/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11091384]

>climate change is real! we're influencing the way the weather pattern on a global scale is like and we can predict how it will be and why it will be in a specific configuration because dude greenhouse effect lmao!

why are environmentalists like this? do they really think datasets that are barely decades old are enough to discuss a system that has million year long patterns to it? why is science getting reduced to this fanatical buffonery? data used to be meaningful. now it's just "look at this plotted graph i made with 3 points i can make assumptions now about the future!" reddit shit. I think i'm gonna make an anti environment coalition called the Coal Rollers. who's gonna join me and lobby for tree burning?

[Anonymous No.11091686]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11091690]

Climate change isnt real
Race isnt real
Gender isnt real
Debate me /sci/tards

[Anonymous No.11091693]

>>11091690
all those things are real.

[Anonymous No.11092230]

>>11091693
race isn't real. it's based on morphology which has been debunked.

[Anonymous No.11092351]

>>11092230
Is speciesism a thing, though?

[Anonymous No.11092371]

>>11092230

differences dont exist between ethnic groups, we are all literally the same. evolution stops at the neck, racist bigoted bigot.

[Anonymous No.11092375]

>>11092351
>Is speciesism a thing, though

Species don’t exist either. This has been a topic of discussion in biology for over a century.

[Anonymous No.11092376]

>>11091384
What is causing the ongoing warming trend?
Please explain.

[Anonymous No.11092386]

>>11091690
You are correct, none of those concepts are any more concrete than "America", "Pepsi", or "limited liability corporations". They're just poorly defined concepts with limited correlations to natural phenomena. Climate change is complaining about and conflating the problems of industrial pollution with the variable mean temperature of the planet. Race is a poorly defined and superficial means of subdividing species. Gender is cultural beliefs surrounding sex. None of these ambiguous concepts are any more reproducibly measurable than "dandiness" or "God".

[Anonymous No.11092404]

>>11091384
I won't. But I agree the climate change obsession is detrimental to the cause of environmentalism. Biologists should be concerned with curbing the Holocene extinction event if only to maximize the variety of subjects available to study. Everyone should be concerned with the upkeep and purity of their food and water supply. These are the real environmental issues. Climate change is a boogey man mocked up by marketing idiots. It's so distracting and disruptive I wonder sometimes if it wasn't a false flag.

[Anonymous No.11092424]

>>11092404
>Muh conspiracy with no evidence

[Anonymous No.11092500]

>>11092404
What is distracting and disruptive is climate change deniers' lack of discernment when it comes to the topic of "boogey man mocked up by marketing idiots". I mean, I didn't expect any stellar social awareness, but not distinguishing between a marketing agenda and a real movement is dangerous.

Why do you think marketing idiots are so obsessed with the environment lately? Because marketing idiots will always piggyback on scientific breakthroughs that attract mass attention. Why did marketing idiots have slogans like "[product] IS STELLAR/OUT OF THIS WORLD" during the Space Race? Was sending people on the moon a hoax by marketing idiots too? Oh wait, I'm on a board where people are seriously trying to debate flat-earthers, nevermind, I'm going back to /v/ where I know everything is fiction.

[Anonymous No.11092504]

>>11092375
But it helps telling apart organisms

[Anonymous No.11092571]

>>11091384
No climate model takes into account the fact that every person is actually a non-stop body-temperature heat sink (except when you have a fever). So there is no reason to believe in any climate change model.

[Anonymous No.11092592]

>>11091384
>some guy's opinion on 4chan > actual climate scientists

You can replace the first part with any website,forum,group etc. The only studies that not in favour of human incudes climate change were found to be flawed.

https://rdcu.be/bVkfE

[Anonymous No.11092611]

>>11092571
>what is the 1st law: the post

besides all of human population weighs like 5x10^11 kg which is literally half the cubic kilometer of water

[Anonymous No.11092618]

>>11091384
>Paying money to people who claim ability/authority to avert famine/fire/floods, based on weather patterns.

[Anonymous No.11092711]

>>11092376
>
gay marriage

[Anonymous No.11093070]

>>11091384
>do they really think datasets that are barely decades old are enough to discuss a system that has million year long patterns to it?
We have much more than decades of data. And million year patterns are irrelevant when we're taking about what will happen in the next 100.

If you are going to pretend like you know more than climate scientists you should at least get basic facts correct.

[Anonymous No.11093086]

>>11091384
Human activity emmit CO2, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore we are warming temperature on earth. I agree that its hard to do accurate models, but climate change is real

[Anonymous No.11093105]

>>11092711
Legalization of gay marriage correlates with the rise in temperature, so the relationship must be causative.
Brilliant!

[Anonymous No.11093109]

>>11092571
>No climate model takes into account the fact that every person is actually a non-stop body-temperature heat sink

Uh.............no, that’s a lie. Human body temperature is warmer than environmental temperatures unless you live in some place that’s over ‘98 Fahrenheit regularly, which to be fair will become more common as warming continues to increase.

> So there is no reason to believe in any climate change model.

They make accurate predictions, which is all that matters.

[Anonymous No.11093115]

>>11091384
CFC's seriously impacted the ozone layer in only a few decades of use. After they were banned, the ozone layer started to recover.
Ample proof that human activity can effect large scale atmospheric properties.
Certainly increasing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by 30% since the beginning of the industrial age is going to have a large effect on the whole globe.

I don't understand why deniers are so intent on burying their heads in the sand. Its not like we couldn't transition to cleaner forms of energy if we tried. Its well within our technological capability, and in many ways would enhance our quality of life.

What is your argument against human progress?

[Anonymous No.11093134]

>>11091384
where’s your publication? If you have actual arguments I’m sure some oil and coal companies will pay you well.

[Anonymous No.11093195]

>>11093134
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8rGb87p260
Warmcucks BTFO.

[Anonymous No.11093204]

>>11093195
>YouTube video

Can you please cite his research paper on the topic?

[Anonymous No.11093334]

>>11093204
AGW has already proven itself wrong as the satellite data shows the earth is cooling.

Piers Corbyn uses a model that looks at sun spot activity and their effects on jet streams. His weather predictions have proven to be more accurate than the mainstream ones.

[Anonymous No.11093381]

>>11093334
>AGW has already proven itself wrong as the satellite data shows the earth is cooling.

Amazing! Can you please cite a source for this, ideally within the peer-reviewed literature or some other authoritative source like the website of NASA?

[Anonymous No.11093396]

>>11093381
>Has the goverment proved this ?!?!?!

wew

[Anonymous No.11093473]

>>11093195
Deniers BTFO https://www.nature.com/articles/436897a

[Anonymous No.11093476]

>>11093381
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews14No11.pdf

[Anonymous No.11093494]

>>11093334
>AGW has already proven itself wrong as the satellite data shows the earth is cooling.
Please explain how pic related is the Earth cooling.

>Piers Corbyn uses a model that looks at sun spot activity and their effects on jet streams. His weather predictions have proven to be more accurate than the mainstream ones.
Then why won't he release data on the accuracy of his predictions?

[El Arcón No.11093508]

>>11091693
and I know where you can almost certainly find them right now: the shelves in the laundry room of Helene's home in Sunrise Pointe in Tucson.

[Anonymous No.11093510]

>>11093396

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11093514]

>>11093494
>Please explain how pic related is the Earth cooling.
See: http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews14No11.pdf
>Then why won't he release data on the accuracy of his predictions?
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.11093517]

>>11093510
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11093528]

>>11093476
this is an infographic made in 2014 dude, you are competing against dozens of peer reviewed papers made last year alone about real measured recent changes in climate and extrapolations from past and present observations, made by NASA, the pentagon and basically every other major scientific community

i really want to believe that climate change is not a big deal but you guys make it really hard

[Anonymous No.11093535]

>>11093514
>See: http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews14No11.pdf
This doesn't answer my question. The RSS data clearly shows warming. Your link cherrypicked the data by starting near the large 1998 El Nino even though the data goes back to 1979. It also draws a fake flat trendline over the data. Pic related shows the actual trendline from 1996 to 2014. Your source is literally lying to you.

>What do you mean?
Piers refuses to release any analysis of the accuracy of his predictions over the years, something every real meteorology company does. He also claimed to have wanted to make a $10000 bet that the average global surface temperature between 1998 and 2003 would be warmer than between 2012 and 2017, a bet he would have lost. See >>11093473

[Anonymous No.11093537]

>>11093528
>this is an infographic made in 2014 dude

You are reaching so fucking hard dude

[Anonymous No.11093540]

>>11093528
>i really want to believe that climate change is not a big deal but you guys make it really hard
The thing that kills me is that if all the deniers got on board with making adequate societal changes then it wouldn't be a big deal.

[Anonymous No.11093563]

>>11093540
>The thing that kills me is that if all the deniers got on board with making adequate societal changes then it wouldn't be a big deal.
>adequate societal changes then it wouldn't be a big deal.
>adequate societal changes

https://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2019/09/30/Endless-Growth-Fairy-Tales-Will-Destroy-Us/

[Anonymous No.11093569]

>>11093563
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11093574]

>>11092375
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11093576]

>>11092504
ask urself, does it even make even the tiniest bit of sense that nature has set everything up into discrete little groups so that human autists can group them up into neat little categories? fact is lions and tigers are the same thing

[Anonymous No.11093580]

>>11093576
"nature" doesn't do anything it's God who creates and set things into order

[Anonymous No.11093583]

>>11093576
but they look different

[Anonymous No.11093589]

>>11093528
>this is an infographic made in 2014 dude
Where was the warming?

[Anonymous No.11093600]

>>11093563
>Economic growth will be responsible for mass starvation
>fixes agriculture
>Economic growth is responsible for ozone depletion
>fixes ozone
>Economic growth is responsible for climate change
>fixes greenhouse gas emissions
>Economic growth is responsible for...

Also I like how her list of "scholars" has only one economist and zero scientists.

[Anonymous No.11093607]

>>11093589
It's there, just hidden by cherrypicking and a fake trendline. See >>11093535 and then >>11093494 for the non- cherrypicked data.

[Anonymous No.11093611]

>>11092618
>muh criticism of religion
Back to /r/atheism

[Anonymous No.11093618]

>>11093569
means motivation opportunity

[Anonymous No.11093623]

>>11093600
freedom is slavery

prosperity is starvation

[Anonymous No.11093639]

It's real. The solution isn't banning plastic straws or eating bugs-it's all about evolving beyond petroleum, natural gas,or coal as a source of energy. It was easy and cheap, but now the consequences of our early profligate behavior are starting to catch up to us, as the biosphere is changing in negative ways. We are witnessing much of the technological transition being designed-electric cars, more power efficient porducts, next-generation nuclear power plants, higher-efficiency solar panels- but we are lagging on implementation, badly, and also suffering from muddled policy.

You will find legions of people who will tell you that climate change is an existential threat in humanity's long term and that we have to get emissions down ASAP, but will in almost the same breath want to rip down all nuclear power plants as soon as possible, at great expense and with certain spikes in emissions afterwards. The same people who tell you to always follow science and fact will balk, sputter,when you point out that nuclear power is the safest form of power per terawatthour and is dirt cheap in nations like South Korea, and is a COMPLETE solution to existing fossil fuel power plants-solar and wind need large, land-hungry, expensive power storage systems, and those systems can, in very bad conditions, run out of power. As supplementary power, they're great,as a full replacement for non-intermittent power,in a large industrialized society? Idiotic.

[Anonymous No.11093645]

>>11093639
>You will find legions of people who will tell you that climate change is an existential threat in humanity's long term and that we have to get emissions down ASAP, but will in almost the same breath want to rip down all nuclear power plants as soon as possible, at great expense and with certain spikes in emissions afterwards. The same people who tell you to always follow science and fact will balk, sputter,when you point out that nuclear power is the safest form of power per terawatthour and is dirt cheap in nations like South Korea, and is a COMPLETE solution to existing fossil fuel power plants-solar and wind need large, land-hungry, expensive power storage systems, and those systems can, in very bad conditions, run out of power. As supplementary power, they're great,as a full replacement for non-intermittent power,in a large industrialized society? Idiotic.

bro, it's the energy cartel dude.. they regulated the shit out of nuclear and will do it for fusion as well because the need to control energy and transportation

they own all the patents to battery tech and solar panels

[Anonymous No.11093648]

>>11093639
if you look into who is paying for a lot of global warming propganda it's literally saudi arabia

they know they will always have an exception and be the de facto energy producer of the world and the unoficial backer of the currency so it's in their interest to fund radicals like greta to hamper fracking and carbon capture coal systems or even biofuel and nuclear

[Anonymous No.11093663]

>>11093535
>This doesn't answer my question. The RSS data clearly shows warming. Your link cherrypicked the data by starting near the large 1998 El Nino even though the data goes back to 1979. It also draws a fake flat trendline over the data. Pic related shows the actual trendline from 1996 to 2014. Your source is literally lying to you.
Can you provide the source to your graph? The graph in my source comes from the actual satellite website.
>Piers refuses to release any analysis of the accuracy of his predictions over the years, something every real meteorology company does.
Well he must be doing something right considering businesses are willing to pay him for his predictions.
>He also claimed to have wanted to make a $10000 bet that the average global surface temperature between 1998 and 2003 would be warmer than between 2012 and 2017, a bet he would have lost.
Is temperature data fiddled in any way to create warmer temperatures than were actually observed?

[Anonymous No.11093667]

>>11093607
Prove those graphs are not cherrypicked.

[Anonymous No.11093668]

>>11093645
...no.

We will not allow anyone to take fusion away from us. They've fucked up-coverage of fusion in the popular science press is almost totally rosy-shit, even fission is slowly starting to get better coverage from government-funded propaganda outlets as policymakers start to doubt the sensationalism. Fusion power counts some of the less overtly evil members of the elite as patrons-they've put up money on it and would fight to defend it.

I don't have any special secret knowledge about fusion, but we will most likely get to see my prediction tested much sooner than you might expect-there have been some very interesting tidbits of news out of one of the private fusion companies over the last year.

I expect a fight, but I think we will win.

