over it.
Do they like food security or low immigration rates? How about land that isn't all desert?
>even if you were right about nuclear (and you're not)
He is, nuclear can be made viable economically through government leadership in waste management.
>the public doesn't believe you and doesnt give a shit about global warming anyway, so it'll never happen. is what it is.
The public is generally uninformed about specific technical topics, but that's no reason to give up and let it go to shit.

>>9915477
Reminder that the general public are no different from cattle
They don't think, at all

>>9915020
THREE DEGREE WARMING OH LAWD HELP US THREE DEGREEEEESSS!!!!!!

The fuck is wrong with you people?

>>9915510
>implying that change doesn't come with a whole suite of bad problems that will get even worse the higher the number goes
Or are you just ignorant?

>>9915512
>implying that change WILL come with a whole suite of bad problems that will get even worse the higher the number goes
Or are you just nuts?

>>9915197
I'm picking this as my new default meme answer to any climate change faggotry.

>>9915516
Have you ever read scientific papers before? Biodiversity loss, which will threaten food security, topsoil erosion, deforestation and desertification will all be exacerbated by this change, beyond the damage already being done directly through agriculture, overfishing, mining, etc.

>>9915242
>50 year old nuclear plant closes
>therefore nuclear is uneconomical
You are a massive retard.

>>9915335
>Problem: global warming will cause economic damage in a variety of ways

>Solution A: do nothing and accept the damage

>Solution B: tax carbon optimally and replace fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables, minimizing the economic damage

ftfy

>>9915529
There is zero scientific proof of any of these claims.

>>9915529
>// APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
If only there was some way to verify all those research papers that didn't involve trusting peer reviewers who have an interest in making sure everyone keeps giving funding to climate scientists.

>>9915182
>>9915197
>>9915382
>>9915510
>>9915522
>>9915558
>>9915565

>>9915382
>If climate change was a thing and there's SO MUCH EVIDENCE for it then why the fuck did they have to fuck the numbers just to show that temperatures are increasing?
Where did (((they))) do this /pol/tard?

It's amazing that there are still people trotting out these idiotic Climategate conspiracies based purely on taking certain phrases out of context.

>>9915558
Absolutely false. Some of them are predictions, but many of them are quantifiable, measureable trends, including overfishing, forest loss, and topsoil loss. If you haven't looked at the relevant data, that's on you, but simply calling me a liar doesn't make it so.
>>9915565
Well, I guess that means that all science is bunk and we should abandon the whole process. Or perhaps it's only "bunk" when you need it to be, in order to maintain your fragile and ignorant worldview.

>>9915568
Kill yourself.

>>9915570
>/pol/tard?
>conspiracies
You got me.
http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro
Leaked source code that they used to generate graphs from data in a (((peer-reviewed research paper))). If you get rid of the artificial correction then there's a decline in the temperature. Obviously with just the raw data they'd lose their funding, so they had to correct it to make it look like the temperature is actually increasing.

>>9915582
>Well, I guess that means that all science is bunk and we should abandon the whole process
Feel free to keep believing shit that this branch of "science" is shitting out, even when leaks show that they have to modify the fucking data to fit their narrative.

Nuclear is only profitable because of massive subsidies, the fact that the companies don't bear the cost of disposal of waste and they aren't requiered to be fully insured(that is, the incredible costs of a nuclear catastrophe are paid by government and society).

>>9915461
>>9915386
lmfao

>>9915587
This is just correcting tree ring data that diverges from temperature data due to tree growth declining in high latitudes after the 1960s, which is a well known problem.

http://blog.jgc.org/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html?m=1

But thank you for showing how utterly ignorant you are of the topic being discussed, and how willing you are to make up conspiracies.

>>9915582
>Absolutely false. Some of them are predictions, but many of them are quantifiable, measureable trends, including overfishing, forest loss, and topsoil loss. If you haven't looked at the relevant data, that's on you, but simply calling me a liar doesn't make it so.
It's all predictions. And surprise surprise, they're all going to have terrible impacts on the world so we must do something.

>>9915587
>even when leaks show that they have to modify the fucking data to fit their narrative.
I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time explaining this, but the temperature measurement record is adjusted to correct for systemic biases. The two most significant sources of systemic error are those of the particular devices used for measurement, and location changes in observatories. Significant changes in temperature averages can be seen in the record when new technology came along.
In measurement, there are always systemic and random biases; only systemic biases can be corrected. So while none of this demonstrates that they aren't "cooking the books," it also leaves open an avenue for scientists to explain their methodology for adjustments and why they are sensible.

>>9915600
If nuclear subsidies are massive, then all other energy sources are receiving gargantuan subsidies and must be even less profitable.

Nuclear is made more expensive by regulatory obstruction and NIMBYism caused by idiots like you. Did you take that into account?

Are you just really stupid or are you a shill? I honestly can't tell.

>>9915612
Dumbass: https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

>>9915626
Some of the claims in my post that were being criticized were not predictions, but rather observed trends that already happened. That was the point of me saying that. But is it really so hard to believe that billions of kilograms of gas added to the atmosphere every year has some tangible effect? I really don't understand the "nothing humans do ever affects the environment" crowd.

>>9915020
>you will experience the dawn of the next geological era
what a time to be alive

>>9915637
When you have to corrupt the data to make it warmer than it actually is, and then base predictions of the impact this will have on the earth, then no I don't believe any tangible effects as extreme as those being predicted are going to occur.

Science doesn't care about your feelings.

>>9915653
>When you have to corrupt the data to make it warmer than it actually is
So the most recent temperature measurements are scaled upwards? Or the old record is lowered? There are statistical methods to calculate how much this has been done if you have the adjusted and original data sets. Has anyone actually done this calculation, or are you going off of some ominous sounding e-mails?

>>9915318

Unfortunately no, not that there would be anything scary about living in a global park, except for those scared of nature.

No, instead of that scenario happening we are just going to keep trucking on towards the J curve, which is likely still a few generations away from happening yet. But it will happen, and my only regrets are that so many species and habitats will perish before that happens, and that ignorant fools like yourself will not have to endure the living hell that ensues.

>>9915657
Here is but one page of vast evidence of temperature data corruption among other climate "science" corruption: https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

I know you so badly want global warming to be true, it's something you have affection for, but again, science doesn't care about your feelings.

>>9915666
>By 1981, the graph had started to tilt to the left. Temperatures in 1970 were now about 0.1C warmer than 1900.
>Not surprisingly, this change coincided with James Hansen’s interest in demonstrating a CO2 driven warming trend.
0.1 C over 70 years is proof of tampering? Is this guy retarded? Do you just believe everything you read as long as it confirms your biases?

>>9915634
>different data sets and different adjustments to that data produce different results
>therefore conspiracy
Dumbass.

>>9915653
Actually the total effect of NOAA's corrections to the temperature record is to reduce the warming trend. Your retarded blogs have to cherry pick the data to argue the opposite.

>>9915020

Climate change, even if real, is just the latest threat to the world's ecosystems. Even without climate change the global ecosystems, and pretty much all of life as we know it, is fucked.

Even if you ignore climate change, even if you take out current shit like deforestation, pollution, habitat destruction, the loss of countless plant and animal species, loss of water quality, and a myriad host of other problems we are still left with the fact that the Earth's soils are heavily degraded. Solely as a result of human activity.

The fact is that no matter what we do, short of being able to artificially replicate soils that took millions of years to create, there is going to be a growing food production problem. A problem that continues to only get worse.

