[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 469 KB, 1125x1105, 1548729073450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10337404 No.10337404 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How do we debunk the climate change meme?

>> No.10337411

also, i bet trump couldn't pass a 6th grade science test.

>> No.10337422

I think when the President publicly mocks it, you can say it's pretty soundly debunked

>> No.10337426

I might not be able to pass that test but I'm a high school graduate and much more.

>> No.10337431
File: 204 KB, 1100x828, Just look at the data.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.10337437
File: 239 KB, 1100x764, Oh look wind exists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.10337446

Have you thought about running in 2020?

>> No.10337448

climate 'scientists' have been basing all their climate data off cores taken from a single continent (antartica) and extrapolating that and also putting their thumb on the scales to pretend its an emergency and increase their own funding
when they've gone from global cooling to global warming and are on the verge of heading back to global cooling again it will be thoroughly debunked
also cooling or warming of more degrees than their worst estimates of the future can occur from a single volcanic eruption throwing all their data off and making it fairly trivial for humans to reverse any change by just adding reflective particles to the upper atmosphere if required

>> No.10337455

[citation needed]

>> No.10337457

They won't let me. They know I'd win.

>> No.10337458

>climate 'scientists' have been basing all their climate data off cores taken from a single continent (antartica) and extrapolating that
That's actually exactly what denialtards do: dismiss direct measurements but immediately accept proxy reconstructions.
>changing the name
Denialtards have difficulty understanding comcepts being conveyed by specific phrases, but evolution and expansion of terminology are not any evidence relevant to science.

>> No.10337463

they're called ice cores, there are only a few places on earth that have ice old enough to be used you don't need a citation for something that is common sense

>> No.10337467

>you don't need a citation for something that is common sense
Is what people with all opinions and no data say.

>> No.10337470


>> No.10337479

Ok so now cite your sources for everything else.
I'll list them for you

>putting their thumb on the scales
>pretend its an emergency
>they've gone from global cooling to global warming and are on the verge of heading back
>can occur from a single volcanic eruption
>fairly trivial for humans to reverse

All I can see is "It's fake" and "if it is real we can fix it." You hamstring your own argument when you have to backtrack before even finishing.

>> No.10337488

>Oh god we are all going to die in 12 years
>No for real this time
>The solution you ask?
>Well, massive taxation of course, don't you trust us to spend it right?

>> No.10337501
File: 43 KB, 810x583, 1496872721030~20170910-082329.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>literally record breaking weather
>lol climate change's fake guys xd

>> No.10337505

>it's real
How is he that stupid? He wouldn't even need to understand any science, just the difference in meaning between words like "midwest" and "global." That has to be one of the embarrassing things in American history.

>> No.10337511


>> No.10337517
File: 43 KB, 480x480, 0CD342F8-89D6-4D73-B64F-A7B231957DAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>But it’s snowing

>> No.10337519

Like any of your other politicians are any better, all bought and paid for corrupt morons.

>> No.10337530

>leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world
>ran an outsider's campaign
>implying he doesn't know the truth about global memeing
Yep keep sucking on Clinton tit and Obama's manhood. I'm sure they'll reward you one day.

>> No.10337536

Gib proof

>> No.10337544
File: 58 KB, 600x701, 442074-major_ing_1_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm not even a /sci/entist and even I can say you're retarded.

>> No.10337547

I bet your mom can't stop licking my balls you fag (BAZINGGAAA)

>> No.10337550
File: 35 KB, 499x499, ayy lmao smoking pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>global cooling

It's a widely spread myth that the scientific consensus in the 70s was a cooling trend or that we were "heading for another ice age", and thus that they all flip flopped.

In reality, a -minority- of climate scientists in the 70s believed in the cooling trend, something like only 20%, while the other 80% agreed with today's scientists on the warming trend.

>> No.10337564

there is no hope for people who derive their knowledge of climatology from elderly real estate moguls with preclinical dementia

>> No.10337581

I wish Drumpf would recognize a lost cause when he saw one and focus on keeping dumb latin americans out of the USA.

>> No.10337585

Wally Broecker coined the term "global warming". The man isn't political, he stays absent from the limelight specifically because he doesn't want to be part of the political battles surrounding it. The term wasn't created because of some Illuminati plot to trick you into getting solar panels.

>> No.10337590

There was never a scientific consensus that global cooling was going to happen. Stop lying.

>> No.10337593

>/pol/ trying to start a debate with /sci/ over climate change
talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

>> No.10337595

One that even denied asbestos was harmful, to boot.

>> No.10337625

>climate change

>> No.10337647

half of this board are magapedes who will drink trump cum by the bucketloads just to get back at the ebril libruls.

>> No.10337658

Drinking cum isn't gay if you do it for merica.

>> No.10337669

My biggest problem with global warming is that it looks like a scam aimed at the average Joe. It's like they try to guilt trip the western populations and tax them even more. It doesn't help that the "solutions" are contradictory as fuck

>stop driving cars
>but buy a new car every 3 years!
>consume less electricity
>but green energy is the future!
>be mindful of carbon emissions
>consume more frivoulous garbage!
>stop having kids kids are bad for climate!
>but you have to import uneducated 3rd world savages

And the best one yet is that globalism is pushed as this thing that brings everyone together and makes us all one nation meanwhile it's probably the worst thing possible when it comes to carbon emissions: mass consumption, overproduction of trash goods, imports from the other side of the world, planes everywhere, mining, oil drilling and exchanging. Then you have the guys that push for it, rich elites that don't give a fuck, owning yachts, sports cars, private jets, private drivers, they don't give a single fuck about their carbon emissions.

The final piece of the puzzle is scientists, they can't get their story straight, I remember back in the 90s they were terrorizing people with stories of how in 15 years the world as we know it would end if nothing is done, fast forward 15 years and..nothing, rince and repeat, "in 15 years it's the end of the world!", fast forward to 2018 and it's "this time in 15 years we all dead, trust us bro, we're scientists!". I can't even blame them it's so fucked up, if you have the "wrong theory" about climate change you get treated like a parriah and get your funding cut.

So yeah, climate change or not, it's really hard to make such predictions considering how big of an impact the sun has. Does human activity has an effect? Maybe, probably. Is it necessarly the worst thing ever? Again, that's up to debate. If only this wasn't a massively political topic maybe there could be serious research and debate done on the subject.

>> No.10337688

I wanted to end my rant by proposing a solution:


That's it, stop being a braindead consumer, stop consuming fast food, stop ordering garbage on amazon, repair and maintain your electronics, stop upgrading every year, ride your a bike or walk to stop giving the oil industry your money, stop consuming shitty media and work on self improvment, eat healthy be healthy, be fit to not give the pharma industry money. Basically free yourself from what has become a joke of humanity.

>> No.10337697

Honestly I didn't know. I don't really frequent /sci/, I'm just a tourist from /v/.

>> No.10337702

based Trump debunking low IQ """"""""SCIENCE"""""""

>> No.10337704

One week's weather in one small region is not the global climate

>> No.10337705

>nothing, rince and repeat

Among other things hurricanes and wildfires are getting worse, and there has been a massive decline in arctic sea ice.
Within a couple years we could have an ice-free arctic in the summer, which could push temperatures to the point where one of the major crops fails.

>b-but the world hasn't ended, and my situation still feels fairly normal, so absolutely nothing is happening!

>> No.10337729

wow I didn't know /sci/ was full of so many liberal government dick sucking naïve leftist ideologues

>> No.10337738
File: 2.07 MB, 2894x2226, the_actual_data.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.10337768

If libtards actually believed in climate change (and not as such a convenient excuse to import 3rd world subhumans and increase taxes), then why haven't they embraced nuclear energy? Like actively shilling for it? Oh, that's right. Because they don't believe in it, they're just vegans who like to larp as nature loves, and climate change is just sufficiently vague enough for them to browbeat other people to feel morally superior. Go to Hell.

>> No.10337787
File: 73 KB, 960x960, starbuckswow-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.10337799

Morons like this confusing politics with science are the problem, they'll never accept even the most obvious facts as long as the party they hate are saying the same thing.

>> No.10337832

>coldest ever recorded
so, a change in the climate?

>> No.10337839

Nuclear energy needs to be renamed, people just think of nuclear weapons when they hear it. Also you can't really propose change when a significant portion of the population thinks climate change is fake news created by China.

>> No.10337840


>> No.10337842

-60F (-52C) In Chicago


>> No.10337846

Don't know who they are but I support Nuclear and so do many other people.
The problem is that people are scared of Nuclear for various reasons, and it being the best source of energy we have right now doesn't overcome those fears.

>> No.10337853

Fission is the best energy source we have. If fusion is doable everything else becomes completely redundant and irrelevant. We could literally go to Alpha Centauri with fusion.

>> No.10337860


>> No.10337875

Na to stop the global warming they say to kill cows.

>> No.10337880

You can drive cars if you like as long as they’re electric, but biking or using public transit is ideal

Stop having so many cow slaves, you mean.

