/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 23 KB, 675x455, 1569228363930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:13:23 2019 No.11020108 [DELETED]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
Wow. It's almost like the climate change spaz out is really just a ploy to shift power into the hands of greenie politicians while simultaneously destroying the economy and making everyone dependent on a welfare state. Green New Deal 2 when? Welfare for illegal immigrants is vitally important to keep transient ice caps safe. So is reducing CO2 emissions in all the first world countries while 2nd world countries who don't have democratic power struggles continue to not care and pump out increasing amounts of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:15:52 2019 No.11020113 File: 316 KB, 607x819, CC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020108

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:19:17 2019 No.11020122 >>11020113 Red pill: both are happening.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:20:50 2019 No.11020127 File: 48 KB, 599x500, 1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020108 nice graph, did your mom make it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:23:49 2019 No.11020132 >>11020113 >>11020127 Didn't even watch the video. What's it like living in fear that at any moment the foundation of your shallow personality could be disapproven? Sad.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:27:30 2019 No.11020136
File: 35 KB, 623x450, 1512346280909.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11020113
Doesn't even address half the OP which focuses on the fact the Green New Deal is literally just commies pushing the envelope and has next to nothing to do with the environment.

>>11020127
The graph literally shows the rise in temperature you uber brainlet. The point is that the temperature changes without fluctuations in CO2. How do you brainlets even manage to get on the internet. It's honestly scary that retards like you have any say in anything to do with politics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:29:19 2019 No.11020142 >>11020132 >Didn't even watch the video. Videos are for branlets. No one is interests in rhetoric of another Koch-owned clown. Post articles instead.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:31:40 2019 No.11020149

>>11020136
>The point is that the temperature changes without fluctuations in CO2
Don´t call others brainlets, when you don´t understand the basics of science. The fact that temperature changes without CO2, doesn´t mean it doesn´t change with change in CO2.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:33:18 2019 No.11020153

>>11020136
>The point is that the temperature changes without fluctuations in CO2

I legitimately didn't think anyone was dumb enough to create the strawman that climate science claims that co2 is the only possible driver of climate. How can someone so utterly ignorant be so confident? I doubt I'll ever know.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:36:00 2019 No.11020158

>>11020149
>>11020153
It also doesn't mean CO2 is the cause of climate change now. Which is what you retards are all claiming with no proof. Look at the graph and realize that CO2 was rising long before the temperature was. Also watch the video. It's from the former president of your precious green peace.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:40:41 2019 No.11020168 >>11020158 Yeah he also told me round up was safe to drink. Let me know how that goes for you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:42:50 2019 No.11020173 >>11020113 Science is censored for free by professors of equity and gender studies. Also with this scientists can get citations by doing nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:43:55 2019 No.11020175 >>11020158 >Look at the graph and realize that CO2 was rising long before the temperature was. It went from 300 to 400 over the 20th century and this >>11020127 happened. There totally isn´t a corelation. are you a mutt by any chance?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:48:19 2019 No.11020185 >>11020175 >temperature without CO2. wow that's really useful. Let me just draw an some correlation between the two by imagining the CO2 line Are you a retard by any chance?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:51:06 2019 No.11020195 >>11020113 Both sides are one and the same you low IQ dumbass

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:51:53 2019 No.11020197 >>11020108 oh wow you mean Greta Thunberg isn't the single greatest scientist to ever live?! What a ridiculous thought!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:52:04 2019 No.11020198 File: 8 KB, 500x334, co2_10000_years.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020185 I don´t understand where´s the issue. Are you too stupid to google CO2 concentration over history?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:54:15 2019 No.11020203 >>11020113 >le 90% scientists buzzword cringe