[Anonymous No.11093669]

>>11093663
>The RSS data clearly shows warming.
after they "recalibrated" the satellite data

C O N V E N I E N T

[Anonymous No.11093685]

>>11093668
>they've fucked up-coverage of fusion in the popular science press is almost totally rosy-shit,

Right now they are still in the drumming up support phase.. just wait till ITER goes online but there are already high temperature superconductor devices that out compete the ITER/DEMO design. Do you think theyre just going to be cool with losing on that investment??? What if someone uses 3d printers to produce a tokamak for much much cheaper??? You think theyre just going to LET people make billions or trillions of dollars? They are going to ramp up the nuclear scare tactics about the tiny bit of radioactive waste fusion creates to literally THERMONUCLEAR LEVELS.

>very interesting tidbits of news out of one of the private fusion companies over the last year.

wasn't that about Bezo's fusion company that normally doesnt say fucking shit but then released something?

[Anonymous No.11093687]

>>11093669
>"recalibrated"
They're good at that.

[Anonymous No.11093691]

>>11093648
Measurement data showing a temperature warming trend isn't propaganda.

[Anonymous No.11093700]

>>11093691
Depends if it's fraudulent or not.

Regardless, do you believe that there is, or has been, any global warming propaganda?

[Anonymous No.11093714]

>>11093691
>>11093691
you don't think it's suspect that the fucking SAUDIS are the ones paying so much money to present that "data" to you???

and that data was only PROMOTED HEAVILY *after* they "recalibrated" the satellites

also why does the temperature data correlate to the solar cycle and solar flux data????

what happened during the medieval warming period????

how will making energy more expensive affect coastal residents that will inevitably have to relocate whether we stop emitting or not???

why are algae biofuels proposed to be taxed as if they were dino juice even though they are carbon neutral??

why dont we just use cheap fossil fuel energy to make a mad dash for fusion energy and then when it's too cheap to fucking meter we invest in carbon technology and clean it up??? use mother nature as a sort of energy credit card???

WHY ARE CLIMATE RADICALISTS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT SOLAR FLARES?!?!?!?!??!?! THEY ARE A MUCH MORE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER AND HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO KILL MILLIONS AND WE NARROWLY MISSED, BY 11 DAYS, A MASSIVE FUCKING SOLAR FLARE AS POWERFUL AS THE CARRINGTON EVENT IN FUCKING 2012!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_2012

YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF OCCASIONAL CORTEX OR GRETA RETARDBERG ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT PREVENTING HUMAN SUFFERING THEY WOULD FUCKING SUGGEST BUILDING SPESS BASED SOLAR SHADES THAT COULD PROTECCT US FROM SOLAR FLARES AS WELL?!

WHY IS CLIMATE MODIFICATION NEVER FUCKING DISCUSSED AND THEIR ONLY FUCKING SOLUTION IS TO GIVE THE FUCKING INTERNATIONAL BANKING PIRSON MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ELITE SOCIALIST CORPORATISM CRONY PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL SYNDICATE MORE FUCKING POWER THROUGH CARBON CAP AND TRADE (CARTEL?)

WHY ARE YOU NOT SUSPICIOUS OF A GROUP OF POWERFUL PEOPLE TELLING YOU THERE IS A CATASTROPHE AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN PREVENT IT IS TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY AND POWER?!?!

>hurr durr trump and the government is controlled by corporations so we should give them more money and power and all our guns!

[Anonymous No.11093724]

>>11093700
What do you mean by propaganda? There are disinformation campaigns on the part of fossil fuel companies and praxeological economic fetishists. Facts don't change based on framing or lies, only human perception of those facts do.

The modern instrumental temperature record unambiguously shows a rapid mean warming trend.

[Anonymous No.11093726]

why dont we just use cheap fossil fuel energy to make a mad dash for fusion energy and then when it's too cheap to fucking meter we invest in carbon ***CAPTURE*** technology and clean it up??? use mother nature as a sort of energy credit card???

https://youtu.be/ecxCL84n26g

[Anonymous No.11093733]

>>11093714
What's "Nova 2014"? The instrumental data has showed a warming trend all along, so I don't know what you're going on about with recalibrations of satellites. Weather station data alone is enough to establish the mean warming trend, no satellites required.
>solar flares/activity
Yes, climatologists forgot all about the fucking sun until denialist schizos like you reminded them.

[10 SECRETS THE ELITE GLOBAL EN(...) No.11093734]

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

>The cost of such a lens has been disputed. At a science fiction convention in 2004, Benford estimated that it would cost about US$10 billion up front, and another $10 billion in supportive cost during its lifespan.

EVEN IF THAT IS OFF BY A FACTOR OF TEN.. THAT IS STILL SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN IF THE COST OF ENERGY WAS INCREASED BY CARBON CAP N TRADE

[Anonymous No.11093735]

>>11093685
I'm referring to a company that picked up on work that was laid out in the 90s by Momota for a d-He3 FRC reactor, originally meant to be powered (somewhat amusingly) using he3 from the moon-https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/23/015/23015780.pdf

There''s a youtube video that shows some of the theoretical work that came after momota,and it's amazing how much of what they've adopted now reflects what was being considered then-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qewdt2XPyY

As romantic as the idea of fueling the earth with lunar helium is, that's a big no no-you'd need to harvest fucktons of lunar dirt and process it to get any decent amount of helium 3,and then ship that back here. That's not something that makes a lot of economic sense in the short of medium-long term. If we ever have people living on the moon, then go for it, but you're better off running a little deuterium rich and using that excess reaction to make more helium for your primary reaction-they call it recycling the helium but I think that's being a bit cute with terminology. The result is a low-neutron machine-even current gen neutron-resisting materials should last many years.

It's also pulsed operation-you shoot a couple of FRCs at each other at high speeds, they merge,then you crush the whole thing in a high-tesla magnetic field to generate a pulse of lovely low-neutron energy,which can be directly converted into electricity. No turbines, no massive doughnut full of superconductors trying desperately to hold a wiggly water balloon of pure plasma chaos in heck for days at a time.

The company is called Helion Energy. They completed a partnership with ARPA-E about a year ago, met and exceeded all their goals,and are now working on a full-sized demonstration reactor. after securing funding for it. i expect Q=1 results from them within a year or two, a pilot power plant in 5-8 years.

[10 SECRETS THE ELITE GLOBAL EN(...) No.11093749]

>>11093733
>What's "Nova 2014"? The instrumental data has showed a warming trend all along

it was FARRRRRRR less than fucking AL GORE (this is a euphemism) predicted and so they fudged the fucking data you fucking gullible child

Orwell's Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change:

https://youtu.be/tlnwhcO5NC0

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/07/new-satellite-data-still-shows-less-global-warming-than-climate-models/?utm_source=site-share

https://www.thegwpf.com/study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-recent-warming-in-climate-data-sets/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
> The new method finds a global-mean land diurnal cycle that peaks later in the afternoon, leading to improved agreement between measurements made by co-orbiting satellites. The changes result in global-scale warming [global trend (70°S–80°N, 1979–2016) = 0.174°C decade−1], ~30% larger than our previous version of the dataset

GEORGE ORWELL:
>HE WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE

[Anonymous No.11093783]

>>11093749
>muh Al Gore
Why do denialists care so much about Al Gore? He's been irrelevant for a while, even within the context of AGW political policy.
>fudged the data
Prove it with something other than a YouTube video or a denialist blog. None of your links establish that conclusion.
>https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
So, adjustments to raw data for things like the atmosphere having different constituent compositions at different altitudes is proof they "fudged the data"? Do you even understand what they're talking about in this paper, or do you just skip the paper, read only the abstract, and start jumping to conclusions about the reasoning?

[10 SECRETS THE ELITE GLOBAL EN(...) No.11093788]

>>11093733
>Yes, climatologists forgot all about the fucking sun until denialist schizos like you reminded them..

Robert Schoch is a climate scientist who presents the data as correlated and according to him the sun is in a period of increased activity and this has a positive effect on temperature, and it's plainly obvious from the data (no recalibration necessary.) Robert Schoch is legit scientist and his results speak for themselves although he got involved with some ancient archeology stuff that people use against him but that is ad hominem and doesn't detract from his hypothesis.

It shows how brainwashed you are that you think the only climate scientists are the ones that cooperate with the global energy cartel.

And you didn't answer why is it that climate ALARMISTS like occasional cortex and greta tardberg don't mention solar flares as a threat even though we narrowly missed an event unironically in 2012?????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_2012

It's true that there is new technology which can guard against damage to our power grid but plenty of power grids lack this technology and it should be more politically pressing to equip all the world's power grids with this tech rather than waste money on climate change first. When political groups have irrational priorities like that it points to ulterior motives! And the fact you wont even admit that is suspicious shows that you are irrational and unable to reasonably asses the threat of global warming.

[Anonymous No.11093810]

>>11093788
why is there no trend in TSI?

[10 SECRETS THE ELITE GLOBAL EN(...) No.11093844]

>>11093783
>Why do denialists care so much about Al Gore

HEY GRANDPA THERE IS THIS FUCKING THING CALLED A "MEME," MAYBE YOU SHOULD LURK MOAR HAHA

I even fucking put (this is a euphemism) in parenthesis. It's a fucking JOKE dude.. When i said Al Gore i was referring to the broader climate alarmist predictions.

>Prove it with something other than a YouTube video or a denialist blog. None of your links establish that conclusion.
I fucking did you nigger.. don't you fucking think it's fucking CONVENIENT that they found all these different ways of calculating the increase AFTER they found it was much less than they predicted? The fact you don't find this suspicious shows you are irrational and ill equipped to judge the threat of global warming.

And how fucking convenient that you just fucking call anyone who disagrees with you a fucking "denialist" and use ad hominem to discard their hypothesis. IRRATIONAL. HMM DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING BESIDES CLIMATE ALARMIST PROPAGANDA? SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

>Do you even understand what they're talking about in this paper, or do you just skip the paper, read only the abstract, and start jumping to conclusions about the reasoning?
I FUCKING WATCHED THE VIDEOS YOU FUCKING NIGGER WHERE THEY GO OVER IT AND THE PAPER IS PRETTY FUCKING SELF EVIDENT.. JAMES CORBETT IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED DOCUMENTARIANS ON THE INTERNET. YOU ARE TRYING SO FUCKING DESPERATELY FOR FUCKING AD HOMINEM NOW IT'S FUCKING PATHETIC HAHAHA.

IF YOU HAVE SO MUCH FUCKING TIME WHY DONT YOU GO THROUGH THE PAPER AND GIVE US A NICE FUCKING REPORT ANON! AND IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER.. THE FUCKING TRUTH IS THAT WE WILL NEVER FUCKING KNOW THE REAL TRUTH BECAUSE WE HAVNE'T SPENT OUR WHOLE FUCKING LIVES STUDYING IT AND THE DATA IS FUCKING OBFUSCATED THREE WAYS TO SUNDAY.. THE POINT IM MAKING IS THAT IT'S FUCKING *SUSPICIOUS* AND THE FACT YOU DON'T AGREE SHOWS HOW FUCKING IRRATIONAL YOU ARE!

[10 SECRETS THE ELITE GLOBAL EN(...) No.11093850]

>>11093810
>posting fake news
bro you gotta zoom out on your charts bro

[Anonymous No.11093854]

>>11093844
>>11093788
>>11093749
Excuse me, but could you please go and have a glass of water?

[Anonymous No.11093862]

>>11093724
>What do you mean by propaganda?
Pseudo-science and fear mongering being used to push public opinion a certain way that can then be capitalised on.

Is Greta Thunberg a disinformation campaign funded by energy companies? Or do you believe she's an organic phenomenon? If you research the people who surround her, what do you think the truth will be?
>The modern instrumental temperature record unambiguously shows a rapid mean warming trend.
So why doesn't the RSS satellite data show this?

[Anonymous No.11093863]

>>11093850
warming is only significant over the past 100 years or so, why would zooming out do anything?

[Anonymous No.11093873]

>>11093734
>At a science fiction convention in 2004
Stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.11093877]

>>11093735
Yeah there are like 2 or 3 companies working on that right?? Tri Alpha is the other one? I remember looking into helion though.. Weren't they pretty hush hush?

Aneutronic fusion looks promising for spaceflight and then we could harvest jupiter.

The FRC is basically a plasma gun that shoots two donuts of plasma at each other right?

Also what do you think about the Bezos, general fusion, that are using fucking pistons to generate a magnetic flux??

Linus tech tips (that nerd) did a vid about it:
https://youtu.be/gPpYQFtyO98

[Anonymous No.11093882]

>>11093862
>http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#Atmospheric-Temperature

>Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

>Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.18 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.32 degrees F per decade).
>Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
>The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

So RSS DOES show this

[Anonymous No.11093886]

>>11093788
Who is Robert Schoch? The only one I can find is a bad archaeologist that advocates for an unaccepted hypothesis about the Sphinx.
>>11093788
>solar flares
What's your point? Total solar irradiance does not account for the observed temperature change on Earth.
>>11093844
>I fucking did you nigger
No, you really didn't. Denialtard blogs and schizo youtube videos don't make a convincing argument.
>don't you fucking think it's fucking CONVENIENT that they found all these different ways of calculating the increase AFTER they found it was much less than they predicted?
Heavily implying a conclusion based on a misinterpretation of a paper you don't understand is a pretty lousy argument as well. They claim the recalculation shows the warming trend is 30% larger than previously reported from the old analysis of the same raw data. As in, the old analysis still showed a significant warming trend.

