>CO2 is a green house gas (this is a known fact) >Putting CO2 into the atmosphere raises temperature (this is a known fact) So why can't Americans accept Global Warming?

File: 63 KB, 540x358, 180705110027_1_540x360[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:00:24 2019 No.10326046 [Reply] [Original]

>CO2 is a green house gas (this is a known fact)
>Putting CO2 into the atmosphere raises temperature (this is a known fact)
So why can't Americans accept Global Warming?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:03:00 2019 No.10326055 >>10326046 You're fake news.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:03:19 2019 No.10326056 >>10326055 But this isn't news.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:06:06 2019 No.10326063 >>10326056 So it's not relevant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:07:51 2019 No.10326064 >>10326063 case closed

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:09:31 2019 No.10326068 >>10326063 >Only news is relevant Well then you obviously don't value math or science, neither of which are news so why are you here?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:10:42 2019 No.10326070 >>10326063 Is this ironic shitpostings or double ironic shit posting?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:12:20 2019 No.10326071 >>10326063 This is a science board, not /pol/.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:21:34 2019 No.10326088
File: 456 KB, 1350x2087, 6754585243845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source
>nuclear power is safer than any other energy source
So why can't Leftists accept nuclear power as part of the solution to Global Warming?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:23:27 2019 No.10326091 File: 198 KB, 353x376, 1542244737864.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10326055 >>10326063 >>10326064 >>10326070 >>10326071 You dumb niggers. Go eat shit down in /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:26:32 2019 No.10326097 >>10326091 Science by consensus is not science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:27:58 2019 No.10326100 >>10326097 That's why /pol/ needs to fuck off until they can come back with something other than muh feels

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:33:46 2019 No.10326110 >>10326046 30% of Americans are unbelievably stupid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:34:49 2019 No.10326114 >>10326100 Global warming, I mean Global cooling, I mean Climate Change is literally science by consensus.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:35:24 2019 No.10326116 >>10326046 they dont want their freedom be taken away

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:36:16 2019 No.10326119 >>10326114 Both global warming and global cooling are parts of climate change. Please come back with some education

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:40:37 2019 No.10326126 >>10326119 97% of scientists agree with our vague and shitty poll does not an education make.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:40:45 2019 No.10326128

>>10326088

History has abundantly demonstrated that human beings do not possess the competence, conscientiousness and technolgical means necessary to manage either nuclear power or a nuclear arsenal on an ongoing, long-term basis. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Greenland incident, 1983 Soviet incident, etc. We should all be dead twenty times over already and it's only a matter of time anyway (do not say: this is instead a proof of humans' ability to yadda yadda)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:44:28 2019 No.10326136 >>10326128 all those failures combined killed less than 100 people

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:45:07 2019 No.10326137 >>10326126 >Scientific articles are polls >Scientists don't understand the science they specialize in Guess how I know that the highest level of education you achieved was highschool

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:45:13 2019 No.10326139 >>10326128 >Muh handful of incidents with ancient reactors Not an argument, build them properly and not by the fucking ocean and there will be no problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:46:28 2019 No.10326142 >>10326137 >Scientists >Don't use the scientific model and libel and smear those who disagree with them Wow so scientific

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:46:36 2019 No.10326143 >>10326126 >97% of scientists agree 1% are idiots 2% are selling crap to the idiots

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:47:32 2019 No.10326145 >>10326143 Nope.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:48:45 2019 No.10326148 >Guise we are surely going to die in a decade this time for sure >The solution is massive taxation given to our rich buddies for projects of dubious benefit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:49:01 2019 No.10326149 >>10326142 >scientific model The true Hallmark of someone speaking out his ass. You are referring to a grade school abstraction of the scientific process and not the defining algorithm of science

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:51:27 2019 No.10326150 >>10326149 Smear and libel is truly the defining algorithm of science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:52:32 2019 No.10326152 >>10326150 >He said with no facts to support him

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:53:43 2019 No.10326153 >>10326148 Global warming research in a nutshell. Warm and cold periods are perfectly normal. Wether or not the increase in global temperature originates from humans is not exactly clear, even if some scientists like to pretend this is the case.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:54:04 2019 No.10326154 >>10326152 Wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:55:14 2019 No.10326157 File: 28 KB, 488x463, retardClap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10326153 weather =/= climate

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:56:07 2019 No.10326160 >>10326154 Alright, let's see what you've got

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:56:32 2019 No.10326161 >>10326157 >Quick male a random strawman and post a brainlet image

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 03:57:45 2019 No.10326166 >>10326160 Literally nothing I post will make any difference so I will just continue to bait you and shit up this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:00:19 2019 No.10326177 >>10326166 So you don't have anything? Shocker

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:00:31 2019 No.10326179 >>10326157 Retard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:04:31 2019 No.10326187 >>10326177 >Haha if I am the first to ask for burden of proof I win!!!!

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:06:56 2019 No.10326192
File: 193 KB, 768x582, image_large.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10326187
Here, have some proof. Now I've given you an easy out. Instead of synthesizing your own argument you merely need to refute mine. That shouldn't be too hard, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:09:16 2019 No.10326200 >>10326192 >Unsourced graph Cute

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:10:48 2019 No.10326205 >>10326114 >Global cooling As soon as a retard uses this as an attack you know they are a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:11:26 2019 No.10326208 >>10326200 >Unsourced graph >IPCC 2007 WG1-AR4 So do you want to circle back to how I know that you never made it to college?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:11:50 2019 No.10326209 >>10326153 Yes it is. See >>10326046

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:13:05 2019 No.10326212 >>10326205 >Implying that it wasn't changed to "Climate change" because they couldn't come up with a consistent lie. >Muh ocean cooling thanks to melting ice caps and jetstreams cooling Laughable

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:15:10 2019 No.10326213 >>10326208 >IPCC Nice propaganda beareau, how convenient the results are used to come up with the solution of massive taxation and population controls. Enjoy your carbon tax being used to give to their rich buddies at GE.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:16:58 2019 No.10326216 >>10326213 I know you're unfamiliar with debating and science, but that actually isn't a refutation

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:19:04 2019 No.10326223 >>10326216 I don't have to refute lies from a beareau whose strings are pulled by richfags and the politicians they donate to for the purpose of wealth redistribution to the rich from the poor.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:20:42 2019 No.10326226 >>10326223 How convenient that you decide what is and isn't real. It must be nice to live in a reality constructed from a consensus of one

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:22:46 2019 No.10326228 >>10326212 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:23:15 2019 No.10326230 >>10326226 >Muh Big oil propaganda >But it couldn't possibly go the other way delusional /pol/tard Lmao imagine having this level of cognitive dissonance. You still haven't explained how wealth redistribution will fix the problem. Protip, it won't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:23:20 2019 No.10326231 Do people still believe that melting ice caps will lead to rising sea levels?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:24:07 2019 No.10326232 >>10326212 >1 scientist suggests something that turned out to be wrong >Now all science is wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:24:19 2019 No.10326233 >>10326228 Sorry is it warming up or cooling down? I forget.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:25:09 2019 No.10326235 >>10326231 Do you know how water works?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:26:01 2019 No.10326240

>>10326230
>But it couldn't possibly go the other way delusional /pol/tard
Prove that "big environment" is engaged in a massive conspiracy to undermine oil companies

>You still haven't explained how wealth redistribution will fix the problem
I never made that claim. Are you feeling okay?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:26:12 2019 No.10326242 File: 500 KB, 1484x787, listentothee[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10326233 You tell me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:27:03 2019 No.10326244 >>10326235 He thinks there's no land under the ice caps. He doesn't know about Antarctica

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:30:22 2019 No.10326248 >>10326240 >There is no money to be made in changing the entire planets power generation, storage and transmission methods Yeah nah it's all out of the goodness of their hearts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:32:47 2019 No.10326253 >>10326248 >their So surely you can cite massive cash flows from renewable energy companies to the researchers they are paying to lie, right?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:34:07 2019 No.10326255

>>10326213
> I don't like the source, which happens to be an institution doing climate research, so for this discussion about climate I deem it invalid, since it also doesn't fit my personal opinion.
Why do you even post here? Don't you have something better to do than wasting people's time with your ignorant stupidity?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:35:26 2019 No.10326259 >>10326253 >Surely you can cite sleazy under the table deals right? Also >Implying half these people even need to be paid when they have been so thoroughly brainwashed to agree with your agenda.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:36:34 2019 No.10326260 >>10326259 Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:37:19 2019 No.10326262 >>10326260 Your whole premise is based on using group mentality to bully people into your way of thinking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:38:27 2019 No.10326265 >>10326046 Because CO2 makes you into a brainlet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:38:33 2019 No.10326266 >>10326259 >Surely you can cite sleazy under the table deals right? As a matter of fact I can https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Lobbying >brainwashed By who, with what resources, and to what ends?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:39:35 2019 No.10326267 >>10326262 No, it's based on overwhelming consensus between the people who know what they're talking about

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:42:53 2019 No.10326274 >>10326262 No, it's based on facts. See >>10326046

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:48:54 2019 No.10326280 >>10326046 You know that there is a point where the CO2 levels saturate right ? Adding anymore C02 won't have any effect after we reached it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:49:02 2019 No.10326281

Wow what a shit show this thread is, allow me to interject a neutral opinion and a question. I accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whether what we have put into the atmosphere is enough to generate the claimed facts is up for debate and there is a lot of bunk bullshit and agenda pushing from both sides so let's set that aside for the moment.