>> No.10337883

Also fuck off Nazi. Day of the rope

>> No.10337890

>Global warming is totally real guys, WE need to do something about it, trust me
>"Let me think about it, it sounds fishy"

This is why climate change theory is such a shitshow.

>> No.10337894

this is why /pol/tards should not be allowed to post on the rest of 4chan

>> No.10337899

I have never posted on /pol/ son. You're making stupid assumptions again.

>> No.10337902
File: 141 KB, 1180x1573, might need a bigger stack but no fire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I have an actual solution.
The experiment is quite simple actually.
Methane is purportedly a much more potent greenhouse gas (28x as much as CO2). Just vent a large enough quantity into the atmosphere such that a significant change in temperature could be measured according to whatever climate change theory or model is chosen.
So find (a) natural gas well(s), frack it, drill it, whatever, add a tall pipe (stack), put a meter on it, measure the output, and vent it out using one or more pipes (stacks). This could be done in the US but it could be done elsewhere cheaper with fewer obstacles and regulations.
-Easy (An entire industry already exists)
-Cheap (Natural gas is abundant and the main costs are distribution, also natural gas prices are super low)
-Saves money in the long run once anthropogenic climate change aka global warming is proven incorrect (BIG $$$$ SAVED)
-A source of income for people with natural gas on their property but no access to a pipeline
Some natural gas is wasted instead of being used to cook food, heat homes, generate electricity, etc.
tldr: vent a large enough amount of natural gas, measure how much is vented, observe supposedly correlated changes in temperature (none obviously)
simple, cheap, effective, ends the debate once and for all, billions and trillions of taxpayer dollars saved in the long run
I call it The Big Fart.

>> No.10337907

yeah, and i don't post on /sci/.

>> No.10337911

Why are conservatives so retarded?

>> No.10337917

Calm the fuck down. I legit never posted on /pol/, I don't live in the United States, I don't care about US politics, I don't care about politics in general, last time I voted in my country was over 10 years ago for the socialist party. Climate change is a topic that pisses me off because it feels like assrape, I'm constantly told that it's my fault, I was basically forced to change car, and I might have to again with talks about banning diesel, I have to pay an "ecologic tax" and they even tried to raise prices of fuel recently because global warming. It really feels like a way to extort money for me.

Fuck this shit, climate change has nothing to do about science anymore it's a political topic and its a shitshow. And that's why it's not worth talking about on /sci/.

>> No.10337919

>Oh god we are all going to die in 12 years
I have never seen scientists claim that. Who said it?

>> No.10337921

>playing the victim
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

>> No.10337924

>-Saves money in the long run once anthropogenic climate change aka global warming is proven incorrect (BIG $$$$ SAVED)
So where is the Con if it is proven correct instead?
>it wont be proven correct because i already know its incorrect

>> No.10337927

Very solid argument.

>> No.10337930

Conservative -> conserve
A truly conservative approach would be to act on climate change even without 100% consensus. Conservatives are very unconservative in ecological issues.

>> No.10337936

I don't follow.
Are you suggesting that it wouldn't prove climate change to be factual, if it is indeed factual?
OP asked how to debunk climate change.
This is the most surefire way to do so.
This experiment would 100% guarantee the end of the debate.
Where is the harm?

>> No.10337937

>Where is the harm?
Speeding up climate change if it turns out you're wrong in your assumption.

>> No.10337940

Climate change deniers don't exit. OP is a fake.
Nobody actually believes you're a climate change denier, OP. We all know you are trolling.

>> No.10337942

Mods, you're fucking useless. Please kill yourselves

>> No.10337945

So you agree that this experiment is exactly what OP is looking for. It would conclusively end the debate.
If it turns out that OP is wrong, then there will be no debate about anthropogenic component of climate change. Solving the problem in actuality can then begin with effective solutions instead of bandaids and half measures.

>> No.10337992

>Solving the problem in actuality can then begin with effective solutions instead of bandaids and half measures.
Idealistically, yeah. What you're also doing it putting more pressure on taking action, which could lead to some of the dumber, less proven methods being used with unintended consequences, while other countries and people still deny the results.

>> No.10337997

There is no debate

>> No.10338007

>other countries and people still deny the results.
The experiment could be made public easily. The methods are simple (increase x, watch y) and don't rely on historical data. The results can be shown as the experiment continues.
This is the most conclusive way to prove or disprove anthropogenic climate change. It is in fact what OP asked for.

>> No.10338015

It has been proven you illiterate. Maybe stop browsing your cesspool board once in a while and read some papers you fucking retard. Oh but that requires basic physics knowledge and you who didn't even graduate from high school wouldn't understand shit.
It's almost cute how you try to come up with an experiment, but it's also sad. The state of you people makes me sad. Your parents didn't deserve this.

>> No.10338020

What is wrong with my experiment?

>> No.10338022

>The experiment could be made public easily.
It STILL doesn't matter.
Considering the experiment isn't taking place in a closed system people will still try to attribute whatever results it causes on other things.
It won't stop people being political. You cannot stop it. It won't solve cognitive dissonance, either.

>> No.10338023

Just do points 1, 2, 3 and have 1, 2 kids max. it's not hard. If the population wasn't retarded it would realize that.

>> No.10338026

Climate change deniers don't really exist. The notion of the uneducated ignorant climate change denier is almost entirely invented by the propaganda arm of the Coal,Oil&Gas lobbies to make it seems like the primary opposition to climate change action is not them, but rather this non-existent third party of ignorant hicks.

>> No.10338028

You're fucking retard that's what's wrong with your """experiment""". Did they dump toxic waste into your brain or are you American?

>> No.10338031

>point 1, 2, 3
point 1, 3, 5

>> No.10338033

So, you can't show that there is anything wrong with my experiment.
Sounds like it will be fine.

>> No.10338036

that tweet seems to do a good job at it.

>> No.10338058

You're supposed to color within the lines!

>> No.10338061

I've already explained what is wrong with your experiment. >>10338022

Experiments have already proved that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. People choose to ignore what is inconvenient for them. This experiment will be no different. Even if the results are measurable there won't be an immediate impact and so people will continue to go about their lives claiming that it's still all natural and shit.
It's a dumb experiment because it poses too many risks with no guarantee that people will actually act rationally based on the results.

>> No.10338064

please don't disparage people who take their super male vitality

>> No.10338067

>climate change is an existential threat and we're all going to die unless we massively reduce our CO2 output, and soon

Okay well, maybe we deserve to die as a species.

>> No.10338073
File: 1.62 MB, 1944x2592, natural gas vent.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The experiment that liberals don't want you to perform is here:
See all the liberal butthurt here:
You could raise the money privately and shop around for a country that has natural gas, has lax regulations, and lacks an effective pipeline for their natural gas. I'm sure they would be happy to sell you natural gas for you to vent off into the atmosphere.

>> No.10338088

Basically this

>Muh nuclear bad

Ok then rip humanity

>> No.10338098

Sort of.
Even if they did, their opinion would not matter. Since when do we shape national and international policy based on the opinions of uneducated ignorant people?
They don't when it comes to banks and taxes, for example. But they suddenly have to when it comes to the climate? How convenient.
It's just an excuse by the elite to keep ignoring climate change.
Not only that but the recent polls show that contrary to the claims by the media, most Americans are in fact worried about climate change and want to fix it. But the media is still pretending that the vast majority don't care, which is by now blatantly false.

>> No.10338100

we're already releasing 10 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly, what the fuck do you think one little well will do? are you a fucking retard, because I think you are

>> No.10338117
File: 433 B, 47x19, reading comprehension.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.10338126

I bet a bullet through your head won't kill you, you should try it.

>> No.10338127

I'm already dead.

>> No.10338132

>See all the liberal butthurt here:
>he doesnt agree with me so he must be a liberal!
What even is a liberal? I frankly don't know.

>> No.10338257

Why is it so hard for conservatives to understand that global warming doesn't mean it's hot everywhere all the time?
>oh the average height has increased over the centuries? then how come short people still exist? checkmate libtards

>> No.10338350

Even if we assumed that climate change was being caused by CO2 emissions ( it's not) , the only way you could ever reduce CO2 emissions by a amount significant enough to prevent heating as show in the models would be to invade India and china and literally force them to stop using fossil fuels after you've conquered them. Nothing else is going to stop them and even if the west totally stopped using fossil fuels it would not make enough of a difference

>> No.10338355

The USA and China are close to tied for first place for GHG emissions. That's not how it works anon.

>> No.10338360
File: 78 KB, 1280x950, top_10_emitters.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.10338369

>the USA with less than 30% of the population of China pollutes 60% comparatively
Dumb fucking consumerist sharters

>> No.10338378

Well whatever, China only recently surpassed the US so I thought they were close. What you said about the west being an insignificant amount is still completely wrong.

