Climate Change Skepticism

[Anonymous No.11432740]

I'm not a scientist, but I just started reading up on climate change. One thing I don't yet understand is the position(s) of the skeptics/deniers. I figure at least some of them are intelligent people with reasonable, good-faith doubts and objections.

So what exactly are these doubts and objections? Which of the following specific subjects are educated, good-faith climate-change skeptics doubtful about?

I) Relationship between temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

II) Accuracy of current measurements of (a) amount of carbon dioxide in atmosphere or (b) global mean temperature?

III) Accuracy of historic measurements of the same?

IV) Accuracy of climate models used to make predictions about the future regarding the same?

V) Consequences of rising global mean temperature? (e.g., increased flooding and hurricanes, increased drought and crop failure, etc.)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure what I believe yet. So any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11432869]

Pay no attention to the "climate skeptics".
They have no arguments aside from the following.
"Muh Al Gore."
"Gubmint bad!"
"Ur commies!"
"Ur Nazis who wanna kill Jews!"
"There were hot days before!"

[Anonymous No.11432935]

Anthopocentric global warming is real and will severly impact humanity in the coming decades, lowering life expectancy and quality of life. In it's most extreme forms leading to food and water shortages across much of the developing world. This in turn will act a catatlyst for conflict based on ethnic or religious lines.
I hold out hope that humanity will be able to geoengineer our way out of this otherwise things are going to get a little too Mad Max for my liking.
The ignorant, the trolls, the pushers of corporate agendas will all have to deal with uncomfortable realities at some stage.

[Anonymous No.11432936]

>>11432869
I don't know... they can't all be retards, can they?

[Anonymous No.11432944]

>>11432936
The only real criticism you can give climate science at this point is that long term trends are debatable. What I mean is that, when working with chaotic systems like the climate, there's about a 30% chance things end up much much worse or much much better than what we were expecting. Some pieces of the climate, like clouds, feedback loops, ect are inherently unpredictable with all known mathematical methods today. However, overall, climate scientists are correct in most regards.

[*********WARNING************ *(...) No.11432949]

RIDDLE ME THIS N*GGERS!??!?!

IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS "REAL" THEN WHY DID *********JEFFREY EPSTEIN************** SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROMOTING IT?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!

AT THE VERY LEAST YOU MUST ADMIT THERE IS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS TO THE CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM AND THE POTENTIAL FOR CORRUPTION AND MISTRUTH?!?!?!?!?!

WHY WOULD EPSTEIN SPEND SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY BLACKMAILING ******SCIENTISTS********** AS WELL AS THE USUAL POLITICIANS AND BILLIONAIRES?!??!?!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-science-donations

[Anonymous No.11432953]

>>11432869
But can you disprove all of those arguments?

[Anonymous No.11432971]

>>11432953
Half of those aren't even arguments so much as they're just strawmen or based off scientific fallacies.

[Anonymous No.11432974]

>>11432944
Thanks. So it's mainly about the models, it seems, and reality being too complex to be captured in (long-term) models.

>>11432935
With my very limited knowledge at this point, I tend to think you're right, but I'm curious what the best arguments of the skeptics are.

>>11432949
Clearly not one of those best arguments.

[Anonymous No.11432979]

A lot of their arguments are shitty. The best arguments though seem to be:

Re IV: the strength of feedback effects. Global warming would be relatively mild without strong feedback effects. Scientists do have reasons to believe they'll be strongly positive (ie amplify the warming) but skeptics can still make a case against that.

Re V: This is probably their best case. Afaik, there's actually not that much of a scientific consensus on whether climate change will lead to more hurricanes/tornadoes, and more droughts. Even with sea level rise, it will be moderated by the fact that high temperatures = more evaporation = more snowfall in many sectors of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

I'd also add VI) even if you get more droughts, storms, floods, and rising sea levels, the cost of dealing with the damage might be high, but the costs of reducing CO2 emissions are also high. Question is, how far is it worth going to curb emissions?

[Anonymous No.11432990]

>>11432974
Well, we know what happened in the past, but the position we're in currently is nothing like the Earth has ever seen in its history. There's a chance that we heat up 5C in 30 years, there's a chance we only heat up another 1C, humanity could get wiped out in 10 years, nothing of significance could happen, ect. Of course not all of these outcomes are equally likely, but it illustrates the absolutely massive amount of outcomes.

[Anonymous No.11433008]

>>11432974
The ones I've seen
-Higher surface ocean temperatures will lead to more phytoplankton activity. These can sequester large amounts of CO2 permanently since when they die they sink to the bottom of the ocean and turn into limestone (limestone is made of calcium, carbon and oxygen)
-Higher temperatures will lead to more evaporation leading to more high altitude clouds that will reflect sunlight and help keeps things cool
-desertification from the Sahara could lead to more dust off the coast of Africa blocking out the sun and reducing ocean temperatures and inhibiting hurricane formation
-the amount of major hurricanes making landfall in the US has decreased
-it'll cost less to relocate Miami than to replace all fossil fuel sources of energy for electricity and transportation with renewable sources

[Anonymous No.11433044]

>>11432979
This is helpful, thanks.

>>11432990
Okay, so uncertainty in the modeling and consequences aspects because of the tremendous complexity and nearly infinite variables involved.

[Anonymous No.11433049]

>>11433008
Interesting, thanks

[Anonymous No.11434366]

>>11432740
Also problems with basic scientific process such as lack of predictive power.

[Anonymous No.11435050]

>>11432936

I've been writing about climate change in my native language, as there recently was a trend media figures such as actors and TV-show hosts falling for fake news websites. While I am not a climate scientist, I am a microbiologist, so I am generally literate when it comes to research and don't use facebook as a source.

A lot of it is faulty research, bad-faith arguments, and intentional misrepresentation on the media:
>(for ex. Petteri Taalas, the Secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, criticizes the 5th IPCC report and the righty fascists frame this as him denying climate change, even though he fully acknowledges it, yet believes we should take a more cautious course of action).

Often times groups are characterized as experts. For example there was a group of 500 climate change denying "scientists" led by Gus Berkhout (former Shell employee) who went to speak at the UN. Well actually 10 were climate scientists, the rest of the 500 were mostly made up from businessmen, engineers, and unrelated people (like architects). Doesn't help their arguments were based off misinterpretation of science

From discussions with climate change deniers, the some names that come up as "legitimate scientists" are..

>Patrick Moore
Likes to talk about how plants (and therefore people) will benefit from CO2. Has not published a single peer-reviewed article about it. Used to work as an adviser for the Canadian Mining Association, the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, Westcoast Energy, and BC Gas.

>Nils-Axel Mörner
Does research on sea levels. His peers don't agree with him and his research has been refuted.

It is also important to note, how US media gives platform to climate change deniers when compared to actual experts.

[Anonymous No.11435071]

>>11435050

Some sources.
>“Statement by WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas”. WMO website
>“Letter signed by 500 scientists relies on inaccurate claims about climate science”. Carbonbrief website
>Nils-AxelMörner. New perspectives for the future of the Maldives
>Philip L.Woodworth. Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands?
>Paul S.Kench. Comment on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by Mörner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177–182]
>John A. Church. Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands
>Petersen, A. et al. 2019. Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians. Nature Communication.

[Anonymous No.11435077]

>>11432740
>there is too much Co2 in the world
>We're gonna raise taxes in the west to prevent this
>we're not gonna put any regulation on countries actually producing most of the Co2 like China.
>China good communism good
Climate change might be real, but its just politicised to raise taxes and not address countries contributing most to it. Why go barking up the US when it's nothing compared to China, India basically pajeet countries

[Anonymous No.11435112]

>>11435077
This mentality is exactly the reason why climate change will inevitably wipe out humanity.

[Anonymous No.11435954]

This is the most intelligent thread on climate science I have ever seen. It really is a shame that most arguments against it are the faggots who cried wolf.

>>11435077
>subhumans ruining the earth for the rest of humanity
What a shock.