Obviously burning shit forever is not a sustainable solution, however the only solution that is being presented and shortly seems like it will be forced on people whether or not they want it, is to start taxing people. Now I get that taxing things will make people use them less, the problem is that a lot of this stuff being taxed is stuff that is not really optional, I need to buy fuel because like most of the planet I live outside a public transport area and cannot afford 40+ thousand dollars for an electric car, my usage cannot decrease. I also have to buy food which will have a nice big carbon tax slapped onto it. I refuse to accept the solution is centralising all this fucking taxation because given the absolute corruption and ineptitude of governments historically this won't change jack fucking shit, especially that many of the solutions involve mass production of incredible amount of solar panels and windfarms which not only fail to provide a stable base load but also are polluting as fuck to produce.

So what is the solution?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:49:08 2019 No.10326282 >>10326244 >Implying that all the ice from Antarctica will just flow towards the sea and stay there What is the cycle of water (rivers, lakes, ponds...)?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:52:20 2019 No.10326288 >>10326282 You are legit retarded. Either you're saying there are lakes and ponds in Antarctica or you're implying that some dips in the land on other continents with retain all the ice melt

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:53:54 2019 No.10326293 >>10326235 Do you? In which state does water take more space, liquid or solid (ice)?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:56:07 2019 No.10326295 >>10326293 >Implying the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet is unknown

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:56:20 2019 No.10326296 >>10326282 So you're saying that all the ice that melts will go straight to the sea and stay there forever? And will not forming new water sources in a perpetual cycle like the rest of the continents?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 04:58:31 2019 No.10326300

>>10326296
I'm saying the volume of ice melt that was previously sequestered in a solid state on dry land will reduce the landmass off every continent. If you want to pretend that most of that land loss will be from lakes and rivers quintupling in size then don't let me stop you

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:00:02 2019 No.10326302

>>10326295
Yet all the pictures, news and documentaries regarding climate change always show the North Pole ice caps.
Also in Antarctica, when that ice sheet melts, will all of that water just flow towards the sea and stay there? Will the cycle of water not happen there just because it's Antarctica?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:02:17 2019 No.10326307 >>10326293 Yeah, good thing a large percentage of the ice is above sea level you fucking brainlet retard. Why are you on /sci/ and not /x/?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:03:01 2019 No.10326311 >>10326302 >when that ice sheet melts You mean the one that NASA says is steadily expanding?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:03:37 2019 No.10326313 >>10326302 Are you high? The average size of the ice sheet reaches an equilibrium with the average temperature of the planet. The ice doesn't refreeze because it is too warm

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:05:56 2019 No.10326316

>>10326300
>If you want to pretend that most of that land loss will be from lakes and rivers quintupling in size
I never said that, my point was that the melting ice sheets will create new rivers, ponds and lakes on the Antarctica continent itself, which will compensate the landmass loss from the rest of the continents, since now there's a whole new habitable continent

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:09:28 2019 No.10326321 >>10326281 Fucking up the planet isn't free, deal with it

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:13:58 2019 No.10326326

>>10326311
I was talking about worst case scenario, even if all the ice of Antarctica were to melt, that water will form water sources (rivers, lakes, ponds) in that continent which is what the cycle of water is all about, thus the fear of huge increases in sea levels are greatly exaggerated even in the worst case scenario.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:14:09 2019 No.10326327

>>10326321
Wow what a logical and reasoned response.

>Producing bajillions of solar panels and windmills that need to be replaced on a regular basis will not fuck the planet up
>The government will surely spend this money correctly and wisely and not fuck the planet up

I asked for actual solutions not just abuse. Protip, most of the populace is already on the poverty line and cannot afford all these new taxes regardless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:15:35 2019 No.10326330 >>10326307 What is the cycle of water? Will rivers, lakes and ponds not be formed in Antarctica in a perpetual cycle like the rest of the continents?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:18:54 2019 No.10326333 >>10326311 Why are you lying? https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:20:46 2019 No.10326336 >>10326327 Nuclear is the solution

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:22:20 2019 No.10326339 >>10326333 Why are you? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:26:40 2019 No.10326346

>>10326336
I would tentatively agree with that, the problem is that most of the pro-environmental policy makers are rabidly anti-nuclear because of false perceptions and anti-vac tier retardation, while many on the right (not all though) are pro nuclear they will be ignored because many are in the pickets of big oil and apparently bi-partisan talks and deals simply cannot be done in this day and age of political shit flinging anyway.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:29:12 2019 No.10326349 >>10326091 The one who sayeth nigger is the real nigger

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:35:21 2019 No.10326356 >>10326316 It won't. The ice is much thicker than you seem to think. There is literally no space for that much liquid water on Antarctica

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:35:30 2019 No.10326357

>>10326339
Like clockwork
The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. "I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he says. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming." As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:38:39 2019 No.10326359 >>10326357 >I know the results show the exact opposite of the agenda we are pushing >But uh it will definitely melt lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:39:51 2019 No.10326364 >>10326213 go back to watching oldfucks and reading sadfart

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:40:10 2019 No.10326365

>>10326359
>Clearly, a drift in the altimeter data, when integrated over the ice sheet, results in a large error in estimated mass change. Issues with the approach used for calibration of the altimetry by Zwally et al have been identified (Scambos and Shuman 2016) and an attempt to replicate the trends using similar assumptions for the physical mechanism could not reproduce the large positive balance they found (Martín-Español et al 2017). For these reasons, we believe that the estimates from this study are likely erroneous.

Source https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac2f0/meta

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:45:42 2019 No.10326371 >>10326281 So no one else? This whole thread is just to fling shit at each other?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:50:04 2019 No.10326375 >>10326371 Just put solar on your roof and get at least 24 hours of energy storage

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:52:34 2019 No.10326381 >>10326330 Is this bait or brainlet?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:53:35 2019 No.10326383 >>10326327 Solar panels wont hurt the planet nearly as much as greenhouse gasses.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 05:56:03 2019 No.10326386

>>10326375
Every citizen having 24hrs of lithium batteries is not a solution, there is not enough lithium to even do that, it also fails to address the grid level power requirements. If batteries and panels can be produced in a friendly way, perhaps with muh nanotubes meme if anyone ever figures it out, it will be a valid solution, until then it remains as destructive as oil and you still need to replace your panels and batteries every 20-30 years which may even be worse.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:00:28 2019 No.10326391

>>10326128
First of we are currently alive if that counts for anything. And secondly, any meltdowns occurred in ancient fucking tech. The chances of a meltdown affecting any civilian populations is minuscule, it would require so much human error it's basically impossible. We've already had several meltdowns near populated areas that we didn't even notice until weeks after they happened because the automated counter-measures dealt with it perfectly.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:00:29 2019 No.10326392

>>10326383
See
>>10326386

A panel is not a produce once get energy forever item. You need to replace them on a regular basis for both domestic and grid scale, they need to be paired with some kind of storage solution, all of which are thoroughly unpleasant and also need regular replacement. Aside from the other pollutants these are very energy intensive products to make and what you can recycle from them is again an energy intensive process to do so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:02:46 2019 No.10326398 >>10326392 Doesn't address my post at all.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:04:25 2019 No.10326403

>>10326386
>Every citizen having 24hrs of lithium batteries is not a solution
I never said lithium and it is exactly a solution to the limitations of solar

>it also fails to address the grid level power requirements.
Either you have not done any math to come to this conclusion or you consume an insane amount of electricity

>If batteries and panels can be produced in a friendly way
Saltwater batteries have very little environmental impact and current solar production methods are less harmful than fossil fuels

>until then it remains as destructive as oil
Pulled straight from your ass

>you still need to replace your panels and batteries every 20-30 years
Negligible fiscal and environmental impact especially considering the recyclability of the panels

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:05:12 2019 No.10326404 >>10326398 I did, quite thoroughly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:08:10 2019 No.10326406 >>10326404 You didn't compare the harm done to the planet by solar energy and fossil fuels, it was a shallow address at best.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:08:11 2019 No.10326407 >>10326404 Not at all. That didn't explain in any way how it would be worse than green house gas emissions.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:11:34 2019 No.10326409

>>10326406
>>10326407

Must be nice to live in a first world country that outsourced all its polluting manufacturing processes to the third world so you can stick your head in the sand and open shiny new packages with no concept of what it takes to produce them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:11:47 2019 No.10326410 >>10326407 He's citing estimations of the carbon footprint of a fossil fuel based economy to mine materials and create a solar panel that ignore that the fact that point is to get off fossil fuels entirely

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:13:01 2019 No.10326412 >>10326409 Name one part of the manufacturing process that can't be replaced with a carbon neutral solution

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:13:18 2019 No.10326413 >>10326403 >you still need to replace your panels and batteries every 20-30 years >Negligible fiscal and environmental impact Replacing your entire generation and storage infrastructure on a 20-30 cycle will incur fucking astronomical expense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:14:55 2019 No.10326414 >>10326413 Astronomer here, unless you're actually trying to power a rocket please stop misusing that term

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:15:11 2019 No.10326415 >>10326412 >Implying China and India give a fuck about carbon neutral solutions Must be nice to live in a fantasy land where everyone does exactly what you hope despite not agreeing to the most basic climate treaties.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:16:22 2019 No.10326417 >>10326415 >It's too hard to stop climate change let's just wait to die

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:17:15 2019 No.10326420

>>10326414
>astronomical
/astrəˈnɒmJk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to astronomy.
"astronomical observations"
synonyms: celestial, planetary, stellar, astronomic, heavenly
"they studied Stonehenge in terms of astronomical alignments"
2.
INFORMAL
(of an amount) extremely large.
"he wanted an astronomical fee"
synonyms: huge, enormous, very large, very great, very big, prodigious, tremendous, monumental, mammoth, colossal, vast, gigantic, massive, epic, monstrous, terrific, titanic, towering, king-sized, king-size;