>> No.10338387


>literally the climate changes
>lol seeee? we told u XD

>> No.10338393

Sci is ironically one of the dumbest boards in aggregate

>> No.10338400

Capitalism is cancer.
Note that only about 50% of the opposition to climate change comes from the fossil fuels lobby. The rest is capitalism cheer leaders (lolbertarians) that know that they don't have a solution to climate change (because it necessitates big government) so it pretty much shits on their entire ideology. So instead of admitting their mistakes, they instead opt to destroy our countries.

>> No.10338402

>posts a guy talking about record breaking temperatures
>hey guys how do we debunk the climate change meme?

>> No.10338410

Australia is +43 °C apparently. Idk if that invlufes humidex.

>> No.10338437

>actually thinks record breaking temperatures are evidence against climate change
You need to go back.

>> No.10338457

>Just look at the data.png

This is funnily enough something a popsci brainlet would utter.

>> No.10338458

Alright lads, I think this thread needs some centering. I have almost zero knowledge on climate change, so maybe someone can explain it with a basic synopsis, completely removed from any politics.

What's the claim, and what's the most compelling evidence given to support it?

>> No.10338466

>My biggest problem with global warming is that it looks like a scam aimed at the average Joe. It's like they try to guilt trip the western populations and tax them even more. It doesn't help that the "solutions" are contradictory as fuck

Exactly my sentiment

Then you have technocrat snobs like >>10337688 and >>10338023 who want you to take one for the team and live austere while they swim in their green energy grants, meanwhile Zhang and Raji don't give a single fuck about climate change and keep churning out CO2, wow! what a difference, for all that drop in quality of life!

>> No.10338473

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as climate change, is in fact, anthropogenic climate change, or as I've recently taken to calling it, anthropogenically caused climated change.

The argument is that while the climate changes on its own, human actions mostly due to industrialisation have affected the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and emitted back into space by the Earth. The main driving force is an increase in "greenhouse gases", most notably carbon dioxide a byproduct of combustion of hydrocarbons (oil, coal, peat etc). Greenhouse gases prevent the Earth from emitting heat into space as effectively because the absorb the radiation emitted before it gets out again, which is why you have the metaphor of a "greenhouse" which does a very similar thing.

There are also tipping points/points of no return/cliff edges. For an example of what can happen, look up "the great dying". With a high enough CO2 concentration in the atmosphere it can cause other processes like a warming of the oceans and a release of stored CO2 and methane.

>> No.10338478

Sounds like your problems are with the capitalist solutions to climate change. Those people don't actually want to fix climate change anyway.

>> No.10338492
File: 49 KB, 601x960, 1540554117502.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I believe gobal warming/cooling/climate change as far as not wasting gas money I could otherwise spend on vidya, or not wasting electricity by turning the lights off, or not throwing trash in public parks because im not a nigger. I roll my eyes everytime some scientist or pol say the world is going to end. Scientists need their grant monies ofc they want to exaggerate.

Tell me I have to pay a single penny for some form of carbon tax or that new democrat fad green deal tax or w/e its called and I will chimp out.

Go tax the chinks instead

>> No.10338495

The problem is that while 90% of the denier claims are bullshit, there's that 10% of truth buried in the mix - the questionable methodologies, the weakly justified extrapolations, retroactively adjusting data to make it fit better with predictions, etc.

But rather than listen to some of the justified complaints and concerns and use them to further the discussion, the approach of the climate science community and its supporters has been to treat climate change less as a scientific theory and more as unchallengeable dogma where if you question any aspect of it you're suddenly equated with flat earthers and moon hoaxers.

>> No.10338542

I wish scientists would spend less time trying to prove climate change to governments and start trying to come up with market-cohesive plans to fix it. Convincing everyone that climate change is a problem and needs to be fixed was somewhat effective for 1st world countries who actually cared, but not for giants that contribute the most towards climate change and have absolutely 0 incentive to do anything about it, like China.

>> No.10338548

>start trying to come up with market-cohesive plans to fix it
That was called the Paris Agreement.

>> No.10338561

If you're a climate change denier you're a jewish puppet supporting globalism and white genocide.

>> No.10338589

>Scientists need their grant monies ofc they want to exaggerate
Do you know how much oil companies would pay you if you had legit science that disproves agw? I roll my eyes every time I read this shit.
But yeah, keep repeating your retarded argument you numbnut

>> No.10338605


>> No.10338620
File: 154 KB, 875x469, population.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>just stop having kids westerners! do your part to save the world

>> No.10338662

We should sterilize the non-westerners, or in the very least genocide them.

>> No.10338682

into the trash it goes

>> No.10338694

haha XD got em

>> No.10338698
File: 119 KB, 1005x930, co2-emissions-per-capita.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I know this was supposed to be sarcasm but you're actually right

>> No.10338707

>France 4.6

thanks to nuclear power

>> No.10338714

Brazil here.
You're welcome.

>> No.10338718

>using tornado frequencies instead of hurricane frequencies

>> No.10338735

>it looks like a scam
probably because you're a retard that doesn't actually know what the science says
>import third worlders
Try divorcing your perspective from this infantile black-and-white dichotomy. I am the opposite of left-wing, and yet recognize AGW as the physical fact it is as more fuels are burned. Third world immigration exacerbates climate change as those migrants develop first world habits of resource use and should be curtailed.
I have no love for many parts of the UN, EU, etc. But this problem requires strong international cooperation on the issue to have a hope of addressing it. "Do nothing" is not an option. Neither is "lol just genocide everybody."
>mass consumption
This is as much due to capitalism that is unrestricted in pollution. This has to change.
Everyone that understands the problem knows it is a problem that becomes worse gradually, as changes become more extreme. Leave it to denialtards to equate the recognition of this as a prediction of a literal day for the apocalypse.
>considering how big of an impact the sun has.
The effect of variation in solar irradiance is around 1% of the total surface climate effect. Surface temperatures are dominated by GHG concentration and ice albedo.
>Does human activity has an effect? Maybe, probably. Is it necessarly the worst thing ever? Again, that's up to debate.
5C+ warming because we couldn't be arsed to change anything is really stupid

>> No.10338803

It's the fault of the scientists for never making a good argument. Doesnt matter if you have consensus, it needs to convince people.

>> No.10338818

It already has been simplified so it can be explained to regular people. It's not the scientists' fault that denialtards reject facts and peddle lies to assert the opposite of AGW.

>> No.10338823

Doesn't matter whether you decide to ignore it or pour all your resources into mitigating the damage, humanity is fucked. We might survive, but quality of life is going to slide back into the preindustrial era

>> No.10338831

everything about him tries to emulate happiness but his eyes are so devoid of life it makes me sad

>> No.10338850

The Paris Agreement was garbage.

>> No.10338859

Welp, better just give up on cooperating and let it all go to shit. Wouldn't want to get a less than optimal deal or anything.

>> No.10338880

Trump went to some high tier schools and before he was president (using google time search tools), he was WIDELY considered as brilliant.
Only once he ran for president he was this goofy retard orange man on CNN.
Maybe he is not dumb but you are.

>> No.10338887

Bending over so they can stick it in our ass is technically "cooperating," I agree.

>> No.10338894

>in reality
Just think about your claim and how you are just spewing a talking point you were literally coached by big money propaganda to spew.
Is the 80% even 'usually' right over the 20% in science anyway? I'd say there's a long history of scientists being BTFO.
Imagine if when Einstein proposed relativity, retards like you were around saying 99% of science agrees with Newton so the science is settled. Fuck off.

>> No.10338897

pro tip:
"scientific consensus" is always "lobbying consensus"
>in reality

>> No.10338900

Feelings don't care about your facts

>> No.10338904

Your characterization of the agreement is useless. Strong international cooperation is a necessary component of addressing the problem. Economic cooperation and sanctions for noncompliance too.

>> No.10338908

Cooperation implies mutual effort and mutual benefit. The Paris Agreement didn't ensure the former nor did it guarantee the latter.

>> No.10338909

I won't let you get away with this lie.
Prove that the anthropomorphic contribution to the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere can change the temperature moreso than an atmosphere without that contribution of co2 in a controlled environment.
Every experiment that has attempted this has had to give up on using realistic levels of co2 because it failed to show any difference in a controlled experiment otherwise, meaning there is no empirical evidence that the tiny percent that humans output of the tiny percent of co2 concentration in the air (0.04% with human addition making it 0.0401%).
Literally, if you fill a green house with 0.0401% co2, and then another one with 0.0400% co2 you will not be able to prove a consistent difference in temperature between the two greenhouses without cheating.
It's been tried. The anthropogenic climate theory is such a scam that it relies on convincing people they don't understand it, and to leave it to those scientists paid by big oil and big energy who can't be wrong.

>> No.10338911

Of course it doesn't guarantee accomplishing the goal. It's an agreement to take the first steps. Are you a child?

>> No.10338912

>the sky is falling! pay more taxes now!

>> No.10338919

Greenhouses don't exactly have the same thermodynamic relationship with their surrounding media that the Earth has with the Sun and space. In fact, the "greenhouse" label is only illustrative of the phenomenon. Increases in GHGs in the atmosphere affect the energy balance of solar radiation incident to Earth being radiated back into space. That includes feedback loops such as reduced ice albedo from melting and increased water evaporation.