But no one talks about that. Soils aren't fashionable to talk about. Soils are not sexy. Who gives a fuck?

>>9915675
>>9915676
I'm so sorry, I know global warming means a lot to you.

You're going through grief at the moment, you're in the denial stage. You will just to justify the corruption any way you can.

Don't worry, global warming will always have a special place in your heart, but at some point you must let go.

>>9915693
Since you have no response to the argument, you admit defeat. Thanks.

>>9915686
*pats head*

>>9915701
Now that you've posted this, did you notice the upward trend of at least 0.5C in both graphs over the century timescale?

>>9915687
>there is going to be a growing food production problem
easy solution: less humans. also humans have been farming for hundreds of thousands of years (I think). why is this only now a problem and wouldnt it go away if we just went back to normal population size (ie less humans)
also dont dead bodies make for good fertalizer?
so it seems thats a problem that will literally sort itself out


global warming OTOH is the literal apocalypse my friend. cities being swallowed by the sea, hurricans, forest fires, etc.

>>9915701
>US temperature
Nice cherrypicking.

>>9915697
Oh boy - they got you real good.

>>9915703
I notice the 1900s getting cooler and the 2000s getting warmer - gotta love reliable data!

>>9915712
Since you asked so nicely.

>>9915713
So you didn't see how both graphs support the theory that anthropogenic climate change is happening? I suppose it's more important to you to maintain your measurement adjustment conspiracy, than to be logical and apply the scientific method uniformly.

>>9915382
Oy vey
Delid it Goyim.
That's Anti Semitic.

>>9915719
No sir I do not because they have artificially created warming trend. Your doomsday religious belief is based on the argument that it's not simply the warming, it's the rate of it, which the data has been corrupted to align with.

>>9915717
This is normalizing the data to the end of the 2001 record to exaggerate the difference. Ironic that you accuse scientists of manipulating the data whenthat's all you've done throughout this thread.

>>9915724
But even the flattest graph you posted shows the upward trend over the last century. Adjustments aside, the different graphs are not inconsistent with each other. They each show a positive temperature trend, which is the significant part, not simply what the picture looks like or visual differences.

>>9915156
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>9915724
How have they artificially created it? You're comparing two different data sets. There difference is not artificial. You have to tell me why the data is wrong and why the corrections are wrong. But that would require you to actuary understand what you're talking about.

>>9915730
>you accuse scientists of manipulating the data
How could I do such a thing? Forgive me, there has been 0 manipulation of the data by "scientists", correct?

>>9915735
The earth warms all the time, again, it's the rate that your doomsday cult is so worried about, and this has been completely manipulated.

>>9915739
They made the 1930s much colder than they actually were for a start.

>>9915742
>How could I do such a thing? Forgive me, there has been 0 manipulation of the data by "scientists", correct?
So you admit that you're manipulating the data in order to exaggerate the difference, good. By your own logic, we can't trust any arguments you make since they are based on manipulated data.

>>9915742
>The earth warms all the time, again, it's the rate that your doomsday cult is so worried about, and this has been completely manipulated.
You know, I'm sure you will be here after te next big volcanic event, claiming global warming is a hoax because the temperature is dropping, even though such natural events are fairly well understood and will not explain away the human contribution to the long-term upward trend. You don't care if it's going up or down, or even if the data is being falsified beyond the political aspects of this possible conspiracy.
You are here to absolve yourself and those you politically favor of all environmental responsibility, so that no technology has to be given up and no habits have to be changed.

>>9915747
That's correct, I have been manipulating the data and the "scientists" have not.

>>9915749
You're absolutely right - it shouldn't matter if the data has been faked or if there are any political or financial motivations for making people believe man made climate change, I should just accept it is happening and understand I'm part of the problem.

You are the brave and moral one who has not absolved themselves of responsibility, which begs the question why you have not stopped using technology that contributes to fossil fuel consumption? Anything plugged into the grid is contributing to CO2 emissions, why are you willingly destroying the planet right now?

>>9915020
Reminder to climate /sci/entists:

Viking age (Medieval Warm period) was warmer than today.

In that time Viking arrived in Greenland. It was called Green-land because it was a Green Pine tree Taiga,

During Renascence the Temperature dropped, and North Europe cooled down until Enlightment.

Green land turned into an Icy Tundra.

The World is warming up again due to natural cycle of activity of sun. It's unrelated to Carbon Dioxide.

It's just a natural cycle / rebound. Humans have no control over it.

I have a solar powered calculator, what are YOU doing to save the world?

>>9915762
>Anything plugged into the grid is contributing to CO2 emissions, why are you willingly destroying the planet right now?
I didn't realize we were giving up industrialization completely. You are aware that there are carbon-neutral energy sources, right? A transition to renewables and nuclear is the most reasonable one to me. In any case, I would be willing to bet my carbon footprint is less than yours, since I am generally conscious of these different aspects an increasing amount of the time, while you want to call entire fields of hard science hoaxes and pretend they aren't real. You admit your motivations are political; this makes it even more likely you don't actually know what the fuck you are talking about. Your lack of environmental consideration would suggest you haven't read up on the absolutely depressing trends of topsoil erosion and fishery collapse; again, a sign that you are uninformed about the magnitude of these problems and their various closely interrelated aspects.

>>9915743
That can't be determined from your graph. It depends on how you normalize the data since it's showing temperature anomalies and not absolute temperature. If you normalize the data in a period where the two data sets disagree, then that disagreement is going to be carried throughout the graph. That is all your graph has done. If you normalize to a flat section of the data as is standard procedure, then you'll see the data sets are in good agreement.

>>9915766

debunked here:

https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

>So not only was Greenland already mostly covered in ice when Europeans settled there, but also the relatively warm conditions during this period were not a global phenomenon.

>>9915766
Source?

>>9915782
>I didn't realize we were giving up industrialization completely.
Posting on 4chan is industrialisation?
>You are aware that there are carbon-neutral energy sources, right?
Are you using them?
>A transition to renewables and nuclear is the most reasonable one to me.
What are you doing to push this transition for a cause you so desperately believe in?
>In any case, I would be willing to bet my carbon footprint is less than yours
I don't even have a car and cycle everywhere, not to reduce my "carbon footprint" but because it's healthier.
>you want to call entire fields of hard science hoaxes and pretend they aren't real.
Hard science? Are you serious? Climate change is glorified meteorology, only even worse than that because it fakes data.
>You admit your motivations are political
They really aren't, I hate politics and think left vs right are both equally fucking moronic caught up in a game they have no control over.
>you haven't read up on the absolutely depressing trends of topsoil erosion and fishery collapse
Oh you read about it did you? Reading things makes it true.

>>9915020
Who fucking cares
We will adapt

>>9915207

Fuck. I meant to reply to >>9915173

>>9915751
Yes, that's correct. Scientists actually justify their corrections to the data, whereas you just fall back on sarcasm since you have no argument.

For example your image refers to removing the bias in the sea surface temperature record caused by changes in measurement techniques:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06982

Yet you manipulate this by ignoring context and misrepresenting what scientists are saying.

>>9915785
>Most of the temperature increase happened before 1919 before the more recent sharp rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

How are you going to twist this one?

>>9915510

The mean temperature on earth will rise 3 degrees.