[Anonymous No.11093891]

>>11093877
GF have an interesting concept, but getting the liquid blanket driven compression system they want to go with working will not be easy-heck,just preventing it from contaminating the shots is going to be a challenge,since it's literally molten lead and lithium and it lets off fumes like a mad cunt. I wish them the best,but I think it's a loooong ways off from working. Would love to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.11093908]

>>11093854
could you go back to red.dit you fucking nigger faggot.. nice fucking try lololol

>>11093873
>Nothing that has ever been talked about at a science fiction convention has ever been brought to useful reality

>At a science fiction convention in 2004, Benford estimated that it would cost about US$10 billion up front, and another $10 billion in supportive cost during its lifespan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Benford
>Gregory Benford (born January 30, 1941) is an American science fiction author and astrophysicist who is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California, Irvine. He is a contributing editor of Reason magazine.
>Professor Emeritus at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California, Irvine.
>Professor Emeritus at the Department of Physics and Astronomy

also from sources of that article (if you could have been bothered:)

https://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full#sec-7
Biological Sciences

Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1) by Roger Angel

>For all 20 million launchings the capital cost would be ≈$600 billion and the electrical energy cost $150 billion

note this was written before spessx revolutionized the launch industry

moar:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/uoa-ssm110306.php

Space sunshade might be feasible in global warming emergency
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

>"The concept builds on existing technologies," Angel said. "It seems feasible that it could be developed and deployed in about 25 years at a cost of a few trillion dollars. With care, the solar shade should last about 50 years. So the average cost is about $100 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the global domestic product."

to put that into perspective the war in afghanistan cost 2.4 trillion and just created more terrorists (but maybe heroin cheaper which is unironically awesome)

[Anonymous No.11093924]

>>11091690
>Race isnt real

Alright, but nigs are still awful.

[Anonymous No.11093939]

>>11092404
>Everyone should be concerned with the upkeep and purity of their food and water supply.
Uhhhhh...

[Anonymous No.11093946]

>>11093580
god is a tranny

[Anonymous No.11093958]

>>11093863
cause the correlation is more evident that way

>>11093886
>only one I can find is a bad archaeologist

More scientism dogma from you, why am i not surprised??? You realize there are certain scientific communities that have an incentive to not challenge the status quo? You don't see how the egyptologists that are intimately connected to their tourism industry might have something like that? I'm not saying that I know the sphinx is older but it's a good hypothesis and the established archaeologists wont even debate him on it.

Shoch worked as a climatologist and geologist on finding *shocked* quartz from massive geomagnetic storms and he showed how ancient cave paintings that had similar symbols were describing massive plasma discharges in the sky pic related.

>What's your point? Total solar irradiance does not account for the observed temperature change on Earth.

Then why is correlated and the other point was that if politicians and retarded little girls are screeching about climate change becuase it's such a threat then they should also be going fucking nuts about solar flares as we had a real near miss in 2012. And also asteroids while theyre at it. Global Warming is like number 3 or 4 on the natural disaster list.

And whether or not humans create something doesn't change how fucked up it would be or how preventable it is. For example it might be easier to redirect an asteroid rather than changing our whole fucking economy because some little retarded bitch is fucking throwing a tantrum on tv.

>No, you really didn't. Denialtard blogs and schizo youtube videos don't make a convincing argument.

Ad hominem. Climate cartel "scientists" don't make a good argument. I linked the paper where they said they changed the fucking estimates. Changing your models to suit your prediction IS SUSPICIOUS.

>As in, the old analysis still showed a significant warming trend.
It was "only" 0.3 degrees a century as i showed >>11093844

[Anonymous No.11093965]

>>11093886
>misinterpretation of a paper

Admit you don't actually understand it either and it's impossible for either of us to evaluate their methods of collection. The point is that they changed the data in a way that supports the political narrative more and because you won't even admit that is suspicious that shows you are irrational.

[Anonymous No.11093977]

>>11093965
So you can provide no evidence that suggests the results aren't in fact more accurate post adjustment? So in other words you've completely fabricated an insane conspiracy theory with 0 evidence?

[Anonymous No.11093993]

>>11093958
>cause the correlation is more evident that way
so post the data which correlates TSI with current warming.

>Then why is correlated?
where is there a correlation between current warming and TSI? post it or I'll just assume you're lying.

> I linked the paper where they said they changed the fucking estimates. Changing your models to suit your prediction IS SUSPICIOUS.

where is your evidence which suggests measurements are less accurate post adjustment. No one cares what some retard thinks is "suspicious"

>It was "only" 0.3 degrees a century as i showed

NZ isn't global and that's not even troposphere temperature you clearly have no idea what you're even talking about.

[Anonymous No.11094020]

>>11093663
>Can you provide the source to your graph?
The source is in the image.

>The graph in my source comes from the actual satellite website.
It doesn't. RSS would not cherrypick its own data and put a fake trendline on it. The graph is from Christopher Monckton, another loon.

>Well he must be doing something right considering businesses are willing to pay him for his predictions.
So fortune tellers, astrologers, and tarot card readers must be doing something right too, since they get paid. Also, his business went public and tanked, he had to take it off the exchange.

>Is temperature data fiddled in any way to create warmer temperatures than were actually observed?
It's actually the opposite, pic related. Plus you already claimed satellite data shows cooling, now you'll immediately abandon it when it doesn't give the result you like? The only one fiddling with data is you.

[Anonymous No.11094028]

>>11093667
>prove a negative
>make my argument for me
You are free to explain how they are cherrypicked as I did for you. The first graph is exactly what you tried to pass off except it has a real trendline instead of a fake drawn one drawn on. So if you say it's cherrypicked you're just admitting your own graph is.

[Anonymous No.11094037]

>>11093669
>The satellite data is correct and shows cooling
>>No it doesn't
>The satellite data is wrong

[Anonymous No.11094058]

>>11094037
>>11093977

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(...) No.11094080]

>>11093977
>So you can provide no evidence that suggests the results aren't in fact more accurate post adjustment?
You can't provide evidence that they are more accurate except "mommy the man on the tv says so," ie muh consensus.
>So in other words you've completely fabricated an insane conspiracy theory with 0 evidence?
There are plenty of other examples of this scientific "community" lying and being less than truthful in the past so it's only rational to be suspicious when they change their data to better fit their narrative.
Nice try though dude.

>>11093993
> current warming.
You cant just cherry pick 10-50 years of a massive fucking trend and say that it's reversing. You are like one of those day traders that when there is a giant macro trend you try to fade it because some whale dumped his shit on that particular day.
Read this paper and weep you dumb fucking faggot:
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Evid_Based_Climate_Sci/2016_Ev_Based_Climate_Sci_Chap14_Cause_of_Global_Climate_Chg_dje.pdf
>Cause of Global Climate Changes: Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays etc etc
>Global cooling coincided with changes in sunspot activity, TSI, solar flux, cosmic ray incidence, and rates of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere during the Oort, Wolf, Maunder, Dalton, 1880e1915, and 1945e1977 Solar Minimums. Increased 14C and 10Be production during times of increased cosmic radiation serve as a proxy for solar activity.
>Ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays causes increased cloudiness that reflects incoming sunlight and cools the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth, creating more cloudiness and cooling the atmosphere.
>This mechanism accounts for the global synchronicity of climate changes, abrupt climate reversals, and climate changes on all time scales.

[Anonymous No.11094096]

The virgin climate change versus the chad Graph

[Anonymous No.11094107]

>>11094096
The fuck is this graph?
is it predicting the fucking apocalypse?

[Anonymous No.11094112]

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

virgin climate alarmtards can't explain this

[Anonymous No.11094113]

>>11094080
>You can't provide evidence that they are more accurate except "mommy the man on the tv says so," ie muh consensus.
I can: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>There are plenty of other examples of this scientific "community" lying and being less than truthful in the past
Like what?

>You cant just cherry pick 10-50 years of a massive fucking trend and say that it's reversing.
So if temperature and TSI don't correlate for 50 years, how can you say that the temperature in the next 50 years will cool with the sun? What is causing this lack of correlation?

Easterbrook said in 2008 that the climate has been cooling since 1998 and will continue to cool until 2035. He based this on solar activity. But he was wrong. It's funny that deniers constantly mistake the greenhouse effect for a correlation instead of a causation, but then make their own predictions purely based on correlation and fail. Solar activity is completely dwarfed by CO2 emissions.

[Anonymous No.11094115]

>>11094080
Your own graph is a perfect illustration of why TSI change can't account for current climate change thanks,

>You can't provide evidence that they are more accurate except "mommy the man on the tv says so," ie muh consensus.
The peer reviewed published work provides it's own evidence, just because you can't understand it doesn't make it invalid, and it's actual evidence unlike "it sounds fishy"

>You cant just cherry pick 10-50 years of a massive fucking trend and say that it's reversing

there is no massive trend, current warming has only been occurring after the industrial revolution, that's the period we're interested in, and TSI cannot explain current warming as TSI has been decreasing while the earth has been warming. No ones claiming increased TSI doesn't increase temperature, that would be stupid but it can't be the cause of current warming.

>There are plenty of other examples of this scientific "community" lying and being less than truthful in the past so it's only rational to be suspicious when they change their data to better fit their narrative.
Nice try though dude.

what examples, you still have 0 evidence, and can only provide "DUDE IT SOUNDS FISHY!!!"

[Anonymous No.11094116]

>>11094107
looks like it won't be for another 20 years anyways, either way it must suck to live in a country that isn't going to flourish while everywhere else is suffering.

[Anonymous No.11094118]

>>11094112
Your own link explains it,
>The 2013 annual report stated that "While the rate at which surface air temperatures are rising has slowed in recent years, heat continues to be trapped in the Earth system, mostly as increased ocean heat content. About 93 percent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system between 1971 and 2010 was taken up by the ocean." From 2000 to 2013 the oceans had gained around three times as much heat as in the preceding 20 years, and while before 2000 most of the heat had been trapped between the sea surface and 700 metres' (0.43 mi) depth, from 2000 to 2013 most heat had been stored between 700 and 2,000 metres' (2,300 and 6,600 ft) depth. It proposed this could be due to changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation around the tropical Pacific Ocean, interacting with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.[95]

there is no global pause in warming, only cherrypicked data shows a pause.

[Anonymous No.11094120]

>>11094112
>can't explain this
>literally explained in the article linked

[Anonymous No.11094126]

>>11094116
if the midwest's food production collapses we're coming for your farmland.

[Anonymous No.11094145]

>>11094126
good luck, i'm creating solar powered drones with machine guns hooked up to gimbals all automated to shoot anyone trying to cross the border with the use of a neural net.

[Anonymous No.11094191]

>>11094145
>your dinky solar drone will do anything against the full force of the largest most technologically advanced military in the history of the human race

yeah good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.11094192]

>>11093882
Pic related is using land and sea temperatures, not troposphere by itself. Funny how you ignore that the troposphere isn't warming as fast as the models predict either. The lower stratosphere is also cooling.

[Anonymous No.11094204]

>>11094113
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
>blah blah blah station keeping atmosphere blah blah blah

neither of us are qualified to actually determine whether they were being truthful or not.. im not an expert, are you?

pic related

>Like what?
Firstly, Google's massive bias that's apparent whenever you try to research these things.

Secondly, the "muh 97%" which only asked people if they think climate change is real and not whether they thought it was dangerous. That was obviously misrepresented and wrongly quoted over and over.

Thirdly, the exaggeration about negative economic/social effects. There was a fucking paper blaming the migrant crisis on global warming (of course,) nevermind the war on terror or neoliberal elite's admitted plan of replacing voters, and then articles blaming GW for brexit that followed the first one:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-15/brexit-was-triggered-by-climate-driven-collapse-in-the-middle-east/

Fourthly, they never fucking mention any other fucking solutions to the "problem" besides giving the socialist crony corporatist military prison industrial complex MORE MONEY AND POWER... The fucking green new deal said people who didn't want to work should get healthcare and an allowance and the greta retardberg affiliated manifesto talked about ending the unsustainable growth of capitalism. This proves beyond reasonable doubt there is a fucking ulterior motive and im actually convinced you are fucking just trolling me because it's plain as fucking day.

>What is causing this lack of correlation?

Within the statistical variance i guess or there is cycles of reverse correlation. Just fucking look at the whole graph. The trend is for both of them to be going up.

>Easterbrook

One fucking guy bro.. im not saying the earth is cooling and never have.. nice fucking STRAWMAN THOUGH. The change in correlation should be answered by you as well!

[Anonymous No.11094231]

>>11094113
i forgot this pic but it applies to https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

fucking explain it then smarty pants and dont just parrot what the voice on the tv told you

Here is an analogy:
https://youtu.be/tsvud_CTRuk

Before he was elected Donald Trump was suupppppperrrrrr critical of the fed's policy of quantitative easing and he kept shitting on Obama for printing money and he said the whole stock market and economy was a massive bubble. Then he got into the office of president and then decided NOT to turn off the printing press and instead keep the policy more or less the same and when the fed was going to hike rates Trump got super bitchy and complained and then the fed did way less rate hiking and now they are saying they might cut rates.

Meanwhile Trump is fucking proclaiming the economy is stronger than ever and he's to thank for it. It's true there was some positive sentiment about avoiding a socialist presidency the fact is that his administration continued the policy of keynesian money printing which is continuing to inflate the bubble.

SOOOOOOO As Trump has changed his analysis of the situation to better fit the narrative that he is a great economic leader, don't you think that a reasonable person would find that SUSPICIOUS?!?!?!

If you defend the RSS whatever satellite data reanalysis THEN YOU ARE ALSO DEFENDING TRUMP!?!??!?!?!??! HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11094249]

>>11094192
>Pic related is using land and sea temperatures, not troposphere by itself.
The troposphere includes the surface. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>Funny how you ignore that the troposphere isn't warming as fast as the models predict either.
Funny how you keep posting a fake cherrypicked graph. See >>11093535

>The lower stratosphere is also cooling.
Which is what was predicted from increasing greenhouse gases. See https://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5803/1253.full

[Anonymous No.11094250]

>>11094115
>Your own graph is a perfect illustration of why TSI change can't account for current climate change thanks,

It was in an uptrend until very recently.. including the start of the industrial revolution up until 1985??? You should also answer why it changed correlation! This is probably wrong but could it be that the atmosphere has trapped a lot of the heat energy from when the sun was getting hotter and the sun just randomly is getting colder?

I agree that human emissions probably have a heating effect on the environment but looking at the data there seems to be much more to the story and again IT'S SUSPECT THAT YOU GUYS AND ALL THE DUMB ARTICLES ABOUT GW FAIL TO ADDRESS THE NUANCES OF THE DATA SUCH AS SOLAR CORRELATION.

