You are scientifically illiterate if you don't believe climate change is a threat to life on this planet.

File: 306 KB, 1920x1080, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:03:51 2018 No.10109416 [Reply] [Original]

You are scientifically illiterate if you don't believe climate change is a threat to life on this planet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:04:31 2018 No.10109419 >>10109416 >You are scientifically illiterate if you don't believe climate change is a threat to life on this planet. but climate change is pseudoscience

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:05:46 2018 No.10109423 >>10109419 >b-but i deny science

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:09:25 2018 No.10109427 >>10109416 k

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:11:48 2018 No.10109432 >>10109416 >muh planet I don't care. I'll been dead before things get really bad anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:12:52 2018 No.10109434 >>10109432 yeah, fuck the future. massive tax cut financed by deficit spending NAO

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:12:56 2018 No.10109435 >>10109419 How is it pseudoscience?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:13:05 2018 No.10109436 >>10109416 I don't think it's a threat to life, life....finds a way. But it is a threat to real estate and infrastructure and we could be budgeting and planning for it NOW before it becomes a big hassle later but we WON'T. Ugh.

Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:15:41 2018 No.10109437

>>10109416
Life is astonishingly resilient. Climate change, even under a worst-case scenario, would have no chance at all of being an existential threat to life. There is life wedged into the rocks a mile down, there is life around the deep-sea vents-- what does climate matter to those guys?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:22:51 2018 No.10109447 The earth is in a warming cycle right now. To assume humans could actually impact this massive planet is ridiculous. No species could ever alter the earth on such a scale that's up to God.

Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:24:30 2018 No.10109454

>>10109432
Predictions have always been 30-50 years. It's difficult to determine when conditions will actually get bad due to the unpredictability associated with the equations. However, the solutions to the ECWMF PDEs approach chaos behavior as global temperatures rise. The climate won't change much until we reach that point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:51:04 2018 No.10109504 >>10109436 The biggest threat to infrastructure is stagnation. If only there was some event that would spur everybody to move somewhere else all at once.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 22:56:53 2018 No.10109518 >>10109416 You are scientifically illiterate if you don't believe manmade non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is a threat to life on this planet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 23:27:23 2018 No.10109566 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5I70Gt_NQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmy0tXcNTPs BTFO>>10109416

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 31 23:38:40 2018 No.10109582 >>10109566 Congratulations. You can look up videos instead of arguing your own opinions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 00:19:38 2018 No.10109645 >ITT: /pol/ roleplays as its opposition please fuck all the way off

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 01:45:49 2018 No.10109754 >>10109645 How did you know I almost exclusively browse /pol/?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 01:49:06 2018 No.10109755 >>10109436 It is a threat to all modern forms of life that have existed in this geological age >>10109437 This isn’t what the OP meant >>10109432 You plan on being dead at 50-60 anon?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 01:50:58 2018 No.10109756 >>10109432 Just like my grandmother. No free rides, selfish dissociative broad.

Anonymous Thu Nov 1 02:17:27 2018 No.10109771

Everything is a threat to life. That's why they call it that. Warmers are cool aid drinking brainwashed peeps who can't think for themselves. All you can do is your part. Life will be here long after we are gone and one day the sun will explode or something. The OP is literally illiterate for needing other posters to clarify what he/she "ment" to say. Is there ever any good ideas? Or are there just more things to make and dopes to sell them to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 02:27:56 2018 No.10109781 >>10109416 "If you believe the Copenhagen interpretation, you're a science nigger" -t Erwin "A Dead Cat in every Box" Schrödinger

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 03:09:23 2018 No.10109825 >>10109435 don't take the bait

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 04:01:40 2018 No.10109859 >>10109416 Missiles flying into the sky and exploding up just as high might set some proportions to a dangle if you know what i mean. How many bricks can you shit, I meam.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 05:29:30 2018 No.10109935 >>10109416 >you are [thing] illiterate if you don't believe in what I believe

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 05:51:48 2018 No.10109949 i support threats to this planet

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 05:57:28 2018 No.10109954 >>10109416 life has always adapted to climate changes

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 06:24:51 2018 No.10109978 >>10109416 >life on the planet >implying that human lives are the only lives that matter on the planet epsilon/10 made me reply but probably not even humans will go extinct but it will be a mr bone's wild ride through and through

Anonymous Thu Nov 1 06:37:48 2018 No.10109987
File: 177 KB, 960x960, blini autism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm a brainlet on this subject, so could someone answer this question for me, please? How are papers on climate change peer-reviewed? Are there different methods used to measure things like temperature at a certain place or something?
Legit question.

Anonymous Thu Nov 1 06:47:00 2018 No.10109995
File: 8 KB, 187x248, 1348622965017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10109755
>This isn’t what the OP meant

>re-frame the argument

What a gay thread. Life and humanity will adapt. Always have. Quit listening to unemployable environmental science students.

Anonymous Thu Nov 1 06:58:13 2018 No.10110002
File: 149 KB, 797x799, ihasabunny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10109416
Everything's a threat to life on this planet. The biggest threat to life on this planet is other life on this planet. Don't be a pussy. If you can't hack it you were a shitty Earthling and deserve extinction. Get ate motherfucker.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 14:29:33 2018 No.10110518 >>10109416 Survival of society is not really killed with high temps, but with dry fields. Focusing on temperature is bullshit, you should focus about land's fertility.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 14:45:20 2018 No.10110541 I just read that 60% of the wildlife on the planet has disappeared since 1970 Oh, we're doing great huh? There (WAS) a Kelp forest off the coast of California. All gone now. It stretched over thousands of square km.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 14:47:24 2018 No.10110547 >>10109416 If you believe in man-made global warming you are a pop sci npc asking to be ignored.

>>	Miniature Spacecraft Thu Nov 1 16:22:07 2018 No.10110671 >>10109416 It's a threat to HUMAN life.

Anonymous Thu Nov 1 16:30:40 2018 No.10110682

>>10110518
Is it not more just a threat to a WAY of life? I don't know about every area but, Would hunter gathering be a consideration? (Actual question guys.) I see black berries enough to feed my whole county growing like weeds all over and nobody's using them. How long would a whale last as food?. Ever been in a window seat? There is a lot of room left out there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 16:37:03 2018 No.10110691 >implying climate "science" isn't just a SJW echochamber

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 16:41:59 2018 No.10110700 >>10110541 Why the bullcrap?

Anonymous Thu Nov 1 17:01:25 2018 No.10110729
File: 29 KB, 660x574, _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10109416
>the people who think climate change is a threat to humans are the same people who believe we can have a base on mars in this century or that we will be able to create a real AI

really gets the noggin jogging how people are able to over and underrate humanity so much at the same time

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 18:24:11 2018 No.10110889 >>10110518 You are a literal retard.

Anonymous Thu Nov 1 18:32:57 2018 No.10110907

>>10109416
boomers still think microwave ovens cause chemical reactions with their food and that most people only use 10% of the brains. but call them scientifically illiterate and they'll fucking rage at you

do you really think these people can grasp high school chemistry or physics

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 1 18:42:21 2018 No.10110922 >>10110907 Why all the ageism on 4chan? Most boomers are dead anyhow. You think people with more experience than you are retarded. Hawking was a boomer. You weaken your own arguments by acting like troglodytes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 07:38:28 2018 No.10111995 >>10109432 dead in 15 years? good

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 12:57:57 2018 No.10112412 >>10111995 Ocean currents will change as the Arctic and Antarctic melt. When the currents change, the climate will change substantially.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 13:14:17 2018 No.10112444

>>10109987
>How are papers on climate change peer-reviewed?
They are submitted to journals and reviewed by other scientists. Same as any other field.

>Are there different methods used to measure things like temperature at a certain place or something?
There are different methods for measuring different things. Land surface temperatures are measured at weather stations using standardized thermometers. These standards or the placement of the thermometers or the time of observation sometimes change, meaning adjustments have to be made to the temperature record to account for these changes. Techniques are also used to identify and remove extreme outliers due to mistakes and to ensure that the data reach a certain threshold of coverage/accuracy. Sea temperatures used to be measured by taking the temperature of buckets of water, then by measuring the temperature of water being taken in by engine rooms, and now with buoys. These changes in technique also require corrections in order to combine the data so that they are analogous. The temperature of the upper atmosphere is measured with weather balloons and satellites, which also have a host of issues that need to be corrected. The satellite record is the most corrected dataset as biases caused by inconsistent orbital patterns and issues with calibration of the instruments that detect infrared are frequently discovered.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 13:17:44 2018 No.10112454

>>10109995
>life and humanity will adapt
>therefore don't do anything to adapt
You sure are dumb. The current rate of warming is unprecedented in human history. Warming over the past hundred years had only occurred in the past over thousands of years. This is not enough time for the ecosystems we rely on to adapt without us suffering the consequences. We can mitigate that damage but only if you stop denying the problem exists amd allow us to do something about it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 13:38:29 2018 No.10112499 >>10109518 >You are scientifically illiterate if you don't believe manmade non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is a threat to life on this planet. touche, t. telecomm nurd

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 13:41:16 2018 No.10112503 >>10112444 To lay-people though, the argument seems convincing. Altho, lay-people are fucking retarded and believe almost anything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 14:00:38 2018 No.10112556 >>10112444 >peer review By who? There are predatory/fraudulent organizations that take payment to "peer review" and publish shitty, false papers.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 14:08:47 2018 No.10112575

>>10112454
If 95% of scientists agree that climate change is real, and most of the world has been cucked by left wing socialists supporting climate change existence, and most of the worlds wealth controlled by liberal companies, why hasn't anything been done?