>>9915810
How are you going to twist this one?
>>9915811

>>9915800
>What are you doing to push this transition for a cause you so desperately believe in?
Advocacy would be a good start, considering the amount of loons running around claiming nothing at all is happening despite good data. My goal IS to crush you and make you look stupid, because this is something I feel strongly about, and I believe I've done due diligence and learned as many of the facts as possible.
I've tried to reduce my carbon footprint; I don't drive a car, rarely use A/C, tone it down on the winter heating, I keep a backpack with me and always use it to carry things instead of getting plastic bags. I try to recycle, but my roommates are retards and throw too much bullshit into the bag so it's not working out. I don't fly, I only occasionally order things from the internet, I try to buy from local places with shorter supply chains, I don't leave faucets running anymore, I don't take long hot showers anymore and I try to use less dish soap. Does any of that count for anything? I'm still not close to carbon-free, which I feel like I need more money to achieve, but maybe I could try harder too.
>Hard science? Are you serious? Climate change is glorified meteorology, only even worse than that because it fakes data.
It is hard science in the sense that is based in numerical measurements and empiricism.
>you haven't read up on the absolutely depressing trends of topsoil erosion and fishery collapse
>Oh you read about it did you? Reading things makes it true.
What a sloppy, lazy, and unconvincing way to dismiss robust scientific evidence that I know you haven't looked at.

>>9915813
Roger that.

>>9915766
>Viking age (Medieval Warm period) was warmer than today.
Your graph only shows the temperature in one place in Greenland, not global temperatures. The medieval warm period does not even show up in the global reconstructions.

>The World is warming up again due to natural cycle of activity of sun.
There's just a few problems with that:

1. The sun does not have a cycle in the same time frame as global warming.

2. Solar irradiance had been decreasing for decades while the temperature has been increasing

3. Radiative forcing from the sun since global warming began is much lower than the observed radiative forcing.

>It's unrelated to Carbon Dioxide.
So the greenhouse effect does not exist?

>>9915830
>Advocacy would be a good start, considering the amount of loons running around claiming nothing at all is happening despite good data. My goal IS to crush you and make you look stupid, because this is something I feel strongly about, and I believe I've done due diligence and learned as many of the facts as possible.
So you're doing nothing, got it.

>I've tried to reduce my carbon footprint; I don't drive a car, rarely use A/C, tone it down on the winter heating, I keep a backpack with me and always use it to carry things instead of getting plastic bags. I try to recycle, but my roommates are retards and throw too much bullshit into the bag so it's not working out. I don't fly, I only occasionally order things from the internet, I try to buy from local places with shorter supply chains, I don't leave faucets running anymore, I don't take long hot showers anymore and I try to use less dish soap. Does any of that count for anything? I'm still not close to carbon-free, which I feel like I need more money to achieve, but maybe I could try harder too.
Not good enough - what's stopping you from living in the wilderness? No internet? Tough, this is about saving the planet.
>It is hard science in the sense that is based in numerical measurements and empiricism.
50% of surface data has to be made up because there is no coverage. What's empirical again?
>What a sloppy, lazy, and unconvincing way to dismiss robust scientific evidence that I know you haven't looked at.
Do you truly know it is "robust scientific evidence" or are you just pulling that out your anus?

>>9915811
>>9915828
>How are you going to twist this one
Oh the irony!

The image is *deliberately* cropped to make it seem as if the highlighted parts are the same sentence, but they aren't. Here are the highlighted parts with the cropped part:

Analysis of warming since 1881 shows most of the increase in global temperature happened before 1919 before the more recent sharp rise in the amount [of pollution by so-called greenhouse gases. The debate over global warming came during the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting. The greenhouse effect theory is that carbon dioxide and other gases emitted by industrial and automobile fuel burning is accumulating in Earth's atmosphere, acting like the glass of a greenhouse to trap heat from sunlight. Computer models by Hansen and others suggest that by the middle of the next century, Earth's average temperature may rise 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly altering storm patterns, triggering droughts, making crops fail and raising sea levels] carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Thomas Karl, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Source: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/68079093/

Now are you going to apologize for spreading this blatant misinformation or are you going to continue doing it?

>>9915800
>>you want to call entire fields of hard science hoaxes and pretend they aren't real.
>Hard science? Are you serious? Climate change is glorified meteorology, only even worse than that because it fakes data.
You know there are recorded numbers and figures right? That makes it a hard science. Something that is easily verified via the numbers. If you want to say those numbers are wrong then go ahead. That's a different story
>Oh you read about it did you? Reading things makes it true.
Lol you're right. Can't know nuffin. What even makes something reputable anyway? Just people saying some words.

>>9915854
>So you're doing nothing, got it.
So you're dismissing "some things" as "nothing," got it. Sophist.
>Not good enough - what's stopping you from living in the wilderness? No internet? Tough, this is about saving the planet.
So you're holding me to standards that you don't hold yourself to, and I specified already that I had not achieved carbon free so I know myself that I don't meet this. All when we can agree that I am more conscious of environmental impacts than you. Sophist.
>50% of surface data has to be made up because there is no coverage. What's empirical again?
So you also don't understand that multiple independent data sets from numerous locations can show a uniform trend without having 100% surface coverage. You should really work on your scientific reasoning skills. You also couldn't identify the upward temperature trend that was revealed in every graph you were comparing to attempt to demonstrate manipulation.
>Do you truly know it is "robust scientific evidence" or are you just pulling that out your anus?
Given how this conversation has gone I'd wager I have a much better picture of what it looks like than you.

>>9915856
Could you screen shot that please?

>>9915866
>You know there are recorded numbers and figures right? That makes it a hard science. Something that is easily verified via the numbers. If you want to say those numbers are wrong then go ahead. That's a different story
The problem is that no one else can measure "global temperatures", we have to rely on a select few government funded agencies to provide this dataset. Governments lie and falsify things all the time, government funded "scientists" are not immune to this either. If you just blindly accept what they're saying you're not better than someone blindly believing a preacher, everything is on faith.

>Lol you're right. Can't know nuffin. What even makes something reputable anyway? Just people saying some words.
Same comment above applies.

>>9915879
Can't, free trial expired.

>>9915877
>So you're dismissing "some things" as "nothing," got it. Sophist.
Sorry yes, I can see you're doing a lot, I'm sure you protest and write to politicians and pass leaflets around in public as well.

>So you're holding me to standards that you don't hold yourself to, and I specified already that I had not achieved carbon free so I know myself that I don't meet this. All when we can agree that I am more conscious of environmental impacts than you. Sophist.
Hold on, you're the one that believes in man made global warming, not me. You can still reduce your "environmental impacts" much further by living in the wilderness. Why are you not willing to do this?
>>9915877
>So you also don't understand that multiple independent data sets from numerous locations can show a uniform trend without having 100% surface coverage. You should really work on your scientific reasoning skills. You also couldn't identify the upward temperature trend that was revealed in every graph you were comparing to attempt to demonstrate manipulation.
By multiple independent datasets you mean government funded datasets?
>Given how this conversation has gone I'd wager I have a much better picture of what it looks like than you.
If you pulled it out your anus you pulled it out your anus, just admit it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q0L5hYd53Q

>>9915897
Didn't think you could.

>>9915907
Why can't you do it? Show me a non-cropped image of the article you posted or admit it's fake.

>>9915910
Because you keep accusing me of posting manipulated images, it's better coming from a doomsday cultist.

Did your 7 day free trial end in a few minutes? Very odd.

>>9915020
I was jacking off and not caring

>>9915917
My free 7 day trial ended years ago, the first time you posted your deliberately cropped image and I looked it up. And you're still posting it even though you know it's a lie. You are scum.