>there is no massive trend, current warming has only been occurring after the industrial revolution

I'm talking about the correlation with the solar TSI.. also what caused the medieval warming period? And the trend started at approximately 1800 which is BEFORE SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS!!! It's obvious when you zoom out that our planet was about to enter a warming cycle anyway.. along with the sun!

>TSI has been decreasing while the earth has been warming
Literally 35 years.. that is nothing. That is like flipping out about 5 minute candles when you are trading trends on the daily!

>but it can't be the cause of current warming.
It would also be stupid to ASSUME emissions are the only cause of global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> "DUDE IT SOUNDS FISHY!!!"

It objectively DOES sound fishy and they are only proposing one solution which is GIVING THEM MORE MONEY AND POWER... Come on dude. Tell me why that doesnt sound fishy then???

[Anonymous No.11094252]

>>11094231
>>11094231
>During the period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN networks, we can confidently conclude that the adjustments to the USHCN station records made them more similar to proximate homogenous USCRN station records, both in terms of trends and anomalies. There are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations. This residual maximum temperature bias warrants additional research to determine the exact cause.

in summary adjustments improve accuracy of temperature measurements, though in some cases still underestimate (not overestimate) temperature trends

the rest of your post is more schizo rambling not even worth acknowledging

[Anonymous No.11094266]

>>11093583
you look different from your dad. does that make you a different species?

[Anonymous No.11094272]

>>11094252
> though in some cases still underestimate (not overestimate) temperature trends

literally "the man on tv said so"

>schizo rambling not even worth acknowledging

SORRY IT'S CALLED A FUCKING LOGICAL METAPHOR YOU FUCKFACE... YOURE TOO FUCKING SCARED TO FUCKING ANSWER IT HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

2014: TRUMP SAYS THE ECONOMY IS BAD BECAUSE OBAMA IS MONEY PRINTING
2018: TRUMP SAYS THE ECONOMY IS GOOD BECAUSE OF HIS OWN AWESOMENESS AND MAINTAINS MONEY PRINTING POLICY

2010: USHCN SAYS THE CLIMATE ONLY GOT A LITTLE BIT HOTTER, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT
2018: USHCN SAYS IT WAS WRONG AND IT'S ACTUALLY WAY HOTTER AND THE WORLD WILL END IF WE DONT GIVE THEM MORE MONIES!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11094275]

>>11093396
no need for government to publish my dude, if you can’t deliver anything besides youtube videos for your ground breaking research gtfo

[Anonymous No.11094282]

>>11094266
me and my dad look similar enough, and live simiarly
lions and tigers look different and act different

[Anonymous No.11094286]

>>11094282
>>11094266
I just want to be clear that I am incredibly curious and receptive to this idea

[Anonymous No.11094287]

>>11094272
All the data is cited in the publication, what more can you ask for?

[Anonymous No.11094290]

>>11094204
>neither of us are qualified to actually determine whether they were being truthful or not.. im not an expert, are you?
If it's untruthful explain why or get a source explaining why. That is how scientific debate works.

>pic related
What of it?

>Firstly, Google's massive bias that's apparent whenever you try to research these things.
What does Google have to do with the scientific community? And what's the bias?

>Secondly, the "muh 97%" which only asked people if they think climate change is real and not whether they thought it was dangerous.
How is this dishonest?

>Thirdly, the exaggeration about negative economic/social effects.
Where is the paper wrong?

>Fourthly, they never fucking mention any other fucking solutions to the "problem" besides giving the socialist crony corporatist military prison industrial complex MORE MONEY AND POWER
Just because you don't like the solution doesn't mean it's dishonest. Also, governments already have the power to tax.

>Within the statistical variance i guess or there is cycles of reverse correlation. Just fucking look at the whole graph.
So when is the temperature going to start dropping? It won't, because you're just blindly following a correlation without any qualitative reasoning and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The increase in TSI cannot account for the warming observed.

>One fucking guy bro
The guy you linked to. Do you even read your own links or are you just spamming them off some blog? If the Sun was as important as you think it is you would be able to predict temperatures. You can't, climatologists can.

[Anonymous No.11094291]

>>11094287
something that doesn't require a PHD to understand and if they are going to change the data like that it would be less suspicious if they admitted how suspicious it sounded but instead rachel maddow and gret tardberg are shaming me for my testicles

[Anonymous No.11094292]

>>11092375
>Species don’t exist either.
Okay this is epic

[Anonymous No.11094299]

>>11094231
>fucking explain it then smarty pants and dont just parrot what the voice on the tv told you
If you can't handle scientific research being cited then get off the science board. I don't have to demonstrate my understanding to you. If you need a more layman friendly explanation then try https://www.judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>If you defend the RSS whatever satellite data reanalysis THEN YOU ARE ALSO DEFENDING TRUMP!?!??!?!?!??!
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.11094304]

>>11094290
>That is how scientific debate works.
we're two niggers wasting our lives on an anime imageboard.. it's not reasonable or appropriate for us to go over their methodology here.. instead what is practical is pointing out hwo fucking suspicious it is and how suspicious it is that you wont admit how suspicious it is!!!!!

>What does Google have to do with the scientific community?
You think that the scientific community is IMMUNE from google's influence?!?!??!?!?

>How is this dishonest?
because the 97 percent was for the mildest form of support and wasnt illustrated that way online or on tv.. for example i would belong to the 97 percent because i agree that emissions are having a warming effect but im skeptical in a lot of other ways

>Where is the paper wrong?

because they ignored the fucking giant fucking war and the fucking globalist agenda to replace the voting base and instead CONVENIENTLY made it about global warming... OPTICS

>Just because you don't like the solution doesn't mean it's dishonest

Bull fucking shit. That fucking shows an ULTERIOR MOTIVE. There are many solutions to this problem if it true. The fact you don't see other solutions shows you are unreasonable or brainwashed or have an ulterior motive. Governments are illegally taxing the citizens of western governments as income taxes were meant to be only used during wartime and we have been put into a perpetual state of warfare. You don't even fucking know about ww1 and how it relates to centralized banking do you???? And that's a fucking SHIT EXCUSE to give them more power when they already have too much.

>So when is the temperature going to start dropping?

Now youre just playing dumb motherfucker. Maybe the sun will start getting hotter before then??? Maybe there are MULTIPLE FACTORS MAKING THE WORLD HOTTER AND MAYBE THE WORLD NEVER GETS COOLER IN THIS TIMELINE??? THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT LEADING UP TO THIS POINT THE SUN WASN'T PLAYING A MAJOR ROLE AND SHOULD BE IGNORED!

[Anonymous No.11094305]

>>11091384
We know climate change is real because anything and everything is due to climate change. The media says so. If it's too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. Too constant? Climate change. The proof is just fucking everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11094308]

>>11094291
>something that doesn't require a PHD to understand
sounds like a you problem, not everything is simple enough that any highschool dropout can grasp without even entry level knowledge of the subject.

[Anonymous No.11094309]

>>11094305
I feel like there's a strong correlation between climate change and retarded posts on image boards. I think this warrants further study.

[Anonymous No.11094316]

>>11094290
>because you're just blindly following a correlation without any qualitative reasoning and ignoring all evidence to the contrary

NO THAT IS YOU IGNORING HOW THE FUCKING PEOPLE BRAINWASHING YOU HAVE ULTERIOR FUCKING MOTIVATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

>the increase in TSI cannot account for the warming observed

it can be part of it... and that means that CONTINUED EMISSIONS WONT HAVE AS BIG OF AN EFFECT AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT

>The guy you linked to.

IT DOESNT CHANGE THE FACT HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE INITITAL CORRELATION.

>If the Sun was as important as you think it is you would be able to predict temperatures.

Your discounting over a hundred years of correlation because ONE GUY fucked up his prediction and willing to cuck yourself and pay more for energy??? That is the definition of egotistical HUBRIS.

>climatologists can

After the adjust their data and formulas when the initial data didn't fit their prediction
:^)

[Anonymous No.11094322]

>>11094316
I'm confused, are you claiming anyone thinks TSI doesn't effect temperature?

[Anonymous No.11094326]

>>11094250
>It was in an uptrend until very recently.. including the start of the industrial revolution up until 1985???
So?

>You should also answer why it changed correlation
Because solar activity stopped going up.

>IT'S SUSPECT THAT YOU GUYS AND ALL THE DUMB ARTICLES ABOUT GW FAIL TO ADDRESS THE NUANCES OF THE DATA SUCH AS SOLAR CORRELATION.
It's already been addressed. Your lack of awareness is not equivalent to climatologists ignoring something.
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

>also what caused the medieval warming period?
Minuscule compared to current warming.

>It's obvious when you zoom out that our planet was about to enter a warming cycle anyway.. along with the sun!
If you want to zoom out look at the glacial-interglacial cycle. We should be slowly cooling right now, instead we are warming an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming.

>Literally 35 years.. that is nothing. That is like flipping out about 5 minute candles when you are trading trends on the daily!
Then how is it useful for predicting temperature on a human scale? It's not. Literally all you have is a correlation on the wrong timescale with a disproved causation.

>It would also be stupid to ASSUME emissions are the only cause of global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not assumed.

[Anonymous No.11094329]

>>11094299
>I don't have to demonstrate my understanding to you
Because you have none and are just doing what the voice on the tv tells you to do. Also we are on an anime imageboard.

>https://www.judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
you are literally just convincing yourself that it makes sense retrospectively.. the truth is you have no fucking idea whether or not they are being truthful and the fact you believe them without being skeptical PROVES YOU ARE NOT RATIONAL

you would be one of those people that believed the world was flat when everyone else believed it because you are like a jellyfish and you just go along with the rest of the SHEEP

>Take your meds.
Being snarky doesn't change the fact that the climate alarmists are using the EXACT same propaganda techniques that Trump is using.

[Anonymous No.11094339]

>>11094329
I love the meltdown phase of these climate threads, you can tell deep down he knows he has no idea what's going on but can't accept that he could be wrong and that someone has lied to him. Instead he's going to keep melting down into more more insane rants. It's truly entertaining.

[Anonymous No.11094348]

>>11094308
>sounds like a you problem, not everything is simple enough that any highschool dropout can grasp without even entry level knowledge of the subject.

Dude i can read the articles and go full fucking dunning kruger as well bro. But the thiing is that I am like socrates and plato and I am humble enough to understand the limits of my own judgement and experience. How much experience do you have calibrating the instruments of weather satellites anon??? How can you actually make an educated judgement on whether they are being truthful or deceitful???

Deep down you know you can't. And the more that you try to outwardly deny this the worse you actually sound. Stop digging anon.. it was bad enough when you went full retard and initially defended them changing their models but now you are actually trying to say you can accurately be the judge of something as complicated as the calibration of weather monitoring satellites???? COME ON.. stop digging before you reach rock bottom anon :^)

It will only get worse for you from here..

>>11094339
haha exactly

[Anonymous No.11094352]

>>11094339
>>11094348
like clockwork my favorite bit is the complete lack of self awareness

[Anonymous No.11094355]

>>11094348
So to summarize, your entire argument is that you can't understand it therefore it must be a global conspiracy to sell solar panels?

[Anonymous No.11094361]

>>11094304
>we're two niggers wasting our lives on an anime imageboard.. it's not reasonable or appropriate for us to go over their methodology here.
It is if you want to have a scientific debate. Otherwise fuck off.

>what is practical is pointing out hwo fucking suspicious it is and how suspicious it is that you wont admit how suspicious it is!!!!!
It's suspicious because you can't handle the results, that's it. You cite a source, get told it doesn't say what you think it says, and then immediately turn on the source. There is no reasoning behind your position, you will just say anything to get to the conclusion you want. You don't belong here.

>You think that the scientific community is IMMUNE from google's influence?!?!??!?!?
I think you're desperately grasping at straws that don't exist.

>because the 97 percent was for the mildest form of support and wasnt illustrated that way online or on tv.. for example i would belong to the 97 percent because i agree that emissions are having a warming effect but im skeptical in a lot of other ways
No, the 97% is published research and experts in climatology agreeing that humans are the main cause. You're just making shit up.

>because they ignored the fucking giant fucking war
Considering you refuse to read the papers I cite I doubt you have any clue what was taken into account and what was ignored.

>That fucking shows an ULTERIOR MOTIVE.
Speculating about motives is what every conspiracist does since they never have any actual evidence.

>The fact you don't see other solutions
Where did I say there aren't other solutions?

>Now youre just playing dumb motherfucker. Maybe the sun will start getting hotter before then???
So what will happen if the sun reaches a grand minima? If the correlation is so strong it should be very easy to say what would happen from any change in TSI. But every solar-based theory has failed. Meanwhile climatologists are predicting the temperature accurately.

[Anonymous No.11094362]

>Climate Change denial on a Science board
This is why nobody takes us seriously.
You can't depute something like this, 97% of publishing scientists on this topic all agree that humans are causing climate change. Who are you to disagree and why should anyone believe a you.

GTFO,brainlet.
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/
>>>/f/aggot

source: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

[Anonymous No.11094366]

>>11094305
"Climate change" in the context of the scientific consensus refers to anthropogenic global warming in the modern era, or AGW. Who really cares what the media says when it comes to empirical facts?

[Anonymous No.11094367]

>>11094322
>I'm confused, are you claiming anyone thinks TSI doesn't effect temperature?

It sounds like that sometimes.. i guess the point is that the world would be getting hotter whether or not humans emitted carbon and therefore not worth changing our entire economy

>>11094326
>So?
So there are more variables than carbon emissions and it's not reasonable to change our entire economy when the world would just get hotter anyway. Additionally we are on the verge of having fusion power so we can capture carbon or use geoengineering if we have to but that's a separate point.

>Because solar activity stopped going up.
And the only reason that the temp is going up still is emissions? There could be more to it though like wavelengths and absorption rates of different wavelengths. THere are soo many variables and it's dishonest to be so blunt.

>It's already been addressed. Your lack of awareness is not equivalent to climatologists ignoring something.