[Anonymous No.11435984]

>>11435077
how are you going to tell china to reduce emissions when we're the source of half of them and emit double per capita? Why the fuck would they listen to such blatant hypocrisy? Not to mention the fact they're also taking renewable energy much more serious than the US is right now.

[Anonymous No.11436084]

Carbon dioxide absorbs negligible amounts of IR. At a paltry 400 ppm, it absorbs even negligibler amounts. Climate liars are claiming the earth has warmed 0.6C (whatever that means) over the last 100 years, but thermometers don't even measure to that level of accuracy. All perceived increase in atmospheric temperature is due to urban heat islands and bad measurements (measuring stations next to airports, etc)

[Anonymous No.11436093]

>>11432949
>THEN WHY DID *********JEFFREY EPSTEIN************** SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROMOTING IT
Wow it's almost like rich people want to avoid human extinction

[Anonymous No.11436106]

>>11432936
most are trolls, very many are shills, some are ultra skeptics or live in denial and few are schizophrenic.
On some cohesive analysis I can recommend skepticalscience.

[Anonymous No.11436109]

>>11432944
I can’t agree with that. Even in most extreme cases of chaotic systems you can observe trends and predict general behavior of the system.
Just take the sun for example, it has so many more parts running than the earth, yet we are fairly certain about its development.

[Anonymous No.11436113]

holy fuck i can't believe an actually worthwhile climate change/global warming thread. well done anon

[Anonymous No.11436135]

f

[Anonymous No.11436375]

>>11432740
http://www.petitionproject.org/
https://www.quora.com/Did-30-000-scientists-declare-that-climate-change-is-a-hoax
https://www.martinvrijland.nl/en/news-analyzes/greta-thunberg-s-great-grandfather-turns-out-to-be-the-inventor-of-the-greenhouse-effect-and-population-reduction-through-eugenics/
https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos
https://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
https://electroverse.net/physicist-co2-retains-heat-for-only-0-0001-seconds-warming-not-possible/
https://youtu.be/Co3dWjHqmxI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rtystv7dc
https://youtu.be/eWxrkJ8f1eE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYQ6eZDXXRE
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/how_to_measure_the_temperature_of_the_earth.html

[Anonymous No.11436442]

>>11436084
>Carbon dioxide absorbs negligible amounts of IR.
What is a "negligible amount?"

>Climate liars are claiming the earth has warmed 0.6C (whatever that means) over the last 100 years
It's 1 degree C. Next time you call someone a liar, don't lie in the same sentence. Also, what don't you understand?

>but thermometers don't even measure to that level of accuracy.
Incorrect. Pic related.

>All perceived increase in atmospheric temperature is due to urban heat islands and bad measurements (measuring stations next to airports, etc)
Incorrect. The Urban Heat Island effect has been studied by comparing urban stations to rural, high quality stations. Homogenization of the station data removes the effect from the temperature record:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2012JD018509

Any other stale denier memes that have been disproved for years?

[Anonymous No.11436448]

>>11436375
So you know that an ice age most likely will follow the high temperatures and your reaction is to do nothing so we go into that ice age faster?

[Anonymous No.11436457]

>>11436375
what is wrong with that pic?
If you integrate that with an average of roughly -4°C/Year, the earth was 1.6 million °C 400k years ago. that is 277 times the surface temp of the sun.

[Anonymous No.11436475]

>>11436457
also could you please source that? I don't find it.

[Anonymous No.11436488]

>>11436375
>The earth's temperature in each of the last for interglacial periods was several degrees warmer than today.
There's just a few small problems with that graph. It doesn't show today's temperatures (ice core data ends around the 1850s). It doesn't show Earth's temperature (it only shows temperature in one place in Antarctica). And the study it cites doesn't exist.

>http://www.petitionproject.org/
Mostly signed by non-scientists with bachelor degrees, almost no one with any expertise in climate has signed it. It's also full of fake names showing the vetting process is nonexistent.

https://youtube.com/user/potholer54

[Anonymous No.11436628]

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/our-role-in-advancing-the-energy-transition/carbon-pricing.html
>In the US, we support cap and invest programs like Washington SB-5981. We believe well-designed carbon pricing provides everyone incentives to help reduce emissions. Learn more about SB-5981 and why we support it.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/new-bp-ad-campaign-calls-on-washington-legislature-to-put-a-price-on-carbon-pollution-from-fossil-fuels/
>Declaring that the “findings of climate scientists are real, and the world is on an unsustainable path,” energy giant BP is launching a public relations campaign this weekend to promote putting a price on carbon pollution in Washington state.
>In Europe, even as BP has publicly supported government action on climate change, the company and its trade group representatives have sometimes lobbied for special treatment that undermined efforts to reduce emissions
>Some legislators say the oil company often has acted as a brake by withholding support for carbon-reduction bills the company did not like

GUYS THERE IS A *CONSPIRACY* WHERE THEY OIL COMPANIES ARE PAYING ALL THE ANTI ALARMIST SCIENTISTS BUT WHEN THEY SUPPORT A *4 TRILLION DOLLAR* PYRAMID/PONZI SCHEME THEY ARE TOTALLY TELLING THE TRUTH

[Anonymous No.11436636]

>>11436628
It's not a conspiracy, pretty much every denial is funded by oil companies. Even your own source states in that quote that they only support the measures to their own benefit and withdraw support if it hurts them.

[Anonymous No.11436653]

>>11436636
>pretty much every denial is funded by oil companies
why does the Qatari oil prince promote alarmism through his state funded media, Al Jazeera?

>they only support the measures to their own benefit
exactly why BP publicly supports CAP AND TRADE, which they have already been promised a SWEET HEART DEAL (like Epstein) for "exception credits?"

Have you actually researched how the Cap and Trade system that their actively shilling for actually works? Do you understand they sat down with the largest oil producing states in the world and guaranteed them generous exceptions to the restrictions with the ability to offset any small losses with the sale of the credits that correspond to the relative losses from any small decreased production?

Have you considered that literally ENRON developed the emission trading scheme? Have you considered that the Cap and Trade system will total at least 4 trillion dollars and have you considered the possible motivating power on human behavior that 4 trillion dollars has and the incentive to be one of the people at the center of the planning of this system because they will get clear benefits, as in these "exception credits" or whatever?

Here is a video by a LEFTIST about the Cap and Trade system and her whole critique is that it's not progressive enough.. but you and I know that if there is any significant carbon reduction plan at a global level it will be one THAT BENEFITS THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY RICH AND POWERFUL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM

you can be sure that your average entrepreneur in Europe or america wont get any of these "exception credits" and it will be THE MIDDLE CLASS forking over this 4 trillion + dollars

it's hilarious that you guys try to shame us for being "conspiracy theorists" yet you are the one believing there is a conspiracy theory for smaller oil producers like frackers and entrepreneurs.

What kind of bias does a person that chooses to go into "climate science" (pseudo) have?

[Anonymous No.11436658]

>>11436653
>noooo you can't just trust science, this one oil shill is trustworthy though

[Anonymous No.11436676]

>>11436658
what, schizo?

[Anonymous No.11436732]

>>11435984
Fee and dividend proposals usually include a border tax adjustment so the emissions don't just leave the country.

[Anonymous No.11436738]

>>11432971
So, no?

[Anonymous No.11436888]

>>11436653
this really isn't an argument for or against anything relevant in the entire thread. Do you deny the physical science behind AGW? if so post evidence. Do you deny carbon reduction plans will work? if so post evidence. At this point you're just screaming loudly with absolutely no argument.

[Anonymous No.11436893]

>>11436738
>"Muh Al Gore."
irrelevant
>"Gubmint bad!"
not an argument
>"Ur commies!"
not an argument
>"Ur Nazis who wanna kill Jews!"
not an argument either
>"There were hot days before!"
irrelevant

There you go, anything else you want taken care of?

[Anonymous No.11436901]

>>11432740
A lot of pop-science takes about global warming causing storm X or heatwave Y or cold front Z are factitious.