>>9915886
You don't understand how science operates. Principal investigators are given considerable leeway to study things in whatever direction they want, so long as they are sound in their methodology. Richard Lindzen is a skeptic climatologist, and yet he was not fired from MIT for many years and chose to retire. An imperfect but usually effective meritocracy operates in large research universities.

All of this is to say, where is the outcry over fabricated data sets, from anyone that is not a skeptic? Falsification of data such that no one notices is not nearly as easy to do as you seem to think, and it is seen as a serious offense in science. People get fired for it. It's not merely their paychecks that cause them to not speak out against widespread falsification; it's because it doesn't exist.

>>9915903
>Hold on, you're the one that believes in man made global warming, not me. You can still reduce your "environmental impacts" much further by living in the wilderness. Why are you not willing to do this?
What do you get out of all this? You're having a field day hding my feet to the fire about my commitment to my principles. What do you want? Why is action all environmental issues not only unimportant to you, but something you actively try to prevent occurring? "They don't exist" is the answer of a simpleton.

>>9915924
Will you apologise now?

>>9915934
You just proved my point, the image is cropped to misrepresent the article.

>While global climate warmed overall since 1881, it actually cooled from 1921 to 1979, Karl said
This is a misquote. It's confusing global climate with US climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Should've gone nuclear. Hope NIMBYs are happy

>>9915931
>You don't understand how science operates. Principal investigators are given considerable leeway to study things in whatever direction they want, so long as they are sound in their methodology. Richard Lindzen is a skeptic climatologist, and yet he was not fired from MIT for many years and chose to retire. An imperfect but usually effective meritocracy operates in large research universities.
You don't believe science can be corrupted to support an agenda? You don't leave that possibility open in terms of man made climate change?

>All of this is to say, where is the outcry over fabricated data sets, from anyone that is not a skeptic? Falsification of data such that no one notices is not nearly as easy to do as you seem to think, and it is seen as a serious offense in science. People get fired for it. It's not merely their paychecks that cause them to not speak out against widespread falsification; it's because it doesn't exist.
There was a petition signed by 30,000 scientists saying it was bullshit. Of course, the media have rubbished it as much as possible, because the media have an agenda to support man made climate change, fear sells.

>What do you get out of all this? You're having a field day hding my feet to the fire about my commitment to my principles. What do you want? Why is action all environmental issues not only unimportant to you, but something you actively try to prevent occurring? "They don't exist" is the answer of a simpleton.
Why do you not act in accordance with God's word in the Bible? God doesn't exist is the answer of a simpleton.

The mesozoic wasn't that long ago, and cores imply we had significantly higher concentrations of CO2, as well as significantly higher temperatures. This is the same period that produced the largest land animals to ever live, sauropods on par with blue whales, walking around. Modern models indicate that if the
current trend continues, this planet with face massive deforestation, savannah like conditions at best, desertification at worst, rising coasts, massive drought, yaddayadda.

If solar output is to blame for why the conditions during the paleozoic don't contradict current climate theory, what is your reasoning for the mesozoic?

>>9915938
Read it again, Dick Lindzen is quoted as saying the "It's equally easy..." then the "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." is attributed to Thomas Karl.

Will you apologise now?

>>9915969
>There was a petition signed by 30,000 scientists saying it was bullshit.
No there wasn't.

>>9915992
this is what he's talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

>>9915977
My mistake, however the author of the article is clearly confusing global climate with US climate, which is what Karl is talking about.

>>9915969
>Why do you not act in accordance with God's word in the Bible? God doesn't exist is the answer of a simpleton.
A cheap and worthless rhetorical response. You don't want to reveal your intentions and beliefs to me and what drives you to denialism, even after you heavily criticized mine and accused me of hypocrisy.

>>9916002
They're saying they can't find a link between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

>>9915999
Most are not scientists, and most of the scientists have no experience in climatology. My point stands, there is no such petition.

>>9916013
The link between CO2 and temperature rise is already causally proven. Cherrypicking a certain time period in a certain place where other factors may dominate does not disprove that link, nor does it disprove the fact that US temperatures and global temperatures have been increasing rapidly.

>>9916014
Freeman Dyson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmy0tXcNTPs

>>9916005
You've just ignored my other points. You are the one who blindly accepts what government funded "science" is saying, leaving no possibility of corruption.

I have looked at the data surrounding "climate science" and there is clear corruption and fakery that you are not willing to accept, and there are quotes from climate scientists in the past who say there is no connection between CO2 and temperatures.

>>9916014
Funny because climatologists aren't scientists either.

>>9916030

>>9916029
How can anyone trust what you say when you've already publicly manipulated a quote from news article, while accusing me of doing it?

>>9916035
Yup just like evolution isn't science.

>>9916041
Correct!

>>9916043
/pol/tards, everyone.

>>9916033
Your only explanation of your motivations remains within the strict context of interpreting the data, which you have done a piss-poor job of. You failed to recognize the positive upward trend of mean temperature over the 20th century, in every single graph that you yourself posted as "evidence" of fabrication or manipulation. I know you can't tell me any more about your motivations outside the context of (erroneous interpretations of) the data, because it would probably reveal you as an ignoramus that knows jack shit about the climate or indeed, the whole suite of threatening environmental problems that are all growing in scope.

>>9916047
I think you'll find most "/pol/tards" do believe in evolution.

>>9916049
reveal you further*, but it is already apparent

>>9916039
Unlike you, you don't have to trust anything I say, you can look it up. That's how science works. And when are you going to apologize for misrepresenting climate scientists here >>9915587 here
>>9915382 here >>991563 here >>9915653 here >>991566 here >>991571 here >>991574 here >>991575 here >>991576 and here >>9916013

>>9916036 >>9916049 >>9916029

Freeman Dyson (Theoretical Physicist) quotes

"The environmental movement has been hijacked by a bunch of climate fanatics, who have captured the attention of the public with scare stories"
>https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/03/freeman-dyson-misunderstandings-questionable-beliefs-mar-paris-climate-talks/vG3oBrbmcZlv2m22DTNjMP/story.html

"my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have"
>https://web.archive.org/web/20090608114821/http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

"What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago."
>https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/

"Heretics who question the dogmas are needed I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."
>https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pou3sGedeK4

>>9916030

>>9916049
Let me ask it this way - has there, or has there not, been data manipulation?

>>9916054
You are dumber than most /pol/tards, I agree.

>>9916067
Here is Dyson being debunked point by point on everything

http://init.planet3.org/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html

He is a crank.

>>9916065
You've exposed yourself fraud. You so want global warming to be true you are willing to falsify quotes.

>>9916069
Yes, deniers have manipulated the data quite a lot to make it seem as if the data has been manipulated by climate scientists. Many examples are in this thread.

>>9916071
Which means you are of equal intelligence to them?

>>9916067
Freeman Dyson is not a climatogist. I would in genersl consider him pretty smart (I have studied his work on the Dyson equation) but one man's layman opinion is not nearly enough to overturn the relatively robust evidence that climate has warmed significantly with industrialization, consistent with human economic and leisure activity.
>>9916069
Depends on if you mean to imply malevolent intent by "manipulation." There are adjustments made to correct systemic biases in measurements, but methodologies are given for these and can be judged individually. Do I think there's a widespread conspiracy to fabricate data to make the case for AGW stronger? lol

>>9916086
I don't want global warming to be true. I wish it wasn't true so that we could avoid a lot of harm. But the scientific evidence says that it is true. I've debunked every claim you've made, all you have are memes that have been proven false over and over again. You clearly have no understanding of what's being discussed, so what is your motivation?