I was referring to the general media narrative and how they don't present the whole picture online and instead they try to cut it up to make the most effective propaganda, which again is suspect.

>Minuscule compared to current warming.
50 percent isnt miniscule

>We should be slowly cooling right now,
there is still room for us to be peaking

>Then how is it useful for predicting temperature on a human scale?
because the trend was already going up and it calls into question what little effect stopping emissions would even have

>>11094352
i know right, haha ebin

[Anonymous No.11094379]

>>11094316
>NO THAT IS YOU IGNORING HOW THE FUCKING PEOPLE BRAINWASHING YOU HAVE ULTERIOR FUCKING MOTIVATIONS
Yet you can't even provide evidence they're wrong. Pathetic.

>it can be part of it... and that means that CONTINUED EMISSIONS WONT HAVE AS BIG OF AN EFFECT AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
Climatologists have already taken solar forcing and other factors into account. Again, your lack of awareness has nothing to do with the science.

>IT DOESNT CHANGE THE FACT HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE INITITAL CORRELATION.
Who cares? Did anyone even argue against the initial correlation? Time to move on to what actually matters: causation.

>Your discounting over a hundred years of correlation because ONE GUY fucked up his prediction and willing to cuck yourself and pay more for energy???
No, I'm discounting it because thousands of scientists have already shown causation. You and your shitty denier sources are way way way behind.

>After the adjust their data and formulas when the initial data didn't fit their prediction
The adjustments to data are justified and well studied. You need to deny the data so you claim a conspiracy. Provide evidence or leave.

[Anonymous No.11094386]

>>11094367
>And the only reason that the temp is going up still is emissions? There could be more to it though like wavelengths and absorption rates of different wavelengths. THere are soo many variables and it's dishonest to be so blunt.
Absorption rates of different wavelengths is principally determined by atmospheric constituents. We can measure the incident solar radiation spectrum above the atmosphere, and changes in TSI over frequency are not the cause of the surface warming.

[Anonymous No.11094389]

>>11094249
>The troposphere includes the surface. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
It doesn't include ocean temperatures.
>Funny how you keep posting a fake cherrypicked graph
Where's the warming in pic related?
>Which is what was predicted from increasing greenhouse gases
Oh I see - is there anything CO2 can't do?

[Anonymous No.11094396]

>>11094329
>Because you have none and are just doing what the voice on the tv tells you to do.
Projection.

>you are literally just convincing yourself that it makes sense retrospectively.. the truth is you have no fucking idea whether or not they are being truthful and the fact you believe them without being skeptical PROVES YOU ARE NOT RATIONAL
Hmmm who is skeptical, the guy who cites sources and provides evidence, or the guy who relies on conspiracy theories with no evidence?

>you would be one of those people that believed the world was flat when everyone else believed it because you are like a jellyfish and you just go along with the rest of the SHEEP
Please tell me then how you know the Earth is round? It's because all scientific evidence shows it is, and that's what you're taught. Meanwhile flat earthers need to make up conspiracy theories to deny the evidence. Sound familiar?

>Being snarky doesn't change the fact that the climate alarmists are using the EXACT same propaganda techniques that Trump is using.
I'm sure that makes sense in your delusion-addled mind.

[Anonymous No.11094407]

>>11094355
>So to summarize, your entire argument is that you can't understand it therefore it must be a global conspiracy to sell solar panels?

nice fucking circular logic dude.. you can do better than this lol.. my point was obviously that looking at motivation and your lack of awareness with regards to it is more relevant than something extremely complicated we have very little experience or expertise with

>>11094361
>scientific debate.

the fact you think that's possible or a good use of time here shows how unaware and delusional you are

>It's suspicious because you can't handle the results, that's it

No it's suspicious because you believe these results DOGMATICALLY without having any real expertise or experience to draw from in understanding them yourself. And you believe the greater scientific community solely based on your own bias.


>You cite a source, get told it doesn't say what you think it says

nah actually i cited the part where he said there *was* a correlation and i said nothing about the prediction so youre the one grasping for straws.. i never said the sun is the sole cause of global warming only that it's not mentioned in the propaganda which is telling

>You don't belong here.

And like a typical libtard you resort to personal attacks. Maybe you should stay on echo chambers like red.dit?

>I think you're desperately grasping at straws that don't exist.

You're either trolling or sick in the head to deny that google could have influence over scientific communities. And you are literally sooo desperate to grasp at straws that you keep arguing about fucking pointless bullshit that doesn't fucking matter in the end.

>No, the 97% is published research and experts in climatology agreeing that humans are the main cause. You're just making shit up.

[Anonymous No.11094412]

>>11094407
>the fact you think that's possible or a good use of time here shows how unaware and delusional you are
but you'll post for hours on end about how the libtard alarmist scientists are fixing the data through bogus systematic corrections

[Anonymous No.11094421]

>>11094366
The "scientific consensus" is a meme created by hacks and repeated ad nauseum. And the "consensus" is just that humans have some effect on climate. Not supportive of draconian taxes and upheavals that the alarmists promote. Pic related. A fucking political cartoonist whose work is most cited to support "consensus". He did finally get a degree ...in psychology. After being mocked for promoting global warming and running a shitty website called "SkepticalScience" while not being skeptical and not being a scientist.

[Anonymous No.11094423]

>>11094389
pic

[Anonymous No.11094424]

>>11094367
>So there are more variables than carbon emissions
Who are you arguing against?

>it's not reasonable to change our entire economy when the world would just get hotter anyway.
This is stupid for several reasons. The severity of warming determines the damage, not just any warming results in the same thing. And you don't know the world would get hotter without our emissions, because there are cooling mechanisms as well that can outdo solar forcing. And TSI is going down.

>And the only reason that the temp is going up still is emissions?
Without emissions of GHGs we would be cooling.

>There could be more to it though like wavelengths and absorption rates of different wavelengths. THere are soo many variables and it's dishonest to be so blunt.
So many variables that it's almost like you need scientists to figure it out. Wow.

>I was referring to the general media narrative and how they don't present the whole picture online and instead they try to cut it up to make the most effective propaganda, which again is suspect.
I don't see why a simplified view for laymen only discussing the most significant factors is bad or dishonest. You need it to be for your conspiracy to work.

>50 percent isnt miniscule
50% of what? Temperature change? Over 300 years vs. 100?

>there is still room for us to be peaking
Only if you ignore every other factor and make up physics.

>because the trend was already going up and it calls into question what little effect stopping emissions would even have
No it doesn't. Catch up.

[Anonymous No.11094429]

>>11094191
thanks, still working out how to incorporate the D-Wave into my design

[Anonymous No.11094432]

>>11094367
>So there are more variables than carbon emissions
Yeah but those variables haven't changed much or have changed in the opposite direction like solar intensity.

[Anonymous No.11094437]

>>11094421
The consensus is that surface warming is happening currently and that human activity is the principal cause of that warming. That consensus represents a strong majority of working climatologists.
>that guy that runs skepticalscience did a
not an argument

[Anonymous No.11094440]

>>11094361
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
>Recall that Bedford and Cook lumped together those who believe that humans are the main cause with those who believe that humans are *a* cause.

Someone like me would be in that 97%.. but keep worshipping your holy cow, ****************************CONSENSUS****************************** (praise be allah)

>Speculating about motives is what every conspiracist does since they never have any actual evidence.

Oh yeah another fucking libtard fucking tactic. Keep it up bro. Speculating about motivation is the most fucking relevant fucking thing we can do right now otherwise we would be just fucking going back and forth over our own stupid fucking dunning kruger interpretation of something we're not experienced in.At best youre a fucking undergrad or some shit. Who fucking cares.. you would believe that fuckign paper any way it was written and the part you quoted was the author proclaiming he under exaggerated... CONVENIENT.

You don't want to give it up because you are so fucking DESPERATE not to address anything else I've said. And because of your own arrogance you don't see how weak your position looks to a reasonable person.

********THE NEXT PART IS IMPORTANT SO DONT SKIP IT**********

Anyway the specific argument that i was making wasn't even that they the are the suspicious one but that fact that you are not skeptical of them. Do you fucking understand it??? It's not reasonable to believe this type of shit at face value. And there are only a very fucking small number of people who could actually make an educated judgement about their methodology.

And yes i've repeated myself. Good job trolling me. But hey do me a fuckin favor and come up with something more interesting than calling me a fucking conspiracy theorist as if that should end the argument right there. That is a fucking logically fallacious fucking libtard fucking move and you can do better.

[Anonymous No.11094446]

>>11094440
>The Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) is dedicated to advancing the study of economics, markets, and liberty.
Wow, sick source my dude.

[Anonymous No.11094447]

>>11094389
>It doesn't include ocean temperatures.
Ocean surface? Yes.

>Where's the warming in pic related?
Even more cherrypicked, wow. Is your mommy going to put that up on the fridge?

>Oh I see - is there anything CO2 can't do?
Is there any evidence you won't deny?

[Anonymous No.11094454]

>>11094396
>Projection.
>being skeptical of a political narrative with a clear ulterior motive for power

pic 1 fgt

>or the guy who relies on conspiracy theories with no evidence?

See this >>11094440
>Anyway the specific argument that i was making wasn't even that they the are the suspicious one but that fact that you are not skeptical of them. Do you fucking understand it??? It's not reasonable to believe this type of shit at face value. And there are only a very fucking small number of people who could actually make an educated judgement about their methodology.

>Please tell me then how you know the Earth is round?
gravity and how it fits into the rest of explanation of nature, for example emergent gravity has consistent logic that fits into quantum information theory and the holographic principle.. so it makes sense things would form balls; literally the opposite of believing in the church of climate alarmism

Flat earthers would have a point if there wasn't other testable aspects of nature and if they didn't make logical sense. People like you that believe scientific consensus on face value actually provide flat earthers with encouragement.

[Anonymous No.11094461]

>>11094396
>I'm sure that makes sense in your delusion-addled mind.

Why can't you say why instead of just resorting to personal attacks??? Maybe my metaphor wasn't perfect but at least just say fucking why. It's far less complicated than explaining why or why not satellite calibration is legitimate or not. :^)

[Anonymous No.11094491]

>>11094407
>the fact you think that's possible or a good use of time here shows how unaware and delusional you are
Oh I know it's impossible with a denier like you. But pointing out your lack of ability to provide evidence and respond to it is very important.

>No it's suspicious because you believe these results DOGMATICALLY
The only way for you to determine if I believe in them DOGMATICALLY is for you to provide a solid argument against them and see if I reject it. But you refuse to, because you DOGMATICALLY reject it without any thought.

>nah actually i cited the part where he said there *was* a correlation
Correlation is irrelevant. Correlation only matters as a signal of causation. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You constantly bring up correlation as if it counters AGW but when this is refuted you fall back and say "I was just taking about correlation." This is the same as not presenting an argument at all.

>i never said the sun is the sole cause of global warming only that it's not mentioned in the propaganda which is telling
What is it telling?

>And like a typical libtard you resort to personal attacks.
That's rich.

>You're either trolling or sick in the head to deny that google could have influence over scientific communities.
This is textbook conspiracytard logic. First you claimed scientists are dishonest, then you justified this by saying Google is biased. Failing to provide evidence for either you screech "how dare you deny that it could be possible???" Classic.

[Anonymous No.11094505]

>>11093070
Climate modelling is bullshit, might as well be using a Ouija board

[Anonymous No.11094507]

>>11093086
Sure, but to what extent do we know that co2 is warming compared to natural variabilities that are poorly understood, like clouds?

[Anonymous No.11094508]

>>11094379
>yet you can't even provide evidence they're wrong. Pathetic.
you cant prove them right either.. pathetic (saying because they said so doesn't count)

>Again, your lack of awareness has nothing to do with the science.
then why don't they present it that way in their propaganda? And the point wasn't that solar warming is the only variable but rather there was already a warming trend and whether we stopped emissions or not the temperature would be increasing regardless.

>No, I'm discounting it because thousands of scientists have already shown causation.
>mommy the man on tv said so
What caused the medieval warming period? Also I never doubted emissions having a warming effect but rather I doubt it's the only thing causing warming.

>You and your shitty denier sources are way way way behind.
There you go again with your libtard ad hominem language. Maybe just call me a conspiracy theorist some more and that will make you less of a cuck somehow?

>The adjustments to data are justified and well studied.
Why? How do you know?

>Provide evidence or leave
no u

The point is that it's not reasonable to believe those kinds of claims at face value and judging by how many people here cant grasp that, it's apparent that climate alarmists are irrational and incapable of making good decisions when it comes to policy.

[Anonymous No.11094511]

>>11094386
>changes in TSI over frequency are not the cause of the surface warming.
why was it correlated before then?

[Anonymous No.11094521]

>>11091690
>race isn't real
Correct, it's just subspecies.
>>11092376
The sun itself. Also, it's not really that climate change isn't real, it's just that the (((solutions))) tend to be fucking retarded and kosher.
>oy vey goyim, recycle
<ok goldsheim
>now have less kids
<uuuuh ok
>now become vegan goy
<wait
>And start hating your own race
<what about indi-
>AND EAT BUGS
<you ever gonna let me fini-
>BECOME GAY AND IMPORT NIG- I MEAN REFUGEES

[Anonymous No.11094526]

>>11094511
Why was it correlated before the industrial revolution? Gee, I dunno.

[Anonymous No.11094529]

>>11094447
>Ocean surface? Yes.
False, ocean surface temperatures are taken from below the surface of the ocean.
>Even more cherrypicked, wow. Is your mommy going to put that up on the fridge?
Says the creep who has posters of Greta all over his wall.
>Is there any evidence you won't deny?
Science is about scepticism, have you ever challenged the hypothesis that man made CO2 is the primary cause of any global warming? Or are you too cowardly?

[Anonymous No.11094536]

>>11094521
what is this video

[Anonymous No.11094537]

quick observation: all the climate denialists here aren't actually arguing science or presenting data/evidence. they're just questioning the methodology without having any ideas for what sort of methodology would satisfy them, or using pure rhetorical arguments like "muh logical fallacy" or "why would you trust experts, huh? what makes you so sure there isn't a giant conspiracy?"