But the greenhouse effect is pretty self evident and past that point you're getting into the political discussion of who should bare the costs of a transition away from hydrocarbon based fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.11436975]

>>11432740
For me it's IV) and V)
Modelling clouds is a bitch and there's certainly some error in there.
And nobody can foresee the exact consequences, because we can't do experiments with varied parameters.

[Anonymous No.11436988]

>>11432869
Yes, this is the high IQ way to convince someone. Just call them stupid and dismiss their concerns using absurd strawmen.

[Anonymous No.11436996]

>>11436093
Why would he care? He was a pedo kike with no kids of his own who committed "suicide".

[Anonymous No.11437039]

>>11436375
>https://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/
This displays a laughably bad understanding of the greenhouse effect. He is confusing heat content with heat flow. The greenhouse effect works by limiting the flow of heat out of the atmosphere, which increases temperature. Heat transfer from the air to the oceans is a non sequitur, since the ocean is mainly heated by the Sun's rays. But the greenhouse effect keeps the heat from the Sun from escaping Earth.

>https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
Pointing to some fringe scientists in newspaper articles has no bearing on the consensus of published research.

>https://electroverse.net/physicist-co2-retains-heat-for-only-0-0001-seconds-warming-not-possible/
LOL, this is the dumbest link of all. The greenhouse effect doesn't work by the CO2 molecule absorbing and retaining heat but by it absorbing and re-emmitting heat that was leaving Earth and sending it in all directions. This means done heat that was leaving Earth will be sent back towards it. If you actually think electric universe tards are a good source of information then you're delusional and continuing this is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11437052]

>>11436653
>McDonalds promotes "healthy" kids meals
>Therefore all the doctors saying fast food is unhealthy are a big hoax funded by McDonalds
This is your brain on denial.

[Anonymous No.11437063]

>>11432949
based

[Anonymous No.11437105]

>>11432949
RIDDLE ME THIS N*GGERS!??!?!

IF STARVATION IS "REAL" THEN WHY DID *********JEFFREY EPSTEIN************** SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EATING FOOD?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!

AT THE VERY LEAST YOU MUST ADMIT THERE IS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS TO THE AGRICULTURE SYSTEM AND THE POTENTIAL FOR CORRUPTION AND MISTRUTH?!?!?!?!?!

WHY WOULD EPSTEIN SPEND SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY EATING FOOD!?!?

[Anonymous No.11437111]

>>11437105
The funniest part is Epstein didn't even find climate change science. It's just nonsense on top of nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11437120]

>>11437111
Damn so my starvation is a jewish conspiracy to sell food theory is unironically more likely to be true than that post?

[saying you need a degree to un(...) No.11437197]

>>11436888
>your argument is that i have no argument
this is a common tactic alarmist shills use.. basically they just try to get you to repeat yourself over and over... I'm not trying to convince you but rather present the truth to the lurkers through memes.

>REEE OIL COMPANIES ARE SO FULL OF SHIT EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE PROMOTING THE CAP AND TRADE LITERAL PONZI SCHEME INVENTED BY ENRON THERE IS A CONSPIRACY TO MANIPULATE SCIENCE TO DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMING REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BUT YOU ARE A *CONSPIRACY* THEORIST IF YOU POINT OUT THE 4 TRILLION DOLLAR CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM MIGHT INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO BE BIASED, INCLUDING SCIENTISTS!!!

>>11437105
retarded argument.. if you said he funded Food AID to africa then i would agree with you that there is probably something suspicious about that charity or the motivations behind his support for it.

come on.. everything that guy touched is fucking radioactive? you have to admit that? I'll admit he probably had some degree of dirt on Trump? You going to admit that Al Gore and CLintons are shady fucks and it's weird that Epstein had a connection to him?

This is very similar to when the United States calls Iran a terrorist for having a nuke program but when literally Gislaine's Dad stole American plans to develop the israeli bomb they all get a pass?

>>11437111
Actually pure fucking bullshit.. daddy Rogan said he did and he's friends with all those creepy scientist dudes. Notice how Degrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss got #metooed. That was impart because of epstein probably in some tangential way. In fact i think i was reading that epstein might have been part of the engineering for the whole Meto harvey thing becaues he worked with media. SO YEAH ANYWAYS SOMEHOW CLIMATE ALARMISM FIT INTO HIS WHOLE CRAZY PLAN TO FUCK WITH MEDIA AND MANIPULATE PEOPLE... FACTS.

also tell me this.. what kind of bias would a person probably have if they spent their whole life in academia and decided to go into "climate science?"

[Anonymous No.11437270]

>>11432740
Probably my biggest gripe is the software they use to make these predictions. It's the exact same software used to predict tomorrow's weather. Except meteorologists use thousands of variables and still get tomorrow wrong. Climatologists use a few variables and are certain they have pinned the next 50 years down.

That and there's no accounting for the weakening magnetic sphere, there's no accounting for natural earth rhythms, and the only thing they can think of to fix it is to tax you more. It's not so much that I deny man is affecting climate, it's that I don't agree with any of the research or solutions.

Anyone else think the temp vs CO2 graphs resemble coyote vs rabbit graphs? Maybe we should just be planting trees to eat the carbon instead of enacting laws that only limit your lifestyle but don't fix anything long term? Grow more gardens and less children?

[Anonymous No.11437378]

>>11437270
>there's no accounting for natural earth rhythms
not to mention the solar cycles and the correlation between solar activity and temperature that started before the industrial revolution by about 40 years

here is Robert Schoch on JRE talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vka2ZgzZTvo

in 2012 there was solar flare that we missed by 21 days that would have killed millions by causing global blackouts but there is no Leftist effort to modernize the power grid to sustain such solar flares so their motivations are PURELY SELFISH and don't take into account other threats... whether we caused a threat or not does not affect whether we should tackle it with engineering or not and they refuse to talk about geoengineering which by a lot of accounts would cost less than carbon taxes and making energy more expensive

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

take note that in 19th century a solar flare caught telegraph poles on fire and that would cause massive blackouts killing millions today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

[Anonymous No.11437410]

>>11437270
Easy way to spot people spouting bullshit: hand-waving phrases like "natural earth rhythms".
These cycles have names, and claiming flatly that science can't "account" for them is a ridiculous lie.

[Anonymous No.11437550]

>>11432740
Look up Steve Banon and Biosphere 2. The denial/skepticism movement isn't a good faith movement, it's a lot down to people chasing money through being contrarian. True skepticism about anthropogenic climate change is much more subtle, you can question the science but in general the evidence is very solid and very good, you're really arguing over whether it's particulates more or methane more or something like that.

[**************SCIENCE DOGMA AL(...) No.11437553]

>>11437410
so if you notice that your car is "idling rough" but dont actually know the technical name for the phenomena does that completely discount the observation and insight?

>claiming flatly that science can't "account" for them is a ridiculous lie.
Umm sweetie, "science" has limits, for example with quantum mechanics we have arrived at a point where we have to think about ideas that are unfalsifiable, so in that way science is leaving certain things unaccounted for. Science also fails when "consensus" is made up of QUACKADEMICS that are motivated by grants, leftism, and furthering their parasitic careers.

Furthermore science, and human expression, fails to be able to adequately describe certain phenomena such as DMT entities. And most scientists irrationally ignore their impications, and also the implications of subjective, and artistic, accounts of ESP.

Here is LEONARD SUSSKIND admitting one of the most important questions is whether there are consciousness entities that exist in realms beyond our perception and which could influence our universe:
https://youtu.be/s78hvV3QLUE?t=3350

Lastly, science, and people in general, fall apart when systems are sufficiently chaotic enough, like weather. Models begin to be made with soul purpose of describing the scientists' bias to further their career and it's unfallsifiable but clearly not as significant as the many worlds hypothesis or questions about otherwordly beings, so it falls in a weird gray area where useful idiots like you can start to believe it and believe that they have some special training that allows them to understand it when it's EVEN MORE HAND WAIVY BULLSHIT THAN WHAT YOU CALLED HAND WAVY BULLSHIT!

perhaps machine learning can help with the last one

PS: What do you define as "science" and what is the scientific consensus on whether gender is a spectrum or not?

nature[dot]

c

o

m

/articles/

d41586

-018-

07238-8

>US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science

[Anonymous No.11437864]

>>11437378
Solid point in that they truly don't care about upgrading/failproofing/fixing infrastructure but rather just tax you with no real plan.

