/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10260259]

Anyone who denies manmade climate change in 2019 has no credibility as a scientist or as an anything that requires rational thinking.

[Anonymous No.10260290]

>>10260259
Anyone laying shit bait like this should vote Hillary in 2019

[Anonymous No.10260294]

That's true, but not an interesting point. The fact is that global temperatures are rising as are CO2 emissions, and humans are undeniably the cause.
But is global warming/climate change a good or a bad thing? Nobody can get the interpretation right (I mean, its a 50/50 chance to be right but nobody fully understands the climate) so no one can say for certain. But Freeman Dyson says is makes the environment greener and benefits agriculture

[Anonymous No.10260296]

>>10260259
Anyone who mistakenly believes in manmade climate change in 2019 has been tricked into accepting supernatural bullshit

[Anonymous No.10260314]

>>10260259
>because believing a bunch of radical leftists requires rational thought.

[Anonymous No.10260315]

>>10260290
she's not good on climate change though.

[Anonymous No.10260325]

>>10260259
same for those who deny that some people can't build muscle

[Anonymous No.10260331]

>>10260259
>hey guys what percent of climate change is man mad-
STFU REEEE YOU SHOULD BE KICKED OUT OF COLLEGE!!

ugh

[Anonymous No.10260368]

>>10260294
>>10260296
>>10260314
>>10260331
rightist intellectuals

[Anonymous No.10260384]

>meme
>tier
>evidence
>literally
>no
>other
>field
>would
>accept
>as
>argument
>for
>causality
inb4 muh CO2 and temperature lines that kinda squiggle the same way
inb4 muh historical temperature patterns literally estimated from rocks

[Anonymous No.10260396]

>>10260294
Well if Freeman Dyson says so every other scientist and economist must be wrong. No need to look at the evidence.

[Anonymous No.10260403]

>>10260396
Nice try. I'm not saying that, it's called citing a source. My entire opinion isn't based upon one scholar--that wouldn't be scholarly--but in regards to CO2 yielding agricultural benefits, i think Dyson is a credible source since he's actually researched the effects on vegetation.

[Anonymous No.10260405]

>>10260396
In fact, many scientists and economists are in agreement with Dyson, so actually what you said don't make a damn bit of sense.

[Anonymous No.10260411]

>>10260259
if the air and water in cities is clean I don't give a fuck about 80iq fisherman on the equator being flooded by an extra 1cm of sea level

[Anonymous No.10260412]

>>10260384
>he doubt know infrared heat from CO2 can be directly measured
Where do you fucking clowns come from? It's the same nonsense in every thread.

[Anonymous No.10260431]

>>10260412
>Where do you fucking clowns come from?
Do you need to swear?

[Anonymous No.10260433]

>>10260403
>I'm not saying that, it's called citing a source.
Saying that X is so and so's opinion is not citing a source. Does Dyson have any peer reviewed research saying such?

>My entire opinion isn't based upon one scholar--that wouldn't be scholarly
I'd like to hear what it is based on.

>but in regards to CO2 yielding agricultural benefits, i think Dyson is a credible source since he's actually researched the effects on vegetation.
What about other effects of CO2? Did he take into account the effects of drought caused by global warning?

[Anonymous No.10260434]

>>10260412
>CO2 does this in smaller scales, so clearly we can extrapolate to hell and back and claim it raises the planet's temperature
Nice weak as shit data.

[Anonymous No.10260436]

>>10260412
>can't understand the difference between making measurements and interpreting trends

>calls others 'fucking clowns'

Let me put it in terms you might have a chance of understanding: it's quite easy to accurately measure the unstretched circumference of your mother's lips, it's quite hard to determine just from that data how many scores of cocks she gobbled last night.

[Anonymous No.10260439]

>>10260434
>CO2 does this in smaller scales
What scale are you talking about moron? Why do deniers constantly make shit up?

[Anonymous No.10260444]

>>10260405
Most scientists and economists agree that global warming is a serious problem that needs to be mitigated, because they don't just look at one effect of emissions and ignore everything else.

[Anonymous No.10260445]

>>10260439
>What scale are you talking about moron

Time. We're discussing 'climate change'. The factor that 'change' pertains to is time.