Fucksticks like you would rather bitch about why people don't agree with you than actually doing something.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 14:47:32 2018 No.10112643 >>10109755 >This isn’t what the OP meant I can't read OP's mind -- i just had to go by what he said. If he meant something else, he should have said something else.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 15:20:28 2018 No.10112710

>>10112575
exactly this, the question boils down like this you brainsore idiot sjw:

will the entire planet be inhospitable tomorrow, in one year, in ten years, in 100 years? if the answer is a resounding NO to all of those questions, then I'm sorry but NO ONE CARES, go home

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 15:36:56 2018 No.10112748

>>10112575
Gee maybe because one of the biggest per capita polluters in the world is run by a retard who denies basic science and won't do anything about it? This is the definition of a circular argument: you deny it because nothing is being done about it and nothing is being done about it because you deny it.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 15:40:45 2018 No.10112752

>>10112710
>hurr when will a process which is already occurring begin
The planet is already less hospitable then it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution and is becoming less inhospitable as we rapidly warm the climate. Your question is nonsensical.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 15:55:08 2018 No.10112771

>>10112752
your brainlet is nonsensical anon, you're incapable of the extrapolative logical thought necessary to bring you to the conclusion that what you're saying, although nice and ethical, is not what will be

99% of humanity will not give a fuck about the environment unless it impacts them personally, such is human nature. the environment will continue to shift, natural or human provoked

in the end not much will change at all in the next 100 years, we'll get some more hurricane's, we'll have flooding, bread baskets might tilt, and deserts might get more fruitful, maybe this maybe that, humanity will cope just fine

there are so many unknowns that making a stink about this NOW is non-sensical, TOO LATE, which is what you're claiming is not going to happen in the next 100-1000 years, so go away

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:01:25 2018 No.10112782 >>10109416 Ever heard of ice age? Learn history, there were already many climate changes. Wait, it's not global warming anymore?

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:06:35 2018 No.10112795

>>10112771
>there are so many unknowns that making a stink about this NOW is non-sensical
It makes business sense for those invested in green energy. This doomsday bullshit is just marketing, a lot of it free marketing because "I fucking love science" types will preach the pseudo-science apocalypse for you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:09:32 2018 No.10112798 >>10112782 >>10112795 Yep. Why can't these simpletons see it for what it is. They think that science and intelligence are "majority rules " more likely they are wrong if everyone agrees with them.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:12:15 2018 No.10112802

>>10112454
>The current rate of warming is unprecedented in human history.
weather's been comprehensively measured only in the past hundredish years of human history.
>... without us suffering the consequences
nigger you can't even define the consequences.

your fearmongering and threat game is weak soiboi

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:13:34 2018 No.10112806 >>10112412 prove it

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:13:56 2018 No.10112808 File: 329 KB, 771x452, expect.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10112795 i didn't expect that reaction, but I'LL TAKE IT :D

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:17:16 2018 No.10112816

>>10112798
>Why can't these simpletons see it for what it is.
Because science has turned into a religion to them. If a mainstream "scientific" theory like anthropogenic climate change turns out to be false, then it's like their religion has been proven false even though so many so-called "scientists" said it was true.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:28:57 2018 No.10112837

>>10112816
Hell yes. I've said tha same thing myself. Would you agree that, if these zealots had some kind of a point (but they don't really): the single biggest thing that happened during modern times to fuck the way of nature was the building of the Panama Canal? Have you ever heard anyone bring that up? Oh, that makes too much money. Two completely different sides of the world swapping spit. I think industry is pulling the strings of the warmer puppets?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:40:07 2018 No.10112851 >>10110729 ever wondered WHY we would want a mars base?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:51:23 2018 No.10112869 How come climate "science" can forecast future climate by looking at temperature chart? It's like the stock echange forecasts future stock prizes...

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 16:51:35 2018 No.10112871

>>10112837
>the single biggest thing that happened during modern times to fuck the way of nature was the building of the Panama Canal? Have you ever heard anyone bring that up?
That's never brought up. The funny thing is that these cultists never gave a shit about the environment before, they likely laughed at tree hugging hippies, but now their religion has commanded them to become pseudo-hippies themselves.
>I think industry is pulling the strings of the warmer puppets?
Definitely. For whatever reason, they want to move away from oil, and they've been pushing this for a while. They used to say we were running out of oil, which turned out to be bullshit. They have framed wars in Iraq etc as being oil wars, despite there being plenty of other motives. Oil carriers constantly still crash and spill oil every year, and the media always reports it (we've all seen seagulls covered in black goop). Gasoline prices constantly rise. Oil doesn't have great PR at all, and they do nothing to improve it, they don't even deny anthropogenic climate change is happening, and are invested in green energy themselves. I see no evidence to suggest that they are against this doomsday scam and are hoping to cash in on it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 17:04:43 2018 No.10112899 >>10112869 yep, another great point, sjws go home - either open your mind and think, or GTFO

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 17:14:14 2018 No.10112908 ITT: Why humanity does not deserve to survive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 17:32:55 2018 No.10112941 >>10112908 humanity deservers to survive just fine, just like every species that came before us, and just like every species that comes after us, go home

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 18:37:55 2018 No.10113053

>>10112899
One disadvantage the "deniers" have is that most of them (us) are brainwash resistant high IQ or Just street smart meat packers, press operators, truck drivers, army men, and so on. A lot of people are smart but lack the formal training to stand against those who were more fortunate. Any dumbass can go to college if they grow up under the right circumstances. Science is funded by politics which is funded by industry.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 18:58:10 2018 No.10113086

Immigration and keeping the turd world on life support have a huge impact on the environment. Earth First and the Sierra Club both knew this before they were infiltrated by urbanites. I hate to go /pol/ but that's one of the steps we as the west need to take. As for China and India, God help us

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 19:06:20 2018 No.10113100 >>10113086 Well, we keep the third world on life support in order that they do not learn to complete with us.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 20:30:48 2018 No.10113258 >>10109416 99% of the world is scientifically illiterate. If you cannot convince a retard it is true in under 5 minutes, they will never believe you.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 20:45:51 2018 No.10113279

>>10112771
Well gee if a /pol/tard says it's nothing I guess we can just ignore all the scientists that say it is.

Just repeat this mantra whenever reality isn't going your way:

cant no nuffin
cant no nuffin
cant no nuffin
cant no nuffin
cant no nuffin
cant no nuffin

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 20:48:29 2018 No.10113284 legit dont give a fuck nigga lmao ill still throw beer cans on the beach and play with fire

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 20:50:11 2018 No.10113289

>>10112802
>weather's been comprehensively measured only in the past hundredish years of human history.
Red herring.

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

>nigger you can't even define the consequences.
Lie.

http://ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

>your fearmongering and threat game is weak soiboi
Your denial of reality is pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 21:30:36 2018 No.10113398 >>10109416 >does it exist? yes >is it a threat for all life on za worudo? yes >can you stop it? no

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 21:49:50 2018 No.10113446 >>10109416 you know what else is a threat to life on this planet? sharks, bears, mosquitos. but they are all just natural things

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 21:51:30 2018 No.10113451 File: 587 KB, 1200x900, jhuyt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] urlcut.ru/PORN

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 21:56:36 2018 No.10113461 >>10113258 Are you citing scientific data or is this just like a figure of speech or somth'n?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 21:56:44 2018 No.10113462 File: 151 KB, 565x600, 1526062216531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10109416 NIce sophist bait post, try harder next time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 21:57:38 2018 No.10113464 >>10113279 Says the puppet of /pol/tard

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:00:33 2018 No.10113475 >>10113053 >A lot of people are smart No, no they are not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:02:36 2018 No.10113478 >>10112748 Wrong. Obama had 8 years of full control and did nothing. Per capita pollution is irrelevant when 60% of total pollution comes from 2 countries opposed to us but willing to take our money.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:09:29 2018 No.10113491 >>10112771 >we'll get some more hurricane's Been saying that shit ever since Katrina. Been wrong ever since too. Also, you don't need to include an apostrophe every time you put an "s" on something.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:13:19 2018 No.10113499

>>10113475
What's that called when you take half of someone's sentence and use it to quote them out of context in order to boast your fallacious argument because you have not been formally trained in rhetori, cannot use the scientific method and you're wrong?

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:25:43 2018 No.10113508

>>10113478
Just what the fuck are we not doing that we should do? I have respect for the leaf eating hippie who is still driving their 1967 Dodge Dart and won't wash their close until they see a low impact opportunity but what's it going to take to satisfy the whining hypocrites when most deniers already agree that we should be efficient and conservative?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:49:10 2018 No.10113560 >>10112710 No, no, maybe

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:51:13 2018 No.10113564 >>10113478 >Obama did nothing so nobody can What a retarded argument

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:52:31 2018 No.10113567 >>10110691 >>/pol/

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 22:53:52 2018 No.10113573

>>10113491
we've already had multiple devastating hurricanes: Sandy, Harvey, Maria were all near calamitous and the Caribbean is still recovering from the latter. Are you retarded? The reason Katrina was specifically so bad was because of Louisiana, Southern Fried, corruption and nigger stupidity combining with swinish irish-germanic racist pettiness that caused serious harm to the city of New Orleans.

Anonymous Fri Nov 2 23:01:31 2018 No.10113592

>>10113478
>Obama had 8 years of full control and did nothing.
I'm not even an American and I know that's false.
Obama placed CO2 and Methane emissions from power generation under the control of the EPA. That's one of the larger things Trump was complaining about and trying to revoke, remember?

>>10113478
>Per capita pollution is irrelevant
Do you believe that Kuwait (4M people, 24.4 t/person) is "greener" than France (64M people, 5.1 t/person)? Talking about national statistics without adjusting for the size of countries is just dumb.

>>10113491
>>we'll get some more hurricane's
>Been saying that shit ever since Katrina.
Actually, climatologists DON'T predict more hurricanes. They predict that the hurricanes that do occur will be more powerful.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
>the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.
>it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.