>> No.10338929

I don't want a world government, sorry anon.
I'm fully famiiar with the climate change cultural phenomenon jump started by Google, Stanford, Exxon Mobil, and General Electric, as well as the huge investments that Conoco Shell, Royal Dutch Phillips, and BP Oil put into funding campaigns to support the anthropogenic climate change movement, starting back in the late 90s when these oil companies all merged together to form an energy oligopoly.
Unlike you, I've actually researched this subject extensively without an emotional bias, and I've determined very exhaustively that it's a scam.
The very people you think are 'against' anthropogenic climate change (big energy) are the people who popularized it in our culture and media during the first decade of the 2000s. For example General Electric owns MSNBC and made 80 billion in sales from 2005 to 2014 alone from it's "ecomagination" green energy public relations project.
A scientific consensus is really just a lobbying consensus. If you have the money and the power you can make your own consensus by flooding the field of study with corporate funded research to literally spam your position into 'the truth.' It's happened through all time and now corporations are BETTER at it, not worse, than in Galileo's time.

Scientific consensus = Lobbying consensus and should never be taken as a credible indicator of it being correct or truthful. If someone hinges a scientific view on "consensus," instead of their own critical thought, they are stupid.
Pollution is still bad and we should still be working to cull it.

>> No.10338933

>It's been tried. The anthropogenic climate theory is such a scam that it relies on convincing people they don't understand it, and to leave it to those scientists paid by big oil and big energy who can't be wrong.
So I'll repeat, the PREMISE of your entire claim is avoided experimentally because it fails to show true, and instead all this other stuff is fluff to avoid talking about how your PREMISE is unproven.

>> No.10338945

Actually on mythbusters when they tried it that climate scientist lady said that she COULD do it.
Then the experiment didn't work so they forced it to by placing a hot machine next to the anthro co2 tank, and by pumping the atmosphere to 72,000ppm co2, vs Earth's 400, into the tank, before they could get a measurable difference in temperature.
This is because anthropogenic climate change is an energy oligopoly racket designed to give them worldwide dominance, with a World Government that they can lobby and use as a tool of control.

>> No.10338949

also, note that the human contribution to parts per million of co2 is about
.75 parts per million (being generous), and that you have to pump 75,000 parts per million for the green house gas effect to become apparent.
So we are literally contributing 1/10,000th of the co2 we'd need to be to be altering our own world climate in a substantial way.
It's true pollution is bad though, and I still want to stop that.

>> No.10338956

The premise of the claim is supported by the data, actually. The mean temperature anomaly has increased 1C over the last century and is still going up. The GHG concentrations are going up. The human source of them is also well-established. C-14 fraction of atmospheric carbon is decreasing, consistent with dilution by C-14-free fossil fuel use. The levels of nitrates come from agricultural activity. Gases like fluorocarbons and SF6 are clearly human-created, because they don't naturally occur in the atmosphere in large amounts.

>> No.10338962

call them out for using jewish white causaian talk.

i.e. its climate change every other time but when its cold it climate change.

once we make summer as cold as winter on trend they wont be talking that shit.

also accuse them of not knowing how air conditioning works
>Passing air over a cold compressor
or a swamp cooler.

i mean hey trump fuck where the hell you think that melted ice goes ya faggot?
yeah the cold water gets dispersed in the ocean.
surface area of cold water increases
then the winds gather the cold moist air coming off of the various bodies of water
and what do you know
you ignorant, faggot shit cunt dick licking money fucker
it makes the winters colder.

now please
if you have any question about this please feel free to ask them.
becuase one moment of personality stupidity is easier to redeem by asking a stupid question than dooming the entire human race.

>> No.10338970

>It's an agreement to take the first steps.
No it fucking wasn't, it was the EU continuing its favorite pastime of redistributing wealth from the United States. Not a single EU member succeeded in meeting the goals set by the treaty, and most of the worst offenders who signed the agreement, like China, didn't even bother trying because they knew there was absolutely no enforceable penalties or means of compelling them to contribute.

The Paris Agreement was the geopolitical equivalent of Tom Sawyer's whitewashing scam.

>> No.10338971

I don't want a world government either. We'll have to make do with the UN.
>Unlike you, I've actually researched this subject extensively without an emotional bias, and I've determined very exhaustively that it's a scam.
Cute, but wrong on both counts. You have to not understand scientific evidence to reach this nonscientific conclusion. So, why are you here?
>people make money
Oh no! We have to keep giving our money to fossil fuel companies to prevent this! The evil libruls can't win!
>science isn't real if there's a conspiracy
Even if your hypothesis was true (it isn't), it says nothing about the data supporting AGW.

>> No.10338976

That's circular logic, and you know deep down that you didn't know what I told you in this thread until I fucking told you.
Fuck you and your ideological confirmation bias that you're unable to challenge because it's the core of your faggot identity. Have some honesty.
Whether or not the climate is changing is not strong evidence of your premise being true. Everyone living knows the climate changes, and has changed since before the industrial revolution. All this hyperbole surrounding the "rate" of change over 70 years in a 5 billion year old planet is financially and power motivated, not "good for the earth" motivated, which is just how useful idiots are obtained.

For fucks sake I can make up a different theory that god is doing it and the data backs me up.

>> No.10338985

>you do not understand scientific evidence because you believe a hypothesis should be falsifiable, and have pointed out that the hypothesis that minute concentrations of co2, and then additionally a minute variance in the minute concentration of co2, can cause a world ending cascade in at atmosphere, is basically proven false.
There is more evidence that it's not true, and that you need 72,000 ppm to raise the temperature (which is 10,000 times the human contribution), than there is evidence that it is true.
You cannot god of the gaps to prove your premise, faggot.

>> No.10338989

It is a long-term agreement and commitment to reduce GHG emissions by setting gradual targets. It's real fucking simple.
>they aren't meeting the goals set
Can't fault them for being ambitious and trying. More than can be said for the denialtard do-nothings voting in and running the US.

>> No.10339002

>no evidence, just personal attacks and baseless assertions
I accept your defeat.
>circular reasoning
there's nothing circular about "the data says X"

>> No.10339010

So it does nothing except give General Electric an "official multigovernment" speaking platform to espouse it's propaganda from, while none of the governments are actually doing anything with it?
What you propose is the energy oligopoly getting a new tool for control.
>a long term agreement to do nothing but pat ourselves on our backs as we get more green energy contracts out to our energy lobbyists.

>> No.10339015

Show your work

>> No.10339023

We already use energy and have energy corporations. The goal is to replace fossil fuel energy with other sources, but that's going to continue to cost money either way. "People will make a bunch of money off of it even though that will happen if we do nothing" is a shit policy argument and a completely irrelevant one to science.

>> No.10339029

i mean if a retard like Trump can debunk it with a tweet, it's not a very solid scientific theory now, is it?

>> No.10339030

Record cold weather impacts everyone's lives more than warmer averages.

>> No.10339033

next ice age WHEN?

>> No.10339034

>Can't fault them for being ambitious and trying.
They didn't try, the EU didn't even come fucking CLOSE to meeting their own goals, yet they still happily took billions from the US and spread that shit around, just like they do with defense spending, just like they do with every international agreement that exists solely to take advantage of its partners.

>> No.10339036

i mean if climate change was real the president of the US would know, so a bit hard to believe in it

>> No.10339045

What money? Economic losses because we can't export all of our fossil fuels not being used? Yeah, that's going to happen. Better to negotiate if something is wrong rather than flip the table over and absolve your country from all responsibility.

>> No.10339059

That's what you just did with this post, I've posted exceptional arguments against the claims of anthropogenic climate change and have shown extensively how fradulent it is in this thread, you have completely moved goalposts over and over, avoiding having to credibly argue your position, because you can't.


The original claim I responded to was:
>it has already been simplified so it can be explained to regular people.

After I posted, suddenly it became:
>it's too complex to be falsifiable.
Climate Scientists disagree with you and it contradicts the claim I was responding to. UC Berkley helped Mythbusters set up this experiment an their expert stated that it was possible to test whether or not the human contribution of co2 would warm, but then when it didn't, she pumped it to 73,500ppm (earth's is 400, and the human contribution is (being generous) 0.75ppm), and only got a 1 degree increase over the control.
It's an absurdity to claim that 0.041% co2 in an atmosphere will control the environment vs 0.040% co2 in an atmosphere, and experimentally that idea was debunked on that episode. Disingenuously, they would rather modify the experiment unrealistically and force the result they wanted, because it's payed for propaganda in the first place.
If your hypothesis is falsifiable, it's shown to be false every time in experiment. If you claim it's NOT falsifiable, it's just "too complex," than I've successfully counter argued the original claim I was arguing, which was that climate change was simplified so that a normal person could understand it.
My whole argument is they can't, because it's not accurate in the first place. Understanding would mean rejection of the hypothesis.