[Anonymous No.10260447]

>>10260444
>Most scientists and economists agree that global warming is a serious problem that needs to be mitigated

Again, to aid understanding, 'most scientists' could agree that your mother isn't a colossal whore but the number of them agreeing with this self evident falsehood doesn't have any bearing on her freakish whoreishness,

[Anonymous No.10260450]

>>10260436
>can't understand the difference between making measurements and interpreting trends
I know you can't, since you seem to think that saying the trend is caused by CO2 is based on correlation and not causation based on direct measurement of the climate. Because you know absolutely nothing about what you're trying to argue against.

[Anonymous No.10260453]

>>10260450
Incomprehensible snake speech tbqh.

[Anonymous No.10260455]

>>10260450
>accuses others of not understanding
>posts a spectrum when discussing trends

[Anonymous No.10260456]

>>10260445
So please explain in what timescale the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10260463]

>>10260456
>So please explain in what timescale the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.
Every timescale.

[Anonymous No.10260467]

>>10260456
The greenhouse effect simply describes the process by which certain atmospheric gasses prevent re-emission of thermal radiation into space. No one is denying that.

If you have to have this concept explained to you, perhaps the rest of the subsequent conversation about supposedly man-made climate change is a bit beyond your capabilities.

[Anonymous No.10260474]

lot of dishonest alarmists ITT

[Anonymous No.10260478]

>>10260447
>Freeman Dyson says X
>why should I believe him if everyone else disagrees?
>many agree
>most disagree
>it doesn't matter how many disagree
You're contradicting yourself. Why would you tell me that many agree with Dyson if it doesn't matter?

[Anonymous No.10260483]

>>10260478
>You're contradicting yourself.

I never mentioned Dyson. There's more than one person who posts on here (check the bottom right of the page).

[Anonymous No.10260491]

>>10260455
>posts data that shows CO2 causes warming when discussing the evidence that CO2 causes warming
>>muh trends, everything must be correlation of trends because I have no ability to contend with causative models

[Anonymous No.10260495]

>>10260463
So the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? It clearly does: >>10260412

[Anonymous No.10260498]

>>10260467
OK, and what happens if that effect changes over time?

[Anonymous No.10260506]

>>10260483
>I never mentioned Dyson.
That is who we're taking about. If you're going to join the conversation then your replies should be relevant to it.

[Anonymous No.10260508]

>>10260498
The effect itself is unlikely to change over time unless the fundamental properties of chemistry do. The magnitude might.

[Anonymous No.10260512]

>>10260506
I'm not, I was referring specifically to the appeal to authority you used. Please try to keep up.

[Anonymous No.10260524]

>>10260508
The magnitude of the effect changing is the effect changing. If you're just going to be obtuse then you're admitting that you have no substantive response.

[Anonymous No.10260536]

>>10260512
The entire conversation is predicated on an appeal to authority, specifically Freeman Dyson's opinion. I am asking why that authority should be accepted while every other authority should be ignored. Try to keep up.

[Anonymous No.10260547]

>>10260536
No it isn't, that was part of the conversation but the opening statement made no mention of Dyson so any deviation is on your part, not mine. It might help you keep up if you focused on the topic at hand rather than parroting statements made by others about who should be keeping up.

Take all the time you need to get back on topic.

[Anonymous No.10260562]

>>10260536
If we're talking about global warming, that's an issue in climate science. Dyson is not a climate scientist, but he's a smart man and I value his input on the matter. i'm not appealing to him because he's an authority, but the fact that he's an eminent physicist gives his statements serious credibility. Regardless of the character, the argument still stands. Long-term predictions in climate science are a long ways away. Lorenz showed that.

[Anonymous No.10260570]

>>10260562
>climate science
This is a misnomer, climate "scientists" do not actually use the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.10260576]

>>10260570
Sure they do. They devise theories, they collect data, and they attempt to make predictions using that data to verify/alter their hypotheses. What's un-scientific about that? The problem is, as Lorenz showed, even with just 3 parameters...well, you know the word: chaos

[Anonymous No.10260579]

>>10260570
This, they're fundraisers (at best).

[Anonymous No.10260587]

>>10260579
>This, they're fundraisers (at best).
scam artists (at best)

[Anonymous No.10260627]

>>10260547
>No it isn't, that was part of the conversation but the opening statement made no mention of Dyson so any deviation is on your part, not mine.
That was the line of conversation you were responding to. If you were responding to OP then respond to OP.