>>10113508
>Just what the fuck are we not doing that we should do?
In my opinion: Shut down the use of thermal coal.
Even moving to combined-cycle natural gas would be a huge improvement, but the window for a "gentle phaseout" of coal power started closing in the mid-nineties and is long gone by now. Ideally we'd be discussing zero-emissions (or even negative-emissions) economies by now, but stopping doing the worst-possible thing would at least be a start.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 00:02:48 2018 No.10113711 >>10113592 >wait for china population to reach 5 billion. Per capita pollution is 100x less than the us. China then is contributing to 75% of total emissions but it's ok because no one person is using too much amirite?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 00:07:03 2018 No.10113720 >>10113478 >Per capita pollution is irrelevant the main reason they argue against this is because they are literally obsessed wtih population growth, and they know that per capita energy use must decrease as a consequence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 00:09:51 2018 No.10113726 >>10113478 >Per capita pollution is irrelevant it has nothing to do with climate change.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 00:15:05 2018 No.10113733 File: 190 KB, 771x452, 1541189636483.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10112808 Optimized.

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 00:22:43 2018 No.10113747

So are warmers protesting with their wallets? Heating? Air? What you driving? I would think if less bought pollution, less would sell. Clean coal? Is that just bull? Would you drive or get on a plane? won't there be negative effects of going back to the Stone Age?

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 00:24:36 2018 No.10113752
File: 83 KB, 610x425, Population_pyramid_of_China_2016.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10113711
>wait for china population to reach 5 billion.
The Chinese population boom is driven by the enormous spike in birth rates during the "Great Leap Forward". The fertility rate (births per women over the course of her life) is actually very low, and they're going to end with Japan-style demographic issues in another few decades.

>China then is contributing to 75% of total emissions
30%

>but it's ok because no one person is using too much amirite?
I honestly don't understand what kind of metric you're using here. Compared to the USA, people in China both emit less CO2 and have less children (by fertility rate). What possible grounds is there the claim they're contributing more to the problem?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 02:32:54 2018 No.10113905 >>10113752 I don't know no science or nuffin but china is a polluted hell hole. Retard

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 02:33:40 2018 No.10113907

>>10109416
All America has to offer in terms of civilization is on the coasts, which will take the brunt of the damage. Uneducated oat farmers in the middle of the country are happy to let civilization die because it interferes with their hobbies of racism and rape. Racist rape if they're having a good day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 03:01:04 2018 No.10113939 >>10113907 I guess these tactics must be working for you. Seems like you may be disagreeing with yourself. Kansas is sea level.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 05:24:37 2018 No.10114065 >>10113752 The sum of contribution of all contributors of a specific category... Not one you are talking with, but this is my assumption. If we assume problem per capita, US is biggest problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 05:55:47 2018 No.10114107 >>10113747 Humans can't do anything effective until actual solutions are discovered. It doesn't matter how people live their lives until then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 06:31:52 2018 No.10114160 File: 186 KB, 640x1136, 56A9C7C6-0B84-45D9-B0B0-502DA4937370.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Climate change is only bad for Third World. Developed world in majority will benefit from climate change

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 06:43:32 2018 No.10114170

>>10114107
What kind of bs excuse is that? That's like if i can't get a hundred percent, I might as well drop out of school. I see most of you are just a bunch of hypocritical bitches that want to keep others down so you can have it for yourselves. Is this post representative of other warmers?

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 08:25:14 2018 No.10114276

>>10113752
My point is you cherry picked an example where both the per capita and total emissions of one country was higher than the other. But this is not true for all countries. By your logic, it is possible that a country could be the most polluting country by volume, but if it has the lowest per capita, then it's not concerning for climate change.

Obviously this is a garbage tier argument because the climate isnt sensitive to where the emissions come from, only how much.

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 08:39:52 2018 No.10114287

>>10114276
>My point is you cherry picked an example where both the per capita and total emissions of one country was higher than the other.
Huh?
If you mean the Kuwait-France example, then no. France has much higher total emissions than Kuwait.

>By your logic, it is possible that a country could be the most polluting country by volume, but if it has the lowest per capita, then it's not concerning for climate change.
That depends on what you mean by "concerning". If you're just calculating the global amount of emissions then no, obviously what matters is the net emissions from each country. But if you're trying to distribute responsibility to reduce emissions, then it's fair for the people with the highest per-captia emissions to have the most responsibility.
That's why I picked France and Kuwait for my example. Even though France has more total emissions, Kuwait has a lot further to go to bring their emissions back to sustainable levels.

>Obviously this is a garbage tier argument because the climate isnt sensitive to where the emissions come from, only how much.
The climate also isn't sensitive to national boundaries. You need to consider the relative size of countries if you want to convert total emissions into a quantity that actually means something.

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 11:37:20 2018 No.10114478

>>10114287
I know what you're saying. I disagree that responsibility should be based on per capita. It should be based on net emissions per country and that burden can be distributed per capita or any other way. But saying china isnt as responsible as the us is ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 11:59:25 2018 No.10114505 >>10114160 >2100

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 12:05:08 2018 No.10114519 File: 1.11 MB, 1578x2189, 1488167109815.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10114160 >making projections about the global economy eight decades from now

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 12:06:45 2018 No.10114526 >>10109416 I fear niggers, spics and muslims more than any Natural phenomena. I swear the retardation of humanity will be its biggest challenge

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 12:09:57 2018 No.10114533 >>10109432 I pray to whoever/whatever listens that you and your ilk are punished accordingly. Filth who think like you are probably the most evil glob of goo to ever trespass on this shithole of a planet

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 12:12:21 2018 No.10114539 >>10109771 >the sun will blow... U do not blong in this thread.

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 12:42:27 2018 No.10114587

>>10114478
Your argument is absurd. This means that a citizen of Monaco can emit 35000 times more than a Chinese person and Monaco would still be less "responsible." How much a country emits is a product of population and lifestyle. Unless you are arguing for population controls then per capita emissions determines how much each country needs to mitigate. Demanding that large developing countries pay the most while those who have gorged themselves get off scot free is both idiotic and unrealistic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 12:47:48 2018 No.10114597 >>10114526 Something tells me you are not exactly someone advancing the borders of humanity's intellect yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 12:51:12 2018 No.10114603 >>10114587 I guess I hadn't thought about it that way. I suppose you're right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 13:29:01 2018 No.10114686 >>10110922 >was Exactly.

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 13:31:36 2018 No.10114693

>>10113478
>8 years of full control

That’s a blatant lie though. And I still don’t understand this meme of liberal left controlling everything while almost all major governments are currently controlled by right or center right leaders. It’s one thing to be a retard and deny climate change is going to have devastating consequences but how the fuck do you actually make up your own realities this way?

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 17:44:07 2018 No.10115187

>>10109432
You pose an existential threat to other humans and life in general and should be terminated like the cancer you are. One day it WILL be socially acceptable to kill people like you. When push comes to shove people like you will be among the first killed by anyone actually trying to survive.

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 17:57:20 2018 No.10115208

>>10115187
Not him, but if you think that killing "deniers", taxing carbon, and driving around in a $100k electric car is going to save future generations then you are so completely and utterly brainwashed there is no hope for you.

Economic/population growth is depleting non renewable resources at an exponentially increasing rate - climate change is just one of many symptoms of THAT fundamental sickness.

I used to think it was worth fighting for but because of people like you I'm sort of drifting into his camp. Maybe accelerationism really is our best bet in the long term.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 18:46:26 2018 No.10115328 >>10115208 > taxing carbon, and driving around in a $100k electric car is going to save future generations I didn't say that at all. If you're going to give up, you deserve to be given up on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 18:59:39 2018 No.10115350 File: 10 KB, 303x276, 1353021795248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10109416 >hurrr durrr i don't like CHANGE Tsssk, get with the times, gramps.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 3 19:03:27 2018 No.10115361 >>10109432 you'd better be dead sooner than that

Anonymous Sat Nov 3 19:04:08 2018 No.10115362

>>10113508
Fee and dividend with border carbon adjustment. If a bunch of western nations got together for it, it would force countries like China to clean up their act (or pay us substantially to continue doing their thing). At the same time, it creates a small welfare system that doesn't take money out of the budget and doesn't have any additional possibility for abuse.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 12:49:55 2018 No.10117113 >>10115362 Do carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses have an effect on rising temperatures?

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:12:33 2018 No.10117165

>>10110541
>60% of the wildlife on the planet has disappeared since 1970
This is a misunderstanding. A better explanation of the data would be that vertebrate animal populations have lost, on average, 60% of their members. Some have lost more, some have lost less. Some have actually increased. White tail deer for instance have been multiplying like crazy in the US, thanks mostly to the extinction of their predators.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:14:12 2018 No.10117170 >>10110682 Hunter-gathering is actually MORE endangered, because it's at the mercy of the weather. Say you have a drought for a couple years. All those blackberries die off. And then, so do you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:21:38 2018 No.10117185 >>10114587 But developing nations don't need to do as much to improve their per capita rate. The US needs to redesign it's whole electrical grid to use renewables. Bangladesh can build it that way to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:26:14 2018 No.10117195 "Climate change" is like saying "change change". Water is wet. Fire burns. THE FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGES, AND YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT IF YOU THINK HUMANITY IS THE FUCKING ISSUE, YOU GODDAMN "CAN'T AN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY" RETARDS!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:32:14 2018 No.10117210 >>10117195 LOOK I'M WRITING IN CAPS LOCK THAT MEANS I'M RIGHT

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:34:09 2018 No.10117214 >>10117195 >literally not even knowing the difference between weather and climate >this is taught in high school you aren't helping your point

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:34:40 2018 No.10117215 >>10117210 Show me the proof I'm wrong. "Studies" are a shit, and so is "academic review".

