Climate Change is a hoax

[Anonymous No.10015732]

How do you expect me to believe in man made climate change when most scientists cannot even reproduce or verify other people's work?

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

https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

Check and mate /sci/

[Anonymous No.10015744]

People do not expect you to believe shit. Your opinion is irrelevant. Your existence as a life will never even be acknowledged by any entity that has any power what so ever.

[Anonymous No.10015748]

>>10015744
Why are there so many cringey weirdos like this on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10015754]

>>10015748
Go cry in your mommy's lap. Only person that will ever think you are worth shit.

[Anonymous No.10015755]

>>10015748
jews

[Anonymous No.10015758]

>>10015732
I don't believe in Global Warming precisely because of the science (and reasoning).

[Anonymous No.10015759]

>>10015744
>>10015754

Yep, brought up feces in both posts, it's a jew.

[Anonymous No.10015768]

>>10015755
>>10015758
>>10015759

Oh look the shill brigade! How cute. LET US MAKE A THREAD ABOUT A CONTROVERSIAL AMERICAN POLITICAL SUBJECT TO SOMEHOW SWAY THE US MIDTERMS.
So sneaky of you.

[Anonymous No.10015774]

I do believe the globe has been warming.

I do not believe the mainstream theory of CO2 emissions as the cause.

It is typical climate trends and well within expectations if you don't cherry pick chart data from only the past century.

I also expect the recent low levels of sunspots indicate this slight warming hump is peaking, we are 3-5 decades from a noticeable cooling trend.

[Anonymous No.10015781]

>>10015744
power is nothing more than others sharing your delusions

[Anonymous No.10015782]

>>10015768
Sorry I was just shitposting, didn't mean to trigger your "muh trump" disorder.

[Anonymous No.10015788]

>>10015774
Fascinating stuff. Sounds like you are stupid and full of yourself.

[Anonymous No.10015800]

>>10015758
>I don't believe in Global Warming precisely because of the science (and reasoning).
I don't believe you have any ability to analyze the science and reasoning accurately considering the image you posted shows Greenland temperatures with incorrect dates ("present" in climatology is defined as 1950, not 2000), and yet makes a claim about Earth's CO2 levels. Can you explain to me what the point of all this is?

[Anonymous No.10015806]

>>10015774
>It is typical climate trends and well within expectations if you don't cherry pick chart data from only the past century.
Which "climate trends" are you referring to? Because it's clearly not typical. Also, the current warming rate is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming which is the fastest warming in at least the last 600,000 years.

[Anonymous No.10015809]

>>10015781
>Scientific facts are delusions
Why exactly are you on this board?

[Anonymous No.10015813]

>>10015809
>measure of a human's influence over other humans
>definitely quantifiable in any shape or form
shut your mouth

[Anonymous No.10015824]

>>10015813
>cant no nuffin!!!11111
Why are you on this board?

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

[Anonymous No.10015834]

>>10015824
original post I replied to
>Your existence as a life will never even be acknowledged by any entity that has any power what so ever.

are you trying to imply this poster was using the technical definition of the word 'power'?

[Anonymous No.10015840]

>>10015834
I know it's very hard to read simple English, but where do you see a reference to power in

>Scientific facts are delusions

in response to your claim that

>power is nothing more than others sharing your delusions

[Anonymous No.10015843]

>>10015768
>posters here will actually leave their basements to go cast a ballot
A bold gambit, Mr Putin

[Anonymous No.10015852]

>>10015840
in that case, where do you see a mention of scientific facts in the statement
>power is nothing more than others sharing your delusions
unless you believe scientific facts bring about or imply political power, and I'd be happy to tell you why that's untrue in a proper argument

[Anonymous No.10015864]

>>10015852
>in that case, where do you see a mention of scientific facts in the statement
>power is nothing more than others sharing your delusions
Which delusion do people who claim humans are causing global warming share?

>unless you believe scientific facts bring about or imply political power
No, that's what you claimed by your definition of power, not me. Stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.10015867]

>>10015732
This is a pervasive issue across many disciplines of science, not simply climate science. There's no special reason here to accept other scientific theories in say, physics and chemistry, while rejecting evidenced theories in climatology on the basis of the replication issue. Let's discuss the particular facts and the reasons why those facts lead to a compelling conclusion that supersedes the others within climate science, shall we?
>>10015758
>evidence that doesn't lead to the conclusion you want it to
Your doubt is misplaced and certainly not justified by this misapplied piece of evidence. Ice cores are only so informative about historical climate cycles, and say very little about the modern warming trend, where the superior instrumental record provides more confidence in the data and a more robust data set to study and draw conclusions from. Multiple lines of evidence confirm the anthropogenic source of the warming trend; for instance, C-14/C-12 ratios in atmospheric CO2.
>>10015774
Well that's great and all, but solar activity, which is periodic and not increasing by much, does not correlate with the century long trend of warming in surface land and sea temperatures of the earth.
>>10015813
This is a very weak argument. Denialists seldom operate according to the facts and data, but seek to cast doubt in any manner possible, including misleading arguments, irrelevant arguments, and outright fabrication. It's disappointing that others are willing to gloss over these serious logical shortcomings and fallacies because they want the denialist conclusion so badly.

[Anonymous No.10015880]

>>10015864
people see the world in a manner that suits them, or in a way which they can convince themselves is correct. This is their delusion. If they can convince others to wear this worldview, then they now have influence over them. This is political power. They can convince them using any of the ethos, pathos or logos. My original post was just a short little aphorism that wasn't in reference to any particular group or subject matter, I was just poking fun at his appeal to authority.

[Anonymous No.10015884]

>>10015806
See how the two large solar cycle are currently transposed? We heated up faster due to this overlap.

[Anonymous No.10015901]

>>10015884
So where did this data come from, and how do we know it's accurate? There are serious issues with reliability for data reconstructed from proxies. Furthermore, what exactly am I looking at besides an orgy of distinct data plots mismashed together? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.10015904]

>>10015884
By how much though? If you actually do the math, the variability in the sun's output is a very very small fraction of the output and not significant over the time scale of observed global warming.

[Anonymous No.10015921]

>>10015732
You have failed to prove that replication has not been used in climate science only that a replication crisis exists.

Think of it this way using an example that should be close to home in your belief system.

"Assault weapons are used in crimes"
"Therefore all assault weapons are used in crimes"

Spot the problem?

[Anonymous No.10015931]

>>10015732
Thanks is why they take aggregates of many climate models that pass peer review to make protocols and accords.
Kinda like IQ.

[Anonymous No.10016037]

>>10015904
It's the type of output. And the Earth gets energy from more than just the Sun.

Picture pac man, now calculate how much energy the Sun consumes from just passing through "empty space" at 1/1300th C. Zero point energy is real yes, probably warmer near the galactic core, no? The Suns long orbit around the galactic core has brought us to a warmer spot in the galaxy, again.

[Anonymous No.10016039]

>>10015901
It came from 8 chan pol, lol

[Anonymous No.10016040]

>>10015732
back to /pol/ with ye

[Anonymous No.10016046]

>>10016037
OK, I can see you have no idea what you're talking about.