>>10260562
>Dyson is not a climate scientist, but he's a smart man and I value his input on the matter. i'm not appealing to him because he's an authority, but the fact that he's an eminent physicist gives his statements serious credibility.
This doesn't respond to my post. Why should I believe him over the credentialed scientists who disagree with him?

>Regardless of the character, the argument still stands. Long-term predictions in climate science are a long ways away. Lorenz showed that.
Lorenz didn't show that climate is chaotic, he showed that weather is chaotic. Only certain features of climate are chaotic. Over the timescale of global warming, temperature is largely determined by the energy balance of the Earth and not turbulent flow of the atmosphere. This is why climate models have been successful.

[Anonymous No.10260633]

>>10260627
You need to read up on sunspot activity.

[Anonymous No.10260635]

>>10260633
What about it?

[Anonymous No.10260648]

>>10260635
It has a large impact on global temperatures.

[Anonymous No.10260652]

>>10260648
When?

[Anonymous No.10260658]

>>10260627
Can you name a credentialed scientist who disagrees with Dyson's position? Also, thank you for the clarification about Lorenz. i agree weekly models have become increasingly sophisticated and successful, but how about 100-year, 10-year, or 1-year predictions?

[Anonymous No.10260664]

>>10260652
Over time during which man made climate change has supposed to have happened. Also, did you know that there has been a 4% drop in the number of total solar eclipses per year during the 21st Century (taking forecasts into account) than there were in the 20th Century? Less eclipses = more heat from the sun reaching Earth.

[Anonymous No.10260683]

>>10260294
>its a 50/50 chance

cracked me good

[Anonymous No.10260700]

>>10260683
All i meant is that we're either right or wrong. Some people picture enormous tsunamis towering over our skyscrapers, polar bears losing their homes, trees drowning in salt water. Nature doesn't give a shit! We need to take steps towards creating a green environment, but i claim carbon emissions won't pose a threat to that goal.

[Anonymous No.10260716]

>>10260700
>All i meant is that we're either right or wrong.

HE KEEPS DELIVERING.

[Anonymous No.10260731]

>>10260658
Michael Tobis, Ph.D. in atmospheric and oceanic sciences. Here is a point by point rebuttal of Dyson he posted on his blog: https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/01/guest-posting-expanded-dyson-exegesis.html

>i agree weekly models have become increasingly sophisticated and successful, but how about 100-year, 10-year, or 1-year predictions?
Look at the pic in >>10260627 for an almost 20 year projection that's doing fine. Also, temperature over the past 600,000 years is well explained by solar forcing and is not chaotic.

[Anonymous No.10260736]

>>10260664
>Over time during which man made climate change has supposed to have happened.
Then why has the temperature been increasing while sunspot activity goes up and down across that timeframe?

>Also, did you know that there has been a 4% drop in the number of total solar eclipses per year during the 21st Century (taking forecasts into account) than there were in the 20th Century? Less eclipses = more heat from the sun reaching Earth.
Changes in solar irradiance have been far too weak to explain the warming trend.

[Anonymous No.10260740]

>>10260368
There are no other intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.10260758]

>>10260259
Why do we still argue about this?

Electric cars are faster and more reliable than gas cars

Solar panels will soon be more efficient than burning coal, will produce more jobs, and will allow people to get off the grid

Less oil means less sandnigger dollars and control

Who cares if climate change is real? The technologies coming from the (((green))) movement are superior and will be better for the economy. More jobs and better products will only increase competition and reduce reliance on shit countries.

[Anonymous No.10260811]

>>10260731
>https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/01/guest-posting-expanded-dyson-exegesis.html
Thank you! That's an excellent rebuttal!!

[Anonymous No.10261143]

>>10260758
>Electric cars are faster and more reliable than gas cars

Cool, I didn't realize they'd solved the issue of the batteries having to be replaced every few years, at a significant fraction of the entire cost of the new vehicle.

>Solar panels will soon be more efficient than burning coal, will produce more jobs, and will allow people to get off the grid

Tell me more about these magic photovoltaic panels that work at night. Even the most gargantuan batteries aren't going to carry the demand to where it's needed without pollution that makes coal look tame.

[Anonymous No.10261181]

>>10260758
>thinks humans can exponentially increase energy consumption for eternity and that demand for oil (energy) will go away

[Anonymous No.10261182]

>>10261143
>Cool, I didn't realize they'd solved the issue of the batteries having to be replaced every few years, at a significant fraction of the entire cost of the new vehicle.
Even with the cost of replacing the battery, the maintenance cost of battery EVs are still lower than gas cars since they have less brake wear and fewer moving parts.

