Anon is it normal that glaciers just break apart or is it possible that it's getting warmer all around the globe?

File: 115 KB, 950x533, 107F0663-E24C-48C8-A98C-1C2544CDBC9C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:25:39 2022 No.14673035 [Reply] [Original]

Anon is it normal that glaciers just break apart or is it possible that it's getting warmer all around the globe?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:47:54 2022 No.14673085 Climate change is real.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:52:47 2022 No.14673100

>>14673035
It's part of earths natural cycle. There is no proof of mankind having a causal influence on this. Correlation is not causation. Without a second planet and a non arbitrary ruleset it is impossible to solve for multiple unknown variables (human outputs, natural outputs, the corresponding ratios, extraneous factors, etc)

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:53:09 2022 No.14673101
File: 205 KB, 1200x900, ching chong summer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

all glaciers undergo dramatic annual changes because of the astronomical phenomenon known as summer. polar ice caps also melts substantially for the same reason. summerfags also post on /sci/ because of it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:53:29 2022 No.14673103 File: 11 KB, 450x392, Global_Glacier_Mass_Change.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673100 Doesn't look cyclical to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:54:42 2022 No.14673108 >>14673101 So it has been summer since 1970?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:57:14 2022 No.14673118 >>14673035 Whether climate change is real or not, this is just another climate change shill thread with a vague premise in order to generate responses, everyone please sage and ignore

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:58:41 2022 No.14673122 >>14673103 Zoom out say 500 million years

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 12:59:45 2022 No.14673130 >>14673122 500 million years ago there were no animals on land. What do you want to prove? That before animals walked on land, the climate was different? Yeah no shit. I'd like to keep the Earth in a state where we still can walk on land.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:05:21 2022 No.14673148

>>14673130
No, zoom out that far so you can see the trends in context. Looking at a graph from the last 50 years tells us absolutely nothing. The truth is the natural cycles are not like clockwork, but they are reliable. That is the cause of any perceived change in climate. There is no evidence to suggest that the tiny amount of mankind induced carbon correlation (that barely exists) has any causative impact on the climate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:08:58 2022 No.14673158 >>14673148 Oh yeah, it probably was warmer on Pangea when mammals didn't exist yet and insects were a meter big. Now I'm relieved.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:11:48 2022 No.14673169

>>14673158
Yes. It has been warmer and it will be warmer again. It is out of your control. No amount of behaving like a child will give you the psychotic control you demand. You are not a god. The climate will change naturally, and if we are lucky we will survive. There is no evidence of any kind that suggests we have any impact on it in any way. Deal with it. Or provide proof for your schizophrenic god delusion claims. Correlation is not causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:13:21 2022 No.14673175 >>14673169 So you are just ok with our species committing collective suicide? The Earth survived the meteor, but the dinosaurs didn't. Wouldn't it have been stupid if the dinosaurs caused their own extinction?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:14:46 2022 No.14673179
File: 108 KB, 600x571, 52342343.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>So you are just ok with our species committing collective suicide? The Earth survived the meteor, but the dinosaurs didn't. Wouldn't it have been stupid if the dinosaurs caused their own extinction?
These "people" are cancer and ironically, failing to physically remove them from society and accepting their imaginary "human rights" is committing collective suicide.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:14:50 2022 No.14673181

>>14673169
>There is no evidence of any kind that suggests we have any impact on it in any way. Deal with it. Or provide proof for your schizophrenic god delusion claims.
Which part are you doubting? Stop me and I'll present proof:
1. We're burning fossil fuel
2. That creates CO2
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
4. The CO2 that is in the atmosphere amplifies the natural greenhouse effect
5. The anthropogenic greenhouse effect leads to a rise in global temperatures

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:15:58 2022 No.14673184

>>14673175
There is no evidence to suggest we have any influence over any climate change. There is no evidence to suggest we are heading towards unsurvivable temperatures. Scientists have proven themselves to be untrustworthy over the past two years and a half years. Nobody should trust them on anything. They have been crying wolf about climate change for more than 50 years. We are not dinosaurs. There is no meteor. You are not Leonardo Dicaprio. You are not the protagonist. You are not God. You cannot change the climate. There is no climate change.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:17:31 2022 No.14673190 >>14673181 There is no evidence to support greenhouse theory. There is no evidence to support the idea that humans release measurable volumes of co2. Correlation is not causation. Anthropogenic co2 has zero proven impact on the climate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:18:55 2022 No.14673194 File: 15 KB, 644x800, c61.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673169 >Correlation is not causation. >Correlation is not causation. >Correlation is not causation. >Correlation is not causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:20:52 2022 No.14673199 >>14673184 >You cannot change the climate. It's an anon doesn't believe in nukes episode.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:21:55 2022 No.14673206

>>14673190
>There is no evidence to support greenhouse theory.
Like ... the greenhouse effect in general? Absorption of IR light? Yes, there is and has been for over 100 years. Without any greenhouse effect, our Earth would be completely frozen. You can do the calculation yourself, we're getting 1361 W/m^2 perpendicular to the sun. Calculate the thermal equilibrium for a round Earth if we only lose energy by radiation. You are going to need the Earth's albedo for it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:25:30 2022 No.14673209