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:17:42 2019 No.10326421 >>10326420 Fair enough, gonna mention any numbers or what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:18:50 2019 No.10326422 >>10326417 >Instead of a logical nuclear based solution let's just export all our polluting manufacturing for hectares and hectares of solar farms and batteries elsewhere and hope they do what we want Fucking Retarded

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:20:35 2019 No.10326424 >>10326413 No it wouldn't. Worldwide the costs would be about 2 trillion for the batteries, 1 trillion for the solar panels, say another trillion for installation. 134 billion dollars per year for all of Earth's energy is nothing

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:20:41 2019 No.10326426 >>10326422 I never advocated for solar over nuclear, just solar over fossil fuels. By the way, you don't need to sign your posts on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:21:47 2019 No.10326427 >>10326422 >a logical nuclear based solution Go build it then. Oh right, it's insanely expensive and not very profitable

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:22:39 2019 No.10326428 >>10326424 Wow that's a cute estimate, now multiply that by 10x to account for government waste and corruption.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:23:53 2019 No.10326430 >>10326427 Yeah because it's fucking layered by red tape and each reactor has to be some customer designed bullshit overseen by a million subcommittees because apparently coming up with a single, safe mass produceable design is too hard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:25:15 2019 No.10326431 >>10326428 Okay. 1.34 trillion dollars per year for all of Earth's energy is nothing

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:25:21 2019 No.10326432 >>10326428 If we privatise it will that half the cost ancap-kun?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:27:31 2019 No.10326436 >>10326432 Yes, that's a fucking fact so long as you aren't handing out preferred contractor cost+ bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:28:18 2019 No.10326438 >>10326436 Why don't we just do that then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:28:49 2019 No.10326440 >>10326430 And regulations lobbied for by power companies are designed to keep solar from being profitable. Quit your bitching

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:29:54 2019 No.10326442 >>10326438 Because the Communists in charge of this want to tax the proles and centralise their spending to their mates.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:30:15 2019 No.10326443 >>10326436 Then put solar on your roof

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:30:50 2019 No.10326447 >>10326442 We'll just have to get Russia to supply the world's power then.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:30:58 2019 No.10326449 >>10326440 Don't be disingenuous, solar doesn't face a fraction of the shit that nuclear does because its not muh scury glowing green radiation.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:32:20 2019 No.10326453

>>10326442
>He doesn't want to take advantage of the sweet ass tax cuts because carbon use will be taxed later
Do you realize how retarded this is? A carbon tax would be put on items with a carbon footprint like energy from fossil fuels. The government will literally pay you do not have to pay taxes later

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:33:25 2019 No.10326456 >>10326449 Don't be retarded. Find me a state where you can hook a solar installation to the grid and make real money off it instead of a credit that goes towards paying your electric bill

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 06:56:36 2019 No.10326481 >>10326426 kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 09:02:59 2019 No.10326651 >>10326232 >Scientist He goes by "inventor of the internet" nowadays.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 09:05:46 2019 No.10326656

>So why can't Americans accept Global Warming?
Their political and economic ideologies are incompatible with the solutions needed to address climate change. That is the chief problem. Therefore they choose to pretend that climate change does not need to be addressed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 12:19:26 2019 No.10327056 >>10326128 >Muh four or five minor incidents and one bigger failure which killed maybe half a dozen people

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 12:39:02 2019 No.10327099 >>10326128 >3 or 4 meltdowns over >50 years >HUMANS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF WIELDING SUCH POWER SHUT IT DOWN so this is the true power of american education

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 12:53:56 2019 No.10327131

>>10326046
co2 is a trace gas, it's .001% of the gas in the atmosphere, and adding more doesn't do shit.
The only way to make co2 increase the temperature in a bottle significantly vs a control, with infrared/uv light shined on it, is to create carbonation in a closed bottle and let the resultant pressure increase temperature. It can't do it unless you induce a carbonation reaction, and even then the experiment induces much higher concentrations of co2 in the bottle than are in our atmosphere.
>accept global warming
Our news is owned by people who own big oil and energy companies, and they want us to pay a carbon tax, which they get redistributed to them to build windmills.
Fuck you.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 12:55:39 2019 No.10327135

>>10326046
>no home experiment can show that co2 is a green house gas of any significant effect at concentrations of 0.02% of the atmosphere of the bottle, jar, or green house.
>why won't you accept our hypothesis that's contradicted by home experiment??? pay carbon tax now!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 12:58:08 2019 No.10327147 >>10326128 t. Exxon Mobil shill. Nuclear is the 'green' elephant in the room, your windmill windfalls are an injustice to the world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:00:44 2019 No.10327155 >>10326409 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:01:46 2019 No.10327157 >>10326426 10/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:03:08 2019 No.10327165 >>10327131 >>10327135 >But what about CO2 in a bottle??? What's with the low-quality denial we're getting right now? Even a few month ago the deniers here at least knew how to put together something coherent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:05:20 2019 No.10327173 >>10327135 >>no home experiment can show that co2 is a green house gas of any significant effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:05:49 2019 No.10327174

>>10327165
Please provide a home experiment in which I can use my greenhouse, or a jar, or other container, and, by increasing the co2 by 0.01%, show a noticeable temperature increase in the atmosphere of said container in comparison to a bottle with 0.01% less co2 in it, as well as a bottle with no co2 at all.
Unless you induce a chemical reaction that pressurizes the bottle, and do not pressurize the 0% co2 and the 0.02% co2 bottle, all bottles will be basically the same temperature, with no clear pattern as to which will be hottest.
If you would argue that global warming with tiny percentages of co2 is "unfalsifiable," then it shouldn't even be on this board, since that would mean it isn't science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:06:21 2019 No.10327176 Notice how Climate Change deniers never actually argue science but go straight to conspiracy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:07:41 2019 No.10327180 File: 47 KB, 700x509, 1533404920703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10326153 >Wether or not the increase in global temperature originates from humans is not exactly clear, even if some scientists like to pretend this is the case.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:10:02 2019 No.10327189 >>10326071 This is a /pol/ website. Therefore this is a /pol/ board.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:11:14 2019 No.10327194

>>10326656
This. It all boils down to this. I doubt any of them actually believe their demented anti-science propaganda. Ultimately it all boils down to the insistence that one simply cannot let "the government" (whatever that means to them) do anything because it shouldn't because it's not the free market.
God help us.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:13:58 2019 No.10327205

>>10327173
>here is my propaganda video.
Why doesn't your video mention that they had to pump in triple the levels of co2 of the earth's atmosphere to get that 1 degree difference? It took 70,000 parts per million co2 pumped into that closed chamber to get a 1 degree difference from the control. Despite what their conclusion is, what this experiment shows is that human emissions of co2 are nowhere near enough to increase co2 to levels that would cause a temperature increase on a global scale.
Additionally, the methane and co2 boxes were positioned such that they radiated heat into their respective enclosures.
They had to blatantly cheat to get the 1 degree increase, and I knew they would, because I've already done this experiment in a real greenhouse.
Your proof of global warming is an already known to be hoaxed and easily debunked mythbusters experiment? Literally "the mainstream media told me so!"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:15:46 2019 No.10327208 >>10327205 > because I've already done this experiment in a real greenhouse. Wow, I am sure you published your experiment right?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:18:16 2019 No.10327216

>>10327173
Mythbusters was broadcasted on a channel owned by General Electric, who's made 80,000,000,000.00$ (eighty billion dollars) since 2005 with their Ecomagination Green Energy sales. Mythbusters are literally GE shills.
https://www.ge.com/reports/mythbusters-adam-savage-discovers-truth-cooler-fiction-new-web-series-ge/

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:19:39 2019 No.10327222

>>10327208
Here's the thing, in the video you posted, they misconstrued their experiment to the public and intentionally lied. By proxy, that means it's what you did too, because they DID NOT simulate earth's atmospheric co2 levels. They continuously inflated them until the temperature rose, with a heat radiating machine positioned against the enclosure, which the control didn't have.
You can move goalposts but your example is fake, so we still have no example of a working home experiment that demonstrates the anthro claim.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:23:20 2019 No.10327232

>>10327205
>I've already done this experiment in a real greenhouse.
Retard alert. Real greenhouses don't have much to do with the greenhouse effect. Greenhouses work to trap heat because, you know, they're made of solid stuff that stops air from moving around but also allowing warming sunlight in. And they can be heated directly. The different factors constituting the greenhouse effect in Earth's atmosphere are coupled to each other through feedback loops, which is why relatively small changes in CO2 can begin a chain of events that lead to significant warming.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:23:34 2019 No.10327233

>>10327205
>GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST
>I-I mean it's not as bad!
The only reason the experiment didn't work is because it only involved CO2. However in a real world system increase in water vapor would help force it up. All it proved and all I wanted to prove to you retards is that CO2 is a green house gas.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:23:34 2019 No.10327234

>>10327208
Mythbuster's kind of did in a subtle way, since they cheated and still only got a one degree increase despite having overwhelmingly higher levels of co2 than the earth atmosphere. If you read back that's what I alleged, that I couldn't get the temperature to increase in any significant way without cheating.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:24:44 2019 No.10327238

>>10327174
Why would you expect the behaviour of a very large object in radiative equilibrium to match the behaviour of a very small object in conductive equilibrium?