>>9916082
So any scientist that opposes man made climate change is a "crank"? But climate "scientists" can't be cranks?

>>9916089
No, I'm not a /pol/tard like you are.

>>9916088
>>9916090

So the 1930s didn't get colder than they were originally measured at?

I heard long term plans of using man made shield in orbit between Earth and the Sun to block light. What if we just collected a bunch of moon dust and thew it in orbit between us and the Sun?

>>9916096
>So any scientist that opposes man made climate change is a "crank"?
No, any scientist who makes a bunch of claims that are easily proven false while pretending they know what they're talking about is a crank. If you could debunk AGW then I suggest you do it already as this thread has been an utter waste of time.

>>9916071
>Believing blindly in State funded Marxist Propaganda
>smart
Lysenkoism still popular in (((current year)))

>https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#1ae1b51a7ac8
"Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award."

"Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism."

" All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed."

"This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries. Critics of the theory are denounced as “deniers,” and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned."

"The alarmist claims of the UN’s IPCC are ultimately based not on scientific observations, but on unvalidated climate models and their projections of future global temperatures on assumptions of continued increases in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning and use of fossil fuels."

"The alarmists are increasingly in panic because the past projections of the models are increasingly divergent from the accumulating actual temperature records. Those models are not real science, but made up science. "

>>9916099 >>9916108

>>9916095
>I don't want global warming to be true.
You need it to be true, you're too emotionally invested now.

>I've debunked every claim you've made, all you have are memes that have been proven false over and over again. You clearly have no understanding of what's being discussed, so what is your motivation?
My motivation is to expose you doomsday cultists as the liars you are. You've already embarrassed yourself deliberately making up the news article that you accused me of manipulating. Your motivations are very clear, lie, deceive, fear monger and mock anything that challenges your cult belief.

Paleontology continues to contradict every climate change model we have, except obviously the ones that don't end in doom, which are invariably quashed.

>>9916088
>deniers have manipulated the data quite a lot to make it seem as if the data has been manipulated by climate scientists
Accuse the enemy of what you are guilty of, classic.

>>9916105
Colder relative to what? Again, do you understand the difference between temperature and temperature anomaly? For example, if I find that midcentury sea surface temperature cooling was due to changes in measuring techniques, and I correct the data for that, and I normalize the data to a later period, then the corrected data at 1930 will be below the old data at 1930. Does this mean the corrected data is saying the 1930s were cooler than in the old data? No.

>>9916099
You have /sci/chosis. I'm not a "/pol/tard" either, politics is a distraction.

>>9916110
I'm still waiting for you to show me how the data and corrections are wrong. You can call climate science a conspiracy or Lysenkoism, or whatever you want, but you're doing nothing to prove it. Just having a tantrum. If you believe that is all you need to argue then I will simply say that your feudalism is pseudoscience and "win" the debate since I've actually debunked the substantive claims you've made.

>>9916118
>You need it to be true, you're too emotionally invested now.
I don't need it to be true. If you showed me actual scientific evidence that it's not true then I would believe you. But you can't, since you're the one operating on an emotional need. Unfortunately for you, we don't stand on equivalent foundations, and I think you know it. That's why you are having a tantrum.

>Accuse the enemy of what you are guilty of, classic.
Yup, classic denier tactic.

>>9916118
Copycat shilling now, even better. You have no knowledge. You have consistently failed to show proficient scientific reasoning, to the point of ignoring those obvious points you know you cannot win at in the data. It's all to maintain your narrative and push your agenda. You accuse climatologists of conspiracy and deception, and yet your argumentative tactics could be described as deceptive to a T. It's a power play; you don't care about the truth and are woefully ignorant.

>>9916120
>Paleontology continues to contradict every climate change model we have
How does it do that?

>>9915020
Rare Snow Storm in Rome, Italy, in 2018

Sane person thinks:
2018 Winter was COLDER than usual.
Snow is very rare in Rome.
Climate models are wrong.

Leftard thinking:
IT'S DA GLOBAL WUHMIN
DA SNOW IS ILLUSION
HOTTER THAN EVER
DENIERS SHOULD BE KILLED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcQEqvbCvK0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UIeu7I8CI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw2Fa-JIHiQ

>>9916122
>For example, if I find that midcentury sea surface temperature cooling was due to changes in measuring techniques, and I correct the data for that
Sounds like a great way to "correct" it to show what you want it to show.

And what if you don't find out these "measuring techniques" changed? How do you know past measurements were accurate in the first place? How can you have accurate global surface temperatures from the 1800s, they would have had a tiny amount of coverage.

It's all so wishy washy and open to manipulation. Climatologists have been making shit up for years, under the guise of "science". It spits in the face of science.

>>9916124
>he doesn't realize his global conspiracy nonsense is politics, just really fumb politics
You have to go back >>>/pol/

>>9916132
You can't show me scientific evidence of it being true, I can show you why this is, yet you refuse to accept this.

>>9916134
What's my agenda please?

>>9916143
I've been arguing with you about why you're full of shit and a know-nothing for 20 posts and I'm pretty much a Nazi. Stop with your left=climate change believers and right=deniers shit. Conflating scientific knowledge with political affiliation: yet another cheap trick in your bag of lies.

>>9915020

>>9916158
Climate "science" is more marxism than proper science

>Hurr muh global warming
>Give us more carbon tax you fucking slaves so we can trade credits among ourselves to become rich

Meanwhile oceans are having megatonnes of macro and micro plastics dumped in them, overfishing is rampant and fish are going to become a rare commodity soon. Aquifers around the world are becoming perilously low, farmland is essentially fucked thanks to decades of dumping petrochemical fertilisers on it. We won't survive to see any meaningful impact of climate change, it's just a front for more fat cats to get rich.

>>9916167
Science has nothing to with Marxism conceptually, unless you consider economics a science.

>>9916118
Again are you busy going to ignore that you were caught lying in all these posts?
>>9915382
>>9915587
>>9915634
>>9915653
>>9915666
>>9915742
>>9915743
>>9915751
>>9915766
>>9915969
>>9916013
>>9916035

Climate change isn't the REAL issue. The real problem is the brainwashing techniques which have been refined and perfected over the last few years.

Look at 2016 election hacking. When they way America was attacked, they don't mean election systems were rigged. They mean a massive psychological warfare program was launched against the citizens of the united states to fill their heads with propaganda and ultimately brainwash them. The techniques and methodology was perfected on smaller countries over the years. The next few wars are going to be a fight for the hearts and minds of brainwashed citizens. Ultimately either the US will develop countermeasures to these brainwashing methods, or their methods will be adopted and EVERYONE will become brainwashed by 1 side or the other.

And yes, people are being brainwashed about global warming too.

here's a test;
If I post pic related and say "Trump is god" brainwashed masses would shout attaboy.
If I post pic related and say "Trump supporters view him as a god" they'd say they don't and deny that he's some sort of cult leader.
This is a classic example of double think. If you think this way, you might have been brainwashed and didn't even realized it happened to you.

>>9916142
>How do you know past measurements were accurate in the first place?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

>It's all so wishy washy and open to manipulation. Climatologists have been making shit up for years, under the guise of "science". It spits in the face of science.
What have they been making up? You keep claiming this but then failing to show anything. It's almost like you you have no factual basis and are just saying this because you need it to be true.

>>9916158 >>9916167 >>9916170 >>9916171
>>9916182

Trump administration is funding the REAL Science such as Aerospace/SpaceX instead of FAKE Leftist Science such as ClimateSci & GenderStudies.