[Anonymous No.11094543]

>>11094440
>>Recall that Bedford and Cook lumped together those who believe that humans are the main cause with those who believe that humans are *a* cause.
But they didn't. Another lying source DOGMATICALLY believed without any skepticism.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Papers which stated humans are a minimal cause of global warming were categorized as rejecting the consensus.

>Someone like me would be in that 97%
No one like you would get published, I can assure you.

>Anyway the specific argument that i was making wasn't even that they the are the suspicious one but that fact that you are not skeptical of them.
You seem to be confusing skepticism with denial. Skepticism follows the evidence, denial ignores it.

You're not even a conspiracy theorist, at least conspiracy theorists can convince themselves that they have evidence. You openly admit you have none, won't look at any, and have no clue what you're taking about. This won't end the argument because there is no argument. You won't present one.

[Anonymous No.11094546]

>>11094412
hey the best of us get trolled once in a while too

>>11094421
based

>>11094424
>Who are you arguing against?
idk tbqh

>warming determines the damage
Ok but even in the worst case scenario only a low test male would accept living in a socialist hellhole. Our energy is already too expensive since nuclear was utterily regulated into oblivion. And it seems that fusion is just on the horizon (for real this time) so it might be more reasonable to make a mad dash to fusion with cheap fossil fuels then invest fusion energy into carbon capture once we have the cheap fusion energy.

The point is that there are plenty of other options beside cutting our balls off and only being able to use solar and wind energy going forward. And notice that legislation packages such as the green new deal want to place control of wind and solar in as few people as possible, with the stifling regulations and zoning laws (like agenda 21 type bullshit.) And there is no promotion of biofuels either which is again, suspect, as batteries are a much heavier storage of energy and cost more to haul around in transportation applications.

>Without emissions of GHGs we would be cooling.
See I don't believe this.. or at least I think it's unlikely. The warming period started BEFORE significant emissions were released. The uptrend started in 1800. And the Solar TSI correlated heavily until 1985. So it seems we would be in a warming cycle no matter if we stopped emitting or not. I'll concede that emissions speed up global warming probably but looking at the charts it's not obvious it would get cooler if they all stopped at once which is unrealistic anyways.

>it's almost like you need scientists to figure it out. Wow.
Maybe but there are so few trustworthy ones so for discussion sake we have to confine it to what is easily provable or various kinds of rhetorical logical arguments.. like how not being skeptical of "consensus claims" is a sign that you're not being rational.

[Anonymous No.11094548]

>>11094529
>Science is about scepticism
Skepticism is unwarranted in the face of convincing evidence.

[Anonymous No.11094552]

>>11094454
>>being skeptical of a political narrative with a clear ulterior motive for power
You're confusing skepticism with denial.

>gravity and how it fits into the rest of explanation of nature, for example emergent gravity has consistent logic that fits into quantum information theory and the holographic principle.. so it makes sense things would form balls; literally the opposite of believing in the church of climate alarmism
Please explain what about AGW doesn't make sense then. I'll explain it to you just like a round earth is explained to a flat earther.

[Anonymous No.11094562]

>>11094548
someone saying "because i said so" isn't convincing evidence and the fact so many people think it is shows there is something wrong with that group

[Anonymous No.11094563]

>>11094461
>Why can't you say why instead of just resorting to personal attacks???
I can't say why it makes sense in your delusion-addled mind. Only you can. As far as I can tell you seem to be saying that any correction regardless of justification is comparable to Trump changing his mind. I don't know what this is supposed to be an argument for.

[Anonymous No.11094568]

>>11094505
Your opinion is bullshit, might as well be talking to a retard.

[Anonymous No.11094570]

>>11094562
They're not saying "because I said so," they're saying "look at this enormous set of data we've collected and this plot of it that shows warming over time."

[Anonymous No.11094578]

>>11094552
>denial

Libtard ad hominem word.. I never denied emissions contributing to global homo.

>what about AGW doesn't make sense then

Why do global warming alarmists not want to listen to any other solutions besides giving faggy corporate crony socialist military prison industrial complex bureaucrats more money and power????????

[Anonymous No.11094584]

>>11094548
>Skepticism is unwarranted in the face of convincing evidence.
Utterly absurd thing to say.

[Anonymous No.11094585]

>>11094507
>Sure, but to what extent do we know that co2 is warming compared to natural variabilities that are poorly understood, like clouds?
You can directly observe and quantify warming from CO2 regardless of other factors.

[Anonymous No.11094587]

>>11094563
>I can't say why it makes sense in your delusion-addled mind.

ad hominem

all you have is because they said so?

[Anonymous No.11094589]

>>11094584
It's really not. Skepticism requires rejecting the null hypothesis when the data shows it is unlikely to be true. There's something obviously wrong with the reasoning "I am a skeptic, so I will always accept the null hypothesis no matter the evidence."

[Anonymous No.11094592]

>>11094570
i was referring to the validity of "correction" they made to the data conveniently right after the global warming pause

ive never "denied" global homo, only the proposed solution, and the reason i keep bringing up the "correction" is because people buy it without question which shows their irrationality and bias

[Anonymous No.11094595]

>>11094584
what? this isn't even in the realm of science bro, in a court of law you won't be accepted to be on jury duty if the lawyer asks you "are you willing to rule that Tyrone was guilty of killing LaDasha if we provide convincing evidence that Tyrone did indeed kill LaDasha" and you go "nuh uh, convincing evidence be damned, me skeptic hurr durr"

[Anonymous No.11094596]

>>11094589
>no matter the evidence.
>people with something to gain saying because i say so

also most people arent just denying it no matter the evidence but are skeptical of the proposed solutions and the alarmist predictions about widespread economic collapse and shit like that

[Anonymous No.11094597]

>>11094592
You are denying the evidence by baselessly claiming that there is a conspiracy to fix the data. That makes you a denialist.
>only the proposed solution
Well, proposed political policy solutions to AGW are completely divorced from the matter of the science itself. Denialists are unable to refute the evidence without misinterpretations or lying, so the next best thing is to conflate political agendas and advocacy with the science.

[Anonymous No.11094600]

>>11094570
Is the temp data from the 1880s and early 1900s accurate and complete enough to include in that graph?

[Anonymous No.11094604]

>>11094437
No, the consensus is bullshit created by quacks with no real background on the topic. If these same people argued the opposite, you would mock them for the background they have. The only way to be counted against the "consensus" is to outright reject any human relation to climate. That's how they get such absurdly high figures like "97%". That's not 97% support for alarmist bullshit. This is basically the argument alarmists make: "97% support shades of grey, thus everyone agrees everything is solid black". It's an absurd argument.

[Anonymous No.11094607]

>>11094604
The "consensus" comes from climatology experts, i.e. climate scientists or climatologists.

[Anonymous No.11094609]

>>11094604
ah, the climate scientists responsible for the consensus are quacks? like 97% of climate scientists?

what are your credentials? if it is measured in years on /pol/ then we need a standard method to convert that to h-index equivalent

[Anonymous No.11094616]

>>11094600
The uncertainty they determined for the data is plotted in the figure. I'm not sure what the confidence interval used is, but presuming it's something standard like 95% confidence or greater, the figure would imply that it is accurate enough to provide useful information in the plot.

[Anonymous No.11094619]

>>11094607
>>11094609
No, it literally comes from a political cartoonist and a historian. Try to keep up. You fuckers don't care about credentials when you like what you hear.

[Anonymous No.11094623]

>>11094508
>you cant prove them right either.. pathetic (saying because they said so doesn't count)
I can. Try me.

>then why don't they present it that way in their propaganda?
In what context? You haven't shown me one example of dishonesty.

>And the point wasn't that solar warming is the only variable but rather there was already a warming trend and whether we stopped emissions or not the temperature would be increasing regardless.
I already explained how this is wrong.

>>mommy the man on tv said so
Not said, shown. The only one here only saying things without showing them is you. Every substanceless post further cements your irrelevancy.

>What caused the medieval warming period?
Magic. Apparently I can't cite science so maybe you'll accept that answer.

>Also I never doubted emissions having a warming effect but rather I doubt it's the only thing causing warming.
No one said it was.

>Why? How do you know?
Read the paper and you'll find out.

>The point is that it's not reasonable to believe those kinds of claims at face value
Published scientific research is not "face value." Your argument is self-refuting since your claims are nothing but face value.

[Anonymous No.11094625]

>>11094619
I do care about the credentials. That's why denialtard blogs and videos aren't evidence of anything. The IPCC reports contain contributions from thousands of climatologists.

[Anonymous No.11094629]

>>11094597
>You are denying the evidence by baselessly claiming that there is a conspiracy to fix the data. That makes you a denialist.
No you want to put me into this little box that you've constructed in your head for anyone that disagrees with you. The data could very well be true along with the correction, but it's almost impossible for me or you to know that and there IS a very juicy motivation for lying or exaggerating and a track record of doing just that so it's not reasonable to take it at face value!! And look how many people here just assume that it's correct???? That should be a giant fucking red flag!

>so the next best thing is to conflate political agendas and advocacy with the science
Come on.. they are fucking married. You think that fucking political factions can't influence scientific consensus?!?!?! There was that fucking japanese guy that did a study on the least attractive race of women and found black women were least preferred and he managed to get himself suspended from publishing for a year. THat should show you how politics can influence scientists by fucking with their careers.

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

[Anonymous No.11094632]

>>11094604
>"97% support shades of grey, thus everyone agrees everything is solid black". It's an absurd argument.
well said

[Anonymous No.11094638]

>>11094629
>there IS a very juicy motivation for lying or exaggerating
What motivation is that?
>Come on.. they are fucking married. You think that fucking political factions can't influence scientific consensus?!?!?!
Not really. Does politics influence the conclusions of, say, condensed matter physics?
>THat should show you how politics can influence scientists by fucking with their careers.
Then why are there denialist climatologists that still have careers?

[Anonymous No.11094640]

>>11094625
>thousands of climatologists.
that doesn't mean shit when they are all influenced by chasing grants and afraid of tanking their careers and being labeled a "denialtard" or whatever problematic language you shitlibs use

[Anonymous No.11094642]

>>11094529
>False, ocean surface temperatures are taken from below the surface of the ocean.
Not by satellites. Jesus fucking Christ you're dense.

>Says the creep who has posters of Greta all over his wall.
So no defense of your cherrypicking, just more delusions. Great.

>Science is about scepticism, have you ever challenged the hypothesis that man made CO2 is the primary cause of any global warming?
It's not a hypothesis, it's a theory that's passed every test. That's what science is about, not your baseless denial.

[Anonymous No.11094644]

>>11094640
I'm not a "liberal" in the American sense.

[Anonymous No.11094648]

>>11094619
okay, so you’re a troll. thanks for outing yourself as intellectually dishonest

[Anonymous No.11094656]

>>11094625
No the IPCC report contains thousands of bean counters and bureaucrats. 80% of the IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. It's also a politically motivated instrument. They aren't there to come up with any answer than "we need more world government".

[Anonymous No.11094662]

>>11094656
>No the IPCC report contains thousands of bean counters and bureaucrats.
Maybe, but the scientific evidence presented comes from the work and willful contributions of thousands of climatologists.

[Anonymous No.11094663]

do you have a source that it's saudi arabia?

[Anonymous No.11094666]

>>11094638
>What motivation is that?
ranges from continuing your scientific career to running an energy cartel that prevents normal people from having access to cheap energy and instead having to buy from you

>Does politics influence the conclusions of, say, condensed matter physics?
probably in a less dramatic way.. but condensed matter physics isn't fucking linked directly to political and economic power the same way.

Why does Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar, which is controlled by the Sheik of Qatar, whos family made its fortune selling/owning oil reserves; PROMOTE FUCKING GLOBAL WARMING NARRATIVES?!??!?!?

It's true they sometimes run limited hangouts (pic related) but they also fucking tow the line:
https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/issues/climate-change.html

>Then why are there denialist climatologists that still have careers?
The more moderate ones dont or they do something else in addition to being a cosmetologist like Robert Shoch. They have to go full fucking retard and then they get hired indirectly as a limited hangout or they get supported by retards that think the world is flat or christians or both.

[Anonymous No.11094667]

>>11094648
What was dishonest? The cartoonist's photo is even in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11094668]

>>11094644
ok commie

[Anonymous No.11094673]

>>11094667
so you are arguing that 97% of climate scientists got memed by a cartoonist and that they didn’t do scientific work outside of rememeing a cartoon?

[Anonymous No.11094675]

>>11094432
>Yeah but those variables haven't changed much or have changed in the opposite direction like solar intensity.
but it has and it was very strongly correlated until 1985

[Anonymous No.11094682]

>>11094666
>Why does Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar, which is controlled by the Sheik of Qatar, whos family made its fortune selling/owning oil reserves; PROMOTE FUCKING GLOBAL WARMING NARRATIVES?!??!?!?
I don't know, but that really says nothing about the validity of the science itself.
>>11094668
Not a commie either. If anything I am mostly right-wing, just not the obtuse idiot type that rejects bare facts of natural sciences.

[Anonymous No.11094685]

>>11094446
>Wow, sick source my dude.
what kind of cuck doesnt like markets and liberty???

also here's another:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

>The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

>The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.

>Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.

>Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.

>There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.

Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex (statistics is big in econ)

[Anonymous No.11094689]

>>11094673
He didn't interview them. It's based on a journal keyword search. If the journal mentioned global warming yet didn't rule out human contribution, congratulations! You are counted in the "consensus".

[Anonymous No.11094694]

>>11094682
the "commie" accusations are typical /pol/ rhetoric, clearly whoever posted that doesn't care about science and would rather focus on political retardation. anyone who does that can be safely ignored or told to go back

[Anonymous No.11094695]

>>11094689
so what percentage of climate scientists do you think are denialists? sauce?

[Anonymous No.11094716]

>>11094589
Scepticism is about challenging the "evidence" - something science should welcome, however it is not welcomed when it comes to "climate change". That should only make one even more sceptical.