>If you would argue that global warming with tiny percentages of co2 is "unfalsifiable,"
Nobody but idiots is claiming that. Falsifiability doesn't come in bottles, it's not coke.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:25:07 2019 No.10327242

>>10327233
>>10327232
You are making wild claims that aren't backed by any measure of the scientific method, if you disagree, then post the home experiment.
It seems like you are moving goalposts hard now that your "mythbusters!" proof got debunked. Suddenly it wasn't meant to prove anything at all, and global warming is still right, because it can't be falsified, because it's a religion not a science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:26:34 2019 No.10327247 File: 11 KB, 500x329, co2_temp_1964_2008[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Good goys, no correlation!

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:27:56 2019 No.10327249

>>10327238
You haven't provided a way to falsify it, instead you've made excuses for why it can't be. In other words, it's a great sky is falling scam for general electric to make almost ten billion a year every year on, through redistributed taxes, and not much more than that.
>>10327238
Your ethos shows a hatred for science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:28:01 2019 No.10327250 >>10327242 >Experiment and evidence don't count unless they were done in this specific way because I SAID SO

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:29:08 2019 No.10327251 >>10327247 I hope you realize that many of the larger corporations of the world, including owned by jewish zionists and whatnot as well, all heavily support and profit off of that "correlation." >that 40 year timespan

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:29:13 2019 No.10327252 >>10327249 >Doesn't understand how science works

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:30:20 2019 No.10327255

>>10327250
Dude it was your example, I just pointed out that it literally had a heater next to every box but the control, and that it pumped WAY more co2 than is in the earth's atmosphere, suggesting that what IS in the earth's atmosphere "isn't enough."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:31:30 2019 No.10327258 >TFW retarded Conservacunts always talk about warming but don't even know Ocean Acidification is a thing

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:33:42 2019 No.10327262
File: 56 KB, 621x702, ce8[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10327255
>Proves taht CO2 raises temperature but it doesn't count because a small scale experiment leaving out a lot of things can't completely replicate the earths complex global weather

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:34:02 2019 No.10327263

>>10327249
>You haven't provided a way to falsify it,
Falsify what, the greenhouse effect? It's a direct consequence of QM.
Go and test the photoelectric effect or something, since you're so fond of "home experiments".

>instead you've made excuses for why it can't be.
I've never claimed it's not falsifiable. That was you.

> In other words, it's a great sky is falling scam for general electric to make almost ten billion a year every year on, through redistributed taxes, and not much more
Conspiracy theories. GE is a US company, but climatologists are just as confident about AGW outside the USA.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:38:44 2019 No.10327270 File: 78 KB, 1000x614, 400000yearslarge1[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hmm, I wonder if they are related somehow.....

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:40:21 2019 No.10327271 >>10327252 >doesn't understand the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:41:34 2019 No.10327274 Hmm, I wonder why Venus is so hot. I wonder if it has something to do with all those green house gasses

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:41:54 2019 No.10327275

>>10327262
>except there was a heat radiating object next to the enclosure.
>doesn't prove ANTHROPOGENIC temperature change.
No one disputes that a super high concentration of co2 increases heat from infrared, it's whether or not the human contribution of 0.01% does so in any noticeable, world ending way.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:43:38 2019 No.10327282 >>10327275 See >>10327270 >>10327247

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 13:44:37 2019 No.10327284 >>10326046 is this an implication or did you prove the causation?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 14:22:12 2019 No.10327371 >>10326046 You skipped a step. >The temperature increase for the amount of CO2 being released will cause serious, catastrophic issues. The proof of that part seems to be extraordinarily weak.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 14:24:54 2019 No.10327378 File: 166 KB, 602x900, refute.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10326128 The fact that nothing serious has happened is not really proof of your thesis.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 14:30:13 2019 No.10327386
File: 83 KB, 625x502, enhanced-buzz-25466-1365534595-12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10327270

Assuming validity of underlying data, that does seem to indicate a correlation. Not sure that data shows causation, much less which factor has been driving the other.

I also wonder why the temperature suddenly lags so badly in the modern (and possibly more accurate) data?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 14:33:33 2019 No.10327392

>>10327378
The default position of humanity was to have an affect like cows and chickens, not that humans have control over the world climate.
If you'd like to assert that they do, you need to prove it, and so far all you've done are show charts and a mythbusters video that blatantly lies to support a preconceived belief, or myth, which is that the human contribution of co2 in the air is raising the temperature to a noticeable degree compared to what it would be raising without it.
So far, in the mythbusters experiment that was posted to prove anthropogenic climate change, we've seen the opposite result.
The "myth busters" had to put heaters next every box except the control, and they had to fail to mention how they put made the co2 concentration 70,000ppm, well beyond the human contribution, and with both the heater and this overpumping until they got the result they wanted (undoubtedly directly because the experiment failed to give the wanted result).
When people are cheating to support a myth because it doesn't work without the cheat it really makes you think.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 14:41:38 2019 No.10327406 >>10327386 It doesn't. See >>10327247

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:01:41 2019 No.10327456 >>10327386 Now come up with an alternate explanation for what is causing temp rises that is consistent with the last few hundred/thousand years

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:11:13 2019 No.10327470 >>10326365 >estimations for measuring a big block of ice is likely erronous >models predicting climate over a 100 year span are clearly right and we must not question it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:14:38 2019 No.10327479 >>10327470 >models A model being right or wrong doesn't mean the temp increase isn't caused by CO2 and it clearly is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:15:19 2019 No.10327481 >>10327392 dude no one cares about mythbusters, they are irrelevant to science

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:17:05 2019 No.10327486 >>10327392 >Charts aren't evidence

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:18:07 2019 No.10327489 >>10327481 >no one cares It was the only thing posted in my request for proof of the anthropogenic affect in a controlled environment. If you have another, post it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:18:08 2019 No.10327490 >>10327392 >cows and chickens move sequestered carbon from underground into the atmosphere >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:19:09 2019 No.10327495 >>10327486 see: >>10327386 Faggot

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:20:12 2019 No.10327498 >>10327495 see >>10327456

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:25:54 2019 No.10327516 >>10327495 >Thing that has been shown to raise temperatures raises temperatures but that doesn't mean it's the thing that raises temperatures that rose temperatures I am honestly shocked by how retarded you are.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:26:23 2019 No.10327517

>>10327490
Humans invented the wheel and discovered the properties of different kinds of fuel for fire, they didnt start out with a steam engine and such, at least not without an /x/ theory. At the onset of humanity we only contributed like regular mammal species. If you want to make a positive assertion that now we control the climate more than the other animals, you need to demonstrate that with a falsifiable hypothesis as part of the scientific method.
So far, mythbusters tried one but it suggests that the anthropogenic contribution is largely meaningless to the world climate cycle, to the extent that they had to lie by omission about their result.
Once major media is lying on screen to support the anthropogenic claim, it really makes you think. I mean, it has such an influence that even on /sci/ when I asked for an example, I got linked to a MSM source.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:27:36 2019 No.10327520 >>10327498 >The god of the gaps fallacy. You can prove that someone isn't defying gravity without explaining the correct way to do it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:28:46 2019 No.10327525 >>10327498 >prove creation or else it happened like I say.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:30:04 2019 No.10327534 >>10327498 Humans are pretty dumb, there's lots of stuff we don't know, but that doesn't make Shaman Bagugakabe correct when he says i gotta sacrifice a finger to the blood god or the rain will go away, you based retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:31:26 2019 No.10327540 >>10327525 >>10327520 >>10327534 >Thousands of years showing that two things are linked and one causes the other >BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DID, IT COULD BE ANYTHING

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:31:57 2019 No.10327542 >>10326088 not good in places like commiefornia, prone to earthquakes so local leftists are afraid of it time we annexed Nevada anyways

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:33:18 2019 No.10327546 >>10327520 >>10327525 >>10327534 >The best explanation for something is a fallacy now

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:38:01 2019 No.10327558 >>10327546 Since it fails to match observation, fails to predict, and fails under controlled experiment, it isn't a valid explanation. Assuming that 2+2=7 because no one has proposed that it equals 4 is a very flawed idea.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:40:47 2019 No.10327561 >>10327558 >Fails to match observations It doesn't >Fails to predict It doesn't. >Fails under controlled experiment Nope. You are honestly a retard and you should go back to /x/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:41:57 2019 No.10327564 >>10327558 I guess evolution isn't science either then lol. >Brainlet doesn't understand science

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:44:06 2019 No.10327571 >>10327558 >Observation CO2 and temperature are directly linked >Predict As CO2 increases, so too will temperature >Controlled experiment Increasing CO2 will increase temperature All of these are true

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:46:47 2019 No.10327581 >>10327558 Everything you just said is just as true for Ozone depletion. Does that mean ozone depletion didn't exist? What about smoking a lung cancer? That also a myth?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:47:05 2019 No.10327583

>>10327561
>citation needed
So far in this thread all those claims are shown true, read the thread before you participate.

>>10327173
>>10327205
>>10327222
This was the only attempt to show a falsifiable experiment for the anthropogenic co2 claim. In the video though, it fails to raise the temperature so they pump it full of co2 to an absurd 'not earth like' degree. It failed to show anthropogenic cause. All you have are media charts.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:47:44 2019 No.10327584

>>10327517
>you need to demonstrate that with a falsifiable hypothesis as part of the scientific method.
Okay, my hypothesis is that humans at some point in their development started burning a carbon source that had been removed and sequestered from the atmosphere for longer than hominids have existed. I hypothesize that combustion releases CO2 and that humans have emitted enough to measurably change the concentration of the atmosphere and the albedo of the planet this warming it through the well documented greenhouse gas effect.