>Tell me more about these magic photovoltaic panels that work at night.
Nuclear power provides the best baseload.

>Even the most gargantuan batteries aren't going to carry the demand to where it's needed without pollution that makes coal look tame.
Even if solar and batteries were the only method used to produce energy, it still wouldn't be nearly as polluting as coal.

[Anonymous No.10261352]

>>10261143
Rather replace batteries then need to fill up with gas

Solar roofs, every house has one and a battery. No more government jews forcing me to buy their taxed power. Solar can get to the point where one sunny day can produce a month of power. Potentially enough for one house to sell its power to the neighbors.

The tech is moving fast and green energy unironically is going to massively stimulate the economy

[Anonymous No.10261353]

>>10261181
>thinks humans can exponentially increase energy usage and not eventually run out of oil.

Green energy is the only solution to our increasing energy needs. We will run out of oil and need a solution.

[Anonymous No.10261369]

>>10261353
We have a solution, nuclear, every other green source is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10261393]

>>10261353
>our increasing energy needs
key word here is increasing. no matter what "solution" you propose you will have to address that word sooner or later, and I'm sure you'd agree that sooner gives us all a much better chance than later.
>>10261369
>nuclear
also non-renewable, with waste products i.e. not green
I'm sure people thought oil practically infinite at one time as well.

[Anonymous No.10261414]

>>10260296
Today the temperature was in the mid 80s. This is the middle of winter. In the Northern Hemisphere. Wait for the summer.
>>10260368
Based

[Anonymous No.10261442]

>>10260259
According to "scientific" data statistics:

1. Manhattan will be under water in #nextYear

2. Elizabeth Warren is a 100% Injun

3. Refugees are great for Europe, Muslim terror is exception, but all white men are evil.

4. Race and gender are social constructs. Chromosomes don't exist. Castrate white little boys now.

5. Battlefield 5 is historically accurate & Disney Star Wars are better because feminism

6. Hillary won the 2016 election, since Trump is not president.

7. Investing in NASA is a waste, invest in poor African children instead

8. Killing livestock animal for meat is evil, but Killing babies by Abortion is good.

9. homosexuality isn't a mental disease & Pedophilia isn't an evil crime.

[Anonymous No.10261454]

>>10260259
James Watson was considered the greatest Biologist after Darwin, & a respected Nobel Laureate until he defended race realism & right wing pinions, now James Watson is a outcast & literally Hitler.

Tesla Electric cars & SpaceX Rockets were considered great ... until Elon Musk attacked leftist jewish media on twitter. Now Elon Musk is frequently attacked by Media as literally Hitler

Freeman Dyson was one of the greatest physicists ... until he denied global warming, now Freeman Dyson is ridiculed as old crank, & literally Hitler .

[Anonymous No.10261455]

>>10261442
>damn (((scientists))), I'll show them!

[Anonymous No.10261458]

>>10261454
See pic in >>10260396

[Anonymous No.10261464]

Redpill me on man-made climate change. I want to believe it but I'm a bit of a brainlet and don't think I could understand a raw scientific paper. Any dumbed-down evidence for people like me?

[Anonymous No.10261466]

>>10260396
>scientist and economist
you talk as if the two schools aren't literally diametrically opposed concepts on the most fundamental levels

[Anonymous No.10261470]

>>10261464
Here's a very accessible resource that will probably answer most of your questions: https://www.skepticalscience.com/

[Anonymous No.10261471]

>>10261442
You don’t interact with real people much, do you?

[Anonymous No.10261479]

>>10261470
Thanks

[Anonymous No.10261501]

>>10261455
Considering that most (((scientists))):
1. get their positions by (((nepotism)))... I mean (((recommendations)))

2. get (((peer))) reviewed by (((chosen-people))) ... I mean corrupt & biased (((reviewers))).

3. get (((shekels))) .... I mean ... get funding & grants from (((Soros))) ... I mean ... (((foundations))) & (((investors))).

4. Atacking bad goyim ... I mean ... systematically persecuting rival conservative scientists.

[Anonymous No.10261507]

>>10261501
/pol/tards ladies and gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.10261525]

Why only americans seems to be unable to believe on climate changes? Is this a new subliminar meme restricted only in the USA?