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:59:39 2019 No.11020214 >>11020198 now put them together you asshat. You're trying to say there's some correlation between two things. You know what that requires? You need to actually compare them. Or are you too stupid to even understand the basic principals of science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:59:49 2019 No.11020215 File: 870 KB, 2156x1462, WGI_AR5_Fig1-4_UPDATE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Latest IPCC data Look at those accurate models! Were totally going to 10C boys. Theres no way Earth has any unexpected negative feedback loops, no sirre!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:59:55 2019 No.11020216 >>11020203 Oh, sorry, is it 98% now?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:07:01 2019 No.11020227 >>11020214 Can´t you do that in your head? I´m sorry that god bestowed upon your brain the disease of novomundism, but both of those graphs feature sharp increase in 20th century.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:09:33 2019 No.11020234 >>11020227 They also show the temperature declining for a long period of time while CO2 was increasing. I'm sorry you're such a brainlet you only look at the big pointy bits on a graph.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:11:15 2019 No.11020239 >>11020215 >Latest You mean AR5 from 2014?

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:13:15 2019 No.11020245
File: 132 KB, 530x507, 0c4cacae7b7e7d7e8c421f744da88774b02489ffef8615bce52f2ec3af3fa0d2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11020113
I'm actually in favor of replacing combustion engine cars because i like breathing clean air, but you're a damn top tier brainlet if you can't see the bullshittery that's going on in the politics involving climate change.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:14:03 2019 No.11020252 >>11020234 you are a slow one, so I'll try to slow down too and be more didactic and dialectic >They also show the temperature declining for a long period >while CO2 was increasing. Which period?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:19:26 2019 No.11020264 >>11020108 Don't forget about endless tax increases on the plebs. It's hard to convince them to be taxed to death so you gotta bring up muh planet needs it!

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:29:46 2019 No.11020291
File: 34 KB, 640x496, 11000-years-temp.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11020252
Since you're a stupid nigger who compared two graphs of different time scales I did you the favor of getting a graph which of a similar time scale.
Comparing this to >>11020198, you can see that while the CO2 concentrations of been steadily increasing over the last 6 thousand years the global temperature anomaly has been decreasing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:45:42 2019 No.11020346 >>11020291 You can't answer a simple question? How sad. Let's try these two, hopefully you could answer them >What is that singularity- at the end of this graph? >Who said that CO2 is the only factor affecting temperature?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:50:42 2019 No.11020358 >>11020214 You know the greenhouse effect?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:07:41 2019 No.11020389 It's some 15 year old faggot keeps opening the same threads over and over again

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:09:13 2019 No.11020393 >>11020389 Almost like *

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:10:43 2019 No.11020396 >>11020346 Why did you watch the video nigger. I'm tried of talking to a retard who can't even watch the source material before spouting off his programmed 'thoughts'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:20:13 2019 No.11020409 >>11020396 >Why did you watch the video nigger >>11020142

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:25:38 2019 No.11020420 >>11020409 There's 10 different graphs with articles being analysed in the video. If you're too lazy to even skip to those parts than you can kys.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:27:07 2019 No.11020425 >>11020420 Videos are not scientific sources. Use articles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:27:15 2019 No.11020426 >>11020108 >citing Patrick Moore Not a climatologist. Not an expert. Already proven wrong by Potholer years ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:28:47 2019 No.11020435 >>11020136 >Muh commies Oh no a boomer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:30:21 2019 No.11020441 >>11020215 >Look at those accurate models! Were totally going to 10C boys. Theres no way Earth has any unexpected negative feedback loops, no sirre! There’s still a lot more positive feedback before there’s negative feedback.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:30:47 2019 No.11020442 >>11020426 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4 Moore's best video by far

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:30:53 2019 No.11020443 >>11020425 The graphs link to the articles. >>11020426 >potholer literally who

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:32:34 2019 No.11020450 File: 728 KB, 500x341, Predictions_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020215 well they've been pretty much dead on so far