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:36:06 2018 No.10117223 >>10117214 They, both, change. Climates change. Weather changes. But, go ahead and shit yourself more.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:36:09 2018 No.10117224 >>10109416 >he actually believes this ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:43:42 2018 No.10117239 >>10117215 >Show me proof. I won't accept proof, btw Ok, retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:44:58 2018 No.10117243 >>10117239 Studies and academic reviews are not science, they are opinions, usually political opinions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:46:09 2018 No.10117244 >>10117243 What would you consider proof?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:49:44 2018 No.10117255 >>10117244 Science. Too bad the science says the climate is ~supposed~ to change, has ~always~ changed, and will ~continue~ to change, because that is what climates do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:50:59 2018 No.10117261 >>10117255 Can you provide a more concrete definition? What should I be looking for?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:52:11 2018 No.10117265 >>10117255 the science unequivocally says that the earth is warming and that humans burning of coal and oil are to blame

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:52:39 2018 No.10117269 >>10117261 A climate that has not changed over the lifetime of the earth.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:53:06 2018 No.10117270

>>10117255
To infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:53:49 2018 No.10117274 >>10117265 /thread /issue /argument /debate /controversy /yourentirelife

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:53:58 2018 No.10117275 >>10117265 What science? All I've seen are opinions and no science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:54:46 2018 No.10117277 >>10117275 t. science expert

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:55:03 2018 No.10117279 >>10117270 Bullshit opinion is not science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:56:25 2018 No.10117282 >>10117277 I know what scientific evidence consists of and a "majority opinion" is not science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:56:27 2018 No.10117283 >>10117279 Correct. Your bullshit opinion isn't science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 13:58:33 2018 No.10117286 >>10117283 Demanding observable, repeatable proofs is not an opinion, it is how science works.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:01:10 2018 No.10117299 >>10117286 Exactly. That's why global warming is a scientific fact. Well done, you figured it out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:04:31 2018 No.10117312 >>10117299 >observable, repeatable proof >"We all say it's humanz!" The first is what actual science demands, the second is a religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:05:38 2018 No.10117317 >>10117299 What you believe in is a religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:07:18 2018 No.10117319 >>10117312 Yup. Global warming caused by humans confirmed. I'm glad we agree

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:09:25 2018 No.10117324 >>10117319 Denied due to no repeatable proof. Not science, you worship a religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:10:42 2018 No.10117326 >>10117312 >everyone says that humans caused global warming -> they didn't cause global warming Nice non sequitur, faggot

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:12:31 2018 No.10117330 >>10117324 Denying the proof doesn't make it go away. Nice try though

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:14:33 2018 No.10117335 >>10117326 I said that popular opinion is not science. go ahead and continue crying. >>10117330 You need to ~have~ scientific proofs in the first goddamn place. You don't. You have a bunch of opinions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:15:39 2018 No.10117337 >>10117335 >You need to ~have~ scientific proofs in the first goddamn place. You don't. You have a bunch of opinions. >LALALA I don't see the evidence LALALA

>>	P-t extinction when Sun Nov 4 14:17:36 2018 No.10117342 File: 110 KB, 576x432, Galic_Gun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15872 CLATHRATE GUN FIRE!

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:19:50 2018 No.10117348

>>10117337
>waaaa, I have no scientific evid3ence to present, so I'll insult you!

So, are you going to try to have a counter-point, or are you going to depend on being an troll?

>>10117342
>a study is an opinion
>presents an opinion

Here we go again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:21:33 2018 No.10117353 File: 117 KB, 1024x683, 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10117348

>>	P-t extinction when Sun Nov 4 14:22:49 2018 No.10117356 File: 82 KB, 685x519, ncomms15872-f7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10117348 >you have no scientific evidence >post scientific evidence >you have no scientific evidence You have to go back.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:24:09 2018 No.10117365 >>10117353 >still has no scientific proof. >USE A meme! >>10117356 >The south pole is not a climate!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:26:08 2018 No.10117370 >>10117365 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iBLlksqztg

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:27:23 2018 No.10117373 >>10117370 You are still resorting to memes. You have beliefs, not proof.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:28:47 2018 No.10117378 >>10117373 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h74DTdTlCk

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:31:40 2018 No.10117383 >>10117378 A song and dance video does not ameliorate your lack of scientific proof. I can't spend all day showing how and why you are simply wrong, I have to go. Remember, demand scientific evidence!

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:32:34 2018 No.10117385
File: 51 KB, 1000x561, hitimeseries[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Reminder that arguing over climate change happening or not and being anthropogenic or not and being a bad thing or not is a big distraction from the bigger issues. We know for certain that pumping CO2 into the air is a bad thing in other ways. There's no need to care about the climate to care about reducing CO2 emissions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:32:47 2018 No.10117386 >>10117383 This post is brought to you by Exxon

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 14:33:50 2018 No.10117388 >>10117385 B-but muh volcanoes

P-t extinction when Sun Nov 4 14:50:42 2018 No.10117420

>>10117365

The study that I linked you is actually work that's being done in the shallow water column off the Siberian Arctic Shelf... which is off the coast of northern Russia, not the south pole.

And yes, technically, the south pole is a climate... but that's completely irrelevant because that's not what we're talking about.

You're not even reading what people are saying.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 15:44:46 2018 No.10117545

>>10112795
>>10112798
>>10112802
>>10112816
>>10112837
>>10112871
The abuse and destruction of the natural world is more severe than most realize. It will take decades or centuries to do, and millennia or eons to undo. The crisis is the irreversibility of this damage, regardless of whether or not the process is on the timescale of a human life. Looking at all of the things happening (surface warming, extinctions, topsoil erosion, overfishing, toxic metal and plastic pollution, desertification, and on) leaves very little to be optimistic about. Anthropocentrists are blind or apathetic to what is actually happening.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 16:01:13 2018 No.10117576 >>10117545 Nice job, quoting all the cool people. The "anthropocenterists name calling" is omnidirectional. The fact is that nature has created man and we are part of the system. We may not be as special as we think.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 16:14:01 2018 No.10117597

>>10117576
I mean by anthropocentrism the perspective that nature may be fully exploited by humans to meet our needs and wants. As opposed to a viewpoint that considers the natural world to have a right to independently exist without human interference, or something else like misanthropy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 16:24:05 2018 No.10117612 >>10117597 >>10117576 Each are valid Every creature exploits nature to the best of their ability. Just clean up afterwards and don't ruin it for everyone

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 16:26:03 2018 No.10117614 >>10117612 Anthropocentrism is untenable without stewardship, which none of you even want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 16:35:35 2018 No.10117648 >>10117614 That would also be a function of nature. I want what is best.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 16:53:39 2018 No.10117694 >>10117576 >blah blah we're part of nature What an irrelevant and meaningless comment

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 17:04:11 2018 No.10117712 >>10117648 Stewardship is the responsibility of humans doing the polluting, to minimize the damage. Humanity isn't absolved of responsibility for our actions because "we are part of nature :)".

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 17:35:52 2018 No.10117741 >>10112575 because were a capitalism and there's no money in it.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 19:35:14 2018 No.10117959

>>10117741
There is plenty of money in it.
>>10117694
More meaning than this.
>>10117712
No arguments here. But nobody said we are absolves of responsibility. We may be plenty dumb to think that the solutions we have now are better than what we had in the past. Seems like this has been a long series of ideas that seemed like good ones at the time.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 19:44:57 2018 No.10117971

>>10109419
>actually this
we don't have enough data to know if climate change is just a part of natural cycles of the weather.
This post is entirely correct

now I believe in climate change myself, but every time I mention this to someone, everyone gets butthurt as fuck and just says ur wrong

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 20:22:54 2018 No.10118049

>>10117971
>we don't have enough data to know if climate change is just a part of natural cycles of the weather.
That's wrong.
We know that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity because the carbon isotope ratios match those of fossil fuels. We know that it's driving global warming because of the increase in downward IR on the the frequencies CO2 emits on.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 20:56:13 2018 No.10118119

Can someone tell me why people always bring up things like microplastic pollution, fertilizer run-off, and heavy metal pollution when the topic of climate change comes up? None of these things have any effect on the climate. AGW is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, not plastics and fertilizer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 20:58:22 2018 No.10118122 >>10118119 most of those things are indirectly products of petroleum mining

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:20:41 2018 No.10118156 >>10113939 >Kansas is sea level. Where is the ocean?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:24:20 2018 No.10118169 >>10109416 You're scientifically illiterate if you don't believe chimpanzees can learn to farm, user melee weapons and make a feudal simian society.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:26:47 2018 No.10118176 >>10117959 The solution is to transition away from fossil fuels, whatever that might mean for capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:28:23 2018 No.10118181 >>10118176 You mean something that is not fossil, clean, cheap and effective? Well we do have nuclear power, but nature loving hippies say it's bad soo, we will stay on fossil a long time.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:28:41 2018 No.10118182

>>10118156
Water goes downhill and seeks lowest level. There are aquatic fossils all over the Great Plains. Many coastal areas are adjacent to areas of higher elevation (or they wouldn't be coastal.) someone was dissing farmers for not needing to give a fuck. If there is a threat. It is a threat th the lower elevations. Not to people Reno can drive for thirty mins and get to the ocean. There is a lot of dummies here. It is time to kill this and wait for the next.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:30:11 2018 No.10118183 >>10118176 Capitalism will do just fine honey.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:31:47 2018 No.10118184

>>10112454
Yeah I sure like where they conclusively tested that with experimental data, whoops no they didn’t because climate niggers can’t do anything but observe and play with biased computer sims. Cyanobacteria have already fucked the climate of the earth more than humans ever could.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:36:23 2018 No.10118194 >>10118184 This don't change the fact that fossil fuel is finite and is ending fast

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:40:59 2018 No.10118207

>>10118184
>Yeah I sure like where they conclusively tested that with experimental data, whoops no they didn’t because climate niggers can’t do anything but observe and play with biased computer sims.
>I don't know anything about this subject, but let me tell you why everything in it is wrong.