>> No.10339065

>we already have an oligopoly
Yeah and it's trying to establish a world government, because then it doesn't have to deal with multiple governments when it comes to its energy business.

>> No.10339066

I think everyone agrees that climate change is happening. But the argument lies in the main cause for it. The climate has been changing on Earth since it's existence, before humans were even a thing. That is not to say that large amounts of pollution can have adverse affects on the atmosphere (acid rain and all). If anything, the climate change alarmists are much more dangerous than the deniers, because they are the ones who drive policy. Think about it: there is a reason "Global Warming" has been rebranded as "Climate Change". There have been many instances where data is fudged to make climate change more drastic than it seems, whether for more funding or to drive policy. And no one really knows for sure what causes climate change...it's a chaotic system with so many variables, and the slightest change in initial conditions would yield drastic results. At the end of the day, going against climate change boils down to two questions:
1) Why should we hamstring our economy in the name of climate change, while other countries do not follow the same regulations they agreed to ?
2) Should the climate change drastically to the point that living is unsustainable in an area, what is stopping us from engineering a solution/throw the problem at the free market to resolve the issue?

>> No.10339070

We're not really that dependent on importing fossil fuels anymore. That's why the Saudi purge happened and Venezuela is imploding.

Eleven years ago, crude oil cost three times as much as it did does today. Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are constantly cutting oil production as well.

>> No.10339085

The greenhouse effect is directly observed with radiative spectroscopy, so such an experiment is unecessary. We can literally see how much heat is being radiated by different concentrations of CO2 in each part of the atmosphere.

>Every experiment that has attempted this has had to give up on using realistic levels of co2 because it failed to show any difference in a controlled experiment otherwise

>meaning there is no empirical evidence that the tiny percent that humans output of the tiny percent of co2 concentration in the air (0.04% with human addition making it 0.0401%).
Your math is way off. The CO2 concentration before the industrial revolution was 0.028%. Man's contribution increased that to 0.0405%.

The concentration relative to the rest of the atmosphere is irrelevant since its the number of CO2 molecules in the air that determine the effect, not the number of other molecules.

>Literally, if you fill a green house with 0.0401% co2, and then another one with 0.0400% co2 you will not be able to prove a consistent difference in temperature between the two greenhouses without cheating.
As I've already said, those are not the direct concentrations of CO2 to compare, but the larger issue is that a greenhouse does not represent the Earth nor does it operate according to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect for the Earth works by prevented energy from radiating out to space. A greenhouse on the other hand operates by preventing convection. Since convection determines the temperature in a greenhouse and not radiative transfer, adding more CO2 is not going to do much to the temperature. But the temperature of the Earth is completely determined by radiative transfer.

>> No.10339097

In this episode, UC Berkley aids the mythbusters in setting up an experiment to show the alleged anthropomorphic greenhouse affect of our contribution of co2 in the atmosphere:
She states that "it's difficult" to set up such an experiment, but that it's possible and she'll do it.
They do the experiment, and the amazing happens, the temperatures are rising at the same fuckin rate. Fuckin a! So she starts really pumping that co2 in until she gets to 73,500ppm and literally pressurizes the container with co2, desperate not to disappoint her funding overlords.
This is consistent through all time and you can verify this yourself as well, it's not an unobtainable difficult experiment.
The truth is that we are all ideological, and it is difficult to challenge your ideology. But I am ANGRY that General Electric and Exxon Mobil and Google teamed u and fooled me and so many others on this issue as I grew up. It's evil and it needs to be fought.

>> No.10339105

Mythbusters unironically and unadmittedly debunked the anthropogenic climate change theory by trying to prove it true.

>> No.10339107

Anyone who tries to prove it true, either proves it false or changes variables to extreme unrealistic levels 10,000 times higher than the human contribution to make it be right again, and then cites "t-t-the earth is complex!!"

>> No.10339113

>M-Mythbusters said so
The absolute state of deniertards. Fucking hilarious

>> No.10339116

>Earth's CO2 levels stand at 350ppm
ahahaha, 10 years old video, in that time we've gotten to 410 ppm, doubt nature could do it so fast.. well maybe at the end of the Permian

>> No.10339128

You're all over the place saying dumb shit and haven't proven anything scientific, because you aren't interested in science or the truth.
>it's too complex to be falsifiable
I never claimed this. Your inability to understand things being explained is on you.
>Climate Scientists disagree with you and it contradicts the claim I was responding to. UC Berkley helped Mythbusters set up this experiment an their expert stated that it was possible to test whether or not the human contribution of co2 would warm, but then when it didn't, she pumped it to 73,500ppm (earth's is 400, and the human contribution is (being generous) 0.75ppm), and only got a 1 degree increase over the control.
I'm not familiar with this setup, but anything with walls is going to lose heat to surroundings and in no way is going to imitate Earth's atmosphere. They showed that increasing GHG concentrations does increase temperature even with those heat losses. Also, the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 is at least 120 ppm, not 0.25.

>> No.10339130

It would be in General Electric's interest to create a simple home experiment that undeniably proves a factor change from:
0.040% co2 in the air (400ppm)
0.041%co2 in the air (the human contribution added, or you could make it 0.039 vs 0.040, attempting both is probably best).
And then with nothing else being different, getting consistently higher temperature rise. When you try this though inevitably you can't, and you have to pump a massively higher concentration of co2 to see a greenhouse affect.
In a similar way, fluoride is probably in your drinking water in a small concentration, on the basis that its small concentration is non harmful, even though a higher concentration certainly is.
It's only shown in experiment that a high concentration co2 atmosphere shows a notable greenhouse contribution, experiments with low concentrations suggest the opposite.

>> No.10339134

I said "exporting." The implication was thay the US was giving away billions of dollars because of the Paris agreement, a claim I've only seen suggested ominously and never demonstrated.

>> No.10339136

The enclosures had no problem warming up, they had a problem warming up variable to each other though, to the point that they had to fudge the experiment and it says everything about the modern institutions of science that they didn't point out that that's a cause for skepticism.

>> No.10339141
File: 213 KB, 625x623, DxsmUB6WkAIKcYP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

climate change is jewish propaganda

>> No.10339143

>born in canada
>12 consecutive years of snowy winters
>all of sudden snow days gradually become rare
>rain for the last half of december last year
fuck you guys it's real as far as i'm concerned

>> No.10339145

this is retard propaganda

>> No.10339148

So far I've shown an experiment being performed that supports the claims I've made in this thread, that anthropogenic climate change is a big energy hoax to secure no bid taxpayer funded contracts to develop and research 'green' energy. That's why you always see GE on all the green energy stuff, like if you drive through a state with giant windmills.
I've shown an experiment and how they had to fudge it and how it took 73,500 ppm co2 to demonstrate any greenhouse affect, which is 10,000 times more than the human contribution of co2 to the earth's atmosphere.

All you have done is mental gymnastics.
1 experiment to 0.

>> No.10339151

Please don't invade this thread shill, we're having a discussion not talking about your lizards.

>> No.10339156

>that anthropogenic climate change is a big energy hoax to secure no bid taxpayer funded contracts to develop and research 'green' energy. That's why you always see GE on all the green energy stuff, like if you drive through a state with giant windmills.
This isn't a scientific claim, but your insistence that you are being scientific is humorous.

>> No.10339158

So did they calculate any theoretical predictions? No? Useless and not science

>> No.10339161

/sci/ is best peer review on the web.

>> No.10339163

same here in Iceland but it's more like the snow season is shifting. a lot of people complain about not having snow during christmas but then we get hit like normal from mid jan - may instead of late nov - late march/early april

>> No.10339169

>Among other things hurricanes and wildfires are getting worse

no they're not

>> No.10339170

>can't demonstrate a greenhouse affect from the human contributed concentration of co2 at all.
Only if you have an agenda to support the anthropogenic climate change hoax.

It's true that that part about economic motivation was not scientific, it's pretty humorous that you have to focus on that as your rebuttal though.

>> No.10339176

>I don't know how science works
I know sweaty, I know

>> No.10339179

>I can't demonstrate my premise empirically so my claim is unfalsifiable.
>you don't understand science for pointing this out.

>> No.10339181

brilliant at normie shit. never said a meaningful scientific thing afaik

>> No.10339183

What is the premise?

>> No.10339185


stop lying, i'm in canada, biggest snowfall in 50 years happened yesterday

>> No.10339188

Do you have any thoughts on why GE's stock has been tanking for the last few years?

>> No.10339189

Sweaty? More and more people are coming to the realization that they have been mislead by their media conglomerates in order to support an agenda, and the trend where people began to believe in anthropogenic climate change more and more will reverse completely.
By all rights Mythbusters and UC Berkley were trying to prove their premise correct, only after I showed that they proved it false, now you can claim that it's impossible to falsify it in an experiment, since it was and you don't want to call it false.