>>11437410
Fuck man, you got me. I thought I brought up some decent points and explained why they effect my view, but I used one generic term to bring up a broad subject and now I'm a quack. Damn, your world view must be so specifically described. I bet you scoff at every documentary on TV.
>Pft. "Ancient times". It was clearly the hellanistic period from August 817BC - June 542BC. This whole thing is shit.
>Pft. "Galactic". It's clearly the 3rd quadrant of the Sagittarius arm. Fucking amateurs. I can't trust a word they're saying.
I bet a genius wizard like you doesn't even believe in the ill defined concept of gravity.

[Anonymous No.11437889]

>>11437864
You didn't actually have points but here they are broken down anyways

>Probably my biggest gripe is the software they use to make these predictions. It's the exact same software used to predict tomorrow's weather. Except meteorologists use thousands of variables and still get tomorrow wrong. Climatologists use a few variables and are certain they have pinned the next 50 years down.
It's much easier to predict climate than weather. For instance I can't tell you what tomorrows weather will be but I can tell you that it will be hotter than it is now in 3 months using just one variable, the season.

>That and there's no accounting for the weakening magnetic sphere
meme
>here's no accounting for natural earth rhythms,
discounting that "natural earth rhythms" doesn't actually mean anything, stuff like milankovitch cycles are understood and accounted for
> and the only thing they can think of to fix it is to tax you more.
yes I'm sure you can cite some sources for that
>t's not so much that I deny man is affecting climate, it's that I don't agree with any of the research or solutions.
More like you agree with what blogs say you should agree with, seeing as you obviously haven't read any research

>Maybe we should just be planting trees to eat the carbon
I'm sure you could do a 10 minute napkin math to see how many trees we would need to plant to match out current emissions. Maybe then you would see why that is wrong instead of proposing meme solutions

[Anonymous No.11437988]

I too am a non scientist and I would generally fall on the "climate denial" side of the debate. Although having to label someone who doesn't follow a specific theory a denier seems rather strange. For example you are not a Zeus denier, and I am not a string theory denier, though I would imagine that neither of us subscribe to either idea.

Aside from being attacked simply for asking a question or not immediately dropping any personal beliefs and jumping on board with the theory only to avoid being labeled a denier, the term "climate change" itself appears to me to be dishonest.

I think any serious person would already agree that the climate changes, and has changed for all of Earth's history. So calling a theory climate change doesn't appear to assert anything out of the ordinary is happening. In reality quite the opposite is occurring.

I don't know for sure but I believe the central assertion of climate change is that the average surface temperature of the earth is rising on a regular, significant basis and that this is due to human activity.

While I would be interested in the methodology used to collect these temperatures required to make any observation of the claim I don't outright doubt that they are valid or have been tampered with. Rather I think I would question whether the sample size of data being used is significant in any way. With 13+ billion years of climate I can't imagine 20 or 100 years of perfect measurements would return data which proves a pattern.

More provoking to me is the idea of cyclical glaciation which appears to be wholly documented and universally agreed to. I imagine that if the earth is currently coming out of an ice age we would already expect ice to be receeding and temperatures to be rising. I've heard the response that climate change is simple 'more warming than would otherwise occur during an interglacial' but I'm not aware of any model existing anywhere which would demonstrate this theory.

[Anonymous No.11438070]

>>11437889
I'm just gonna cut the crap here and tell you any plan you have is only kicking the can down the road for future generations. The only viable and permanent plan is population cutting and limits. Not taxes, not cutting beef, not grounding airplanes.

And again, we could've told you it was gonna be warmer in 50 years just by looking at natural earth rhythms. That wasn't really the point tho was it. Your beloved research promised me NYC would be under water 20 years ago. You'd do well to question the methods they use to collect and analyze the data too.
Thanks for the tangential conversation.

[Anonymous No.11438080]

>>11437988
> Although having to label someone who doesn't follow a specific theory a denier seems rather strange. For example you are not a Zeus denier
The difference is that climate change has a mound of evidence
If Zeus started zapping niggers from Olympus and you kept saying hes not there then yes you would be called Zeus denier.

>Aside from being attacked simply for asking
You aren't asking questions in good faith looking to learn, you are spamming gotchas from blogs in an attempt to "trap" the person answering you.

>So calling a theory climate change doesn't appear to assert anything out of the ordinary is happening
You don't seem to understand what climate change is about if you unironically think this. The rate of the change is much much higher than last few thousand years (or pretty much ever sans very disasterous conditions)

>Rather I think I would question whether the sample size of data being used is significant in any way. With 13+ billion years of climate I can't imagine 20 or 100 years of perfect measurements would return data which proves a pattern.
I'm not sure what this fallacy is called but you are essentially saying this
>I have had this frozen pizza in the freezer for 2 months now so after just 15 minutes in the microwave there isn't enough sample size to conclude it's warming up.

> I imagine that if the earth is currently coming out of an ice age we would already expect ice to be receeding and temperatures to be rising
Well yes it is, the rate of change is obviously very different. In the last 10 000 years the temperature has changed by maybe 1-3 degrees depending how you look at it. In the last 50 it has gone up by 1

[Anonymous No.11438086]

>>11438070
>I'm just gonna cut the crap here and tell you any plan you have is only kicking the can down the road for future generations.
Well that's your obviously very uneducated opinion

>just by looking at natural earth rhythms. That
and what would those be exactly?

>ur beloved research promised me NYC would be under water 20 years ago.
no it doesn't but feel free to quote that in a research paper (you won't)

>Thanks for the tangential conversation.
yes your memes are quite fun

[Anonymous No.11438090]

>>11438080

what should the rate of temperature increase be?

[Anonymous No.11438103]

>>11438090
Don't you actually know or is this one of those gotchas?
As close to 0 as possible obviously, slow change gives greatest time to adapt for both human infrastructure and nature at large.

[Anonymous No.11438147]

>>11438103

No, I don't know what the rate of the earth's temperature change should be.

So the central theory of climate change would better be described as "the change in average surface temperature of the earth is normally close to zero but is currently greater than that amount due to human activity"

[Anonymous No.11438155]

>>11438147
Well that's at least better way of putting it but seems to me you are still trying to pretend to be retarded really hard. It's not hard to open up a wikipedia article or something to see what words mean before entering a coversation.

[Anonymous No.11438181]

>>11438155

I mean all I really know about climate change is some stuff I've seen on YouTube people arguing etc so yes you're right I don't know all the terminology.

So does the theory of climate change provide specific assertions regarding these rates (historical, current, and what should be happening)? For example the average surface temperature of the earth should be rising at 1*C per year? I feel like if it did, it would be really nice and easy to test the theory.

[Anonymous No.11438193]

>>11438181
Well maybe you should search out some research on the topic if you are legitimately interested.

[Anonymous No.11438200]

>>11437378
solar activity and temperature are currently anti correlated despite the fact they are usually very strongly correlated. Clearly something else is at work here.

[Anonymous No.11438209]

>>11438193

I mean if you knew the answer couldn't you just tell me?

[Anonymous No.11438222]

>>11438209
Why trust me when you could go read an IPCC report for instance to get yourself familiarized with the subject, there are actual scientist who know far more than me and tons of additional reading if you are interested in any of the more specifc topics too.

You don't accept the objecitvely superior answer because you aren't looking for an answer, but rather are simply looking to get a gotcha out of me.

[Anonymous No.11438265]

>>11437889
>For instance I can't tell you what tomorrows weather will be but I can tell you that it will be hotter than it is now in 3 months using just one variable, the season.
Honestly 3/5. But tell me exactly how many degrees warmer on average will the yearly temperature be in 10 years with and without the cap and trade ponzi scheme being in force?