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:33:28 2019 No.11020453 File: 28 KB, 488x463, 1512375520435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020442 >he doesn't want to drink pesticide >that proves climate change is real!!!11!! okay retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:35:48 2019 No.11020457 File: 33 KB, 624x458, 1568464205826.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020450 nice source. I'm sure I'll trust skepticalscience.com to tell me the truth without any skepticism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:40:43 2019 No.11020468 >>11020457 >1988 Is it surprising that early models weren't as accurate as those we have now?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:41:58 2019 No.11020473 >>11020443 >literally who Potholer54 is the YouTube channel of the conservative journalist Peter Hadfield, who’s been doing great skeptic work for over a decade on that platform. https://youtu.be/9XIpTqbLR5Y

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 16:01:55 2019 No.11020514 File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020457 >comparing global average temp to lower troposphere only oh look he's retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 16:03:06 2019 No.11020520 >>11020468 even 1988 models are doing pretty good when you compare apples to apples and don't do some bullshit comparison like in that retards graph

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 16:19:58 2019 No.11020568 >>11020514 >doesn't know what the lower troposphere is >posts a graph of just models without any observations and titles it climate models and observations >doesn't provide a source try again once you get through primary school science class, kid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 16:22:59 2019 No.11020581 File: 136 KB, 1079x1253, 1568695341749.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020520 >comparing the predictions to the actual data REEEEEEEEEEEEEE THAT'S BULLSHIT!!!!111!!1

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 17:32:47 2019 No.11020809 File: 322 KB, 2276x1386, Screen Shot 2019-09-30 at 5.31.20 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020214 Why do you people insist on not seeing the evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 17:35:13 2019 No.11020817 >>11020809 Different reasons. I could think of: >attempted trolling >financial interest >suppressed bad conscience >literal retardation

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 17:53:56 2019 No.11020880 >>11020568 do you really not know what NASA NOAA HadCRUT and Berkeley Earth are? why the fuck are you even attempting to have this conversation?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:10:42 2019 No.11020919 >>11020880 Do you really not know what a model or a source is? Are you even human? Fucking bots man, what a waste of time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:14:11 2019 No.11020929 File: 199 KB, 2276x1386, 1569879167646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020809 wow! the correlation is off the charts! I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:20:53 2019 No.11020938 Why are the charts of the skeptics and the alarmists so different? Who is using real data?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:21:56 2019 No.11020942 File: 410 KB, 1369x1146, what's more likely.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11020113

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:22:20 2019 No.11020944 >>11020938 It's hard to tell due to all the bullshit. Really the only way to tell is to look at the data yourself and determine if it seems legit. A lot of it actually comes from the same source but is presented in different ways.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:26:46 2019 No.11020957 >>11020938 >Skeptics People who deny climate change aren’t skeptics. They’re liars.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:28:31 2019 No.11020961 >>11020957 Your argument appeals to emotions, not logic, so you might be a liar yourself.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:35:29 2019 No.11020973
File: 54 KB, 499x331, E948EC08-A3EC-44DB-8C93-27172E363C81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11020108
>shift power into the hands of greenie politicians while simultaneously destroying the economy and making everyone dependent on a welfare state
Yeah it’s not like climate change deniers have any alterior economic motives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:36:59 2019 No.11020980 >>11020919 >>11020880 i'll ask you again, hint you can google it and the source is reverse image search you fucking baby

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:37:21 2019 No.11020984 >>11020973 Oil is banned from funding research

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:39:35 2019 No.11020987 >>11020984 Yep no way that climate deniers could gain in any way from their skepticism. We should totally listen to them.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:41:45 2019 No.11020997

>>11020938
I'll give you a pretty good example, >>11020457 compares models which predict GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature anomaly to LOWER TROPOSPHERE temperature anomaly while >>11020514 compares models which predict GLOBAL AVERAGE temp to GLOBAL AVERAGE temp. Apples to oranges comparisons like this are a common tactic liars use to manipulate climate data to hide warming.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:42:30 2019 No.11021001
File: 48 KB, 1024x442, funding.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11020973
The consensus is proportional to the backers. The consensus emerged as one side was banned from funding research because it had "conflicting interests", whereas the other side (politicians and alternative energy) apparently don't have interests.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:42:47 2019 No.11021002 >>11020984 tell that to willie Soon