[Anonymous No.10261577]

>>10261525
Because for some reason it’s a political issue here and extreme right and left wingers are the scum of the earth and argue endlessly over anything political without listening to eachothers opinions

[Anonymous No.10261635]

>>10261501
You didn’t go to college did you?

[Anonymous No.10261647]

>>10261525
It's more to do with the fact the world expects us to foot the bill when we have a relatively small portion of the pollution all things considered.

[Anonymous No.10261659]

>>10261635
>implying the average college student isn't that stupid

[Anonymous No.10261666]

>>10261659
>the average
Not the average ones. Anyway how would anyone even tell if science was corrupted? They could fully fabricate data and lie about it. Like literally everything could be a lie.

[Anonymous No.10261677]

>>10261525
Ask China to cut emissions & pollution 1st.
Oh wait ... I forgot that criticizing China nowadays is a political taboo, albeit anti-Semitic since is against (((mass-media))) narrative ... so let China pollute and get away with it and blame white conservatives instead.

[Anonymous No.10261685]

>>10261525 >>10260259
Ask China to cut emissions & pollution 1st. Oh wait ... I forgot that criticizing China nowadays is a political taboo, albeit anti-Semitic since it's against (((mass-media))) narrative ... so let China pollute and get away with it and blame white conservatives instead.

[Anonymous No.10261686]

>>10261666
Solipsism is unfalsifiable. Where is your evidence of corruption?

[Anonymous No.10261691]

>>10261677
>Ask China to cut emissions & pollution 1st.
They are, though.
Another fun fact is that a number of American states successfully cut emissions by large amounts, enough to reduce America's overall emissions by a considerable amount, without their economies imploding and yet the Federal government still denies the problem and claims that tackling it would damage the economy.

[Anonymous No.10261697]

>>10261677
>>10261685
The Chinese only have high emissions because they have a lot more people than most countries (and because they produce what the developed nations consume). They have low per capita emmissions, unlike the US. Your position is akin to demanding that Chinese people go on a diet before Americans because China has more total fat. In reality, it's the obese Americans who need to go on a diet first, since they have gorging themselves for years and have much more excess to cut.

[Anonymous No.10261705]

>Deniers get BTFO in yet another AGW thread
>They make a new thread and spam the exact same arguments in it.
Persistence isn't a substitute for thinking.

[Anonymous No.10261711]

>Alarmists get BTFO in yet another AGW thread
>They make a new thread and spam the exact same arguments in it.
Persistence isn't a substitute for thinking.

[Anonymous No.10261718]

>>10261705
This is how all the conspiratards act here. Flat Earth, Anti-Vax, Apollo Hoax and Climate Change.
Every time they are debated and their arguments picked apart they just start over in a new thread. It's basically a battle of attrition. They want to wear their opponents out so that their voice is the only one that remains and makes them more "right" by default to people who can't think for themselves.

[Anonymous No.10261721]

>>10260294
Right, surely this has nothing to do with things like massively increased volcanism, record breaking forest fires worldwide, and being within a certain point of the cycles of the sun. The titanic amount of greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increases that come from these sources simply don't count. Humans are the problem with their cars and factories. Darn those fossil fuels! DARN YOU TRRRRRRUUUUUUUUMMMMMPPPPPPP!

[Anonymous No.10261722]

>>10261685
>b-b-b-but China
I'm talking about USA here, not China.

[Anonymous No.10261726]

>>10261722
arent you guys supposed to be talking about pollution?

[Anonymous No.10261729]

>>10261711
This is how all CNN-watching alarmists act here. #Metoo, All races being equal, Over vaxxination and Climate Change.
Every time they are debated and their arguments picked apart they just start over in a new thread. It's basically a battle of attrition. They want to wear their opponents out so that their voice is the only one that remains and makes them more "right" by default to people who can't think for themselves.

[Anonymous No.10261730]

>>10261721
They literally all count

[Anonymous No.10261732]

>>10261729
just wait until he makes another manmade climate change thread in 3 days.

[Anonymous No.10261734]

>>10261721
>massively increased volcanism
Humans are currently releasing more CO2 in a day than volcanoes do in a year.

>record breaking forest fires worldwide
Global warming causes more forest fires by increasing drought. Forest fires are not a forcing, they are a result of temperature.

>being within a certain point of the cycles of the sun
We're in a cooling phase of the sun's cycles.

Any other memes you need debunked?