[Anonymous No.11438277]

>>11438265
I believe IPCC report has variety of scenarios and starting conditions for you to pick and see how things would turn out. How about you start there.

[Anonymous No.11438283]

>>11438222

Why should I believe for or against climate change theory, or spend any time even thinking about it, if you can't explain the premise or answer basic questions about it?

[Anonymous No.11438290]

>>11438283
Yes again, I just did explain it. Go read the basics of the thing you are trying to discuss. And you sure seem to spend a lot of time on this gotcha gathering lmao

[Anonymous No.11438332]

>>11438290

What is your theory?
>I'm not telling
Can you answer some questions about your theory
>No

Ok

[Anonymous No.11438354]

>>11438332
>my theory
You can read it about it detail in the IPCC report

[Anonymous No.11438418]

>>11438354

Link? I'm aware that the IPCC puts out "reports" but I don't know which one I'm supposed to be looking for and I really don't want to read 600 pages and then come back later only to find out it wasn't the right one or something.

I am aware that you don't own the theory and don't mean to paint you as the sole champion of AGW in an adversarial way but I guess I assumed someone would at least try to convince me one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.11438440]

>>11438418
Here's a good place to start, it's written at a middle school level so it should be perfect.

[Anonymous No.11438444]

>>11438440
>https://www.globalwarmingprimer.com/
forgot link

[Anonymous No.11438461]

>>11438418
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Here is their 5th edition synthesis report from 2014 which is the newst sythesis report making it good place to start. You can find newer reports on the various past topics as well as find out what to expect in the future and when by following this link instead.
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

[Anonymous No.11438621]

>>11438277
>has variety of scenarios and starting conditions for you to pick and see how things would turn out
i see.. mental gymnastics, very clever

you are like a worm.. so slippery

[Anonymous No.11438628]

>>11437197
>daddy Rogan said he did and he's friends with all those creepy scientist dudes.
Well that proves it then, no need for actual evidence.

[Anonymous No.11438634]

>>11438628
You think the most powerful man in media, who knows the very same scientists that Epstein targeted, doesn't have inside sources??? Also you can tell better if someone is lying or not from listening to them a lot, so it would be harder for him to lie.

Meanwhile you believe everything the "scientists" say just because they say they are "scientists," without any intrinsic reason besides their own qualification and your bootlicker statist pulbic educated brinwashing.

You are conditioned like dog. Your mouth salivates when you hear someone qualify their statemetns with "as an expert in the field" and when they speak like Obama in a CNN hyponsitic way.

You are NPC.

[Anonymous No.11438638]

>>11432740
Even if climate change really is a problem, it won't be solved until there's a way to make money doing so. Not killing off jobs would be a plus.

[Anonymous No.11438649]

>>11437270
>Probably my biggest gripe is the software they use to make these predictions. It's the exact same software used to predict tomorrow's weather.
They can share some similarities but they're hardly "exactly the same." I don't understand why you deniertards think you can get away with making shit up like this.

>Except meteorologists use thousands of variables and still get tomorrow wrong. Climatologists use a few variables and are certain they have pinned the next 50 years down.
Climate is less chaotic than weather. But I'm sure you already know this and you're just repeating your bullshit script.

>That and there's no accounting for the weakening magnetic sphere
Because it's effect is negligible.

>there's no accounting for natural earth rhythms
Which ones?

>and the only thing they can think of to fix it is to tax you more.
Not liking the solution is not an argument against the problem.

>It's not so much that I deny man is affecting climate, it's that I don't agree with any of the research or solutions.
Good thing your misinformed opinion is irrelevant.

>Maybe we should just be planting trees to eat the carbon instead of enacting laws that only limit your lifestyle but don't fix anything long term?
OK, what happens to the trees once they "eat the carbon?" Plantations don't actually sequester that much carbon since the carbon is released once the tree is used. Reforestation sequesters more carbon but are more difficult and mutch slower to implement than plantations. It will always be far easier to leave carbon in the ground instead of releasing and capturing it.

[Anonymous No.11438656]

>>11437553
Look at all that shit you wrote and not one sentence actually showing climatologists are missing something. Retard.

[Anonymous No.11438671]

>>11437988
>I think any serious person would already agree that the climate changes, and has changed for all of Earth's history. So calling a theory climate change doesn't appear to assert anything out of the ordinary is happening. In reality quite the opposite is occurring.
The theory refers to current climate change, which is out of the ordinary. Your misinterpretation of a name is not "dishonesty."

>Rather I think I would question whether the sample size of data being used is significant in any way. With 13+ billion years of climate I can't imagine 20 or 100 years of perfect measurements would return data which proves a pattern.
The age of the Earth has no bearing on whether temperatures at human timescales are changing. They observably are. If we were attempting to say something about Earth's entire temperature history by sampling it with the thermometer record then you would have a point, but that's not what the temperature record is for. Also, we have paleoclimate data that tells us Earth's temperature over billions of years.

>I imagine that if the earth is currently coming out of an ice age we would already expect ice to be receeding and temperatures to be rising.
The Earth came out of a glacial period 10000 years ago, so according to the natural cycle we should be slowly cooling now, not rapidly warming an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming.

>I've heard the response that climate change is simple 'more warming than would otherwise occur during an interglacial' but I'm not aware of any model existing anywhere which would demonstrate this theory.
Pic related.

Instead of falling on one side of the debate, you should learn more about the topic.

[Anonymous No.11438674]

>>11438444

There is no evidence here that human activity caused increased CO2 concentration. The small chart has no source I could locate online and I challenge the figures of how much carbon emissions have been put into the atmosphere. The author themself later states that humans have less impact on atmospheric CO2 than natural factors.

The author also fails to address the fact that coming out of an ice age would necessarily predict higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. They state:

>Given that the current carbon dioxide concentration is some 40% higher than at any other time in that period — and rising rapidly — it would seem that we should be very concerned about how much higher the temperature will rise.

>To summarize, while it’s true that the climate changes naturally, today we are causing changes of an unnatural degree at an unnatural rate

Neither of the above statements address the assertion that glaciation cycles and not human activity drive the current climate or rule out that possibility.

I disagree with the authors predictions about the future which of course cannot be tested because nobody can see the future. I believe rising global temperature is a good thing. Whatever effects may occur, from a utilitarian ethical mindset, are outweighed by the positive impacts on humanity brought about by industrial civilization over the last few hundred years.

[Anonymous No.11438680]

>>11438283
>Why should I believe for or against climate change theory, or spend any time even thinking about it, if you can't explain the premise or answer basic questions about it?
LOL, what does a random person being able to explain something to you have to do with scientific validity?

Here, I'll explain it to you: it's a loaded question. There doesn't have to be a perfect rate for us to know that the current rate has negative consequences that should be avoided.

[Anonymous No.11438682]

>>11438621
>concrete answer available to you
>calls it slippery
OK, denier.

[Anonymous No.11438686]

>>11438634
>You think the most powerful man in media, who knows the very same scientists that Epstein targeted, doesn't have inside sources???
I think you're full of shit. And you yet again failed to provide any evidence, which means you admit you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.11438691]

>>11438674
>There is no evidence here that human activity caused increased CO2 concentration.
https://www.globalwarmingprimer.com/primer/primer1/
>Evidence for Fact 2 (Human Activity Is Adding Carbon Dioxide to the Atmosphere)
>Q - How do we know the added carbon dioxide is a result of human activity, rather than natural sources?

Gee it's almost like you have no interest in actually learning anything since you immediately make shit up about the source.

[Anonymous No.11438718]

>>11438691

I specifically addressed that paragraph. I challenge the validity of the graph showing carbon emissions on the grounds that it does not have any legitimate source provided (I cannot find anything for "Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment") Feel free to provide the source of that data.

Even if true, the direct quote (the graph)"...tracks almost perfectly with the measured rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration" is not proof that one caused the other even if an apparent correlation is there. Apparently coinciding data is not proof.