>> No.10339204

The only part of this that's science-related is your claim that this Mythbuster's "experiment" is a sufficient model of the Earth's atmosphere to conclude AGW is false on the basis of the result. I've already given you objections to this; they are not even close to the same thermodynamic system. In fact, they showed the greenhouse effect is measurable with this limited setup. Extrapolating the concentration stuff to imply AGW is false completely neglects to incorporate many other aspects of the global climate that operate on that larger scale.

>> No.10339213


I wonder who could be behind this post

>> No.10339222

The premise I originally argued against in this thread was that climate change was proven a normal person could understand it easily.
I'll go with wiki's premise for anthro climate change for consistency in discussion:
>Anthropogenic climate change is caused by human activity, as opposed to changes in climate that may have resulted as part of Earth's natural processes. In this sense, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming.

If I could simplify the claim, it'd look like:
>Trace differences in trace amounts of co2 in an atmosphere can create a substantial greenhouse affect.
But experimentation suggests this is not true. If it's not true, then the wikipedia version is also falsified.

>> No.10339224

>there's no experimental evide-

I can't believe how stupid you /pol/tards are

>m-muh box
>muh mythbuster
I'm having a good laugh right now

>> No.10339227

It was UC Berkley's experiment. It's telling that your only defense is to attack the study like a religious zealot, rather than provide your own.

>> No.10339229

>But experimentation suggests this is not true
Why are you lying?

>> No.10339238
File: 295 KB, 1344x1008, protein structure.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas. It does however go up after temperatures go up. There isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise. Parasites need to stop wasting tax payer dollars. Instead of the climate change sham, tax money ought to be spent on curing diseases. The best way to do that is to sequence proteins. The secondary structure should be solved first. Then protein domains. Then the tertiary structure. Finally, the quaternary structure.

>> No.10339248

It's not my job to spoonfeed you. I've explained more than once now why your interpretations of the result of the Mythbusters test are unfounded.

>> No.10339254

All wrong, try again

>> No.10339258

>Carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas.
>It does however go up after temperatures go up.
"muh lag," a clear sign of a clueless dipshit
>There isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise.
there is if you bothered to look it up

>> No.10339261

you know, it is believed that moving into the colder northern climes is what prompted the neanderthal to become intelligent and cooperative. maybe we should be working towards this possibility of a new iceage

>> No.10339262

Get a real job. Stop wasting tax payer money.

>> No.10339266

Not an argument

>> No.10339268
File: 141 KB, 1600x1258, Titanoboa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>"muh lag," a clear sign of a clueless dipshit
Yes, warmer temperatures are conducive to life. That's why the largest animals existed when temperatures were warmest.

>> No.10339274

Either change your mind, do the right thing, or I'll never vote for another Democrat again.

Stop ruining science.

>> No.10339278

What about the times that the onset of CO2 increase preceded the onset of temperature increase?

>> No.10339284

I'm not a burger my retarded friend. I hope your shithole gets nuked

>> No.10339285

None of these prove what you are claiming, just spamming links isn't doing you any good or making your argument stronger.
None of these shows that the trace difference in co2 that humans add to the trace amount of co2 in the atmosphere causes a significant change over what the earth itself is putting out. None o the studies you just posted contradict this. You're a shill that comes into these discussions regularly and I've seen you make this exact post before.
My posts are all unique because I believe in science and the truth, and don't put ideology before it.
>m-muh box
>muh mythbuster
In our previous threads you were probably the anon that showed me that mythbuster video, and now you probably regret it.
An ensemble summary of measurements from an experiment, magically going back to 1861, isn't empirical evidence that 400ppm co2 in an atmosphere will have a noteable affect on warmth compared to 399.25ppm co2 in an atmosphere, because it's basically fucking nothing.
You can get the co2 greenhouse gas affect in a lab if you make it 10,000 times higher than the human contribution is, but you can't if you lower it down to what humans contribute, so it's pretty hasty to blame humans.

>> No.10339292

The yellow vest protestors were against high oil prices. Climate change wasn't on their minds.

>> No.10339293

They lied to that kid, he didn't understand that they pumped literally 10,000 times the human contribution of co2 (relative) in order to 'prove' to him that it's humans increasing the temperature of the world.

>> No.10339297

>D-Don't post actual science!!!!

>> No.10339300

Precision isn't high enough to determine that. All that's known for certain is that high levels of CO2 are good for plant life. More plants means more oxygen. Which means larger animals.

>> No.10339301

Big Energy/Oil are the mainstay backers of Climate Change since 1997.

>> No.10339302

That has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is occurring.

>> No.10339310


>> No.10339314

It has to do with whether or not we can trust communities like the UC, its branches, or other higher education propaganda outlets around the United States.
Since we can't, and the experiment suggested the opposite of the climate change theory, it seems unreasonable to hop on that wagon.
AGW is just the state religion's blood god, and you have to sacrifice your blood to the blood god or bad things will happen.

>> No.10339338

no it doesn't

>> No.10339521

co2 does not have a substantial green house affect at 0.75ppm in any experiment that can be replicated, suggesting that 0.75ppm is unlikely to have a substantial greenhouse affect in any atmosphere. The human contribution of co2 is 10,000x to small to be of a serious concern.

>> No.10339524

>less than 1 in a million parts of the atmosphere is human contributed co2.
>only if you put 75,000 in a million parts of the atmosphere does it start to matter.

>no it doesn't.

>> No.10339531

Reduced scarcity is bad for those who thrive off of artificial scarcity in the first place.

>> No.10339532

it already has an effect, see OP

>> No.10339533

Global warming means extreme cold and heat. Just like the extremists that trump supporters are. In the summer we had fires all over America and Europe. In the winter get blizzards. This is the world we live in.

>> No.10339540

>look man, this weather event today proves climate change!
The absolute state.

>> No.10339543

Did you know that every generation for 2,000 years at least has thought they would see the apocalypse? This is the world we live in.

>> No.10339546
File: 70 KB, 992x744, 2E539A92-31B6-42DB-A151-7CD5C24EC96C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Pretty funny how the entire branch of climate “science” has yet to build a single model with one iota of predictive power

>> No.10339550

can't remember last year? or the year before? pretty sure this isn't the first time the polar vortex is a thing outside its pole

>> No.10339564
File: 152 KB, 705x596, google time tools.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's really strange. If you research "Polar Vortex" and exclude results from the time period of 2005-2018, so you only get results from the 1990s - the end of 2004, you will not find any mention of global warming associated with polar vortexes, almost as though the media is yet again using every opportunity to push their scam, and this is using sources like "enviropedia" that would have gladly claimed polar vortexes were caused by co2 emissions.
You're a retard if you believe they are, they were fully explained without the need for anthropogenic co2 emissions in the long ago.

NOW if you search polar vortex, all the top results talk about global warming, and that's because it's all oligopoly propaganda, unironically.

>> No.10339568

Yeah it's all a scam that's why greenhouses are used to grow certain plants. The fact that greenhouses work is a Jewish conspiracy

>> No.10339569

That's what I'm saying, it's been a common cyclical occurrence for all time.
In 1994 there was another one and temps got just about as low, maybe 10 degree warmer then, since the wind was slightly slower (2mph makes a big difference in temp at low temp).

>> No.10339570

do you read the weather report? do you understand why they have no predictive power out beyond a few days?

>> No.10339578
File: 381 KB, 1024x683, 420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

if youre denying Global warming its literally just because youre afraid of it

>> No.10339582

>I just jumped in to astroturf this thread and haven't read it.
The rebuttal was "the atmosphere is too complex!" so it's hilarious that now the argument is back to greenhouses again.
You CANNOT increase the temperature of a greenhouse by settling it's co2 concentration at 0.040% co2, measuring it, and comparing it to a greenhouse with 0.039% co2. It's been tried and every time, you need to increase the co2 percentage by about 10,000 times, to see any affect.

Methane on the other hand requires very little to show an affect.

>> No.10339584

They actually like it because it'll hurt the southern hemisphere the most.>>10339578

>> No.10339586

I can imagine the mammoths trying to end global warming too, with fart reductions.
We have the same amount of control over it as they did, but it's human nature to convince ourselves we have more.

>> No.10339594

>Even when our hypothesis is wrong, it's not.
>Even when our predictions fail, that's because they are supposed to.
>Do you understand how our ignorance proves our absolute control over the world's climate?

>> No.10339597
File: 1.74 MB, 2561x1707, 007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Oh the raccoon wasnt related i just have a lot of raccoon pics

very true and they were using a lot more hairspray in all their fur coats

>> No.10339607

>actual science
>the first one is talking about political shit and 'shutting down deniers' in its abstract.
When you blatantly show your bias in your abstract it really brings question to both the fairness of the performed study and also the legitimacy of the journal that published you.

>> No.10339614

We'll know if climate change is real or not. The best thing to do is to prepare. What do we do if it turns out to be real?
Buy land in Russia?

>> No.10339624

>uncontrolled environment
yeah anon, that's a good way to be able to make shit up, and just claim your god of the gaps is making happen whatever you see. That's why a "controlled environment" is very useful in a scientific experiment.
When you account for that one little detail called a "controlled environment," atmospheric levels of co2 cannot even be proven as providing a greenhouse affect, only levels much higher than we see in earth's atmosphere can be.
That's because co2, a trace gas of 400 parts per million parts of the chemicals in the atmosphere isn't what's controlling the world's climate.