[Anonymous No.10261736]

>>10260700
Yes, you're right. People like to present the Earth being in trouble due to climate change, but the reality is that species have come and gone for billions of years. What we are really worried about is ourselves.
And that isn't a bad thing! All animals want to survive, it's not like we are being selfish for wanting to keep on living in reasonable comfort.
There are some problems, though. One of them is the lie that in order to do something, as a species, to combat climate change we must give up our comforts.
Another lie is the idea that plants are some kind of oxygen factory that'll just produce more oxygen the more carbon dioxide there is in the air. Yeah, to a point having more carbon dioxide is beneficial to plants, but they don't just consume more because there is more. If you are in a more oxygen rich environment, you'll still expel the majority of the oxygen you inhale, but if you are in a low oxygen environment, like on a mountain, you need to breathe more heavily.
So when carbon dioxide levels are low, sure plants want more of it, but there is a limit to how much they'll process in a given time.

[Anonymous No.10261738]

>>10261525
>Why only americans seems to be unable to believe on climate changes?
Because there's an enormous propaganda campaign intended to spread uncertainty in the US.

>>10261685
Your image has nothing to do with global warming.

>Ask China to cut emissions
China's per-capita emissions is significantly below that of most developed countries.

>I forgot that criticizing China nowadays is a political taboo
What kind of fantasy land do you live in? China gets shit on regularly in the news.

>>10261721
>massively increased volcanism
Do you have a source for that?
In any case, emissions from volcanoes are miniscule compared to human activity. Volcanoes emit about 200Mt/y, and Human activity 29Gt/y.

> record breaking forest fires
IIRC, those provide a net cooling.

>and being within a certain point of the cycles of the sun
We're currently in the cooling part of the cycle.

>The titanic amount of greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increases that come from these sources simply don't count.
Those sources are small, and they're definitely accounted for.

[Anonymous No.10261741]

>>10261729
There are practically no pro- threads in relation to anti- threads made here, so it's pretty disingenuous to reverse that argument.

[Anonymous No.10261746]

>>10261721
>The titanic amount of greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increases that come from these sources simply don't count.
>he thinks theyre not taking into account
Nice distortion field you live in there, bud.
We know the natural mechanisms that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As a race we have been increasing the number of mechanisms that add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but we haven't been increasing the number of mechanisms that remove it.
Rub your two remaining braincells together and see if you can notice something.

[Anonymous No.10261749]

>>10260290
FPBP!

[Anonymous No.10261754]

>>10261741
>There are practically no pro- threads in relation to anti- threads made here, so it's pretty disingenuous to reverse that argument.
The anti-threads are just disingenuous false flags made by alarmists.

[Anonymous No.10261757]

>>10261754
Yeah, and there are no true Scotsmen either.

[Anonymous No.10261779]

>>10261746
With more CO2 in atmosfere plants & algae naturally grow & multiply faster storing carbon.
No human intervention is needed.

[Anonymous No.10261793]

>>10261779
Even if that was true, which it might not be because it's not a big increase in CO2, global warming is going to disrupt ecosystems far more than enough to cancel any benefit. Have you even seen a desert? Not a lot of plants right?
Thanks tiny amount of CO2 increase is going ro fuck everything up because it happened so quickly. That's the long and short of the climate change argument.

[Anonymous No.10261797]

>>10261779
If that were true CO2 concentration would not be rising rapidly.

[Anonymous No.10261810]

>>10260259
Europe was hotter/warmer during Medieval Age

[Anonymous No.10261851]

[Anonymous No.10261852]

>>10261779
That's only partially true, see >>10261736
It only works to a limit. Those things aren't CO2 devouring machines that'll just continually increase consumption based on availability.

[Anonymous No.10261865]

>>10261851
I hope B.A. Miller doesn't mind me changing one of those quotes to more accurately depict the situation.

[Anonymous No.10261893]

>>10261810
Fake graph.

[Anonymous No.10261903]

>>10261851
>>10261865
>he thinks a scientific consensus is a group of scientists and not a consensus of scientific evidence
Oh look it's this meme again.

[Anonymous No.10262116]

>>10261903
>he didnt notice the ironic edit i made to the image

[Anonymous No.10262132]

>>10261711
>things that literally never happen
denialtards get BTFO every time I bother to respond and eventually stop posting, before returning to the next one to spam the same debunked meme graphs from some shitty blog website run by a crank with no clue, along with their bad or outright fallacious arguments against the facts of AGW