The authors second point "there really isn’t any other possibility" proves nothing.

To be honest I don't have the scientific understanding to evaluate the 3rd and 4th points which unfortunately might be the most convincing ones.

Again the author admits that natural factors cause more CO2 emissions than human causes which is telling.

[Anonymous No.11438725]

>>11438674
>The author also fails to address the fact that coming out of an ice age would necessarily predict higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.
It was already shown in the prior chapter that current increased CO2 levels and temperatures were caused by man, not by natural warming.

[Anonymous No.11438747]

>>11438725
Arguing with brainwashed high school dropouts is a truly sisyphean task he's debating the most futile part of the arguement and he's too clueless about the world to even know it.

[Anonymous No.11438762]

>>11438718
>>11438718
>I challenge the validity of the graph showing carbon emissions on the grounds that it does not have any legitimate source provided (I cannot find anything for "Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment") Feel free to provide the source of that data.
Your incompetence is not an argument against the source:

https://acwi.gov/useful-links/2014_climate_change_report_ov%26findings.pdf

Literally the first result when googling "J. M. Melillo, T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, eds., 2014."

>Even if true, the direct quote (the graph)"...tracks almost perfectly with the measured rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration" is not proof that one caused the other even if an apparent correlation is there.
The fact that human CO2 emissions are equal to the total change in CO2 emissions is not a "correlation." If I want to know who payed for lunch so I ask each person how much money they payed for lunch, and the amount Bob payed is equal to the total cost, that tells me Bob payed for the lunch, not that Bob's payment merely happens to be correlated with how much was spent on lunch. You seem to be adopting an obtuse interpretation for no reason.

>The authors second point "there really isn’t any other possibility" proves nothing.
Please explain how there not being any other possible explanation "proves nothing." Ever heard of proof by exhaustion?

>To be honest I don't have the scientific understanding to evaluate the 3rd and 4th points which unfortunately might be the most convincing ones.
Then don't you think you should research it further? Your ignorance is not a counterargument.

>Again the author admits that natural factors cause more CO2 emissions than human causes which is telling.
Emissions are only half of the equation that determines the change in concentration. Natural sinks absorb even more CO2 than natural sources emit. The only thing telling here is your misrepresentation.

[Anonymous No.11438763]

>>11438634
you better hit that quickload button and try again, PC

[Anonymous No.11438786]

>>11438762

Please show where in the 3 page pdf you linked is data showing human carbon emissions from 1800s through present.

I appreciate your analogy but I am not looking for a logic proof of how much bob paid for lunch.

There is no evidence (at least on this page) of how human activity impacted the atmosphere. Showing two graphs (one of which still has no supporting evidence) which look similar does not constitute scientific proof even if both lines have similar paths.

No, I have never heard of proof by exhaustion.

I never stated that my ignorance is a counter argument. I am admitting that my ignorance means I cannot evaluate the authors 3 and 4th points. They may in fact be the most convincing ones.

[Anonymous No.11438792]

>>11435077
>we're not gonna put any regulation on countries actually producing most of the Co2 like China.
China is investing massively in renewables and electric vehicles. They want to actually own the future.

[Anonymous No.11438802]

>>11437988
>the term "climate change" itself appears to me to be dishonest.
The theory is "anthropogenic climate change", literally "human-caused climate change."
>With 13+ billion years of climate
Earth is ~4.5 billion years old,

[Anonymous No.11438805]

>>11438802

Yes you're right I incorrectly said 13 billion (age of universe) and should have said around 4 billion. My point was that relatively speaking the current state of climate, or perceived change over even a few hundred years, may not be significant.

For example over the recent weeks the stock market dropped significantly. However if you were to look at global market trends for 50 years you would clearly see that the market trends overall is not affected. Not sure what the term is for that but it could apply in anything.

[Anonymous No.11438808]

>>11438805
>For example over the recent weeks the stock market dropped significantly. However if you were to look at global market trends for 50 years you would clearly see that the market trends overall is not affected.

That's pretty much the worst example you could pick. The variability seen here due to COVID-19 is significant, e.g. the DOW just had the largest relative increase after a short period of decline. And it obviously did have an impact, and we're seeing impacts all around the world - from the APS meeting in Denver, to the book fair in Leipzig, large international events are being cancelled. Is that not a real impact?

[Anonymous No.11438810]

>>11438805
Ice core sampling and other geological evidence extend the length of time directly being mined extensively.
And if you understand the mechanics and the constraints, the system's long-term behaviour can be determined.
No one serious contests the scientific narrative for the events that led to Earth existing in its current orbit with its current mass, shape, composition, and such, even though the relevant events occurred billions of years ago.

[Anonymous No.11438814]

>>11438808

Yes but if you only were to look at recent weeks you would have an INCOMPLETE understanding of the status of the stock market in REALITY. It would be misleading because you would only be able to determine that the current status of the market is bad. When of course over the last 5, 10, 20 (any time frame giving a more accurate and realistic picture of the market today comparatively) you would see it is doing quite well.

[Anonymous No.11438819]

>>11438814
But again, that's not true. You didn't look at the local minimum - and the low DOW value isn't the interesting thing. It's the fact that it changed the way it did, in such a short time. And the overall large-scale trend in the DOW doesn't mean squat for the actual short-term real-life effects. To stop the analogy, we have good enough understanding of the earth system when it comes to radiative forcing, atmopsheric composition, the anthropogenic component of the carbon content in the atmosphere (which is almost laughably easy to measure and deduce), and the land sink.

[Anonymous No.11438835]

>>11438819

And what is the anthropogenic component of carbon in the atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.11438854]

>>11438835
What are you looking for? Total flux, net flux, partition of atmospheric content?

[Anonymous No.11438856]

>>11438762
you linked the summary not the full report.
>https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1412/ML14129A233.pdf
>>11438786
page 739 because I know you're incapable of using CTRL F
Data from here
>https://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/bg-9-1845-2012.pdf

[Anonymous No.11438859]

>>11438835
humans are entirely responsible from the increase seen in the graph, in fact only half of our total emissions have ended up in the atmosphere, the rest have been absorbed by the ocean which is causing acidification which is an entirely separate ecological disaster.

[Anonymous No.11438872]

>>11438859
>the rest have been absorbed by the ocean
It's actually land plus ocean sinks.

[Anonymous No.11438874]

>>11438856
>https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1412/ML14129A233.pdf

the graph you mentioned lists "Boden, et al, 2012" as its source. I checked the references page and it shows the following link as the source for human emissions from 1751-2009.

This is just a list of dates and numbers. Are these made up numbers? Where did this data come from? Is this actually used as empirical evidence for anything?

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2009.ems


>>11438859

>humans are entirely responsible from the increase seen in the graph

I'm assuming you have a source for that claim?

[Anonymous No.11438876]

>>11438872
lands a bit iffy as when you take into account human activity we've actually seriously reduced the effectiveness of land based sinks. So yes it absorbs carbon but it really should have absorbed more. So you could technically consider it a net source of emissions due to human activity.

[Anonymous No.11438879]

100 posts in and deniers are spouting memes, trying to tie their illuminati pedophile schizo shit to climate change while literally capitalizing knee-jerk buzzwords

So this is the power of /pol/'s intellect. Wow

[Anonymous No.11438883]

>>11438874
Not trying to be mean or anything, but do you know how to read a citation? because Boden, et al, 2012 cites the raw data like 500 times if your strategy is to play dumb at this point, I'm just going to call you a retard and tell you to fuck off. Because literally every question you've asked has been answered directly in the thinks provided if you were to actually spend 5 fucking minutes reading.

[Anonymous No.11438895]

>>11438874
yeah actually read >>11438444
instead of skimming like a fucking 5 year old, seriously i'm trying to imagine you sounding out the big words and it's hilarious.

[Anonymous No.11438899]

>>11438883
>>11438895

Did you even click the link?