There have been so many alarming predictions made by climate scientists that have turned out to be false. The climate is still not understood properly due to its extreme dynamic complexity and yet we're supposed to believe the "evidence" is convincing.

Why is there not an open debate between scientists on this topic? Instead we have a hysterical 16 year old girl lecturing us - why doesn't that make you sceptical?

[Anonymous No.11094718]

>>11094491
>But pointing out your lack of ability to provide evidence and respond to it is very important.
you dont have evidence either though

>But you refuse to, because you DOGMATICALLY reject it without any thought
then man up and post proof.. i think you hvaent read the article and youre just bluffing

>You constantly bring up correlation as if it counters AGW
libtard black or white thinking.. im showing there is a shade of gray where humans cause global warming and so do other things

>What is it telling?
that the propaganda avoids the sun

>That's rich.
ur a fuckin fgt m8

>First you claimed scientists are dishonest,
no only certain kinds of scientists

>Failing to provide evidence
how about the "muh 97 percent lie" and google and youtube's admission they try to dissuade people stumbling on conspiracy theories which they automatically assume any skepticism over the prevailing gw narrative and we know that scientists are not perfect androids and they are influenced by cultural consensus as they are influenced by their peers

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa
>Kanazawa's comments and research on race and intelligence, health and intelligence, multiculturalism, and the relationship between physical attractiveness and intelligence have led to condemnation from observers and colleagues. He attributes this to political correctness and censorship,[3] while his critics have described his claims as pseudoscientific[4][5] and racist.[

>black women are objectively less attractive than women of other races, he was dismissed from writing for Psychology Today, and his employer, the London School of Economics, prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months.[8] A group of 68 evolutionary psychologists issued an open letter titled "Kanazawa's bad science does not represent evolutionary psychology" rejecting his views,[9] and an article on the same theme was published by 35 academics in American Psychologist

[Anonymous No.11094724]

>>11094694
politics are intertwined with climate science.. deal with it.. if you deny that you are a denier of reality

mostly leftist are fucking retarded enough not to fucking question this fucking faggot narrative

[Anonymous No.11094729]

>>11094682
>I don't know, but that really says nothing about the validity of the science itself.

bullshit scientists are people too.. see >>11094718

[Anonymous No.11094731]

>>11094695
>denialists
what level of skepticism does climate scientist need to fulfill in order to be labled a denier by a libtard such as yourself??

[Anonymous No.11094738]

>>11094526
and it kept being correlated until 1985.. fucking look it up dude it's not a fucking coincedence

[Anonymous No.11094744]

>>11094716
Skepticism in the empirical sense is about rejecting conclusions that do not have sufficient empirical justification. In the case of AGW, the evidence is abundant and convincing, so maintaining a position rejecting the conclusion of AGW is not bolstered by claiming the mantle of scientific skepticism.

[Anonymous No.11094750]

>>11094738
Exactly when it "is correlated" and when it's not is an arbitrary judgement considering the continuous nature of the problem. If AGW is true we should expect significant correlation with natural factors before the industrial revolution, and a steadily decreasing correlation once anthropogenic factors become more pronounced. That's pretty much exactly what the data shows.

[Anonymous No.11094762]

>>11094543
>Papers which stated humans are a minimal cause of global warming were categorized as rejecting the consensus.
see >>11094685

also ill admit that i dont actually know for sure but neither do you and that study was done in the 90s.. there are lots people who are critical of that study and there have been counter studies but even if it was correct there are still plenty of other examples of how alarmists have lied.. both in the science community and elsewhere

>Skepticism follows the evidence, denial ignores it.
you just made that up.. and when there is money and politics involved YOU SHOULD *************ALWAYS************** be hella fucking suspicious. If you are reading something about Global Homo Warming there is like a fucking 99 percent chances there is some bias or ulterior motive at play. If you are not suspicious like that then you are either a libtard communist or underage b@n

>No one like you would get published, I can assure you.
DAMN SNARKY HOT TAKE OUUWWWWWWWWW

>You openly admit you have none
WHY WOULD TWO PEOPLE ARGUE ABOUT SATELLITE CALIBRATION DUDE!`?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? IF IT WAS ABOUT HOW TO CALIBRATE YOUR MOM'S DILDO THEN MAYBE YOU COULD MAKE A CASE BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S JUST "HURR DURR THEY SAID SO YOU SHOULD GO TO /POL/ IF YOU DOUBT THEM REeeeeeE"

> there is no argument.
HEY FUCKFACE IVE SAID IT FUCKING 18 TIMES NOW!!!!!! THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IF YOU ARE NOT FUCKING SUSPICIOUS OF THEM ALL OF A SUDDEN INCREASING THEIR NUMBERS RIGHT AFTER THE WHOLE FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE PAUSE THING THEN YOU ARE FUCKING NAIVE BRO.... IT*S JUST A FUCKING FACT... YOU ARE FUCKING NAIVE AND GULLIBLE DUDE!!!?!??! WE DONT HAVE TO RESEARCH YOUR MOMS DILDO BECAUSE THAT IS ENOUGH OF AN ARGUMENT.. YOURE NOT A RATIONAL ACTOR IN THIS SITUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Anonymous No.11094767]

>>11094731
i am only following the pattern of the denialists in this thread using the pejorative "alarmist" to refer to climate change reasonables

[Anonymous No.11094768]

>>11094762
>posting in a science thread
>long all-caps rants
hmmm i wonder if anon is acting on emotions rather than a genuine interest in science

[*********WARNING BLACK OR WHIT(...) No.11094773]

*********WARNING BLACK OR WHITE LIBTARD THINKING ALERT****************

>>11094750
>If AGW is true

*********WARNING BLACK OR WHITE LIBTARD THINKING ALERT****************

hey bro what about shades of gray do you fucking not under-fucking-stand?!?!?!?

The question is not if emissions increase the rate of global warming, but rather by how much and how much of a slow down would we see if we decreased the emissions? Then also how VARIOUS economic situations might play out (not just one greta tardberg doomsday CONSPIRACY) and then what OPTIONS do we have on the table (not just AOC's gimme gimme power green faggot deal) and which one would be the least painful (preserve free markets and fuck over the energy cartel hopefully?)

>That's pretty much exactly what the data shows.
ACTUALLY THE DATA SHOWS YOU ARE A LITTLE NAIVE FUCKING KEK FAGGOT BECAUSE YOU TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE.

[Anonymous No.11094783]

>>11094767
bro libtards need to fucking stop using personal attacks instead of logic if they dont like the taste of their own dicks

>>11094768
>being a pretentious /sci/ fag
bro youre on a fucking anime forum maybe you should go to fucking red,dit and also it's called having a snese of humor bro.. the fucking logic checks out though if you get distracted by a fucking joke then maybe fucking lighten up dude????

but yeah dude dont ever ever let an opportunity to be a pretentious libtard shill go to waste.. maybe next time work in "conspiracy theorist" or something??

[Anonymous No.11094787]

>>11094616
To use temperature data from the 1800s and put it in a graph that plots global temperatures is a joke.

[Anonymous No.11094789]

If it’s real or not, what the fuck does it matter? I think it would be cool to let these liberals get in office and try to shut down oil and NG and crash the usa economy. I’m sitting here with my popcorn waiting.

[Anonymous No.11094791]

>>11094787
do you have evidence which suggests temperature proxies are less reliable than the provided error ranges in reconstructions? Could you provide this evidence please?

[Anonymous No.11094792]

>>11094787
You’re a joke

[Anonymous No.11094794]

>>11094791
What happens when the sun goes down at night? Temperature goes down 25 F.

/Thread

[Anonymous No.11094795]

>>11094773
Pretty much all these questions and more are answered in the executive summary of the IPCC report, which you could read.

[Anonymous No.11094797]

>>11094794
what does this have to do with global temperature anomaly reconstructions?

[Anonymous No.11094798]

>>11093965

Luna Lovegood and Harry Potter were a much better match than Ginny and Harry.

[Anonymous No.11094808]

>>11094773
"Modern global warming is principally caused by human activity" is either true or it isn't.
>The question is not if emissions increase the rate of global warming, but rather by how much "Principally" is part of the AGW theory. Obviously, natural factors still make a difference, it's just that they are dwarfed by the anthropogenic contribution.
>face value
I've done my due diligence in reviewing the evidence. I'm not an expert, but I am capable of evaluating the evidence.

[Anonymous No.11094809]

>>11094798
agreed

ginny was so fucking boring and pointless

[Anonymous No.11094813]

>>11094809
>ginny was so fucking boring and pointless
Agreed, there was ZERO chemistry between them. Plus Luna ALWAYS accepted Harry and believed in him, they struck up an immediate friendship.

[Anonymous No.11094822]

>>11094795
if you believe that at face value you are irrational

>>11094808
>"Modern global warming is principally caused by human activity" is either true or it isn't.
false the earth was already in a warming cycle but it might be the primary driver right now it's just heavily complicated and obfuscated by the giant number of variables

>I've done my due diligence
everyone thinks that and like i said it's literally one of the most chaotic systems imaginable so even the experts dont know 100 percent and because of the politicial and financial incentives it's more reasonable to be overly skeptical than generally agreeing

[Anonymous No.11094824]

>>11091384
Eat the bugs goy

[Anonymous No.11094825]

>>11094813
rowling is a dumb libtard that fucked up a bunch of obvious shit

[Anonymous No.11094828]

>>11094642
>Not by satellites. Jesus fucking Christ you're dense.
Yes they do you mongoloid, via radio/micro waves.
>So no defense of your cherrypicking, just more delusions. Great.
You're the one cherrypicking. The graph that shows no warming for 17 years uses the mean of all 5 principal global temp datasets. That's the opposite of cherrypicking.
>It's not a hypothesis, it's a theory that's passed every test
Oh has it now? There's nothing wrong with it at all?

[Anonymous No.11094831]

[Anonymous No.11094835]

>>11094813
anon i hope you have seen little witch academia

it's better than HP

[Anonymous No.11094838]

[Anonymous No.11094839]

>>11094835
>little witch academia

Thanks, I will give it a look.

[Anonymous No.11094842]

>>11094822
>false the earth was already in a warming cycle but it might be the primary driver right now it's just heavily complicated and obfuscated by the giant number of variables
It's not that it "might be;" it conclusively "is."
>everyone thinks that and like i said it's literally one of the most chaotic systems imaginable so even the experts dont know 100 percent
Probably why even the IPCC reports qualify their statements of the conclusions as being "very likely" or "extremely likely" rather than "certain."
>and because of the politicial and financial incentives it's more reasonable to be overly skeptical than generally agreeing
Irrelevant reasoning is not justification for skepticism towards abundant evidence.

[Anonymous No.11094847]

>>11094822
>if you believe that at face value you are irrational
do you have evidence which suggest their methodology is in error somehow? could you please provide this evidence that shows their conclusions are unreasonable?

[Anonymous No.11094848]

>>11091384
Oddly enough, climatologists use the same programs and physics engines as the weathermen do, just plugging in bigger numbers over longer periods. Weathermen mostly disagree with how climatologists use it and how reliable they think it is. The solution of course is to "educate" the weathermen

[Anonymous No.11094868]

>>11094842
>>11094847
in this case it's illogical to demand evidence of specific misdoing because there is sufficient incentive for corruption and we know that humans will act corrupt for far less and because all the rhetoric and jockeying and shit around it is fucking cancer so it's only reasonable to be skeptical

[Anonymous No.11094869]

if google is censoring search results in something doesnt that make you fucking suspicious as all hell??

[Anonymous No.11094871]

>>11094825
nigga jk Rowling is a jew writing about jews amongst the goyim, the same way X-Men is made up by a jew to tell storytales about a small group of chosen people amongst normies.

[Anonymous No.11094872]

>>11094744
How much of the temperature data is made up due to the lack of coverage?

[Anonymous No.11094873]

>>11094869
It should

[Anonymous No.11094875]

>>11094868
>Assume
I'd rather not thanks, serious accusations require serious evidence, I'd rather not take things on faith.

[Anonymous No.11094880]

>>11094791
>>11094792
How much global temperature coverage was there in the late 1800s? Did they have satellites then?

[Anonymous No.11094891]

>>11094880
most data comes from temperature reconstructions
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

[Anonymous No.11094907]

>>11094875
sometimes assuming things is rational

for example if you are walking home in the middle of the night and you see a homeless nigger coming straight for you.. then it's prudent to assume he is going to rape you

maybe he's not but given the circumstances it's appropriate considering the risks associated

same thing with climate rhetoric and fucking weather divination.. the assumption should be they are full of shit when it comes to predictions 50 years out and you should be skeptical of proposals such as the "green new deal"

[Anonymous No.11094911]

>>11094891
The 1880s had recorded temperature measurements, but there's no way they had enough coverage for it to be considered "global".

[Anonymous No.11094912]

>>11094848
>The solution of course is to "educate" the weathermen

bahahahahhaha weathermen are fucking wrong as fuck anything more than a week out.. what makes you think they are going to be right 50 years from now?!?!?!??! COMMON SNESE

and you said they are using it differently but if there was a weatherman that could make better predictions they fucking would have by now because there is a monetary reward for them

[Anonymous No.11094929]

>>11091690
Buy Chainlink

[Anonymous No.11094932]

>>11094521
>solar output decreases while earth warms, but it's muh sun causing the warming trend!!
>t. will be eating bugs soon enough

[Anonymous No.11095139]

>>11094912
Predicting long-term climate trends is actually easier than predicting short-term weather fluctuations. It may be warmer tomorrow but I know it’ll be colder in two months.