>Cyanobacteria have already fucked the climate of the earth more than humans ever could.
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:45:05 2018 No.10118213 >>10118207 Why are you even talking to the guy? He used "climate nigger" as a moniker.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:48:25 2018 No.10118222 >>10118182 >Water goes downhill and seeks lowest level. Your city can be below sea level and it doesn't fucking matter if the sea is hundreds of miles away.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 21:51:10 2018 No.10118231 >>10118207 >doesn’t know how Cyanobacteria we’re involved in climate change but pretends to know climate science. Whew >>10118213 Okay “climate chink”, happy fag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:06:38 2018 No.10118269 >>10118222 It matters, if it is not protected by a higher surrounding area somewhere along the line. Quit arguing about that shit.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:33:58 2018 No.10118331

>>10118231
>doesn’t know how Cyanobacteria we’re involved in climate change but pretends to know climate science.
I know what the expansion of cyanobacteria did to the atmosphere, I just can't see how it's supposed to be relevant to modern climate change. "X happened in the past, so Y can't be happening now" only works as an argument if you can somehow argue that X implies Y isn't possible, and you've not done that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:35:20 2018 No.10118338 All the "Climate religion believers" ITT: "Muh African culture humanities indoctrinator sayez that opinion sciumz is real sciumz, so stop asking for proof!"

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:41:29 2018 No.10118355 >>10118331 >cyanobacteria Not who you are replying to. We have been having huge cyanobacteria blooms occurring on the ocean, multiple blooms the size of Texas in some cases.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:48:29 2018 No.10118368 >>10118338 >"Muh African culture humanities indoctrinator sayez that opinion sciumz is real sciumz, so stop asking for proof!" Here's a 1552 page summary of the proof: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf Now fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:49:51 2018 No.10118372 >>10118368 Yay, an ~opinion~ ~study~. You fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:50:50 2018 No.10118374 >>10118372 >an ~opinion~ ~study~. It's a summary of the published research. What exactly were you expecting?

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:51:57 2018 No.10118377

>>10110922
Hawking was an exceptional individual. I tend not to put stock into the reasoning skills of most people, let alone aging dorks whose lives were defined by television.

Younger people today have the internet. For all its pitfalls, they can get access to all sorts of scientific information if they look for it. And socially, they at the very least have early encounters with philosophy dorks who spout off "that's the ____ logical fallacy" whenever anybody says anything, even when they're completely right.

More exposure to scientific knowledge and critical thinking techniques. People who grew up without comparable stimulation are more vulnerable to believing bullshit, and treating anything complicated with distrust.

Anyway I don't hate old people, I'm just sick of old people saying evolution is real because "I didn't evolve from no monkey! But maybe the blacks did! Ha ha! laugh out loud! Also Praise jesus"
It's just fucking unbearable

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:54:55 2018 No.10118386

>>10109432
>>10109434

>Baby-boomer mindset

Fuck baby-boomers, literally fucked the millennials with their pump and dump Reaganomic mentality, where you maximize your self gain at the cost of fuck-all, because for all you care, by the time your recklessness comes back to bite society in the ass, you'll be retired on your yacht in Monaco.
Just wait and see the amount of fuckery that generation will release in their final couple decades of bleeding the world for all it has.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:56:53 2018 No.10118390

>>10118374
Science. Observable, reproducibleresults, you know, like SCIENCE is made of if you have a science.

A united nations(biased as hell) opinion piece is not science. Testable, reproducible results is something climate religion propaganda noticeably lacks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 22:58:56 2018 No.10118396 >>10118386 >a bloo bloo, darned boomers and their demands for proof! JUST ACCEPT THAT TRUMP IS ACTUALLY HITLER!

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:02:23 2018 No.10118405

>>10118338
"anyone who believes the thing must have gotten it from authorities who have no reason to talk about the subject and are part of an institution I inherently distrust"

hey maybe you should try looking through this little journal for some research articles that hit on topics that interest you about climate change. It's not a big journal, or anything, just this little mom and pop thing with a few pretty-OK scientists running the show

I put in a sample search in the search bar but feel free to type in other things

https://www.nature.com/search?q=CO2%20emissions&journal=nclimate

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:02:44 2018 No.10118407

>>10109954
>life has always adapted to climate changes
>climate changes has always brought with it mass extinctions, decimating millions of years of highly specialized evolutionary traits that could have brought on being as smart, or smarter than humans millions of years earlier.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:06:17 2018 No.10118416 >>10118405 You cannot ~honestly~ say it is science, and neither can anyone. You can lie. You can insult. You can scream and yell and spout the same things over and over and over. You cannot bring scientific evidence. You are in the wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:08:15 2018 No.10118423 >>10118396 > ACCEPT THAT TRUMP IS ACTUALLY HITLER > Implying Trump is different from any other boomer > go back to /reddit/ with your PC implicity

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:09:13 2018 No.10118426

>not being excited for the perfect storm of climate change, resource depletion, and overpopulation
2030 on is going to be one hell of a ride anon, at least you were around to see the height of human techno-industrial civilization
I'm personally betting we'll go nuclear

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:09:41 2018 No.10118429 >>10118423 Trump wasn't the problem with your argument, your lack of scientific evidence is.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:12:07 2018 No.10118434

>>10118416
Did you even try looking at the search tool? You can see separate articles that are marked to tell you if it's Research or Opinion. Look at some of the Research ones.

I didn't even tell you what the conclusions of your search should be. I just thought you would find it interesting to look over. You see, these guys have to list their methods, label their claims with citations, the articles themselves get reviewed by panels for their methodology, and you have to go through some pretty tall orders to get published. Like, pick anything on there at random and just try to follow their reasoning. Then come back and tell us which one you read, and why you think it's good or bad. And we can discuss it.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:12:15 2018 No.10118435

>>10118390
>Science. Observable, reproducibleresults, you know, like SCIENCE is made of if you have a science.
>A united nations(biased as hell) opinion piece is not science.
Did you not even look at the link? It's not an opinion piece, it's a summary of the published research - the actual science. You can just read the list of references if you prefer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:12:29 2018 No.10118436 >>10118181 >>10118183 more anthropocentric myopia, while the world bleeds out

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:16:04 2018 No.10118445 >>10118416 >>10118429 >if I don't look at the evidence, it doesn't exist imagine being this fucking dumb

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:17:32 2018 No.10118449 >>10118434 >>10118435 >>10118445 Studies are not proof, they're an accumulation of data with opinions. ~Not~ scientific proof. You don't have scientific proof, you have very detailed Star Trek "cascade effect" arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:19:12 2018 No.10118454 >>10118436 There is nothing myopic about these two true statements. You are plenty humancentric yourself, it would appear

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:19:13 2018 No.10118455 >>10118449 >scientific proof isn't scientific proof Peak denier stupidity reached.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:20:17 2018 No.10118458 >>10118455 A study is not a fucking proof, you religious nutjob.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:20:48 2018 No.10118461

>>10118449
>Studies are not proof, they're an accumulation of data with opinions.
>~Not~ scientific proof.
Okay, if peer-reviewed scientific publications don't count, what WOULD you consider "scientific proof"?
Do you need someone to hold your hand as they walk you through how the greenhouse effect works?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:23:19 2018 No.10118473 >>10118455 Bystander here. I appreciate that you accomplished humor in your attempt at being a dick to somebody. I wish all dicks were so thoughtful. We would definitely find more common ground.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:28:26 2018 No.10118483

>>10118461
>what WOULD you consider "scientific proof"?

Oh, my, god. Are you people trolling me? You understand that acting like a retard means you are retarded, right?

"Scientific proof" is not a mysterious thing. It is something that you should understand like; "Hypothesis can lead to a theory which may lead to understanding/discovering a law."

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:28:49 2018 No.10118484

>>10118454
>anthropocentrism isn't myopic even if very bad things happen
>also you're actually an anthropocentrist even though you're arguing against it
No, I'm pointing out your foolish, ignorant, myopic viewpoint and all you can say is "durr you think da same thing as me" even though that's not true. The current state of human activities is destroying the natural world humanity depends on. This is untenable. Something should be done, far more than building a few nuclear plants and continuing business as usual as econophiles constantly suggest here.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:31:04 2018 No.10118490

Can I just say that how you feel about Donald Trump is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

This is the problem: The sissified left has appropriated this very real issue as their own, and that's what's driving the conservative backlash against it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:35:16 2018 No.10118498 >>10118490 Actually, the problem is that colleges are liberal, and they are demanding that the sciences become more "emotionally-in-touch and female-friendly so that women can shout down the difficulty of needing evil proof and evidence.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:36:23 2018 No.10118500

>>10118483

People have been linking you peer-reviewed scientific literature all day long, and your response is like this:

"...That's not real science."

I proved earlier that you're not even reading the damn things. I linked you an article about something happening in Russia and your response was, "Antarctica isn't a climate."

I really, really, don't want to resort to the ad hominem with you my man, but you're really making it difficult.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:37:55 2018 No.10118503

>>10118449
Do you have a problem with scientific articles my dude? I'm trying to get you to understand, this is how all science is done. Biology, chemistry, physics all have their subfields, and subfields are gonna have their journals, but it's all basically the same format. People have ideas, they then test the ideas. This is how everything humanity knows is actually done.

Like next you'll tell me I don't **REALLY** know smoking can give me cancer, that whole idea is just a leftist propaganda circlejerk. I mean, there's a point where this YOU DONT REALLY KNOW thing makes us question if even the universe actually exists.