Your "raw data" is just some random website with numbers on it which apparently are "estimates" of human emissions dating back to the 1700s.

Where did these numbers come from? What methodology was used to make such estimates? Was any actual data used here? Who are these people?

How can anyone accept this source as evidence for anything????

[Anonymous No.11438916]

>>11438899

>Source: dude trust me

[Anonymous No.11438927]

>>11432990
>humanity could get wiped out in 10 years
Thats pretty much impossible.

[Anonymous No.11438929]

>>11432740
This summs it up mostly.

[Anonymous No.11438930]

>>11432740
>>11432869
>>11432936
>>11436988
>>11432971
>>11436893
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ

[MONEY CAN BETTER PROTECT YOU F(...) No.11438938]

>>11438686
>>11438763
>I think you're full of shit. And you yet again failed to provide any evidence, which means you admit you're full of shit.
it's called circumstantial evidence.. sorry your libtard brain only understand black vs white because you are racist and fall for divide and conquer BS

Joe Rogan is an "expert" in rumors and knowledge about Epstein and his connections to scientists, as he has inside sources in those circles, some of which have been on his show. You are the one claiming that the climatologists' expertise should be believed at face value so NOW YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. The difference between JOE and your alarmist grant chasers IS THAT JOE HAS NO MOTIVATION TO LIE. If you don't take into account means motivations and oppertunities with regards to what people are saying then you are in fact a provable NPC.
>>11438682
>concrete answer
>a bunch of convoluted "predictions" requiring a RANGE of different inputs
>hocus pocus
>handy waivy bullshit
>nothing conrete
>the opposite of concrete
>literal fucking jello
ALSO JUDGING BY THE UN IPCC'S OWN FUCKINMG MODELS THEY ESTIMATE THAT THE COST OF DAMAGES FROM GLOBAL WARMING IS ROUGHLY THE SAME AS THE COST OF PREVENTION MEASURES:
https://scotthorton.org/interviews/6-14-19-bob-murphy-on-the-economics-of-climate-change/
>He explains that even according to the science cited by the UN and the Obama administration, the economic costs of the proposed plans to slow down global warming would be wildly more expensive than the costs associated with the warming itself.
>>11438656
>Look at all that shit you wrote and not one sentence actually showing climatologists are missing something.
sad attempt at a strawman.. typical leftist cant even understand the argument that was being put forth about the tangent topic about whether science is capable of answering everything (it isnt)

climate models have no where near the predictive powers to warrant the massive police state violence required to reduce global warming

[Anonymous No.11438941]

>>11432740
i would say for any actual intelligent sceptic it would be 4 and 5

[Anonymous No.11438944]

>>11432949
not an argument

[Anonymous No.11438947]

>>11436893
>"Gubmint bad!"
>not an argument
ok bootlicker.. have fun doing what other men tell you to do

:^)

[Anonymous No.11438949]

>>11438944
actually it is sweetie

[Anonymous No.11438957]

>>11432740
>I) Relationship between temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Thermal effect of CO2 is directly provable in a lab and can be observed via satellites measuring incoming/outgoing radiation

>II) Accuracy of current measurements of (a) amount of carbon dioxide in atmosphere or (b) global mean temperature?

Even if absolute accuracy isn't there, relative trends still hold, there's no way for errors to trend upwards in the same direction for decades. Absolute accuracy is also there for the most part

>III) Accuracy of historic measurements of the same?

Not as accurate but trends are still measurable and verifiable via multiple methods/locations

>IV) Accuracy of climate models used to make predictions about the future regarding the same?

this is the hardest part due to sheer number of variables, which is why we use many, MANY models to gain a consensus on what the effects are

>V) Consequences of rising global mean temperature? (e.g., increased flooding and hurricanes, increased drought and crop failure, etc.)

The most important and easiest to measure effect is global sea level rise due to the melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice. These are directly measured by satellites for the past few decades and are increasing in speed at a loosely exponential rate, and contains by far the greatest immediate impacts. Mass relocation of every major coastal city is something the world is not ready for under any circumstance and we're already probably a bit late to reverse many of the effects due to how long it takes to melt ice. The fact we have ice is also one of the reasons where we aren't as warm as we could be, but once its gone the energy previously being absorbed by ice melting is now going to warm the earth up even more

[Anonymous No.11439002]

>>11438929
Wow the writer of Dilbert is a dumbass

[Anonymous No.11439069]

>>11432949
well poisoning

[Anonymous No.11439107]

>>11439069
>well poisoning
haahhahaha it worked

actually it wasnt that but ok

>hurr durr this insane pedophile cult is funding the media to promote climate alarmist but that's doesnt discredit "the science" i swear!!!!!!!11111
>actual scientists are being blackmailed with pedophilia
>b-b-but the science!
>youre just a conspiracy theorist!!!!!!
>meanwhile every skeptic is obviously a big oil shill
>but you can trust big oil when they support a literal 4 trillion dollar ponzi scheme (cap and trade)

[Anonymous No.11439148]

>>11439002
OK, when did economic models ever predict a financial downturn, with any accuracy?

[Anonymous No.11439174]

>>11439107
Ok, but where are you, who's your audience, and are you speaking their language? What incentive have you given them to listen to you?
t. inclined to agree and came to see what the arguments were

[Anonymous No.11439176]

You're a complete dumbass if you don't accept climate change at this point.

[Anonymous No.11439180]

>>11438621
>present a scenario and demand an asnwer
>point to the location to find out answer to that and more scenarios you might be interested in
>nooo you can't just answer my question noooooo

[Anonymous No.11439244]

>>11438786
>I appreciate your analogy but I am not looking for a logic proof of how much bob paid for lunch.
You're looking for any pathetic excuse to deny the evidence.

>There is no evidence (at least on this page) of how human activity impacted the atmosphere.
There are several proofs that all show the same thing. Your pathetic attempt to ignore them is not an argument against them. Try again.

>Showing two graphs (one of which still has no supporting evidence)
Again, your incompetence in finding the source when it can be found immediately with a Google search is not an argument.

>which look similar does not constitute scientific proof even if both lines have similar paths.
The fact that the human contribution to CO2 is the same as the rise in total CO2 does constitute scientific proof.

>I never stated that my ignorance is a counter argument. I am admitting that my ignorance means I cannot evaluate the authors 3 and 4th points.
Then why are you pretending they don't exist as evidence?

[Anonymous No.11439249]

>>11438805
>My point was that relatively speaking the current state of climate, or perceived change over even a few hundred years, may not be significant.
So I guess humans are insignificant, since they have only existed for a small fraction of Earth's existence. Your life is especially insignificant.

How exactly is the age of the Earth relevant?

[Anonymous No.11439250]

>>11439176
Argumentation by intimidation on an anonymous Nepalese basket weaving forum really builds your case.

[Anonymous No.11439254]

>>11438814
>Yes but if you only were to look at recent weeks you would have an INCOMPLETE understanding of the status of the stock market in REALITY.
We are not only looking at that section though. We have paleoclimate data showing Earth's climate over billions of years. The fact that we can see current warming is rapid and negative does not mean we are only looking at it, nor does looking at the rest of history negate the rapidity and negative effects. Your argument is doubly flawed.

[Anonymous No.11439267]

>>11438899
>Methods
>Publications containing historical energy statistics make it possible to estimate fossil fuel CO2 emissions back to 1751. Etemad et al. (1991) published a summary compilation that tabulates coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year. Footnotes in the Etemad et al.(1991) publication extend the energy statistics time series back to 1751. Summary compilations of fossil fuel trade were published by Mitchell (1983, 1992, 1993, 1995). Mitchell's work tabulates solid and liquid fuel imports and exports by nation and year. These pre-1950 production and trade data were digitized and CO2 emission calculations were made following the procedures discussed in Marland and Rotty (1984) and Boden et al. (1995). Further details on the contents and processing of the historical energy statistics are provided in Andres et al. (1999).