How'd I do?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:48:07 2019 No.10327585 >>10327581 >Does a lack of anthropogenic cause in the changing climate mean that the climate doesn't change? No, the climate definitely changes, it only means that man doesn't control it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:49:38 2019 No.10327587 >>10327584 >this thus

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:49:55 2019 No.10327590 >>10327583 >Charts don't matter for some reason because I said so See >>10327571 you really are a retard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:50:57 2019 No.10327593 >>10327585 That's some horrible reading comprehension you have there.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:52:45 2019 No.10327598

>>10327584
You made up a speculation, not a testable hypothesis. Finish middle school and get back here.
>well documented greenhouse gas effect
That hasn't been shown to be significant at anthropogenic levels of release, or even at full natty levels of release. The well documented greenhouse gas effect is humidity, you can experience it yourself on a humid day, how the temperature won't drop as fast at night.
If you fill a bottle with 0.02% co2 it won't heat up faster than a bottle with 0.01% co2 unless you literally place a heater next to it or pressurize it.
Since this is the case, while we can all agree the climate does change and has changed through all of earth's history, it appears unreasonable to 'just agree' that the world is going to end if I don't pay more taxes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:53:47 2019 No.10327601 >>10327590 I'm not the only person in the world who feels that "charts" are inadequate as a proof of a hypothesis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:54:48 2019 No.10327605 >>10327593 You have a poor grasp of analogy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:55:30 2019 No.10327607 >>10327598 >Science is false because I disagree with semi related politics >>10327601 Of course you are. You like most of America haven't taken a science class.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:56:45 2019 No.10327610 >>10327601 >Charts aren't evidence You know you are on a science board right champ? >>10327605 That wasn't an analogy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:58:18 2019 No.10327614 >>10327598 Actually it has through thousands of years of collected evidence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 15:59:20 2019 No.10327616 >>10327598 >Literally doubling the amount of CO2 shouldn't cause a temperature change! How are you this retarded? Why do you think Venus is so hot and Mars so cold?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:01:16 2019 No.10327619

>>10327607
>assumption and hypocritical statement.
Anon, a chart cannot replace the scientific method, it's merely a production that often goes with it. Charts aren't credible if they do not have strong fundamental principle behind them, and, lacking a falsifiable way to determine if the anthropogenic affect of 0.01% extra co2 being released into the atmosphere by humans, these charts simply aren't scientific.
>>10327610
>is smoking causes lung cancer also a myth
Hard to say, there's a strong correlation to it though, and a lot more empirical science behind the claims that it does than the claims that people are primary drivers of the change in world climate, given that the do it at home experiment fails to yield that predicted result.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:01:18 2019 No.10327620 >>10327598 >S-Scientists weren't able to replicate the entire earths atmosphere in a tiny bottle, SCIENCE WRONG

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:03:40 2019 No.10327626

>>10327619
>Doesn't know how the scientifitic method works
Hey retard. I know you have never gone to college or taken a science class in your life but science doesn't need a direct experiment to show something is the case.
>and a lot more empirical science behind the claims
No, it's pretty much the same claims.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:04:44 2019 No.10327629 >>10327619 >Charts aren't credible >Data isn't credible

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:05:52 2019 No.10327631 >Temperature and CO2 are directly linked somehow (fact) >CO2 increases temperature (fact) So what's the issue here? Oh right, good goys don't want poor oil companies to suffer

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:07:06 2019 No.10327634

>>10327616
>using the word 'doubling' as hyperbole
Venus has twice as much nitrogen parts per million in its atmosphere, and it's 95% co2.
On earth:
Co2 is 0.04% of the earth atmosphere.
Humans contribute only 0.1% of 0.04% of the greenhouse gas of the atmosphere. You have yet to show that this is what is changing the climate, and not the 99.9% of other sources of co2, and the 99.7% of other sources of greenhouse gasses like nitrogen and water vapor, which all have a stronger per part affect than co2 does.
You cant because it doesn't, and our contribution of co2 does jack shit to the world's climate.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:07:40 2019 No.10327637

>>10327520
That's not the god of the gaps fallacy you brainlet. All other explanations have been tries and disproven. The only explanation with evidence backing it up is that Co2 causes global temperatures to increase. Not only can you see it here on earth but on other planets too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:08:42 2019 No.10327641 >>10327634 It's not a hyperbole dumbshit. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere did in fact double.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:10:04 2019 No.10327643 I guess evolution is false because a biologist can't tell me what frogs are going to evolve into and can't show in a lab that a frog can turn into a dog.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:11:02 2019 No.10327647

>>10327631
I honestly don't understand, what to these people gain from neglecting the sky is blue? What do they want? Attention? Why are they even here if they only are seeking fights? Do they not have better ways to spend their time? Family? Friends? What's the point of going to a board about science just to attempt to contradic the most basic of facts?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:14:36 2019 No.10327653 >>10327647 It's honestly a pretty nice subversion tactic. /his/ for example is filled with young earth creationists now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:26:56 2019 No.10327676 >>10327479 And tell me again why temperature are co2 levels rising is a bad thing ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:28:34 2019 No.10327680 >>10327676 I knew it would come to this. When all else fails these shills go >B-But it's a good thing!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:29:17 2019 No.10327683 >>10327653 But... why? Where is the benefit in the end?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:31:02 2019 No.10327686 >>10327680 Hmm so you can't answer ? Co2 is basically steroid for plants, more co2 more food crops, more trees :)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:32:04 2019 No.10327690 >>10327686 >How could changes of climate world wide have any negative effect on species

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:33:07 2019 No.10327693 >>10327686 This is what it all comes down too. Climate deniers don't care if global warming is real are not. When the cards are down they will change tactics as long as it helps their jew overlords.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:33:20 2019 No.10327695 >>10327676 Desertification, topsoil erosion, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, ecological destruction, basically most weather-based natural disasters you can think of.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:35:12 2019 No.10327699

>>10327690
You sound like a religious cultist, people make it out to be much worse than what it is, life survived a mount everest sized asteroid hitting the earth, retards screaming doomsday for a ""hypothetical"" 2-3 degree increase need to off themselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:37:22 2019 No.10327705 >>10327693 Jewish overlords are the ones pushing climate change propaganda, if it wasn't a jewish plot you wouldn't be ostracized for being a climate change "denier" (note the terminology here ;) ;)).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:38:11 2019 No.10327707 >>10327699 >Species will go extinct if the climate around them changes >T-THAT IS A RELIGION The stupidity of anti climate change kikes are worse than even young earth creationists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:38:34 2019 No.10327708 >>10326046 >Fluoride is a poison (this is a known fact) >Putting Fluoride in water makes it poisonous water (this is a known fact) So why can't Americans accept they are poisoning themselves with fluoride in the water?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:38:46 2019 No.10327709 >>10327699 How about we don't have a mass extinction, please? I know you conservatives want to destroy the world but can you just leave this one thing to the people who actually know what they're doing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:39:23 2019 No.10327710 >>10327705 Nope, they are the kikes owning big oil. It's why you are shilling for free against a scientific fact

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:41:16 2019 No.10327714 >>10327695 Global warming means more arable land.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:44:11 2019 No.10327721

>>10327710
Why is there such a big misrepresentation about big oil's position on climate change?
Since the late 90s and early 2000s, Big Oil and Big Energy have worked together with organizations like google and institutions like stanford in order to push the anthropogenic climate change model.
General Electric's ecomagination has made 80 billion dollars in sales since 2005.
You have no idea that you are supporting their agenda, that's how useful an idiot you are, 'climatologist'.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:44:26 2019 No.10327723 >>10327714 Wow, I can't wait to see what the world will be like when this """""arable land""""" becomes available.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:45:20 2019 No.10327725 >>10327723 You sound retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:45:40 2019 No.10327726 >>10327714 This. It means me and my fat nigger baby can eat more!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:46:38 2019 No.10327730 >>10327725 because you made a retarded statement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:46:42 2019 No.10327732 >>10327721 >All those leaked documents saying otherwise don't matter Good goy

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:48:32 2019 No.10327735

>>10327707
species go extinct all the time fucking moron, this isn't going to change anything long term
>>>10327709
>3 degrees will cause mass extinction
okay buddy
>>10327710
>big oil
You're a narrow minded bluepilled cuck, climate change caused by man is the ideal scenario for jews to fuse countries to form a 1 government world
>we need this to save the world goy !!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:56:01 2019 No.10327744 >>10327735 You do realize that the difference between an ice age and not is like 1.4 degrees, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:56:11 2019 No.10327747 >>10327735 >Species go extinct so who cares if we increase that rate or anything Also great buzzwords anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:57:25 2019 No.10327751 >>10327735 >3 degrees will cause mass extinction So you admit you don't know anything about basic prehistoric history. But it's ok because you are RED PILLED

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 16:58:11 2019 No.10327752

>>10327744
The difference between an ice age and not is ice. The world is always coming to an end unless we are sacrificing our blood to the blood god, this is no different.
All the people were just as sure as you were that the blood god would kill them without sacrifice, all their charts said so.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:00:30 2019 No.10327757

>>10327751
Not that anon but mass extinction has been ongoing for some time, and for all of time. Species are not static on earth, they have come and gone repeatedly in the fossil record.
We contribute less than 1/10 of 1% of the co2 in the atmosphere.
co2 contributes less than 4/10ths of 1% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
You are chicken little.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:03:37 2019 No.10327761 >>10326046 Because everyone knows that there are microscopic Jesus clones riding invisible pink Unicorns flying around the mid atmosphere layers using magic blasts to get rid of excess carbon. TL;DR religious people are extremely stupid.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:04:28 2019 No.10327765

>>10327744
>>10327747
>>10327751
This is what happens when you remove institutionalized religion from a society, people find other things to worship like : gender identity, egalitarianism, or anthropogenic climate change. Doomsayers have existed throughout history and you are not the exception, we will survive this don't worry little crybaby.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:11:00 2019 No.10327786 >>10327765 This. Why care about if things go extinct? What are you a hippie? LOL XD