IF the universe exists, and
IF things A, B and C are true,
THEN blah de blah

If it holds up, it's probably not bullshit. That doesn't mean it's infallible for all time, but uh, if I observe an axe-wielding maniac heading my way I'm not gonna stop and think "gee maybe all of my existence is a dream, therefore I should disregard everything I perceive around me"

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:41:31 2018 No.10118507

>>10118498

Fair enough, but you're going to find more and more as you go through life that people you hate sometimes speak truth. Part of rational maturity is learning how to parse fact from fiction in all situations, not just the ones that make you comfy. Your enemies will occasionally be right, and to say that they aren't PURELY because it came from an ideology you oppose is fallacious logic.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:42:09 2018 No.10118508

>>10109416
Whatever ends life on this planet will change the climate quite severely too. It won't be us.

It will take a gamma ray burst, some freakishly large asteroid or simply the atmosphere slowly getting cooked off. Until then, life will do just fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:46:06 2018 No.10118515 >>10118508 yeah OP would be correct in saying that lives are threatened, but not life. Life went through harsher conditions already. Not sure all of us will be ready for it though

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:48:10 2018 No.10118519
File: 15 KB, 500x221, Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10118503

It doesn't even need to go that far. Once the community determined temperature tracks C02 emissions the real battle was over. Now comes the tedious and bloody process of mopping up the stragglers.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:51:06 2018 No.10118525

>>10118507
>that people you hate sometimes speak truth
I have no problem with truth. In fact, I expect it as a minimum. Unfortunately, liberals think it is not needed for accurate science.

That is because they have no morals, and if they're wrong, they just shrug and go back to insulting, screaming and saying the same wrong things over and over like that will make their religion/political indoctrination correct.

Anonymous Sun Nov 4 23:57:35 2018 No.10118540

>>10118500
Because it is not fucking science.

"dis study is proof!"

"dis study is proof!"

"dis study is proof!"

"dis study is proof!"

You can present ~all~ the academic studies you want, and repeat them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and... just like you are still doing now!

You are not presenting anything but data with opinions.

RealPoliTiK Sun Nov 4 23:58:20 2018 No.10118543

>>10118525

We've reached a point of common ground, and that's nice, but it has no utility because you seem to be under the impression because climate change falls under the umbrella of Liberal doctrine, that means it isn't happening. How can I dissuade you of this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:00:45 2018 No.10118550 >>10118540 >You can present ~all~ the academic studies you want, and repeat them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and... just like you are still doing now! So what exactly WILL you accept?

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 00:01:18 2018 No.10118551

>>10118540

Very well. Show me what real science looks like. What criteria would a paper have to meet in order to satisfy you that it was indeed real science?

And don't think that I'm going to mock you or deride you based on what you present to me. I am genuinely concerned about the future of the earth, and I think you should be to, therefore, I want you to present your definition of something scientific by providing an example, and I will attempt to work within those parameters in order to convince you.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:07:01 2018 No.10118556

>>10118543
>How can I dissuade you of this?
>>10118550
>So what exactly WILL you accept?

Go back to demanding proof. Until that happens, science will always be a political tool instead of an exploration of our universe.

>>10118551
>Show me what real science looks like.
If you need me to show you, you need a lot more help than I can provide. "Scientific inquiry" and the acceptable standards of evidence needed to interpret the results are things that cannot just be comprehended, they must be understood.

While I understand, I cannot teach.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:10:30 2018 No.10118564 File: 461 KB, 1510x925, 1527908364687.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 00:15:40 2018 No.10118566

>>10118556

We've provided you with proof, but you dismiss it without reading it. If you are indeed the same gentleman who dismissed my nature.com publications earlier offhand, then you disregarded that article without even investigating. How do I know? You got the location in question completely wrong. The paper is about Russia, but you replied with Antarctica.

I can only conclude, therefore, that you are not interested in reading or understanding facts that do not align themselves with your belief system, and that you sir, are, in fact, JUST as ideologically possessed and unreasonable as those disgusting college liberals you despise.

What do you have to say to that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:17:51 2018 No.10118567 >>10118566 >We've provided you with proof, The problem is, you do not understand that you DID NOT provide proof. You are still saying "My climate Jesus is proof!"

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 00:19:49 2018 No.10118571

>>10118556

Also, by the way, comprehension and understanding are synonyms.

> "Scientific inquiry" and the acceptable standards of evidence needed to interpret the results are things that cannot just be comprehended, they must be understood.

What you're saying sounds like this to me, " "Scientific inquiry" and the acceptable standards of evidence needed to interpret the results are things that cannot just be known, they must be known.

Also, why is "scientific inquiry" in quotes? Do you not think scientific inquiry is legitimate?

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:20:14 2018 No.10118573

>>10118556
It's funny because I'm pretty sure this one famous smarty scienceman once said if you can't explain it you don't understand it well enough

anyway people give articles because it has data and the convergence of lots of data starts to develop a theory, and when you develop a mechanism that demonstrates principles of the theory, it starts to look like the closest reflection of reality. At that point you can be say it's got problems, and okay, point out what the problems are. Science is a conversation. Folding your arms and saying it's not real, but uh, I can't explain what it should be, isn't useful

Do you want me to explain how I can use radiation to make gaseous chemicals vibrate? and how that vibration keeps getting passed between gas molecules in the atmosphere to keep the heat around? Because heat making things vibrate is the basis of a shitload of understanding chemistry

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

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:24:08 2018 No.10118577 The future will be interesting. The last time CO2 was this high there was no Ice in greenland.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:24:28 2018 No.10118579 >>10114160 The Plague is only bad for the peasants. The people living in my castle will benefit from The Plague

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:24:36 2018 No.10118580

>>10118571
>comprehension and understanding are synonyms.
They have similar but different meanings.

Also, I'm not going to argue about my grammar when I'm tired.

>>10118573
>if you can't explain it you don't understand it well enough
I can explain it, but I need to be able to grab your head, first.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:26:22 2018 No.10118581 >>10118580 >I can explain it, but I need to be able to grab your head, first. unzips pants

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 00:27:41 2018 No.10118584

>>10118567

>>10118567

>"My climate Jesus is proof!"

Nonsense. I never made any such claims, nor have any of my assertions been even remotely faith based.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15872

You see this? This BY ITSELF, is not proof that the climate is changing unnaturally, but it IS proof that permafrost is thawing and methane is escaping.

From there, there's only one logical step left: The permafrost is thawing because it's getting warmer.

And that's just ONE paper.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:27:47 2018 No.10118585 >>10118581 >unzips pants Oh, you need a hammer and nails...

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:28:49 2018 No.10118586 >>10118584 >I never made any such claims, Every time you think a study is proof, that is exactly what you are doing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:29:01 2018 No.10118588 >>10118585 kinky

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:30:54 2018 No.10118594 File: 68 KB, 500x661, wood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10118588

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:31:15 2018 No.10118597 File: 316 KB, 1449x1088, 2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10118564 >Greenland temperature >global mean temperature these uh, they're not the same thing

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 00:33:01 2018 No.10118600

>>10118586

I think a study is proof because it demonstrates itself to me. It provides me with data, it maps that data, it INTERPRETS that data, and then USES the data in order to reinforce the interpretation. At no point during that process am I pursuing truth through faith.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:33:35 2018 No.10118603

>>10118564
This graph is completely wrong. It has the ice core data ending at 1900 but it actually ends in 1855 just at the beginning of the Hadcrut data. This has the effect off pushing the ice core data forward and the Hadcrut data down in order to meet it. But even if it didn't make this major mistake, appending global temperature to Greenland temperature as if they're the same is simply incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:34:49 2018 No.10118609 >>10118564 How the hell are those stitched together? This looks like someone's taken two different graphs with two different choices of zero and slapped them together in Excel.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:35:57 2018 No.10118612

>>10118484
This time, I am me. I was not me when you said, "you" and "me," nor were you even you. You are having an argument with several people and do not SEEM to realize it. I was stating that two statements are true. Because they are. You are acting like a psycho bitch who has a vagina. That large syllable word that you like to use is a good fit for your arrogant ass. Nothing anybody can do or suggest is going to be good enough for you. The real problem with most people is in the mirror.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:38:40 2018 No.10118615 >>10118597 Global mean temperature change means everywhere on the entire planet changes by the same number at the same time, duh

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:39:04 2018 No.10118616 >>10118612 >I have no argument Then why did you bother typing out all this bullshit?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:40:27 2018 No.10118618 >>10118600 >it demonstrates itself to me. It might as well talk to you in a voice only you can here. Proof has actual standards like reproducibility. If you don't have reproducibility, you don't have proof. You are calling a belief proof.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:44:42 2018 No.10118623 >>10118597 >>10118603 Ok, can you explain what caused Greenland to heat up so much at the end of the bronze age? It sure as shit wasn't carbon emissions

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:47:08 2018 No.10118624

>>10118612
She was called a honey and now accused of having female genitalia. The OP is obviously a lady too but, probably had a nice father who raised her to have civilized and open minded debate. Take your twat elsewhere. The humans are trying to talk.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:47:46 2018 No.10118625

Can climate scientists test large scale theories like climate change? A biologist can mutate a gene and then use a complimentation test as proof of function. The physicist can come up with a great theory and prove it with experimental data. How do you test and prove climate change aren’t there way too many variables in a constantly changing system?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:51:01 2018 No.10118629 >>10118625 Measure the warming of air with different concentrations of CO2 that has been radiated with infra-red radiation. If global warming is real then you should expect higher CO2 concentrations to cause more warming in air.

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 00:53:03 2018 No.10118631

>>10118618

Ok, so although the process has been long and tortured, we are actually getting somewhere.

So you say that proof isn't proof unless it can be reproduced. Is that your only criteria for proof, or are there others?

Nevermind, you seem pretty emphatic. No reproduction, no proof.

Ok, let's try it.

1 + 1 = 2.

No matter how many times I reproduce the test, adding 1 thing to another makes 2. Checks out there.

Now how about an example from the study I linked you. Pic related. Shakhova et all conducted a test. This is what they had to say.