>>9916143
>LOOK AT THIS WEATHER
>CLIMATE CHANGE BTFO

>>9916146
No, politics is used to divide the public, but both sides behind the scenes are working together to profit from it.

The biggest profiteers are the ones already making the most from oil and gas etc. They are the ones who are invested in the green energy companies, or have created them. Oil companies are not denying global warming, so who benefits financially from denying it?

>>9916148
>You can't show me scientific evidence of it being true
Yes I can. Here is a site that compiles scientific research on the climate, have fun: http://www.ipcc.ch

>>9916182
Anon you may not be aware of this, but the internet isn't actually the real world.

>>9916170
>overfishing is rampant and fish are going to become a rare commodity soon
Implying you know how many fish there are in the sea.

>>9915020
>abandonment of the Persian Gulf
>bad thing

>>9916202
>I don't understand what fisheries are
Did you know you can figure this stuff out from fisherman yields and radar?

>>9916208
You mean fishermen are manipulating the data to get more government subsidies and trade fishing credits.

>>9916214
I'm sorry, I forgot to also inform you that they make money primarily on their yields. Fishery collapse is a well documented thing.

>>9916198
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
OH GREAT.

>>9916208
How many fish are there currently?

>>9916202
When boats have to travel further and further each time and bring back less and less of smaller, low quality fish it's pretty fucking obvious. Go take a look at how much fish the Chinese fleet brings in and tell me that is sustainable, and that's just one country.

>>9916221
I don't see any argument, have you given up?

>>9916190
Any Forest Fire
Left: Look it's the Global Warming

Snow in Italy
Left: it's the Global Warming

Flood in Thailand
Left: the Global Warming

Coldest Winter of Decade
Left: Global Warming

Hot Summer
Left: Global Warmin'

Snow Storm
Left: Global Warmin'

Middle East is Hot
Left: Global Warm'

Frost & Hail
Left: GlobWurm'

Famine in Africa
Left: Glowrm'

Nuclear Winter
Left: Glwrm

Solar Winds
Left: Gwm

Cold day
Left: Gw

Hot day
Left: W

>>9916222
A lot less than there were 100 years ago.

>>9916227
>if you acknowledge reality, you're a leftist
I'm not though

>>9916219
Well documented by THE GOVERNMENT who have everything to gain by controlling fishing. Nice try shill.

>>9916224
Implying fish can't swim elsewhere.

Socrates proved the Athenian's they were full of shit, but they killed him anyway.

Same thing with climate science. We can prove it, but the hegemony is just going to ignore it and kill the planet anyway.

>>9916231
I didn't know the government maintained fishing boats, sold fish and kept the profits. I thought those were all private citizens making a living.

>>9916227
>leftists are stupid
>therefore global warming is not happening
Brilliant argument.

>>9916226

>>9916228
Figures please.

>>9916237

Listen to how stupid you sound.

>>9916237
What shitty argument is this?

>Be fish
>Oh fug chinese are making us extinct
>Better swim elsewhere
>Oh wait I am a fucking fish and have no mental processes like this

>>9916241
Exactly, that's why the government wants to control it. Also, the fishermen are in on it or something. Whatever, all you have to know is that there is a conspiracy and that everything you've been told about fishing is a lie.

>>9916249
>>9916251
Fish go where the food is.

>>9916254
>Be fish
>Swimming to find food
>WHARBLGHARBL
>get killed by plastic bag

>Be fish
>Swimming to find food
>Wait it's just chum
>netted and dead

>>9916265
How many fish are left? I want some figures that back your argument up.

>>9916254

Which is where? The open ocean?

>>9916248
Ever heard of the Atlantic cod? A well documented case, and there is a moratorium on catching them now in some places, in the hope stocks will recover. There are other more recent papers on fishery collapse, and the results are consistently depressing.

>>9916276
Wherever the fishing nets are I guess.

How many fish are left?

>>9916275
Mate this is common fucking knowledge, just google it and pick the relevant peer reviewed sources, not my job to fucking spoonfeed you.

>>9916282
How many cod are left?

>>9916284
Translation: I don't know.

>>9915063
Actually it was the 80s before we were born anon

Don't fall for the meme that this is a new thing just because there are tons of deniers on the internet. This is old, and entrenched financial interests have been sewing discord for discords.

>>9916290
>In 2002, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimated that 75 percent of the world’s oceanic fisheries were fished at or beyond capacity. The North Atlantic cod fishery, fished sustainably for hundreds of years, has collapsed, and the species may have been pushed to biological extinction.
t.retard

>>9916290
In Nova Scotia specifically, the fishery is recovering slowly thanks to the moratorium, supposedly around 30% of previous levels. Not sure if that is by biomass or estimated fish count.

>>9916292
Is it too hard to do a google search?

>>9916245
>two different data sets
>different results
Where is the argument? NCAR in 1974 did not have southern hemisphere data that NASA has now.

>>9916298
>estimated
>the species may

>the dependence for maintenance of the fishery itself on the nutrient cycle that was being disrupted by removal of megatons of biomass from a closed system resulted in the starvation of the residual fish.

They removed the food the cod ate so the cod went elsewhere. If you seriously think that fisheries can make fish extinct you're retarded. There's far too much ocean.

>>9916310
What's the fish count?

>>9916319
Clearly it is for you because I'm sure you'd love to rub my face in it with figures but you can't.

>>9916329
When did NASA get it?

>>9916330
explain to me how one proves extinction in a historically prolific species

>>9916338
I don't know. I imagine getting an exact count is incredibly difficult. Fish are all different sizes and the juveniles especially would be hard to count.

>>9916356
Explore the whole ocean.

>>9916282
That fish population collapse in East Canada was due to over-fishing not due to "muh global wurming".

Don't mix up unrelated things.

>>9916330
Wow, scientists qualify their statements so they are not perceived as an assertion of absolute truth? That must mean they're actually lying about the whole thing!

this is how stupid you sound

>>9916363
We don't know how many fish there are, yet we know there's less than before, correct?

>>9916369
I didn't. I specifically brought up overfishing and fishery collapse.

>>9916374
>if you can't measure the exact number of atoms in my pea brain, then it doesn't exist!
Unfortunately your continuous responses would indicate otherwise, irrespective of bogus argumentative tactics.

>>9916371
>this is how stupid you sound
Says you who thinks fishing can lead to the extinction of fish.

>>9916386
>killing animals doesn't kill animals
okay

>>9916386
>Says you who thinks fishing can lead to the extinction of fish.
Now this is how stupid you sound.

>>9916385
Atoms don't exist you moron.

>>9916388
>killing animals = extinction
Okay.

>>9916389
>thinks you can fish the whole ocean at once

>>9916400
in large numbers, yes

and that's what's happening

>>9916402
>thinks Atlantic Cod can live in sustainable numbers literally anywhere in the largest and most diverse biome on earth

>>9916347
NASA GISTEMP started in 1981 and never had this big cooling trend.

>>9916410
Sure kid.

>>9916413
>thinks "Atlantic cod" can only live in the Atlantic ocean

>>9916437
How could NASA have different data for 1974 when GISTEMP started in 1981?

>>9916447
>NCAR
>NASA
These are not the same.

>>9915207
>china
>one of the greenest countries on earth

lol by what metric?
China is bro-teir for stealing the ideas of others and making them cheap for the masses but c'mon dude

>>9916455
Yes I know, my point is how could NASA have data on something they weren't measuring at the time?