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:12:01 2019 No.10327788 >>10327757 This. Murder has been going on for a long time so who cares if more people get murdered!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:15:08 2019 No.10327794 >>10327765 >We will survive this so it doesn't matter how many bad things happen as long as humanity doesn't go extinct! A rare combination of severe retardation and being an edgelord. TIP

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:19:52 2019 No.10327805 >>10327761 >TFW half of the people I know who don't believe in climate change flat out admit it's because "only god can change the climate".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:20:15 2019 No.10327808 >>10327788 >if you give me money, murder will stop.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:24:32 2019 No.10327824

>>10327808
I never said that. Your literally going to say something doesn't exist or isn't bad because you don't like that some people suggest increases in tax dollars. Your no better than those SJWs say gender doesn't exist because it helps their bullshit political case.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:36:48 2019 No.10327857

>>10327794
>religion is the edgelord now
The last twenty years, following when exxon merged with Mobil, and Conoco merged with Philips, and Royal Dutch merged with Shell, and then they teamed up with GE and Google and started the climate movement, has changed even that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:38:11 2019 No.10327862 >>10327857 >backpedalling now

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:41:09 2019 No.10327871

>>10327824
No, if you read this thread, you'd see that it's because no one can provide an experiment that demonstrates that the anthropogenic contribution is causal to the overall change in climate, and that the ones that have been devised always show that the percent of co2 that humans produce is unable to produce the predicted warmth; instead, heaters need to be placed next to the enclosures that the control doesn't have, and the PPM of co2 must be inflated way beyond the total in earth's atmosphere, and exponentially beyond humanity's contribution, to produce even a one degree Celsius increase in warmth.
The same people who are suggesting the increases in tax dollars employ the climate scientists who've developed a "consensus" on this issue.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:42:21 2019 No.10327877 >>10327862 I wasn't the poster you were responding to.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:46:53 2019 No.10327890

>>10327824
Various scientists disagree with the anthropogenic climate change model; but they aren't allowed to work for GE or a big oil company or the government or really anyone except a small business that needs restrictions lowered to be able to compete at market.
Unfortunately most scientists aren't RPG protagonists, they need to bring home a paycheck and do what the boss tells them to do.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:47:17 2019 No.10327893

>>10327871
>experiment
You don't know how science works. The scientific method doesn't always require experiment. If you took a basic high school science class you would know this. The theory of evolution was established decades before experimental evidence existed. Though there is experimental evidence proving that green house gasses do cause an increase in temperature, it is impractical if not impossible to make a complete recreation of the earths climate in a bottle but it doesn't matter since it isn't necessary to do so. Fuck off brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:48:19 2019 No.10327897 >>10327890 >Various scientists disagree with the anthropogenic climate change model Oh wow, I guess if we are going to use that logic then 97% do since opinion matters now. >Bullshit conspiracy theory shit instead of evidence

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:49:48 2019 No.10327902

>>10327890
Various scientists disagree with evolution and the Darwinian model; but they aren't allowed to work for GE or a big bio company or the government or really anyone except a small business that needs restrictions lowered to be able to compete at market. Unfortunately most scientists aren't RPG protagonists, they need to bring home a paycheck and do what the boss tells them to do.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:50:40 2019 No.10327906

>>10327893
>if you [did basic thing that I clearly did] you'd [agree with me.]
You're not a rational person, and you are religiously arguing that the scientific method is unimportant. If you claim that you can increase the temperature of a container to an apocalyptic degree at 0.01% co2 vs 0.02% co2, but can't demonstrate that it's the case experimentally, your claim is not falsifiable and your claim is not scientific. At best it's a hypothesis, and it's one that experimentally seems unlikely, since the experiment has been tried and failed to produce the hypothesized result. It's bogus, but it's big money.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:51:58 2019 No.10327909 >>10327897 >scientists work for people with agendas >the richest energy companies have an agenda >conspiracy theory I was about to make a rude comment about going out into the world, but nah, you'll see.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:52:51 2019 No.10327911 >>10327893 >You don't know how science works What are your credentials ? Psychology major ? burger flipper at Mcdonalds ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:54:33 2019 No.10327921 >>10327902 >comparing evolution which can easily be verified through DNA sequencing and fossils with a highly non-linear system that's practically impossible to model

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:58:40 2019 No.10327936 >>10327906 >basic thing that I clearly did Then how come you don't understand how the scientific method works faggot? >>10327911 Geneticist but it doesn't matter since I could be a burger flipper and it wouldn't change the point.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 17:58:55 2019 No.10327939

>>10327902
Various scientists disagree with the map of the universe and geocentric model of a flat earth; but they aren't allowed to work for the Vatican or any place of esteem in all the land, except a place that needs restrictions lowered so attempts can be made to circumnavigate the earth. Unfortunately most scientists aren't RPG protagonists, they need to bring home a paycheck and do what the boss tells them to do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:00:00 2019 No.10327943 >>10327921 >DNA Sequencing Oh, so evolution was just a guess until we invented DNA sequencing? Wow you sure aren't a retard. >Impossible to model Like the complex earth climate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:00:24 2019 No.10327948 >>10327936 It is you in all your corruption that does not understand either the spirit or the meaning of the scientific method. I am a superior scientist you in all respects.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:01:10 2019 No.10327950 >>10327542 Japan's nuclear plants do just fine. Fukushima only went tits up because the diesel generators were flooded and insufficient emergency protocol.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:01:36 2019 No.10327953 >>10327943 No, you're the retard. Darwin involved experimentation as part of his scientific method, it's unreal that you as a "geneticist" didn't know this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:01:42 2019 No.10327954 File: 40 KB, 604x404, Wat8[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10327948 >I am a superior scientist you in all respects.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:03:43 2019 No.10327961 >>10327954 Add a "to" after the second (you). Nice projection of low IQ.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:03:47 2019 No.10327962

>>10327953
He did, he non of his experiments supported his theory on natural selection though. You would know this if you weren't a fucking brainlet. So I guess Natural Selection isn't real right?
Take a basic fucking science class if you didn't realize science can be done without experiments and has been for hundreds of years now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:03:57 2019 No.10327963 >>10327953 I bet this "geneticist" also believes that evolution stops at the neck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:05:08 2019 No.10327970 >>10327962 >observation contradicts his theory. If that's true then yes i'd wager that the theory is in error, and not the observation of reality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:05:22 2019 No.10327972 File: 148 KB, 1920x1080, 17aca220190f3ef16a4a3dfb928ba458d14bfa4c[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10327961 >I am a superior scientist you to in all respects

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:06:51 2019 No.10327979 >>10327972 Ironic. I'll write it out for you this time. >I am a superior scientist to you in all respects.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:07:09 2019 No.10327981

>>10327962
>>10327962
>Take a basic fucking science class if you didn't realize science can be done without experiments and has been for hundreds of years now.

Definition from wikipedia :
>The scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition which has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century.

Definition of empirical (since you seem retarded) :
>Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:07:14 2019 No.10327983
File: 43 KB, 633x415, graph4[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10327963
>This is the best climate change deniers can come up with after they run out of arguments
>>10327970
But they don't. Observations in no way contradict the idea that CO2 increases temperature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:08:46 2019 No.10327990 >>10327979 You said after not before. Learn english >>10327981 >Wikipedia Oh i'm sorry, I didn't realize wikipedia was more correct than thousands of scientists that have been conducting science for hundreds of years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:08:57 2019 No.10327991 >>10327983 Observations in no way contradict that internet explorer use increases murder. >>10327386

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:10:19 2019 No.10327997 >>10327990 The ironic part was that you still couldn't figure it out after that point, but you were insulting my intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:10:21 2019 No.10327998 >>10327981 >He thinks the scientific method is a static thing You are 16 at the oldest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:11:17 2019 No.10328001 >>10327634 Nitrogen isn't a significant GHG gas in infrared. CO2 is much more than 0.3% of global GHGs. Our contribution to global CO2 levels is the principal cause of the increase, as evidenced by C-14 fraction of atmospheric carbon decreasing

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:11:23 2019 No.10328002
File: 988 KB, 1424x888, Screenshot 2019-01-26 at 00.09.09.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10327983
Taking a 50 year time scale to study climate change and CO2 relation is like taking the 5 min chart of the Dow jones index and trying to predict the price 3 years later.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:11:25 2019 No.10328003 >>10327997 >You couldn't understand my gibberish! You are the dumb one

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:11:59 2019 No.10328008

>>10327998
For something to qualify as validated by the scientific method, and for that to have any meaning, it must be a static thing.
It's possible to strongly believe something to be true, and even to profit off of that belief, without ever using the scientific method, but until you do, it's still not science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:12:37 2019 No.10328011 >>10328002 Ok, see >>10327270 >>10327247

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:14:03 2019 No.10328018

>>10328008
>For something to qualify as validated by the scientific method, and for that to have any meaning, it must be a static thing.
Too bad that isn't how science works at all. I am talking to a literal child. No scientist works or thinks like this.
>Underage child tries to tell other people what is science

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:14:17 2019 No.10328021 >>10328003 Original: >I am a superior scientist you in all respects. Correct reading: >I am a superior scientist [to] you in all respects. I'm confident I'd be able to figure out what it said without help.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:15:49 2019 No.10328027 >>10328008 That's not how the scientific method works. Actually conduct some one of these days. Very rarely are all steps followed and often times some steps are added.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:15:56 2019 No.10328028