"(a) Column-like acoustic anomalies (blanked areas) interpreted as gas plumes are shown as areas with no colour and blue colour. Acoustic anomalies highlighted in blue correspond with the centre position of the submerged lake basin and interpreted as gas propagating through the submerged thaw-lake talik. In 2008, the top boundary of this acoustic anomaly was located ∼5m below the seafloor; (b) in 2011, the position of the top boundary of this acoustic anomaly was reaching the seafloor, causing doming of the surface layer of sediments. During the survey in 2011, bubble plumes of CH4 releasing to the water column from the seafloor were observed at this site; multiple pockmarks in the seafloor were also documented within the site as shown in Fig. 6b."

So in 2008, they sent acoustical waves into the ground to establish areas in the seafloor that have become porous as a result of gas buildup. They refer to this as an "acoustical anomaly".

Then, 3 years later, they REPEAT this test, and the data demonstrates that that same acoustical anomaly is now located closer to the sea floor (remember, this is all happening underground).

Therefore, the gas has migrated upwards, because the test was reproduced and the conclusions validated the hypothesis.

So apparently, Shakova and her team ARE providing you with proof according to your own standards, because they are reproducing their tests and getting the same results.

>>	RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 00:55:39 2018 No.10118634 File: 136 KB, 684x519, ncomms15872-f7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10118618 My fault, here's the pertinent image.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 00:58:06 2018 No.10118637

>>10118623
I, not someone you replied to, not a climate scientist, and also someone who doesn't care to look it up, cannot. But I also don't know how failing to account for a thing in the past means a thing today makes no sense.

"HEY You said cigarettes give people cancer! Why come I get cancer when I give myself an arsenic enema? HMMM clearly there is a gap in your theory of cancer!"

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:00:22 2018 No.10118641 >>10118556 >Go back to demanding proof. You've been presented with proof. So far you've completely failed to communicate why you think it doesn't count.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:02:31 2018 No.10118645 File: 103 KB, 1000x700, 2012_movie_tidal_waves_roland_tsunami_monk_hd-wallpaper-216160.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Seeing the ocean come over the mountains that surround me is my ultimate nightmare. Pic related.

>>	RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 01:02:33 2018 No.10118646 >>10118641 He's been fairly clear about that in my opinion: It doesn't count because he doesn't want it to. :)

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:03:26 2018 No.10118648

>>10118629
Problem is though that is not something you can control it even have a control to study in contrast, It’s observational only establishing a correlation right? In something like biology where you create antibiotic resistant bacteria, knock out the resistance gene and then insert it to another using a plasmid and then sequence it to prove it. There is no model system for climate change is there?

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:03:35 2018 No.10118649

>>10118637
It would help in gaining a better understanding of temperature change throughout the ages.

>"HEY You said cigarettes give people cancer! Why come I get cancer when I give myself an arsenic enema? HMMM clearly there is a gap in your theory of cancer!"
End your life and erase that pesky carbon footprint

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:04:45 2018 No.10118651

>>10118631
Is this the only time in all of the existence of earth that this happened?

Yes there is observable evidence and yes, the examination of the evidence is reproducible.

Great job. Now, saying "climate change is real" because of suboceanic gas buildup does not draw a reasonable conclusion from the evidence, does it?

>>10118641
>>10118646

I have been presented with opinions. Yours, and the opinions of the people you believe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:06:09 2018 No.10118653 >>10118651 >I have been presented with opinions. Explain why the studies posted don't count.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:06:20 2018 No.10118654 >>10118637 I like his analogy better than hers. Shh! I'm trying to hear what these smart dudes are saying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:07:19 2018 No.10118657 >>10118653 Studies are opinions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:10:48 2018 No.10118659 >>10118657 >Studies are opinions. What, in your mind, separates "opinions" from "proofs"?

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:11:30 2018 No.10118660

>>10118649
Information helps, and we should totally try to know what we can, but a lack of information doesn't prove something is false. I can observe thing A and thing B have similar outcomes but can have entirely different causes. "What about X" is a non-sequitur if you aren't establishing why you think that disproves something. Even if climate changes "naturally" that means jack shit about whether or not humans can influence it. Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:13:08 2018 No.10118663 >>10118631 Ah yes the crab people are almost to the surface. I for one welcome our new crustacean overlords

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:14:44 2018 No.10118668 >>10118657 I'm nodding off. I'm old and I go to sleep whether I want to or not. I'll come back to this thread tomorrow. >>10118659 Empirical evidence and scientific controls are good. Good night.

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 01:16:26 2018 No.10118670

>>10118651

Certainly not. In fact, the thawing of methane clathrates in the ocean is hypothesized to have been one of the primary driving forces behind the Permian Mass Extinction, the worst extinction event in earth's history.*

*https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871174X16300488

So you agree then that the evidence provided in the paper is reproducible, therefore, according to your own definition, the paper is legitimate science.

Thank you. And no, as I said before, one paper depicting oceanic gas buildup doesn't conclusively prove that the earth is warming, but it helps to know that permafrost is so-called because it is for all intents and purposes "permanently" frozen. Therefore, what would cause something permanently frozen to thaw?

An unprecedented and unnatural rise in global temperatures.

These are not unsubstantiated opinions... don't confuse me with the NPC rabble you interact with on a daily basis.

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 01:18:00 2018 No.10118671

>>10118659

He already established that bro you're behind. Proof according to anon is only proof if it's reproducible. So I demonstrated that the paper had conducted reproducible tests so he conceded.

I can tell I haven't changed any mind, but I've planted seeds.

>>	RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 01:19:49 2018 No.10118675 >>10118663 Coping with humor! Shows you understand the implications of the material!

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:19:57 2018 No.10118676 Global warming has saved us from the ice age the planet would have naturally cycled into.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:21:08 2018 No.10118677 >>10118675 Trying this hard to show you are above a simple joke. Hows that high functioning autism treating you?

>>	RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 01:22:48 2018 No.10118682 >>10118677 No it was a good one. I'm not above it all. Very funny. :)

>>	RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 01:24:09 2018 No.10118683 >>10118677 Also, not well, generally speaking... but I'm working on being more social. By the way I caught your insult, I'm just choosing to ignore it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:30:29 2018 No.10118688 >>10118683 Hmm now I just feel mean, I'm going to bed. Good luck with the whole being more social thing anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:38:22 2018 No.10118699 >>10118670 Oh this "so you agree with me" bs again. I think I went to elementary school with this one.>>10118671 You are planting seeds. Complements from a denier.>>10118682 Very clean. This is how it is done.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:39:16 2018 No.10118700 >>10118615 no it doesn't retard, it's an average. are you a 10-year-old?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:41:13 2018 No.10118708 >>10118700 Anon, I...

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 01:51:10 2018 No.10118721 >>10118700 Are you sure you guys aren't saying the same thing?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 05:30:16 2018 No.10118922 >>10118269 >It matters, if it is not protected by a higher surrounding area somewhere along the line. But it doesn't matter in the example that was actually being discussed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 06:36:38 2018 No.10118972 >>10117741 based & redpilled

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 08:31:19 2018 No.10119073

>>10118623
Sure, during the bronze age there was a series of explosive volcanic eruptions. These large eruptions released sulfur which formed sulfate aerosols that block the sun and cause a sharp drop in temperature. However these aerosols don't last long in the atmosphere and the temperature shoots back up.

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

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

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 08:41:37 2018 No.10119087 >>10110682 >not making blackberry jam What's wrong with you?

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 09:42:00 2018 No.10119179

>>10109416
It worth mentioning but you don't understand the negative feedback which the planet implements on temperature change. If you believe it will accelerate you are "scientifically illiterate." I am more worried about ocean acidification then the green house gas effect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 10:08:16 2018 No.10119234 >>10118671 Just woke up. >the paper had conducted reproducible tests so he conceded. I didn't concede that climate change is real, I agreed that the reproducible tests were reproducible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 13:04:38 2018 No.10119466 >>10118676 The next glacial period isn't due for several thousand years. CO2 doesn't last that long. What would have saved us if we kept our fossil fuels to release at the correct time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 13:07:57 2018 No.10119469 >>10119179 Who said it will accelerate? Are you suggesting if it doesn't accelerate its not bad?

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 13:24:09 2018 No.10119493

>>10119234

So based on yesterday's discussion, we know that Shakhova's study fits your definition of scientific proof because it contains within it reproducible results.

So today what I have for you is a publication from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine which comprehensively addresses all of the questions I think you might have on the subject, and of course, provides you with the resources and materials you need to be satisfied that it is indeed science.

From the Introduction:

"The question then of how global mean surface temperature varied over the last 2,000 years is of great interest. When analyzed in conjunction with reconstructions of solar variability, volcanic activity, and other influences on climate during this period, surface temperature reconstructions can be of use in efforts to reduce the level of uncertainty in projections of human-induced greenhouse warming. Such reconstructions provide a measure of the natural variability of the climate system, against which projections of human-induced global warming can be compared. "

https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/1#xiii

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 13:28:20 2018 No.10119500

>>10119234

I'd like to note also that the material that I linked was presented to Congress in 2006 as per it's request, and is by no means the view of one or even a handful of scientists. It is a group effort that includes scores of highly qualified individuals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 13:30:22 2018 No.10119504 >>10109416 The planet will be fine, It's the people that are fucked !

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 13:46:15 2018 No.10119541
File: 27 KB, 300x300, 1375643863268.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The area where I live is already being desertified.
I went to an underwater aquarium a couple of months ago and it looked unbelievably sad. Most of the coral reef was bleached.
Even regular weather is getting so erratic. Lethal heatwaves and infrastructure-wrecking storms used to be rare events but are now happening on a biannual basis.
So hearing stuff about global water crises and future climate migrations and ocean acidification and glacial retreat or arctic shrink or dear lord god those fucking feedback effects really does terrify me to the bone.
Like, I am not a political man, at least not REALLY. I love bitching online about stuff that, in rare moments of lucidity (e.g. now) I am willing to admit is probably meaningless in the long run. But god fucking lord god damn if environmental degradation doesn't rustle my jimmies.