>The 1950 to present CO2 emission estimates are derived primarily from energy statistics published by the United Nations (2013), using the methods of Marland and Rotty (1984). The energy statistics were compiled primarily from annual questionnaires distributed by the U.N. Statistical Office and supplemented by official national statistical publications. As stated in the introduction of the Statistical Yearbook, "in a few cases, official sources are supplemented by other sources and estimates, where these have been subjected to professional scrutiny and debate and are consistent with other independent sources." Data from the U.S. Department of Interior's Geological Survey (USGS 2012) were used to estimate CO2 emitted during cement production. Values for emissions from gas flaring were derived primarily from U.N. data but were supplemented with data from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (1994), Rotty (1974), and data provided by G. Marland. Greater details about these methods are provided in Marland and Rotty (1984), Boden et al. (1995), and Andres et al. (1999).

[Anonymous No.11439276]

>>11438930
>if I take a bunch of quotes out of context and misinterpret them, it's a conspiracy
https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.11439300]

>>11432949
Scientists are pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.11439318]

I get that it costs money to do things and that money is the primary incentive for both government and business, but like, why is it such a factor in discussions about preserving the state of our biosphere?
Like, it will cost a lot of money to switch to renewable or nuclear energy, to promote carbon sequestration, to clean up all the garbage we've left everywhere, I get that.
But the end result will be a much nicer and cleaner planet with better infrastructure and a human society with far more sustainable industrial practices and power generation, that might also mitigate future expenses in disaster relief.
Whether or not global warming is going to lead to the end of the world or whatever, all the things we could do that would help stave it off seem like generally good things to do as a species regardless.

[Anonymous No.11439330]

>>11438947
Have fun in prison Tyrone

[Anonymous No.11439422]

>>11439267

Source? That's nowhere on the link posted above

[Anonymous No.11439430]

>>11439249

Is this really the position of climate change defenders? The earth has warmed quickly in a couple hundred years and it doesn't matter if this is normal or has happened many of times in the Earth's history your opinion is that it's bad therefore we need to take your money?

[Anonymous No.11439555]

>>11439430
>Publications containing historical energy statistics make it possible to estimate fossil fuel CO2
it hasn't though, and certainly not at this rate or caused directly by human actions.

[Anonymous No.11439557]

>>11439422
why do you think pretending to be retarded is an argument? How about you check what's cited as the source of the data literally 20+ times in the link?

[Anonymous No.11439627]

>>11432869
>list a bunch of strawman arguments
>they have no arguments
this is your brain on tranny hormones

[Anonymous No.11440054]

>>11438938
>it's called circumstantial evidence
It's called no evidence.

>Joe Rogan is an "expert" in rumors and knowledge about Epstein and his connections to scientists
Pic related.

>The difference between JOE and your alarmist grant chasers IS THAT JOE HAS NO MOTIVATION TO LIE.
Where did I say he lied? First of all, you haven't even shown Joe say anything about Epstein finding climate science. Second, he could simply be mistaken.

Keep posting, you're hilarious.

>>a bunch of convoluted "predictions" requiring a RANGE of different inputs
You asked for different inputs yet you have a problem with inputs? HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE REEEEEEEEE

>ALSO JUDGING BY THE UN IPCC'S OWN FUCKINMG MODELS THEY ESTIMATE THAT THE COST OF DAMAGES FROM GLOBAL WARMING IS ROUGHLY THE SAME AS THE COST OF PREVENTION MEASURES:
It depends on how you account for future costs, but I'm glad you agree an optimal carbon tax is necessary.

>sad attempt at a strawman.. typical leftist cant even understand the argument that was being put forth about the tangent topic about whether science is capable of answering everything (it isnt)
This thread is about climate change, not "everything"

>climate models have no where near the predictive powers to warrant the massive police state violence required to reduce global warming
So how much predictive power is needed for a carbon tax? You won't have an answer since you don't actually believe your own argument.

[Anonymous No.11440102]

>>11439627
It's a pretty fair and accurate summary of the best arguments put forward by deniers of AGW in the thead.

[Anonymous No.11440120]

>>11432740
I remember when I was a kid I saw on the news some reporter saying something like "according to researchers by 2012 there will be no ice caps on the arctic". And guess what, it didn't happened. I don't deny that climate change might be true at some extent but most of the info we get are clearly exaggerated for the sake of causing apocalyptic despair on the masses.

[Anonymous No.11440144]

>>11439627
the government really is bad though

is that still a strawman?

[Anonymous No.11440157]

>>11439330
>Have fun in prison Tyrone
cringe* imagine being so resentful of other people's freedom that you resort to incel racism?

you are like the leftists that actually talk about banning health charities because it makes the NHS look bad

Here is a video where they complain about a charity giving cancer treatments to people on their socialist waiting list and they say they need to regulate them harder becuase it's embarassing their socialsit ssytem:

you are like them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2RSKJC-ugk

[Anonymous No.11440310]

>>11439148
Economic downturns are predicted all the time based on known causes of economic downturns. For example, every financial analyst successfully predicted an economic downturn from Trump putting tariffs on China. You are confusing predicting unknown causes with predicting what would happen if a known cause occurred.

[Anonymous No.11440312]

>>11439250
>Argumentation by intimidation
Triggered snowflake.

[Anonymous No.11440324]

>>11439430
>the position of climate change defenders? The earth has warmed quickly in a couple hundred years and it doesn't matter if this is normal or has happened many of times in the Earth's history
You didn't argue that it's normal, you argued that we don't know. This is both false and irrelevant. False because we have paleoclimate data that tells us it's abnormal. Irrelevant because what's normal for the planet has no bearing on whether it's good for human civilization.

>your opinion is that it's bad therefore we need to take your money?
Not my opinion, it's what the scientific evidence shows. Still waiting for the explanation of how the age of the Earth is relevant by the way.

[Anonymous No.11440326]

>>11440312
>Failure to read
Try again. And again.

[Anonymous No.11440327]

>>11440054
Forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.11440331]

>>11440326
>You're a complete dumbass if you don't accept climate change at this point.
>Argumentation by intimidation
Failure to read by a triggered snowflake. Try again, drooling moron.

[Anonymous No.11441775]

>>11440331
>Arguments by insults.
Still doesn't work. It does tell volumes about you though.

[Anonymous No.11441780]

>>11441775
>Arguments by insults.
Nope, try again. Still can't read, drooling moron?

[Anonymous No.11442305]

>>11436106
>>11432936
Potholer54 also does very good videos on the topic. Don't be put off by his clickbaity titles and clips at the start of the video.
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk

[Anonymous No.11442313]

>>11436375
>muh six gorillion scientists signed this letter (99% of them happen to be electrical engineers, business owners and mechanics who know nothing about climate science though)
>muh greta
>t*ny h*ller
>pr*ncipia-schizotific
>muh failed predictions (i.e. headlines from tabloid newspapers instead of actual scientific predictions)
>electroverse.net
Is this seriously the best you oil shills can come up with?

[Anonymous No.11442502]

>>11432740
There is NO climate change denier. Even the proposition is ridiculous, climate has never been constant and to deny that climate isn't changing is far more ridiculous then the world being flat.

Also if you aren't skeptical of I-V you literally aren't a scientist.

[Anonymous No.11442514]

>>11439176
You are a morron.
WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE. Pointing at a hot day in Australia and saying climate change did this is beyond retarded, you lack a fundamental knowledge of what these terms mean.

Climate can't be demonstrated by weather AND you also need to demonstrate that there are human causes to this change.

And no, I am not denying climate change. Climate changing is literally always happening, the only thing to be debated are human causes in it.

[Anonymous No.11442917]

>>11442514
>the only thing to be debated are human causes in it
Ah yes, the "debate" rages on

[Anonymous No.11442923]

>>11439002
Yeah, he went full retard sometime in the 90s and has only gotten worse since.

[Anonymous No.11442945]

>>11439002
Only an anti-science clown would buy into the notion that exponentially increasing consumption of energy could lead to anything other than inevitable catastrophic collapse.

This is the delusional fantasy which forms the foundations upon which the entire field of economics is built on.