>>10328018
>the scientific method is not science when it doesn't work like I want it to.
>calling others children
You're like the kid who changes the rules in a game and then doesn't understand why people stop playing the game with him, to still play it standard with their other friends.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:16:57 2019 No.10328030 >>10328027 Empirical evidence is always required, even if you can have faith before it arrives, that's all it is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:17:17 2019 No.10328031 >>10328018 You seem mentally challenged.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:17:43 2019 No.10328035 >>10328002 The climate doesn't have anything in common with the economy

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:18:37 2019 No.10328040

>>10328028
No one said that retard. The scientific method isn't a single method that works the same every time. Experiment isn't always needed and sometimes neither is other steps. The fact that you don't know this already proves that you aren't qualified to argue. By your shitty logic evolution wasn't science until very recently.
>>10328030
Empirical evidence doesn't = experiment
>>10328031
You seem upset that you got BTFO.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:20:53 2019 No.10328046 >>10328040 So you're saying that experiments aren't needed to prove anthropogenic climate change ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:21:13 2019 No.10328048 >/pol/ has never heard of non experimental research Predictable. Notice how the general understanding of how science works and operates gets thrown out the window as soon as you step into a Climate Change or vaxx thread?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:22:15 2019 No.10328053 >>10328046 Yes. Just like experiments weren't needed to prove evolution or that Mars had liquid water or that smoking caused cancer.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:23:32 2019 No.10328056

>>10328002
Proxies are fraught with precision problems because they are at best indirect. They are a window into the past, but not a substitute for the superior modern instrumental record. The modern warming trend is very fast on geological timescales, and correlates well with the observed changes in forcings including greenhouse gases.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:23:49 2019 No.10328058 >>10328053 Both of those were considered unproven until they were proven by empirical evidence. Many had faith in those theories, but they weren't "proven" until they were. Climate science is much less credible than either of those ideas were.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:25:03 2019 No.10328060 >>10328048 /pol/ has never heard of propaganda. That's wrong. >general understanding Only in your dark age fantasy without empiricism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:26:38 2019 No.10328063 >>10328048 >cntrl + f "vaxx" 1 result >cntrl + "vacc" 0 result Shill.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:27:03 2019 No.10328066

>>10328058
>Both of those were considered unproven
Really, so evolution was unproven until a few decades ago? Really?
>The only way to get empirical evidence is through experiment
Wrong brainlet.
>"Facts" in science
It doesn't work like that. Evolution has been a theory for over 100 years.
>>10328060
>Science is propaganda when I disagree with it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:28:05 2019 No.10328069 >>10328063 What are you even trying to say with your retarded post?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:29:28 2019 No.10328072 File: 8 KB, 250x250, 1525655190720s[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /pol/ GETTING IFFY UH /pol/ GET'S THE STIFFY UH

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:33:17 2019 No.10328083

>>10328066
The only way to prove that 0.04% co2 vs 0.0401% co2 in the earth's atmosphere will cause the apocalypse is to prove it with an experiment that can be reproduced. The first step is to show that it can create a noteable difference in temperature, that would be worrisome. So far the only experiment attempting to show this, showed the opposite.
There is a way to test this, and when it was shown tested earlier in this thread, we saw that the only way to make a temperature increase was to provide it an extra heat source and also pump a much higher ppm of co2 into the container than is even experienced on earth, let alone contributed by humans (50g tons vs 750 billion tons).
>science is propaganda
when it's labeled as an entity instead of a process and it's being used to push a political agenda, yes exactly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:33:37 2019 No.10328085 >>10327963 Ironic how /pol/ believes races aren't equal based on statistics and graphs but that doesn't work for climate change because evil LEFTISTS

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:34:13 2019 No.10328086
File: 649 KB, 625x910, 1547637621776.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10328066
>>The only way to get empirical evidence is through experiment
>Wrong brainlet.

The only way to get empirical evidence is BY DEFINITION THROUGH EXPERIENCE you fucking mongoloid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:34:56 2019 No.10328089 >>10328069 There are no instances of the word vaccine in this thread but someone still typed out vaxxer, and that post was a much more eloquent way of putting it than just directly fucking telling you. t. not him

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:35:18 2019 No.10328091

>>10328083
>Cause the apocalypse
Where have I said it did? All i'm saying is that the rise in temperature over the last 200 years has been caused by an increase in green house gas emission and the facts agree with me.
>EXPERIENCE
Not the same as experiment brainlet, try again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:35:27 2019 No.10328093 >>10328085 As you might have noticed, sampling and measuring IQ and observing behavior of said populations is much easier than trying to predict an infinitely complex system

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:36:32 2019 No.10328094 >>10328085 Ironic how you think you dismiss an argument by making a lie, and because you have lost this discussion you are baiting "/pol/" and racists into the thread. You're an intellectual liar and a coward.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:36:48 2019 No.10328096

>>10328089
So? Both anti vax and anti clime change posts are made almost exclusively by people who are scientifically illiterate and you can see it in this and other threads.
>>10328093
>Sampling and measuring IQ is science
>Sampling and measuring the temperature isn't!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:38:14 2019 No.10328101 >>10328094 >lost the discussion >Coming from a brainlet that didn't know that non experimental research was a thing and thinks the scientific method has to be followed to a T like the high schooler he is

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:40:06 2019 No.10328105 >>10328096 >Sampling and measuring the temperature isn't! never claimed that brainlet, trying to attribute the rate of change exclusively to human behavior to further a political agenda is not science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:41:28 2019 No.10328110 When you raise CO2, temperature rises When you lower CO2, temperature falls We have thousands of years of evidence proving this >>10328105 Humans are the ones causing the increase of CO2.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:44:47 2019 No.10328119

>>10327520
>god of the gaps
No it's not you brainlet. When Co2 goes up, so does temperature. When humans increase CO2 into the atmosphere, the temperature goes up at nearly the exact same rate.
You literally have to come up with another explanation to debunk CO2 being the cause.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:45:25 2019 No.10328121 >>10328110 I can't wait to see year 2060 when all you mad cultists will be proven wrong.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:45:50 2019 No.10328123

>>10328101
anon your rejection of the empirical is not the same as the scientific method.
None experimental research simply does not follow the scientific method, as the empirical is its central tenet. The scientific method was created by the Greeks just to blow you dogma fags out.
In modern science, to this day, a "fact" is synonymous with "empirical evidence," especially in the scientific method. You are ignorant.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:47:14 2019 No.10328128

>>10328110
In the experiment shown in this thread, the only way the co2 container could make the temperature rise to any significant degree was to have an extra heater paced next to the enclosure, and to pump venus tier co2 levels into the container, rather that 0.1% of 0.1% of the atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:47:31 2019 No.10328129 >>10328121 >Makes a wild prediction about the future with no evidence >Calls someone else a cultist >>10328123 >The scientific method was created by the Greeks Everything in your post is wrong but this is the most obvious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:49:04 2019 No.10328133 >>10328123 The greeks didn't use experiment, the Arabs did you fagtard. >>10328128 >A bucket works different than the earth You really are a retard.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:51:56 2019 No.10328142

>>10328129
You're an intellectual midget relying on strawmen arguments now.
I challenge you to look up the definition of a scientific fact, and then get back to me once enlightened.
There is no empirical reason to believe that a difference of 0.001% increase over the current 0.01% in the air is going to do anything bad that warrants action, if you can't even prove that an increase of this tiny magnitude makes a difference in the first place.
Similarly we put trace amounts of fluoride in the water to protect our teeth, even though a much larger amount is poisonous. You need to show that this tiny trace amount of co2 can make a difference in a container's temperature. So far only by having a significantly higher percentage than the earth atmosphere has, does it make any difference in controlled experiment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:52:02 2019 No.10328143 >>10328128 >Both had a heater (represents the sun stupid) >levels no where near Venus >Proven that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas >B-BUT THE CRUDE EXPERIMENT DIDN'T EXACTLY IMITATE THE EARTH SO GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE SOMEHOW

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:53:29 2019 No.10328149 >>10328142 > a scientific fact That doesn't exist retard. In science facts aren't a thing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:54:48 2019 No.10328153 >>10328142 >What is a natural experiment >What is non experimental research >Scientific "fact" isn't a thing How many times can you get BTFO?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 18:55:44 2019 No.10328154

>>10328133
The greeks didn't invent the scientific method or experimentation, but you're an idiot to say they didn't use it.
Easy source for you:
https://www.ancient.eu/Greek_Science/

>a bucket works different than the earth
AKA
>here's why my dogma is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:00:38 2019 No.10328169 >>10328154 They didn't. The scientific method wasn't invented or used for another 2000 years.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:01:11 2019 No.10328172

>>10328149
You are really dedicated to knocking down straw men at this point. Your hypothesis isn't supported by empirical observation of co2 in a container, it's a made up fantasy that assumes a high concentration of something will behave and interact as powerfully in the same way as a tiny concentration of it, or that super tiny changes in its concentration will make world ending differences in climate.
So far you have provided no evidence to support the claim that 0.01% co2 in a container can be made to heat up better than a container with 0.011% co2 in it. You can only show the effect in containers that are more heavily concentrated with it. There's no reason to take action on this media campaign as a result.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:02:01 2019 No.10328176 >>10328154 See >>10328153 Also your source says nothing about experimenting except in math.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:02:18 2019 No.10328178 >>10328169 There's extensive documentation of greek experiment and their change from dogmatic ethos to more observation based ethos. That page cites its sources, please read it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:03:36 2019 No.10328185

>>10328172
>Your hypothesis isn't supported by empirical observation of co2 in a container,
No, it's supported by thousands of years of evidence instead.Not all science requires experiment, multiple anons have shown this to you yet you ignore it like the brainlet you are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:04:38 2019 No.10328189 >>10328178 >The page that didn't say what I said it said will say it if you do your own research