>> No.10339630

not an argument and sounds schizo

>> No.10339650

But it's cold where I AM RIGHT NOW!

>> No.10339763

Pointing out that your hypothesis is suggested as wrong in controlled experiment and that your models are non predictive is in fact an argument; I should have worded it better for your understanding though.

>> No.10339768

is mexico really frozen like the midwest? Egypt is at 0 degrees?

>> No.10339787

It's 120 ppm or more. Not the 0.75 ppm from your ass.
Learn to read. His claim was that UC Berkeley and other institutions couldn't be trusted. Nothing to do with what you're talking about.

>> No.10339802

fucking retard, humans can stop burning fossil fuels, that's firmly within the grasp of any idiot's hands
>bias in the abstract
>so I won't look at what they actually studied
stay brainlet

>> No.10339825

Humans output ~29 giga tons of co2 into the air per year.
The earth outputs ~800 giga tons of co2 per year.

It's true I should have calculated this out more accurately. Rounding to whole numbers for easy, I'm getting:
0.0375% of the earth's output.

The total output of co2 from the earth into the earth's atmosphere accounts for only:
>0.0391% of gas composition in our earth's atmosphere.

So we have 0.0375% of 0.0391% of a greenhouse gas contribution on the earth, as far as co2 is concerned. I don't even want to calculate this.

So the human contribution of co2 into the earth atmosphere is a ~0.00146625% contribution of greenhouse gases to the earth atmosphere.

There is no experimental evidence that suggests that a 0.00146625% concentration of co2 in any kind of greenhouse can notably alter the temperature in comparison to a control with that number subtracted to zero, or with that number added to an already extant concentration of co2. I bet the wooly mammoths wished they could stop climate change too.

>> No.10339829


Debunk - the climate change thing

G idk Hao du U dbunk [email protected] Change??..

Fuck volcanos. They aren't required. If volcanos can change global climate, Hurricanes suck my toes. Those glacial periods weren't a part of the planet cooling. The fires are not a consequence of lowered humidity causes by deforestation. Those droughts have nothing at all to do with an ever-increasing population density in a fucking desert.

>> No.10339832

I just realized it's actually a little less, we should be subtracting the 0.00146625 from the extant 0.0375, since that is a calculation of total which includes the human contribution, and then solving. Either way it's good enough for my point.

>> No.10339834

>800 giga tons of co2 per year
The vast majority of which is reabsorbed by other organisms. The 24Gt/y humans emit is what alters the balance and causes a net increase. But that was a cute try to start out with misleading numbers and calculate out your mental vomit for me to look at with disgust.

>> No.10339838

or better yet the ocean, not only organisms

>> No.10339842

This is where climate science starts getting mythical with its presumptive models and out of their ass speculations about absorption rates being magically perfect without humans, but magically wrong with them. Some woolly mammoths probably were pushing to regulate farts, and doing blood god rituals to keep the planet from warming.
A surefire way to reduce carbon emissions would be vast nuclear infrastructure though, and I'd support that of course, just not because the sky is falling.

>> No.10339844

The same applies to our co2 emissions, it's all going through the same system, your discrimination is arbitrary.

>> No.10339850

It's not mythical. This sort of thing can be measured from proxies. The point is that the antropogenic component of atmospheric composition is driving a warming trend that is 10x faster than typical climate transitions.
A better portfolio will be solar, wind, nuclear, and perhaps biomass.

>> No.10339853

>misleading numbers
I got them from skepticalscience.com, a pro anthropogenic warming site owned by a democrat that google always promotes as the #1 source to 'debunk deniers'. Hilarious that you call it misleading, you literally just read it to "debunk" me.
The earth has a bigger buffer than our contribution and you're stupid to think it doesn't, that's why experimentally your claims are unsubstantiated, and the best you can do is wildly speculate about the earth's recycling capabilities.

>> No.10339854

It's with or without humans. The natural state is close to balanced, but with human activities skews substantially positive in amount added.

>> No.10339857

We don't know how fast climate transitions over 100 year periods are, even from only 3500 years back. Ice cores look at longer timescales.

>> No.10339860

I specifically used the word "misleading," and not something like "fake" or "made-up." That means I didn't doubt the figures cited, only your fucking retarded application of them to a nonsensical calculation.

>> No.10339864

No those aren't better portfolios. they take up more space and therefore cause mass environmental destruction. They are often built on and near nature preserves that are famous for their wind, and steal it. Green energy is anti nature, nuclear energy is pro nature.

>> No.10339873

The calculation shows accurately how miniscule the human contribution of the co2 is in comparison to the earth's natural release cycle, and it shows how even that release itself is miniscule compared to the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It's insignificant.
Scientific Consensus is just a clever alias for Lobbying Consensus.

>> No.10339876

nothing magic about it, you're just an uninformed moron

>Without human interference, the carbon in fossil fuels would leak slowly into the atmosphere through volcanic activity over millions of years in the slow carbon cycle. By burning coal, oil, and natural gas, we accelerate the process, releasing vast amounts of carbon (carbon that took millions of years to accumulate) into the atmosphere every year
also we're cutting down forests which trap carbon

>> No.10339880

fucking retard, Chinese and Indians can stop burning fossil fuels, that's firmly within the grasp of any idiot's hands

>> No.10339883

Why are you posting someone else's speculation as a fact? Think for yourself dude.
By a volcano erupting much more vast amounts are released, and an earthquake's methane release dwarfs our contribution in five minutes.
You're a brainlet who's sucked the titty of propaganda your whole life.

>> No.10339890

>I don't understand how net amounts work
Well, why didn't you say so. You see, the earth also reabsorbs that CO2, and so that amount gets subtracted from the total. The net human contribution is responsible for most of the increase.

>> No.10339892

>humans can stop burning fossil fuels.
I read what it talked about and it was a flawed experiment with no good controls, an assumed conclusion, and stated bias at the outset casting doubt on the integrity of the experimenter, who's goal should have been to prove the hypothesis false. His very experiment is incapable of proving the result he'd like, because of the vast number of unaccounted for variable and the chaotic and ucontrolled environment.
You are posting a study that was paid for specifically in order to 'debunk' climate deniers, which says everything about the integrity of your movement. You are going to lose in your evil scam and it's already happening.

>> No.10339893

they will too
this is a new level of retarded

>> No.10339894

look at the sources, retard
>all speculation is equal, education is irrelevant
you're a fucking moron
>hurr think for yourself and agree with me
now you sound like a flattard

>> No.10339895

You believe the earth absorbs everybody else's co2, and all the volcano and earthquake co2, and all the forest fire co2, but it turns us away?
Prove this empirically.

>> No.10339900

You got inb4d, shill.

>> No.10339910

>The 24Gt/y humans emit is what alters the balance and causes a net increase
Why can't we observe the 0.00017% human contribution to greenhouse gasses causing this heat cascade in a controlled experiment?
Tiny amounts of co2 do not show themselves acting as an effective greenhouse agent under any circumstance in controlled experiment, only under circular assumption.

>> No.10339914

>I still don't understand that there's a number that gets subtracted
you're beyond help, moron

>> No.10339915

>i'm not a victim of propaganda, now let me call you this buzzword i've been conditioned to use to dismiss people who disagree with me.

>> No.10339919

If you think Chang and Rajesh could be remotely fucked with emissions targets to build unstable inefficient solar and wind you are wrong


>> No.10339926

You're not enlightening anyone, genius. I'm using hyperbole so that if you post the real figure, it ironically confirms my point, as the human greenhouse contribution of co2 is a minimal overall contribution to both co2 itself, and overall greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It's insignificant, and you can't demonstrate that concentration as being useful for warming in a controlled experiment, so you can fuck right off with your excuses for pushing psuedo science that is unfalsifiable like the anthropogenic climate change lobbying and media movement.

>> No.10339955

It's not insignificant. Your only evidence to the contrary is a bogus calculation. There are carbon sinks, and you have to subtract that amount from the calculation, which I already explained to you. Global CO2 is going up, and there are no natural processes underway to account for it. There is a clear solution, however: fossil fuel burning releases gigatons per year of carbon that would have otherwise remained sequestered.