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:42:56 2019 No.11021005
File: 32 KB, 480x480, 1566094548564.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11020980
That excuse is getting kind of old kid. Every picture I've had has clear sources included while, for some strange reason, all your shitty graphs are vague and have no sources and your response is "lol just google it". Really interesting, isn't it? Why don't you just be honesty and admit you don't even know where the fuck your pictures came from because you just got them from some other dipshit spouting the same crap.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:46:00 2019 No.11021013 >>11021002 Yup, they still fund it using backchannels, but it's 1% of the money that politicians and alternative energy are allowed to spend. It's a 1:1 relationship between backer's belief and amount of scientists on their side.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:47:28 2019 No.11021016 >>11021001 See >>11020987

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:48:06 2019 No.11021019 >>11021016 Yep no way that climate alarmists (such as politicians and alternative energy shills) could gain in any way from their alarmist. We should totally listen to them.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:48:18 2019 No.11021020

>>11020997
>>11020514 doesn't even have a source. It's a bunch of lines which we can presume are models but don't know because it doesn't say. It doesn't link to the data or anything. The only thing we know is that the black line is an average of models.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:48:24 2019 No.11021021 >>11020961 I didn’t make an argument, retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:51:55 2019 No.11021035 File: 376 KB, 1118x893, Screenshot_2019-09-30 Google Search.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11021005 >>11021020 wow was that hard? Could you go back to The_Donald now?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:51:57 2019 No.11021036 File: 63 KB, 645x729, 1536842614304.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11021021 >I didn't make an argument nice argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:52:09 2019 No.11021037 >>11021020 “doesn't even have a source. ” https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming Use reverse image search.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:53:09 2019 No.11021040 >>11021037 So now reverse search is valid?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:53:11 2019 No.11021041 >>11021036 I didn’t make an argument, retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:53:35 2019 No.11021042 >>11021040 GO BACK

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:53:45 2019 No.11021045 >>11021041 >I didn't make an argument >I didn't make an argument >I didn't make an argument >I didn't make an argument >I didn't make an argument Are you 12?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:54:11 2019 No.11021047 >>11021040 >So now reverse search is valid? What the fuck does that mean? It’s a valid tool for finding where images are from.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:54:13 2019 No.11021048 File: 348 KB, 1404x1471, climate sensitivity bias.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:55:15 2019 No.11021052 >>11021042 It's just hilarious that you bitched about having to use reverse search to find the source - then when someone pointed out the same about your image you just told them to use reverse search. Your double standards aren't showing at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:55:25 2019 No.11021055 >>11021045 I didn’t make an argument, retard. Are you twelve?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:56:27 2019 No.11021059 >>11021052 >Your double standards aren't showing at all. You’re not talking to one person. You’re talking to two.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:57:46 2019 No.11021065 >>11021059 If you butt into an argument taking someone's position, you either read all the way back or don't bitch it wasn't you if it looks like a contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:58:47 2019 No.11021069 >>11021055 >The average IQ of the climate change alarmist is less than that of a middle schooler who completed English sad

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 18:59:04 2019 No.11021070 >>11021065 It might appear like one to you, but it isn’t. Simple as that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:00:01 2019 No.11021074 File: 17 KB, 636x339, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11021052 >>11021065 Everyone who disagrees with me on the internet is the same person >t. liberal

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:00:06 2019 No.11021075 >>11021069 >The average IQ of the climate change denier is less than that of a middle schooler who completed English Sad

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:02:46 2019 No.11021080 Conjecture: Raw data shows no warming. You have to massage it, adjust it, model it, etc. for it to show any warming. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:04:00 2019 No.11021082

>>11021048

>Harlos, C., Edgell, T.C. & Hollander, J. Climatic Change (2017)
>Results of our meta-analysis found no evidence of publication bias, in contrast to prior studies that were based on smaller sample sizes than used here (e.g., Michaels 2008; Reckova and Irsova 2015). We did, however, discover some interesting patterns in the numbers of climate change articles being published over time and, within journal articles, stylistic biases by authors with respect to reporting large statistically significant effects.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:07:07 2019 No.11021094 >>11021080 >Feel free to prove me wrong. burden of proof is on you i'm sorry to say . >>11020809 you could start here though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:07:20 2019 No.11021095 >>11021080 >Dur the burden of proof isn’t mine Bait