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:05:40 2019 No.10328196 >>10328172 If you can't make a frog turn into a monkey in a container then evolution is fake

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:07:03 2019 No.10328201

For all in this thread, the scientific method:
>observation
>asking a question
>gathering information
>forming a hypothesis
>testing the hypothesis
>making conclusions
>reporting
>evaluating
Anthropogenic climate change theory appears to fail to follow these seps once you get to:
>testing the hypothesis
It basically jumps the shark at that point, and relies on a circular assumption of its own correctness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:08:06 2019 No.10328206 >>10328201 >Hey mom, I went to middle school and this is the one form of science I was taught. But I guess evolution isn't science either is it?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:09:09 2019 No.10328209

>>10328196
A human baby was just born with edited genes.
"climate scientists" can't prove that a tiny increase in an already tiny concentration of co2 in an atmosphere can significantly increase the temperature of said atmosphere vs its slightly less co2 equivalent.
Not even comparable. They've completed the jar test.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:09:57 2019 No.10328213

>>10328201
>What is Natural experiment
>What is non experimental research
>He thinks the scientific method is static
>he thinks experiments have to directly produce a similar result to what is seen in nature to be valid
>>10328209
>"climate scientists" can't prove that a tiny increase in an already tiny concentration of co2 in an atmosphere can significantly increase the temperature
Actually they can and did.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:11:20 2019 No.10328218 >>10328209 >>10328201 At this point I am convinced this is baiting. Multiple anons have explained that science doesn't work like this but nope, all science has to be conducted like an 8th grade science experiment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:12:10 2019 No.10328221 >>10328213 Why are you saying they did without showing it? The most important part of the scientific method is reproduction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:13:01 2019 No.10328227 File: 51 KB, 645x729, 1506778120136[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10328209 >Doubling the amount is a tiny increase Sure thing

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:13:12 2019 No.10328228 >>10328218 Your climate change belief is religious, not scientific.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:13:45 2019 No.10328229 >>10327647 Because you want to take my money away from me and lower my quality of life

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:14:04 2019 No.10328231 >>10328221 >Without showing it See >>10327983 >>10327270 >>10327247 >>10327180 >>10326242

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:15:05 2019 No.10328233 >>10328228 Just like evolution, am I right fellow deniers? >>10328229 >It's fake because I don't want to pay taxes!

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:15:29 2019 No.10328235

>>10328227
Humans do not double the amount of co2 in the earth's atmosphere.
We produce 50g tons whereas the earth produces 750 billion tons. Nice brainlet avatar.
You need to show that the anthropogenic increase, which is tiny relative to the given output, is relevant.
So far you haven't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:16:47 2019 No.10328241 >>10328227 >0.01 to 0.01001 is doubling the amount. No.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:17:48 2019 No.10328247 >>10328227 >unironically thinks that humans double the co2 output of Earth.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:20:35 2019 No.10328259

>>10328235
>We produce 50g tons whereas the earth produces 750 billion tons.
No brainlet. It is 40 billion metric tons. The 750 however was in equilibrium in the carbon cycle so stayed relatively constant.
>>10328241
Nice made up number.
>>10328247
In the atmosphere brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:21:43 2019 No.10328263 >In 1600, 97% of scientists agreed that our universe was geocentric, believing otherwise would make you a conspiracy theorist and a mad man.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:23:12 2019 No.10328270 >>10328241 >>10328247 260 ppm to 420. Not exactly doubled but close. Why are you being so ignorant on purpose? >>10328235 >What is the carbon cycle >more fake numbers

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:24:14 2019 No.10328275 >>10328263 Those weren't scientists. Also not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:24:25 2019 No.10328276 >>10328233 If you're asking people to make sacrifices, you should expect scrutiny

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:26:01 2019 No.10328284 >>10328275 >Those weren't scientists Hmmm so just like your IPCC bureaucrats ? Or clowns like Al-gore ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:27:07 2019 No.10328288 >>10328284 This is what it all comes down to isn't it? >Who cares what the scientists say, AL GORE THINKS SOMETHING SO IT HAS TO BE WRONG NO MATTER THE SCIENCE

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:29:03 2019 No.10328299 Why do climate deniers always bring up politics instead of facts?

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:29:43 2019 No.10328301

>>10328259
>everything stayed constant before
Bullshit, multiple volcanos have erupted over the decades, just looking at recent history.
>>10328259
We don't even come close to releasing half as much co2 into the air as the earth itself. We have not doubled the co2 in the atmosphere.
>made up number
Here's the real one:
co 2 = 0.0391 percent of the atmosphere (three trillion tons)
Humans release 3% of that, so 0.01173% of the co2 released into the air is from humans, but you need a concentration of 72,000 ppm or higher in a controlled experiment to even see a difference in temperatures from this least important greenhouse gas.
So for common sense's sake:
Without humans:
0.0273
With humans
0.0391
There's no experimental or empirical evidence that suggests that this minute difference the concentration of co2 in the air is substantially changed in greehouse affect. It's too small an amount.

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:31:45 2019 No.10328308

>>10328301
>Bullshit, multiple volcanos have erupted over the decades
Yeah, and the amount of volcanos erupting have been about equal over the last 1000 years.
>We don't even come close to releasing half as much co2 into the air as the earth itself.
Carbon cycle brainlet.
>Brings up retarded mythbusters episode again
Kek, you really are a fucking retard.
See >>10328231

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:32:36 2019 No.10328312 There is no evidence that a tiny bit of dimethylmercury can kill me

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:34:19 2019 No.10328315 >>10328301 >no empirical evidence Except all of the graphs posted in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:36:56 2019 No.10328330 >>10328301 Good thing experimentation isn't required in science or else evolution wouldn't be scientific. Good thing there are multiple different ways to get empirical evidence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:38:05 2019 No.10328336 >>10328312 There's no experimental evidence that people evolved from monkeys. If you put a monkey in a jar it doesn't turn into a human.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:39:30 2019 No.10328342 >>10328312 >>10328336 There is no experimental evidence that smoking causes cancer. Maybe people with cancer are just more likely to smoke? Ever think of that egg heads?!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:41:19 2019 No.10328349 >>10328342 There is no experimental evidence that the ice age happened or that blacks cause violence or that Canada exists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 19:42:57 2019 No.10328358 >>10328349 There is no experimental evidence that being fat causes you to get a heart attack or that eating more causes you to gain weight. That is the patriarchy trying to feed you LIES

Anonymous Fri Jan 25 22:09:23 2019 No.10328683

>>10328301
>There's no experimental or empirical evidence that suggests that this minute difference the concentration of co2 in the air is substantially changed in greehouse affect.
Did you even bother looking?
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 25 23:12:45 2019 No.10328836 >>10328299 starting to think they're actual paid shills for oil, no one else would have the motivation to be so persistent with every possible flavor and angle of sophistry being used to sow doubt about AGW

Anonymous Sat Jan 26 04:20:21 2019 No.10329267

>>10327805

And the worst part is, the fact that climate change denial is largely tied to religious mumbo jumbo is almost completely missing from the international dialogue. Because apparently, pointing out that "OOGA BOOGA DA GODS CONTROL DA WEATHA" is a retarded argument is offensive to too many people. So instead we pretend it's a left vs right thing when it's really a "Are we really going to kill our atmosphere because of retards who delusionally believe their Sky daddy will magically save us?"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 26 05:11:04 2019 No.10329326 >>10329267 >the fact that climate change denial is largely tied to religious mumbo jumbo Is it? I've only heard of a fairly small fringe of people who hold that kind of view.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 26 09:36:45 2019 No.10329659 >>10328342 >>10328336 >>10328330 >when global warming advocates admit they cannot prove their most basic claim in an experiment. kek

Anonymous Sat Jan 26 09:39:50 2019 No.10329665

>>10328358
>we don't need no stinking evidence!
Either you can prove that tiny changes in the concentration of co2 in the air increase temperature to a distinguishable, and, for carbon taxes, world ending degree, or you can claim that "having evidence isn't important! being fat gives you a heart attack!"

Anonymous Sat Jan 26 09:45:08 2019 No.10329678

>>10328683
I haven't read the extended abstract yet, if it's available, but in the summarized one this is just another climate model simulation, another circular logic "im right because i calcuated that im right." Right after the abstract does this, it shows that the paper was literally written to 'debunk debunkers,' which is a severe hit on its credibility, as well. Like the dude was being paid to do it.

Anonymous Sat Jan 26 09:57:20 2019 No.10329706

>>10328683
Dude you linked a persuasive essay that repeatedly quotes the IPCC, with an abstract that claims bias and a purpose other than scientific endeavor, and that's it. Nothing in that paper shows that a tiny change in the concentration of c02 creates notable temperature differences in a controlled environment. Speculation by the IPCC that's not backed by any merit is just that, speculation, and as your persuasive essay says, it's literally written as a propaganda for climate change.

Anonymous Sat Jan 26 10:00:03 2019 No.10329708

>>10328683
>this paper basically admits you have no proof that a 1/1000th change in co2 levels in a controlled environment can alter the temperature in a significant way.
The reason you can't prove that this happens is beause it fucking does not. You need much higher concentrations of co2, which aren't present in the earth atmosphere, which means that the warming is caused by the other greenhouse gases which are more influential and CAN be proven to change the temperature significantly in experiment, like nitrogen and water vapor where it's blatant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 26 10:00:58 2019 No.10329709 File: 7 KB, 400x222, CC_global carbon cycle.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10328259 >>10328247

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