>> No.10340120

This wouldn't be feasible because of the risk if the temp goes up

>> No.10340135

>People are still surprised that it gets cold in the winter

America is truly a developed nation

>> No.10340136

>Even a strong advocate of climate change is objective
enough to list a rather long catalogue of unsettled questions
related to the reality of global anthropogenic warming. Here
are the most important basic uncertainties (to put it mildly),
according to Silver (2008):
>“(1) The effect of solar intensity variability for the past
centuries is not clear because instruments to precisely make
this measurement were not available.
>(2) Information on hurricane frequency and intensity is
limited to recently acquired data, making it difficult to determine whether there is a trend toward more severe weather.
>(3) There is insufficient evidence to determine whether
tornadoes and other severe weather phenomena are inten
>(4) Prior to 1960 there were no global measurements of
snow cover, so no quantitative data on the impact of albedo
are known,
>(5) There is not enough information to draw a conclusion
about trends in the thickness of Antarctica sea ice.
>(6) Mechanisms for past abrupt change in climate are not
well understood, including the thresholds for when abrupt
changes may occur.
>(7) Historical records are available for the northern hemisphere, but fewer records exist for the southern hemisphere.
>(8) Factors affecting temperature change are much better
understood than those influencing precipitation.
>(9) Processes taking place in the ocean depths that influence climate are more difficult to model.
>(10) The ENSO is only partially understood and is not
modeled the same way by all scientists.
>(11) There is very limited correlation between climate
variables and the incidence of extreme events.
>(12) During the past ice ages the carbon dioxide levels
in the atmosphere dropped ... and the precise mechanisms
causing this drop have not been determined.

>> No.10340144

Sorry for the formatting, here's a source:

>Most unsettling is the fact that data show quite clearly that during glacial-interglacial intervals the rise in temperature has preceded the increase in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around (Lee Ray, 1993; Solomon, 2008). Indeed, the analysis of Antarctica ice cores determined that temperatures over the continent started to rise centuries (more precisely some 800 years) before the atmospheric CO2 levels began to increase.

>> No.10340152
File: 8 KB, 251x201, heatenings frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I've been following some abrupt climate change youtubers for a while, for the longest time I thought of them as conspiracy tier folk but lately more and more official, or rather, public figures like professors from established and respected universities have been appearing both on their programs, podcasts and even during their own talks, summits and gatherings talking about the same damn thing.

Are things really this bad? they're talking about 2025-2030 being basically the end-point for civilization(in regards of energy and food) meaning mass die-off of humans, not to mention other species that are dying as we speak.

Loss of albedo, domino effect warming, clathrate, methane concentration etc.

>> No.10340156

>Paleocene-Early Eocene = 1,000 ppm co2 in the air
No mass extinction, wildlife flourished.
>Current era = 400 ppm co2 in the air.
Everything will die! Pay exon and general electric your tax dollars now!

>> No.10340167

The effect of albedo on climate is unknown, it's too much information for us or our supercomputers to process.
The same occurs for precipitation, and most other things climate relate, like El Nino, and E Nina, which is an interesting interaction with hydrgoen.
Claims about domino affect warming are unfounded bullshit.
"The same author is very worried about the fate of the corals. He mentioned that “during 1998 a rise in sea temperatures
... caused a mass bleaching of the world’s coral reefs. Up to
90% of the Indian Ocean technicolored coral reefs turned to
skeletal wastes, largely devoid of life”. Was it a consequence
of anthropogenic global warming? Apparently not, since
Callum Roberts mentions that “the harm of the corals was
caused by a surge of El Niño”. Moreover, it appears that “corals
are returning to life, but there is a fair chance that just in a few
decades they will be all destroyed as ocean temperatures rise
owing to global warming”, that is if not another El Niño will
do the job before humans kill them! Notwithstanding the fact
that corals are among the oldest organisms on Earth and that
they successfully survived many more serious threats during
their long life in the oceans."

>> No.10340174

kek at how the coral reef thing was just in the news.

>> No.10340181

Dump folder.

>> No.10340187

El Nino is back this year and in the news they were talking about how global warming was extincting the reefs, even though the reefs lived through eras with 1000 ppm co2 in the air and always survived, and even though they CYCLICALLY go through these mass deaths from el nino and other weather phenomenon, as when 90% were obliterated in the indian ocean in the last el nino, and a shitload of coral died in the previous el nino before that too, and so on, as part of a process.

>> No.10340192

>t. brainlet.

>> No.10340200

Are you talking about a handful of species surviving this or are you dismissing that anything is going on at all? "Cyclical dying" could mean anything, could take millions of years to recover bio-diversity/mass. How can humans possibly survive this?

>> No.10340203

the polar vortex makes it's cold here

>> No.10340208

Humans aren't meant to be long-term thinkers. We like instant gratification and a short work-reward cycle. How many people know they're eating shitty junk food, but love the dopamine kick? We also love fucking routines and patters which feeds into the previous behavior. God help the person who tries to force a sea change. Usually we are good about having institutions and organizations that can focus us to do better, but what happens when we both ignore and delegitimize them?

The best to do is prepare and expect no action to be taken until it's far too late.

>> No.10340219

Admit it, (((climate scientists))) are sub 120 iq greentard basedboys that votes for the left. That is how they got some kind of consensus. Also those fuckers tempered the climate data. Raw data cannot be found

>> No.10340223

>18 year old magapede
>starts first year engineering
>go to /sci/
>hey sci im an engineer im going to post nonsense because I think I'm hot shit for passing my AP
>see climate change

>> No.10340233

You're a retard:
>On the one hand, our loyalty to the scientific method requires that we tell the >truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, meaning all the caveats, ifs, >ands and buts. On the other hand, as human beings we would like to see the >world a better place, which to many of us means reducing the risks of >unprecedented rapid climate change. That means offering scary scenarios, >insert- ing few caveats and getting lots of media coverage. To me the >prospect of global warming has been sufficiently compelling to deserve >everyone’s attention, even with the uncertainties admitted upfront” (Schneider, >1990)

>> No.10340254

Remember that so called fossil fuels arent from fossils. On Venezuela gas price is under 5 cent per liter.

>> No.10340259

If this is what they're doing why come out and say we can't do anything to stop or slow it down?

>> No.10340294

>why come out and say we can't do anything to stop or slow it down
Who does/did this?

>> No.10340302

>why come out and say we can't do anything to stop or slow it down?
That's what I have been arguing thread after thread, but in every thread I am informed that my position is in the minority there. I am amazed if the narrative you have been hearing from the ivory tower has been that we can't do anything. General Electric is one of the largest mainstrea media companies in the United States and it has multi billions in green energy revenue every year.
Increased skepticism of the anthropogenic claim, and a violent reproach to carbon taxes, have actually ended up hurting GE's pockets, but overall they are still doing fine and continually are pushing the anthropogenic agenda for profit. The thing that most don't understand is how strong a company like this' influence can be over a given scientific field, should it decide to invest in it (which it did), since if someone funds enough studies, eventually their studies become the 'scientific consensus,' biased or not, from sheer volume and inter-citing each other. Since General Electric was in cahoots with Google and Exxon Mobil on this issue since 2002, it's reasonable to believe that both Google and Exxon Mobil have affected the cultural beliefs on anthropogenic climate change through media as well, with perhaps google being the most powerful advocate possible.
As someone said in the thread earlier, just before all these oil and energy companies started teaming up with google and stanford for climate change (and also these companies literally merged together, exxon and mobil became exxon mobil and conoco and phillips became conoco phillips and royal dutch and shell became royal dutch shell and GE is really Standard Oil with a different name (literally), and then it that 20% got obliterated away. I'd wager it wasn't that they were convinced, but rather that their opinions were drowned out by lobby influence and big money.

>> No.10340314

solar radiation management/carbon sequestering/cloud seeding/aerosols in atmosphere all ineffective to counteract warming.

>> No.10340342

Presidents aren't required to have any kind of education, most just have degrees in law or economics. Doubt many are STEM

>> No.10340363


Garfield was the only STEM president, and his only contribution was a slightly re-worked, inferior proof of the Pythagorean theorem.

>> No.10340398

He's saying the midwest has suffered from extreme cold winters for as long as our settlers have inhabited it, and making a joking remark that global warming would be a boon for them, with an increased growing season and, other than the polar storms they are already used to and which are caused by El Nino, warmer winters.

>> No.10340401

Even if he was wrong about that, his Mexico trade agreement is so brilliant an better than what we had before that it easily more than makes up for it.

>> No.10340430
File: 127 KB, 640x468, 1545425929772.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.10340479


>> No.10340658

>blah blah blah don't build renewables guys it's a conspiracy
>hurr durr I'm a retard that has to ignore and misrepresent science to justify my hyperbolic opposition to a simple technological transition

>> No.10340738


>> No.10340902

>Are things really this bad? they're talking about 2025-2030 being basically the end-point for civilization(in regards of energy and food) meaning mass die-off of humans, not to mention other species that are dying as we speak.

There is this guy called Malthus, you might like him.

>> No.10340910

Nuclear Energy is the only way to fight climate change and green politics has made sure it will never come to fruition by peddling their highly implausible and inefficient renewables fetish.

>> No.10341954
File: 1.01 MB, 1439x2145, Screenshot_20190130-090315_Brave.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>*creates Yellowstone, Sequoia, and Yosemite national parks*
are very
>*passes Oregon Beach Bill*
>*Passes Marine Mammal Protection act*
in ecological issues.
>*Creates EPA*

> inb4 b-but they don't want the US to send money Michael Mann and Israel to save us from climate change

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.