>>9916172
Of course he is

>>9916470
Is this a joke? NASA doesn't create the raw data, weather stations do.

>>9916485
And what about NCAR?

My plan:
>~5 years from now
>stock up on guns
>~10 years from now
>buy some land in the Dakotas, have one or no kids
>build small house and 2-3 self-contained greenhouses
>slowly learn to grow my own crops and become completely self sufficient, if I want some protein I go hunt
>~15 years from now
>install some wind turbines/solar panels or some way to power my home and greenhouses for a while
>live my life off the grid outside of the internet, if I had one kid teach him how to be self sufficient, think critically, and recognize problems long before they take effect
>teach him how to fight off the migrant hordes looking for food to survive the global famine of the 2070s, living life like the apocalyptic vidya I grew up playing as Dad is long gone

Every day I will shout from mountaintops "I told you so" to faggot deniers. If climate change turns out to truly be a nothingburger, I'll still win by being able to continue a nice lifestyle.

Do you guys have a plan?

>>9916506
>If climate change turns out to truly be a nothingburger, I'll still win by being able to continue a nice lifestyle.
Your child would think you're a dumb faggot

>>9915158
David Attenborough

>>9916510
In the event it is nothing, technological progress would remain continuing steadily unhindered, meaning my health would likely be tip top shape well into my elder years. Since I already take care of my body now and medical enhancements will only supplement that, I'll kick his little Gen A ass.

>>9916501
Data is obtained from satellites, ground based measurements, sometimes balloons and shit for tropospheric measurement. NASA applied sciences have satellites such as OMI and AURA. Remote sensing is calibrated, and data processed with various algorithms including an empirically supported weighting algorithm. "Raw" data is too ambiguous a term to have meaning between climate science and lay-public. see https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/earth-science-data/data-processing-levels-for-eosdis-data-products

>>9916516
Maybe you should direct your anger to the "scientists" who were lying to you.

>>9916521
Why did NCAR show cooling and NASA show warming?

>>9916534
See >>9916329

>>9916533
No, if they're genuinely convinced and trying their best to mitigate a potentially catastrophic situation, there's no anger to be had. Climate advocacy goes hand in hand with limiting pollution, having less of an impact on ecosystems, and overall making the environment a nicer place. I will never fault that.

The opposite spectrum tends to go hand in hand with self-centered worldviews that deny humanity's impact on nature because reducing their footprint would require doing something slightly inconvenient. I'll be raising two middle fingers from Mount Rushmore every morning to them.

>>9916547
No, brainlet, only the dotted line is without southern hemisphere data, that's why it's dotted. Try again.

>>9916565
Where did I say they had no southern hemisphere data? Learn how to read.

>>9916550
Funny because I bet you laughed at eco-warriors in the past, those fucking tree hugger hippies.

But "science" has turned you into one, sort of, because you're still contributing to the supposed problem.

What are you waiting for? Stop using electricity, start growing your own food. Practice what you preach.

>>9916571
Why is NCAR so wrong?

>>9915449
maybe he meant visible scientists, in the vein of Richard Feynman

>>9916468

Ok, I admit it's an exaggeration, but they are one the largest green investors. A large percentage of their power has already been converted to something renewable, they're working on cleaning up the mess they've made in their water sources, they're testing temporary solutions to clean the air around populated centres to stop the fucking lung cancer whilst all the pollutants slowly go away, they're plumbing up enforcement for their already strict pollution regulations, and they're becoming a global leader in all field of R&D, including green energy.

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

>>9915510
the entire world increasing temperature by three degrees Celsius implies quite a lot of energy.
>OR DOES IT?
measured in kelvins, a three-degree rise is like 1.05%

>>9916596
Prime example of why I'll stress critical thinking on my son, so he doesn't end up a retard like you. I've never laughed at anyone striving for a better environment and caring for nature, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this nonsense from other than out of your ass. Nature is beautiful and it's nice that people want it to stay that way. "Science" hasn't "turned" me into anything. It has presented very strong evidence that the world is moving towards a grim future, but not one people can't prepare for. I'd want to be self-sufficient regardless of climate's impact just for the sense of accomplishment it provides.

>hurf durf just stop using electricity and grow food!!1!!1
I already grow my own herbs for spices, but not the types of crops I'd need to know how to properly grow plants that require more in-depth care, nor how to do it in an indoor-only facility on a scale enough to feed a small family. I go hunting with my Dad during deer season and have chickens in my yard already. Completely dropping electricity use is unrealistic and would only serve to hinder all future plans, but I already do conserve electricity when not using it, and I buy green friendly products as much as I can. Been doing it for years.

Not everything is in extremes you fucking dipshit.

>>9916617
Oh lawd we're dead.

>>9916639
>Prime example of why I'll stress critical thinking on my son, so he doesn't end up a retard like you.
Oh dear. Is critical thinking just lapping up what government climatologists are saying?

>Nature is beautiful and it's nice that people want it to stay that way.
Yeah I mean a government that stockpiles thousands of nuclear weapons and has no problem blowing things up in countless wars also cares about the environment and are funding climate "science" for purely altruistic reasons. Is that your critical thinking at work too?
>"Science" hasn't "turned" me into anything.
I think it's turned a lot of atheists into eco-warriors, who would have laughed at hippies in the past.
>Not everything is in extremes you fucking dipshit.
Yet you believe we're heading for catastrophic events if we don't do anything. Interesting.

>>9916659
>all scientists work for the government

Stopped reading there. Literally kill yourself m8.

>>9916659
>I mean a government that stockpiles thousands of nuclear weapons and has no problem blowing things up in countless wars also cares about the environment and are funding climate "science" for purely altruistic reasons. Is that your critical thinking at work too?

The elite are all about transcendence and living forever and the secrets of the universe, and they want to know all this. Some are good, some are bad, some are a mix. But the good ones don’t ever want to organize; the bad ones tend to organize because they lust after power. Powerful consciousnesses don’t want to dominate other people, they want to empower them, so they don’t tend to get together, until things are really late in the game. Then they come together and evil’s always defeated, because good is so much stronger.

We’re on this planet and Einstein’s physics show and Max Planck’s physics’ show that there are at least 12 dimensions. And now that’s what all the top scientists and billionaires are coming out saying, ‘it’s a false hologram—it is artificial.’ The computers are scanning it and finding tension points where it’s artificially projected, and gravity’s bleeding-in to this universe. That’s what they call ‘dark matter’.

So we’re like a thought or a dream that’s a wisp in some computer program in some god’s mind, whatever, they’re proving it all; it’s all coming out.

There’s this sub-transmission zone below the 3rd dimension that just turned over the most horrible things—it’s what it resonates to. And it’s trying to get up into the 3rd dimension—that’s just a basic level consciousness—to launch into the next levels. And our species is already way up at the 5th/6th dimension, consigning our best people.

But there’s this big war trying to basically destroy humanity, because humanity has free will. And there’s a decision to which level we want to go to. We have free will, so evil’s allowed to come and contend, and not just good.

>>9916665
You need to improve your reading comprehension, probably the effects of climate change.

>>9916675
I'm sorry, I don't think you answered the question. Is it too difficult for you?

>>9915295
yes. destroying the world slower is the idea.

>>9916685
You need to kill yourself if you're gonna sit here and genuinely suggest independent researchers from around the globe coming to similar conclusions are all engaged in some sort of conspiracy for "the government". Which government fuckhead? Who's paying them all? When was the last time a nuke was used and how in the fuck is stockpiling it relevant exactly? Do you think the militaries of different countries are the ones running the studies on climate change? Do you think they even have the same funding sources? How'd they all get to work together on this one issue while everything else is a splintered mess of red tape and bureaucracy impeding things from moving forward? Where is it altruistic to try to mitigate the damages of worldwide food shortages, coastal flooding and economic unrest? Who's profiting here exactly?