[Anonymous No.11095374]

https://youtu.be/wGUteY0O47E

[Anonymous No.11095376]

Check his work https://twitter.com/NikolovScience

[Anonymous No.11095433]

>>11092386
this

[Anonymous No.11095669]

>>11092376
cyclical eccentricity of the earth around the sun > sun generates gravitational pull to earth > crustal deformations, shifts and shiet > increases temp in troposphere > ocean temps increase > results in release of CO2 from oceans which carry 98% of the earth's CO2.
when cyclical cooling arrives due to eccentricity > troposphere cools > ocean temps drop > oceans reabsorb C02.
when troposphere increases or decreases in temp, stratosphere temp is in reverse. as a whole both combined are always in equilibrium.
greenhouse gases can melt glaciers since it gets temporarily traped in the troposphere but also not very long due to convection.
it is inevitable that some parts of the earth will get warmer or cooler since the earth spins like a top and the geographic north pole has been very slowly shifting in a straight line, crossed near the eastern top most side of north america (hundreds of thousands of years ago) and has already intersected and passed greenland (from one end to another).

[Anonymous No.11095827]

>>11095139
>trends
the key word here
The winning averages, i.e. trends of roulette are well known, even when a result of each spin is impossible to know - Las Vegas is built on the fact.

[Anonymous No.11095834]

>>11092375
Now you're just fucking with me.

[Anonymous No.11096002]

>>11092386

[Anonymous No.11096006]

>>11094505
Hey look, another retard making up lies on the internet

[Anonymous No.11096033]

>>11094505
Models from 1982 predicted 2019 accurately.
Big oil knew exactly what it was doing.
https://youtu.be/FGVW9vJ773k
https://youtu.be/oS9VzE0Kqq0?t=2m

[Anonymous No.11096726]

>>11093576
you’re reaching quite far to justify that eating your dog’s cum is okay

[Anonymous No.11096754]

>>11095669
Orbital eccentricity is in the cooling phase, try again.

[Anonymous No.11097232]

>>11093924
/sci/ is for discussing "UN"settled scientific facts!

[Anonymous No.11097288]

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas, meaning that the more there is it in the air the more the radiation of the sun makes carbon dioxide molecules to vibrate and warm the air? Yes. It is 100 percent physical fact.

Is there more cardon dioxide in the athmosphere than before industrialization? Yes. 100 percent measureable fact.

Where does extra the carbon dioxide come from? It comes mostly from people burning more and more stuff like gasoline, oil and coal. Nature can only absorb x amount. Every carbon dioxide more than x stays in the athmosphere. Which is made by humans burning stuff, like I already said. 100 percent fact.

Those three 100 percent physical facts and measurements combined mean that climate change is man made and very real. When athmosphere warms up, it creates alls kind of problems in different places like more storms, drought, forest fires etc.

[Anonymous No.11097293]

>>11094932
The point was that it wasn't the cause of existence of climate change/global warming that was the issue, the issue was the jewish solutions.

[Anonymous No.11097424]

>>11092230
Morphology can be used pretty well but of cours isn't as good as genetics which can give an accurate line of decent. Though I agree race isn't real since it's basically just the same as "subspecies" in that it's based on superficial similarities and region mainly. Personally I use subspecies and """race""" labels to describe populations but recognize that this isn't an actual biological process. E.x using Pan troglodytes verus and "Western Chimpanzee" as means of describing what population you're refering to. People need to get over the fact that genetic and phenotypic as well as outside factors such as health and lifes style can impact an appearance and biology isn't categorized into tiny little box categories.

[Anonymous No.11097446]

>>11091690
I whole heartedly disagree on sying "Climate change isn't real" given not only what we have observed in the modern day but the geologic record. "Gender isn't real" I mean yeah the definition varies a lot between cultures (Some binary like in America some are more open and nonbinary) and the term is kinda subjective. Though keep in mind we have two sets of genitals there is a bit of a spectrum in between with development cause the base point is xx then develops into xy (Sometimes in other cases xxy or xxxy and can have up to 5 combos of these and this is just genetic sex in humans which I find interesting). I've already given a response to race.

[Anonymous No.11097456]

Should just say in general I find it funny how all these expert scientists in the field (Which you can become btw) can show why climate change is real but some 4channers on the internet have the secret. I know it's the internet but there's a lot of fuckin idiots on this board sometimes and can hear my braincells commit suicide because of it. Here's a thought, rather than spouting this shit on a message board, go get it peer reviewed. Inb4 shouting the scientific community is the illuminati or smth why don't you demonstrate that claim. If you're IQ1000000 then write a thesis on it rather than bitch in a science thread and look like a retard.

[Anonymous No.11097473]

>>11097456
this.

unfortunately the internet is cancer and both the alt-right and the SJW ultra-left argue that "everybody is entitled to their opinions in post-fact reality" so inevitably you get this shit. normies got talked out of logic by these assholes and now normiedom is the equivalent of 9/11 conspiracytards of the early 2000s

[Anonymous No.11097476]

>>11097288
It also defrosts frozen places and oceans allowing using the resources there. Your 100% facts don't lead to the conclusion that climate change is bad for everyone.

[Anonymous No.11097684]

>>11097476
>Your 100% facts don't lead to the conclusion that climate change is bad for everyone.
It doesn't need to be bad for everyone. It just needs to be worse than not climate change.

[Anonymous No.11097693]

>>11091384
You are right, since weather is chaotic, we cant make inferences from climate. Looking forward for the profits on my new corn farm in Aswan!

[Anonymous No.11097729]

>>11097684
It's not. North will thrive, and I don't care about Africa, South America, penguins, and fish. I care about the potential of places like Siberia, Northwest Passage, and Greenland.

[Anonymous No.11097976]

>>11097729
>I'm a white nationalist.
We already know. >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11098012]

>>11096033
>jim jeffries
>occasional
fucking cringe.. that's where you get your "science" from

>>>>>>>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.11098016]

Russia finds 5 new islands after glaciers melt...I'd love to build a mansion on one of the islands

[Anonymous No.11098059]

>>11097288
>Those three 100 percent physical facts and measurements combined mean that climate change is man made and very real.

but why was the earth already in a warming period?

are you really telling me that the world wouldn't be warmer if industrialization didn't happen?

notice how in pic related the current warming trend started in 1800, and also notice how on other charts the dishonest science liers try to pawn off the 1800s and early 20th century as part of the little ice age!?

[Anonymous No.11098061]

>>11094570
>that graph
>conveniently cuts off the warming temperatures that start in 1800

[Anonymous No.11098190]

WHERE

THERE

IS

SMOKE

THERE

IS

****FIRE*****

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

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

>hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect. He commended McIntyre for pointing out this issue.

>The Information Commissioner's Office stated that "the prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. ... The fact that the elements of a [FOIA] section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter."

>Climate reconstruction graph: Figure prepared by Phil Jones for the WMO "Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999". The caption inside the report describing it states "Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records".

>Version of the graph above with the climate reconstructions (coloured) and instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately. The right end of the green line shows the "decline" due to the divergence problem with certain tree-ring proxy data.

>The most quoted phrase took words from an e-mail of 16 November 1999 written by Phil Jones which referred to a graph he was preparing as a diagram for the cover of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of global climate in 1999. Jones wrote:

>"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick

[Anonymous No.11098203]

>>11098059
The Little Ice Age happened because of the Maunder Minimum, a period of decreased solar activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

So what you're saying is 'It's just the sun'. Which is very provably not the case. You don't know that's what your argument is because you don't understand the science behind what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.11098211]

>>11098203
>So what you're saying is 'It's just the sun'.

No im not saying that.. nice job being a typical alarmtard and twisting my words lol. There is something called nuance.

>you don't understand the science behind what you're saying.

Oh hey another alarmtard trick.. when you run out of arguments just rely on personal attacks. This one is interesting because youre trying to establish supremacy by saying im too stupid to know what im arguing which is a nice touch.

What im saying, which alarm tards agree with, is that emissions increase the warming effect of increased solar TSI. We would be experiencing warming whether or not the industrial revolution happened but we are just experiencing MORE WARMING SOONER.

[Anonymous No.11098222]

>>11093576
Damit. I was with you until this point. It just proves that everyone is fucking retarded. Animals in the same "species" might produce offspring, yet they aren't fertile. What proves that every homo sapiens sapiens is the same is the fact that a Anglo-saxon can produce fertile offspring with an abbo nigger.
Use that retort next time you retarded nigger.

[Anonymous No.11098228]

>>11098222
>yet they aren't fertile

umm sweety

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger#Fertility
>a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood

[Anonymous No.11098229]

>>11098190
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/us/california-fires-blackouts.html

[Anonymous No.11098231]

>>11098012
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.11098232]

>>11098228
Call me when two ligers successfully reproduce

[Anonymous No.11098236]

>>11098231
>im so desperate for an argument im going to say "no argument" after someone points out that i posted a video of a comedian and a video of a crazy girl that was a bartender a few months ago

[Anonymous No.11098238]

>>11098232

[Anonymous No.11098239]

>>11098236
>>11098231

[Anonymous No.11098241]

>>11098236
2+2=4 no matter who says it

[Anonymous No.11098243]

CAP AND TRADE

A "TRADING SYSTEM" LITERALLY BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE FOUNDER OF ENRON

https://youtu.be/WRNd6K8kS4M

[Anonymous No.11098244]

>>11098238
Yeah, no goalposts have been moved here, you just misunderstood the definition you were arguing against. You might as well have brought up dog breeds.

[Anonymous No.11098247]

>>11098239
>>11098241
why is the qatari prince using his state sponsored Al Jazeera news agency to promote climate change if it's so bad for big oil

(qatari prince owns a fuck ton of oil reserves)

https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/issues/climate-change.html

im sure jim jeffires and occasional made a bunch of mistakes in the way the present hte argument but i cant stand their voices so i dont want t o watch the video so it's easier to just point out that saudi and qatari royal families are funding climate alarmism

[Anonymous No.11098248]

>>11098244
>Fertility is the natural capability to produce offspring.

a fucking liger produced offspring you nigger.. quit trying so fucking hard to sound smart holy shit

[Anonymous No.11098250]

>>11098243
the devil is in the details.
Kind of like fusion, generally speaking a great idea, but needs quit a bit of tweaking.

[Anonymous No.11098251]

>>11098229
>shizo posting

[Anonymous No.11098255]

>>11098250
did you watch the video? Becuase they say "the devil is in the details" then show why the system has a bunch of loopholes and ways it can be manipulated

there is a better video i couldnt find that exposes more fucked up shit but one of hte best examples is how the system has states and countries that have adopted it and it has produced erratic prices for the credits

[Anonymous No.11098257]

>>11098247
no one cares.
talk about the details in >>11096033
or return to the short bus called /pol/

[Anonymous No.11098265]

>>11098257
you said something about oil companies.. i showed they are the ones manipulating you into acting the way you are acting

just fucking type it out.. what happned in 2019 that they predicted?!??! I dont want to listen to millenials screeching for 12 minutes.

[Anonymous No.11098268]

>>11098257
also you come off desperate

[Anonymous No.11098270]

>>11098265
>I dont want to listen
kek, no shit sherlock

[Anonymous No.11098280]

>>11098248
You cannot assert that ligers are fertile because you managed to create a secondary hybrid, which I'll call either a liliger or a lioger. To demonstrate that ligers are fertile you need to successfully breed two ligers.

[Anonymous No.11098284]

>>11098211
No, you ARE saying that.

>but why was the earth already in a warming period?
The end of the Maunder Minimum, caused by decreased solar activity. Increased solar activity is not responsible for current warming. So diverting attention away from what we know of modern warming by saying 'BUT THE LITTLE ICE AGE ENDED! WE'RE IN A WARMING TREND BECAUSE THE LITTLE ICE AGE ENDED' is exactly blaming the sun for all warming which is demonstrably not the case.

[Anonymous No.11098319]

>>11098284
K so because the earth was cold before you have a melt down when i say "it's getting warmer?"

How ever you define it the SUN is responsible for global warming. C02 accelerates the warming that the sun is causing?

And if you look at data that goes back thousands of years there are lots of little ice ages so it's not wrong to characterize climate history as many cooling and warming cycles. We are in a warming cycle and C02 accelerates it. Without industrialization we would still see warmer temperatures on average just not as severe.

[Anonymous No.11098320]

>>11098284
do you spiral when people call the medieval warming period a "warming period?"

>but it was preceded by a cooling period REeeE!

[Anonymous No.11098343]

>>11098319
>C02 accelerates the warming that the sun is causing?
The sun isn't causing any warming
See pic related
>>11093810

[Anonymous No.11098379]

>>11098343
>The sun isn't causing any warming
how does a greenhouse work??

also that graph was highly correlated till 1985

[Anonymous No.11098726]

The thing is not that climate change doesn't exist. The problem is that the entire "climate change" industry is sponsored by political parties who promote methods that they can benefit from without really addressing the climate change problems.

It's all a joke

[Anonymous No.11099121]

>>11098379
By retaining more of the heat from the sun, it doesn't make the sun hotter. If the sun is cooling and the Earth is warming then it should be pretty clear that the Earth is retaining the sun's heat faster than the sun is cooling.

[Anonymous No.11099501]

>>11099121
ok the sun just recently started getting cooler (1985) and was getting warmer for 180 years before that so 35 years is hardly a drop in the bucket and if you look at temp vs tsi levels you will see plenty of "small" divergences in temperature which means there are mechanisms for earth retaining heat

for example look at pic related from about 3500 years ago there was roughly a 500 year divergence where temp was getting cooler but the sun was getting hotter

also notice we are still colder than the time of the babylonians, ancient egypt, and sumerians; soooo the dawn of civilization (after other smaller flare ups of civilization) happened at hotter temperatures in a virtual "garden of eden"

>from the sun
Also notice that greenhouse warming still is only trapping the sun's energy, so the sun is always the prime mover. You are jumping to climate alarmism only after a brief divergence and also note there was a recent pause in global warming that caused a bunch of "climatologists" (tea leave readers) to falsify data see >>11098190

>>11098726
>The thing is not that climate change doesn't exist.

take note that there was a major scandal where climatologists got caught falsifying data so our whole perception is skewed

all these posters that were claiming the IPCC should be believed wholly were just being internet bullies and when you look into it the climate change community has falsified data over and over again

[Anonymous No.11100013]

>>11099501
And what causes those divergences? Protip: albedo

The albedo of the Earth is decreasing. What's causing it? Human emissions. How do we know? Isotope measurements.

You can wave your hands as much as you want, it doesn't make science go away.