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:07:27 2019 No.11021097 >>11021080 >Feel free to prove me wrong. Feel free to prove yourself right, it's your conjecture.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:08:23 2019 No.11021103

>>11021082
>Before Climategate, reported effect sizes were significantly larger in article abstracts than in the main body of articles, suggesting a systematic bias in how authors are communicating results in scientific articles

>After Climategate, publication rates about ocean climate change fell, the magnitude of reported effect sizes in abstracts diminished, and the difference in effect sizes between abstracts and the body of reports returned to a level comparable to pre-IPCC 2007

I thought it was just a conspiracy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:09:26 2019 No.11021107 >>11021095 >>11021094 Read the first word of my post. Then look up its meaning. >>11020809 isn't raw

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:10:23 2019 No.11021112 >>11021103 >I thought it was just a conspiracy? so there was a conspiracy to lie to people who only read abstracts?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:10:54 2019 No.11021115 >>11021082 Holy fuck anon, thanks for that paper. I thought you were going to prove me wrong, but you gave me loads of ammo regarding climategate. I love you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:11:25 2019 No.11021117 >>11021107 so post your raw data source please

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:12:27 2019 No.11021120 >>11021103 >ClimateGate Boomer meme.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:12:33 2019 No.11021121 >>11021117 I said it was a conjecture. Feel free to post the raw data and show me the warning exists without any kind of adjustments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:13:04 2019 No.11021123 >>11021115 If you care about writing style that much and not actual data, or content go fucking nuts bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:13:57 2019 No.11021125 >>11021123 If there is bias, the bias probably exists in the data too, it's just hidden under a sea of technicalities.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:14:04 2019 No.11021127 >>11021121 the great thing about conjectures is they can be ignored.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:15:01 2019 No.11021131 >>11021127 Then ignore me. That's 1 vote for the climate deniers that remains unchanged :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:15:36 2019 No.11021135 >>11021125 >the guy who thinks HadCRUT is a model said confidently

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:17:05 2019 No.11021137 >>11021131 I guess we can just ignore the science and solve this whole debate with a poll, what a fantastic idea. Who cares about useless things like truth or empiricism when popular opinion exists?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:17:12 2019 No.11021138 >>11021112 >so there was a conspiracy to lie to people who only read abstracts? aka. literally 90% of the voting population when they need something simple to understand to back up whatever they've been fed in the media

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:19:03 2019 No.11021141 >>11021137 That's how the real world works if you want political power. Otherwise, stick to science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:20:24 2019 No.11021146 >>11021131 No one cares. Buzz off troll.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:20:40 2019 No.11021148 >>11021137 We sure can! https://www.strawpoll.me/18720931

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:21:37 2019 No.11021151 >>11021135 I said it isn't raw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadCRUT >bias adjustment inb4 you start defending that the adjustments are fine Not my point. My conjecture was that raw data shows no warming.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:21:39 2019 No.11021152 >>11021138 Considering you can't even find a paper on your own let alone read it, you vastly overestimate the amount of people who read abstracts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:22:42 2019 No.11021158 >>11021141 it's why you're convinced. May the best liar win.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:23:48 2019 No.11021162

>>11021152
I never said they went around reading abstracts for fun like some autists in here but if someone calls them out on their doomsaying bullshit about how the world is going to be underwater by 2040, then yeah, they'll probably read the first abstract that pops up in their google feed and cite that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:23:49 2019 No.11021163 File: 43 KB, 700x509, 1568930362516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11021151 meanwhile this is what the unadjusted data actually looks like