>>9916206
It's literally the cradle of civilization

>>9916693
>You need to kill yourself if you're gonna sit here and genuinely suggest independent researchers from around the globe coming to similar conclusions are all engaged in some sort of conspiracy for "the government".
What "independent researchers" and where are they getting their data from?
>Which government fuckhead? Who's paying them all?
The ones that are collecting the data.
>When was the last time a nuke was used and how in the fuck is stockpiling it relevant exactly?
Imagine a tree hugger was investing money tree research and ways to conserve trees while also chopping trees down and was investing a fortune in ways to chop more trees down.
>Do you think the militaries of different countries are the ones running the studies on climate change?
NASA are a military wing but that's not the point here.
>How'd they all get to work together on this one issue while everything else is a splintered mess of red tape and bureaucracy impeding things from moving forward?
Intergovernmental panel on climate change.
> Who's profiting here exactly?
Green energy investors - of which oil companies have a slice in. It also makes it harder for 3rd world countries to develop if they can't use standard fuels. It also severely impacts the middle east's profits.

>>9915020
When was it ever not lost?

>>9915532
There are lots of plants that were in the processes of being built going under in recent years.

>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-31/scana-to-cease-construction-of-two-reactors-in-south-carolina
>Two Half-Finished Nuclear Reactors Scrapped as Costs Balloon

>>9916639
>I already grow my own herbs for spices
Marijuana addict

>>9915299
>It was lost back in the 1960's.
>Scientists warning even before that.
>The greatest failure of science has been to ignore the prime criteria of affecting change: Political power.

The failure of Marxism is often seen as the big factor in the development of postmodernism in the 1950s and onwards, but maybe we also must consider the failure to mobilize power to stop climate change as a decent factor. For example, Michel Foucault wrote almost exclusively on the relationship between power and knowledge. And the irony is that, as a whole, the movement probably made it even worse, spreading skepticism towards science and reason.

>>9915183
this

if we could just see through the dense cloud-cover of sulfuric acid storms on Venus, we would see a bunch of happy animals

>>9915020
>www.nytimes.com

>>9916715
>blah blah blah this means we should keep burning just as much coal and flying and driving 12MPG pickup trucks back and forth on extended trips every day, and buying cheap junk for entertainment

>>9916295
>We
Speak for yourself newfag

>>9915173
>has public discussion around climate change turned into “Fuck, it’s too late” around one or two months ago?

Good. Maybe the Chicken Littles will finally shut up now.

One can only hope.

i told u bro

>>9915020
>forests in the arctic
which means russia and canada get fertile land for fucking once. win/win.

>>9915158
>well spoken researchers honestly discussed the data, people would be much more passionate and confident about climate change.
They have, no one cares because they are scientifically illiterate and posting pics of their starbucks double mocha frap on IG is more important to them.

>>9915242
Why are all Americans unable to understand that public infrastructure is always unprofitable?

>>9915182
Lmao north americans are still by far the biggest contributors per capita, we literally invented the problem with the idea of the american dream.

>>9915516
>gambling with modern civilization just so you can keep eating double doubles and driving a hummer

>>9915600
The incredible costs of a coal catastrophe are always paid by society, indeed this thread is fucking about said payment. You know absolutely nothing about nuclear energy but you feel confident in throwing your retarded conclusions into the arena of public discourse. Do me a favour, dont vote and dont have kids.

>>9915782
Anon, the fact you are posting on this board means your footprint is fucking massive just like everyone else in the firstworld.

>>9915969
So you started with conspiracy theory and now you have moved on to god. Hitler was right about people like you.

>>9917082
But I don't use A/C or a car so that's already <35% than the "average" person who does. There's always more to be done though.

>>9916386
How many buffalo have you seen recently?

>>9916443
>thinks "Atlantic cod" can only live in the Atlantic ocean
Do you just have no conception of food chains or invasive species?

>>9916599
Because they didn't have good southern hemisphere coverage.

>>9917086
Good start but so long as you live in western society and go to a store to buy products your footprint is gargantuan.

>>9915510
21.6 C is 71 F
24.6 C is 76 F
Turn your thermostat up from 71 to 76 and I guarantee you'll hate it.

>>9916715
Literally incapable of forming a coherent thought not based in conspiracy nonsense

>ITT: retards

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

If you're still unconvinced you're a brainlet.

>>9916786
>nuclear plants not being built for decades due to anti-nuclear shills misleading the public
>project shuts down because no one knows how to construct plants anymore
>see nuclear is uneconomical, Judy ignore that other countries build them
Fuck off, scum. You are ruining this country.

>>9915213
Communism keeps getting a fresh start because of the money and power that can be had by the greedy ones- nuclear power does not dangle such an enticing carrot. There's tons of monies being spent on propaganda for big Gov; where are the mobs calling for sustainable energy?

>>9915213
>We can't do it because it went badly when the Soviets fucked it up once
<-

>>9917456
>There's tons of monies being spent on propaganda for big Gov; where are the mobs calling for sustainable energy?
Where are the mobs crying for big government? Hell, where's the propaganda for big government? Seems it's nearly all aimed at austerity and how ebil big gubmint is.

Or do you suppose those mobs that are crying for sustainable energy are crying for big government?

Though, paradoxically, there is a lot of money to be made in nuclear energy - but only from big government. Where do you think the money for nuclear power plants comes from?

>>9917465
Odd that chart doesn't include the five we've had in California.

Though I suppose two were shut down with one fatality between them, and the others were all in experimental reactors like Los Alamos.

The US is just too corrupt to handle nuclear power - it costs us billions just to retire one, more, to "pop the hood" and fix an active one. You could build and run a few hundred conventional plants for the maintenance costs of one of these, due to that corruption.

>>9917473
> it costs us billions just to retire one,
True however it costs a great deal to mothball any major industrial installation
> more, to "pop the hood" and fix an active one.
Totally incorrect, reactors enter outages all the time for scheduled maintenance constantly as well as due to fail safes being tripped for one reason or another.

t. authorized nuclear operator

>>9917465
Oh wow look at all those incidents, thousands of people must be dead.

>Though, paradoxically, there is a lot of money to be made in nuclear energy - but only from big government.
You are delusional.

>>9915020
>climate change
We had this discussion yesterday. And the day before. I am sure excessive climate discussions cause global warming.

>>9915158
>Instead, we have Bill Nye
We also have Ivar Giaever. He got the Nobel Prize in Physics but was dismissed as irrelevant and uninformed.

>>9915173
its because of the heatwave in the northern hemisphere

idiots who doesn't know shit go
>lmao its called summer xd

what they don't realize is that a period of 35 degrees in norther Europe of this length is historically unprecedented. This is a direct effect of global warming, and its even worse than predicted.

>>9917654
Global warming wasnt suppose to take effect until 2050 I thought. You are mixing up anecdotal evidence with pattern.

>>9917928
>everything will be fine until July 27, 2050 when suddenly it became hot as fuck

>>9917977
this

>>9917654
>its because of the heatwave in the northern hemisphere
they tried to warm people about global warming. In Winter. In Siberia. At a time when temperature was about -60C (that is minus sixty degrees Celsius). And they were shocked - SHOCKED - people wanted warming.