This may be just me projecting my fat ass out there, but I think a major reason why climate denial is a thing is because people are just terrified of even thinking of it all. Admitting that it's true is paramount to admitting we as a civilization are committing a massive collective suicide. It means that our lifestyle is simply unsustainable. Nobody wants to think about that. I know I don't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 13:47:03 2018 No.10119544 >>10118663 kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 14:00:53 2018 No.10119570 >>10119541 I feel the same way my dude. I wish there was a leader we could rally behind to save the human race, but it really does seem like we're reaching the end of the road.

RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 14:14:32 2018 No.10119592

>>10119570

There will be. He or she is out there as we speak. I assure you, the human enterprise will not go quietly.

If man-made climate change is proof of ANYTHING, it's that homo sapiens have become a force of nature.

I believe that as the crisis deepens, REAL leaders will filter to the surface. They always do.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 14:31:27 2018 No.10119626
File: 19 KB, 306x401, I tried to warn you, but you didn't listen so embrace your fate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10119541
>Nobody wants to think about that
that's one factor, imagine growing up in the 80s or 90s with technology jumping in leaps and bounds only to be faced with the reality that it's unsustainable and the odds greatly favor that the last half of your life is going to be more in line with 17th or 18th century life than 20th or 21st century life and there's literally nothing you can do about it. Of course people will stick their heads in the sand about it and carry on as normal.
Not to mention that humans just can't into long term planning, we're not built for it and our civilization simply isn't capable of handling the problems we've unleashed.

>>10119570
sorry lad, even a great leader can't do much at this point. The tipping point was literally decades ago, at this point it's just a question of whether we can prepare enough to avoid extinction
if the feedback loop is correct it's most likely extinction in the long run for humanity

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 14:47:15 2018 No.10119665

>>10109416
Unless the entire planet is going to stop polluting, why should we in western countries shoulder the entire burden?

Fossil fuels are basically the most economical and readily available sources of energy we have right now. Electric cars are more expensive. And require rare earth minerals.

If we shoot ourselves in the foot with "green" policies, then the rest of the world will continue to use fossil fuels and they'll gain an advantage. They'll have more industry, a bigger military, etc. And then we'll be fucking screwed.

>>10111995
>>10114533
>>10115187
>>10115361
The tolerant left, everybody. Wow, they're so nice. It's such a surprise that they didn't win enough people over to their side to win the 2016 election, isn't it? I'm amazed people weren't persuaded by their message of """love""" and """inclusivity""".

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 15:15:15 2018 No.10119741
File: 132 KB, 767x1024, A95E5853-F9D3-44CB-A931-23849CFFA387.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw reading climate doomers when I am living in Poland, weather outside is 20 degrees Celsius in November and I am eating apple pie.

must suck to live in Third World...haha

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 15:20:18 2018 No.10119755 >>10119741 POLISH APPLES WILL SAVE US ALL!! PRAISE THE APPLEPOSTER

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 15:26:26 2018 No.10119774 >>10119755 Polish apples aren’t for everyone Poojet

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 15:37:49 2018 No.10119805 File: 236 KB, 719x750, 1534496195285.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If we eliminate all but the white race climate change wouldn't exist, simple as. 3rd world shiters don't care about this planet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 15:38:24 2018 No.10119809 Oh no, what do we do bros? Big Apple is onto us

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 15:39:37 2018 No.10119812 >>10119809 I thought Steve was dead

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 16:10:36 2018 No.10119895 >>10119466 So we should weaponize global warming to fight the planet in the future

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 16:35:00 2018 No.10119943 I hope the warmers go ahead and save for retirement. Just in case guys.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 18:10:13 2018 No.10120125

Can someone convince me why I should give a shit about "global warming"?

The thing is that we just KNOW developing countries are going to keep using fossil fuels - such an abundant, cheap source of energy. Meanwhile, electric cars are fucking expensive, partly due to using loads of rare earth minerals. And generating renewable energy is not that cheap either (I think we should do nuclear to be honest - that's a pretty cost-effective way of generating lots of electricity).

But anyway the point is this - why should western countries shoot themselves in the foot, deliberately making things MORE expensive for ourselves, allowing our enemies to catch up, allowing them to have more industry and develop their militaries until they can beat us?

>>	RealPoliTiK Mon Nov 5 18:12:30 2018 No.10120130 >>10120125 Because the alternative is extinction.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 18:31:37 2018 No.10120165

>>10120130
Surely we'll adapt like we always have. Some parts of the world that are currently too cold to inhabit, like Siberia, will become habitable. We'll make do.

But I guess I would be willing to reduce emissions if we can be sure that all countries will do it equally so that no country can sneakily use fossil fuels and gain an advantage. Perhaps we should give the UN the power to enforce this sort of thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 18:43:27 2018 No.10120184 >>10120165 Russia and china will openly piss in the face of the UN

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 18:45:52 2018 No.10120188 >>10120130 The solution is extinction of certain races

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 18:57:19 2018 No.10120204 >>10120130 >>10120188 Stupid contest. Who will win?!

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 18:58:36 2018 No.10120207 >>10120204 >T. Lesser race

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 19:08:15 2018 No.10120228 >>10120184 Well that's the thing. And that's why I'm sceptical about the idea of western countries taking on the burden of reducing emissions. >>10120188 Interesting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 19:13:31 2018 No.10120240 >>10120228 If we take up being more environmentally friendly we would have to force it upon others like the races who don't give a shit about the planet. We would have to be brutal to achieve this goal of fixing the planets climate

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 19:17:01 2018 No.10120250 >>10119895 Sure, but first stop rapidly warming the planet out of the climatic optimum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 22:41:58 2018 No.10120646 >>10120250 The planet is warming the planet, and it causes more vegetative growth. Why do you hate the environment?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 22:44:18 2018 No.10120650 >>10120240 The planet is fixing the environment by raising the temperature to cause more plant growth.

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 22:58:01 2018 No.10120666

>>10120125
>Can someone convince me why I should give a shit about "global warming"?
Because fix problems is cheaper than ignoring them in the long run.

>The thing is that we just KNOW developing countries are going to keep using fossil fuels - such an abundant, cheap source of energy.
How do you "just know"?

>But anyway the point is this - why should western countries shoot themselves in the foot, deliberately making things MORE expensive for ourselves
Because your disproportionately responsible for this problem. Look at tit the other way around: why would developing countries that are struggling to get by with a quarter of your emissions cut back, unless you cut a path and show them it's possible?

>allowing our enemies to catch up
Which enemies?

>>10120165
>Surely we'll adapt like we always have.
Adapt to what? So long as we keep contributing to the problem the situation will continue to get worse. There won't BE a stable state to adapt to until we cut emissions.

>But I guess I would be willing to reduce emissions if we can be sure that all countries will do it equally so that no country can sneakily use fossil fuels and gain an advantage.
Sure. Expand whatever internal emissions-regulation mechanism you use so that it also covers imports. Write trade deals that are contingent on other counties setting up similar emissions controls.

>give the UN the power to enforce this sort of thing.
That's not really how the UN works.

>>10120240
>If we take up being more environmentally friendly we would have to force it upon others like the races who don't give a shit about the planet. We would have to be brutal to achieve this
If you want everyone to work together towards a common goal, "be brutal" probably shouldn't be your first suggestion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 23:05:33 2018 No.10120678 >>10120666 There is nothing to fix. The planet is getting warmer to increase plant growth. It's natural. Why do you want to poison the environment?

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 23:34:49 2018 No.10120725

>>10120666
>If you want everyone to work together towards a common goal, "be brutal" probably shouldn't be your first suggestion.
The world isn't some fairy tail place where everyone gets along. Grow up and realize that some people need to be forced into action.The meek will accomplish nothing. Its the strong that will always prevail.

>Which enemies
Are you implying that no country out there would leap at the chance to dethrone America?

>Because your disproportionately responsible for this problem.
What is this? thinly veiled white guilt?

>How do you "just know"?
Jesus, its like you are a little child that thinks everyone just gets along and couldn't possibly have ulterior motives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 5 23:36:35 2018 No.10120730 >>10120725 Shit *fairy tale

Anonymous Mon Nov 5 23:58:48 2018 No.10120776

>>10120725
>The world isn't some fairy tail place where everyone gets along.
It's also not an edgy teen novel, where only blood and violence ever gets things done. Diplomacy and negotiation actually work, as the comparative peace of recent history clearly shows. If you want other countries onboard with addressing AGW, proposing deals that benefit the participants is going to be far more productive than waving around empty threats.
Or do you actually think that the US could use military force to cut emissions in China?

>The meek will accomplish nothing. Its the strong that will always prevail.
Don't conflate "strength" with "quick to resort to violence". It makes you look foolish.

>What is this? thinly veiled white guilt?
Reality. The developed world (particularly the USA and Australia) have vastly higher per-capita emissions than the rest of the world. Given how profitable the use of fossil fuels is, developing countries can't afford to take the lead on moving away from them. This is why the USA abandoning the Paris accord was such a big deal (despite how thin the actual agreement was): If the USA isn't interested in participating, then it will vastly harder to convince anyone else to either.
Hell, this is exactly the issue that ridiculously-abused Ottmar Edenhofer quote is actually talking about: For developing counties to leave their fuels in the ground after the developed world have already burned theirs represents a huge transfer of wealth - they're not going to agree to that without getting something in return. It's incumbent on us to lead, or else no-one will.

>Jesus, its like you are a little child that thinks everyone just gets along and couldn't possibly have ulterior motives.
Understanding other peoples' motives is the entire point of diplomacy.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math