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:25:19 2019 No.11021168 >>11021163 I'll look up your chart and read on it.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:26:16 2019 No.11021173

deniers are legitimately the biggest blackpill of them all
when I see how many there are and how ferocious they are I just despair
so fuck
no, seriously, fuck it
if civilization is so adamant on slitting its own throat, fucking let it.
let the world (literally) burn. Once the natural disasters come for me, I'll just kill myself. Not like I even planned on living for too long anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:27:03 2019 No.11021178 >>11021173 >Worrying about boomers that will be dead in ten years

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:27:21 2019 No.11021179 >>11021173 >let the world burn >not drown the climate doomsaying fanatic hurt itself in its confusion

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:28:00 2019 No.11021183 >>11021173 Evolution is a thing. Technology is a thing. We'll just evolve to handle warmer climate or invent use air conditioners everywhere. Nobody wants to lose quality of life, that's the real issue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:33:57 2019 No.11021192 >>11021163 >>11021168 Done. Your "raw" data isn't really raw. It's also adjusted. Your adjusted data is adjusted on top of adjusted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:35:33 2019 No.11021197 >>11021192 well then better post your raw raw data what does it show?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:36:39 2019 No.11021203 >>11021192 >Reeee stop improving your data

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:37:29 2019 No.11021206 >>11021192 >>11021197 you also need to prove data adjustments decrease accuracy rather than improve it. Which is several PHD theses on it's own, so you'd better get started.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:37:50 2019 No.11021207

>>11020942
>Rotshilds and Rockefellers fund global warming narrative because they cant profit from oil
Yea, nah. They are still a merchant house of the American empire, American empire is dependent on global fuel trade. If there are powers that have to gain from transition past oil it's the Euros and Chinks.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:38:21 2019 No.11021208

>>11021203
>>11021206

My conjecture isn't about whether global warming is real or not.

It's more about the fact that unless you understand why and how the data is being adjusted, you don't really know if it's warming or not.

And the fact you didn't even know your "raw" data you just posted isn't raw means you don't understand the full chain from measurement to the final results you believe in.

You believe in something you don't understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:40:07 2019 No.11021211 >>11021208 >conjecture cool opinions, substantiate them, if you can't you don't understand this conjecture either so...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:45:40 2019 No.11021222 >>11021211 nothing he said is an opinion. It's a fact that you're a typical climate alarmist retard who doesn't understand the data they cite.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:46:20 2019 No.11021225

>>11021211
It's not an opinion. It's a conjecture that should be easy to disprove.

But I am being facetious. I already know that the pure raw data shows no warming trend, so my conjecture can't be disproved.

But that doesn't mean global warming isn't real. It probably is, I am sure the scientists wouldn't be doing adjustment after adjustment for the sake of finding a result. Their adjustments are probably solid, right?

But it means that alarmists don't understand how it works, and it's probably why you can't convince skeptics. Deniers just abuse these holes in your arguments.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:55:51 2019 No.11021244

>>11021208
>You believe in something you don't understand.
Welcome to society. That's how it works here. We rely peer review and academic competition. If there's an error in measurement, it wouldn't be reproducible and someone else would point it out.

>It's a conjecture that should be easy to disprove.
First you must find the data and point out the error. Since you are the one making assertion, you can't expect your fellow shitposters to go through thousands of pages just to confirm a negative.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 20:02:08 2019 No.11021268 >>11021222 everything he has said is an opinion, if it wasn't he would have provided evidence.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 20:04:04 2019 No.11021274

>>11021225
>disprove
why bother when nothing is proven?
>I already know that the pure raw data shows no warming trend, so my conjecture can't be disproved.

yet you can't provide evidence for this claim strongly suggesting you're lying.
the rest of your post is just more nonsense that follows from the rest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 20:07:06 2019 No.11021284 >>11021107 What do you think raw data is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 20:10:48 2019 No.11021292 >>11021284 if he knew we wouldn't be having this conversation

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 20:11:01 2019 No.11021293 >>11021225 Post "raw" data that shows no global warming

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 20:15:04 2019 No.11021307 >>11021293 inb5 tony Heller

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 ]