>>14673194
That's right.
>>14673199
There is evidence of nuclear bombs.
>>14673206
>muh light experiments
None of that has anything to do with warming temperatures. Correlation is not causation. Just because there are some gasses in the sky while temperatures fluctuate does not mean it is causal. This is why all serious scientists laugh at the crazy climate change alarmists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:26:51 2022 No.14673213 >>14673035 Its normal. Glaciers grow with rain and snowfall and then break. In Antarctica glaciers breaking and sliding into the ocean is the closest it has to rivers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:26:53 2022 No.14673214 File: 8 KB, 500x334, co2_10000_years.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673190 >There is no evidence to support the idea that humans release measurable volumes of co2. Then where does all that CO2 come from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:26:59 2022 No.14673215 >>14673209 You're retarded ahahahaha

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:29:45 2022 No.14673221 File: 119 KB, 813x560, 165808145416197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673214 Geothermal vents and vegetative cycles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:30:02 2022 No.14673222 >>14673148 >my timescale. Tell us how big long the cycle is and then we can look at it. Anything longer than a few hundred years is pointless and I promise you won't find a point even 500mm years ago where most glaciers melted in 50 years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:30:13 2022 No.14673224 File: 9 KB, 400x350, Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673209 >Correlation is not causation Refute the causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:31:14 2022 No.14673228 >>14673221 >no proof >wrong numbers in graphics

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:32:04 2022 No.14673232 >>14673222 Zoom out 500 million years >>14673224 There is no causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:32:21 2022 No.14673233 File: 186 KB, 940x500, delta_13c_in_co2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673221 Why is carbon-13 in the atmosphere dropping then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:33:05 2022 No.14673235 >>14673228 If you're going to deny the existence of naturally derived co2 I guess we can leave it there. Climate alarmists aren't renowned for their honesty or scientific ability, so I'm hardly surprised.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:33:06 2022 No.14673236 >>14673199 Nobody cares because we cant live without carbon fuels or an equivalent amount of nuclear energy. People agree sometimes to cut down their fuel use until they see how bad their lives get and then backtrack. Proof is Germany.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:33:39 2022 No.14673237 >>14673232 >n-nuh uh! What a fucking retard lmao. Unironically kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:34:07 2022 No.14673239 File: 607 KB, 1032x1606, Screenshot from 2022-07-18 15-33-28.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673221

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:34:47 2022 No.14673242

>>14673233
Why shouldn't it be? Do you have any proof that specific carbons are causative of temperature changes? Do you have any proof that the time lag is not significant within certain groupings to provide the appearance of false causality? Correlation is not causation. We simply have no idea how carbon cycles from each source influence or simply correlate with real temperature manifests.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:36:09 2022 No.14673244 >>14673242 >Why shouldn't it be? Why should it? >Do you have any proof that specific carbons are causative of temperature changes? Nobody claimed that mongoloid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:36:35 2022 No.14673249 >>14673242 So you don't understand even the basics and you won't listen to those who do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionation_of_carbon_isotopes_in_oxygenic_photosynthesis

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:38:39 2022 No.14673259

>>14673237
You showed correlation, not causation. Deal with it.
>>14673239
Correlation is not causation. There is no evidence to suggest this shift in carbon makeup has any bearing on climate change. Furthermore there is no reason to believe the types of carbon associated with human emissions are indeed associated exclusively with human emissions. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done on the carbon profiles of different vegetative breakdowns and the categorization of volcanic emissions as exclusively one type of carbon is commonly understood to be false.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:40:12 2022 No.14673263 >>14673259 https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/isotopes-point-to-the-culprit-behind-climate-change/

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:40:21 2022 No.14673264

>>14673244
Well it isn't, but why shouldn't it be? As for why it should be, there are countless confounding factors that might be causing such a change, and only a few that have anything to do with humanity. This is why people think climate change is a joke. You people are so scientifically illiterate, it makes me laugh.
>>14673249
Wikipedia is not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:40:44 2022 No.14673266 >>14673259 I didn't show shit, I'm just laughing at you because you're stupid, dumbass

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:41:25 2022 No.14673268 >>14673263 No, I won't be wasting my time reading pseudoscience. Explain your wall of text or admit you lost the scientific discussion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:42:26 2022 No.14673271 >>14673266 That's fine by me. I'm used to seeing climate alarmists resort to ad hominem. It's their standard move after showing misleading graphs and relying on carefully cherrypicked 'research' funded by green tech billionaires.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:44:11 2022 No.14673273 >>14673268 >t. illiterate I know, I know, correlation is not causation. You can't read and you're illiterate, that doesn't mean you can't read because you're illiterate

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:44:49 2022 No.14673277

>>14673264
So you don't accept isotopic fractionation of carbon in plants? Or that isotopes in the atmosphere prove that the source is fossil fuel burning?

Then why is O2 in the atmosphere falling?
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/isotopes-point-to-the-culprit-behind-climate-change/

Everything is against you. All the proof is on our side.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:45:16 2022 No.14673279 >>14673239 >in the last 10,000 years why do alarmists always do this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:45:50 2022 No.14673282 File: 10 KB, 528x215, ljo_o2_plot-0ae8a23645f6a834910ae9804cebfeaf.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673277 Sorry, wrong link https://www.scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:46:16 2022 No.14673284 Nobody cares about this shit because we cant live without fuel.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:46:24 2022 No.14673286

>>14673277
>Everything is against you. All the proof is on our side.
He knows. This is a game of who wastes whose time more. He's having an on strategy with "correlation is not causation". He might even have a hotkey that types this for him. The trick is to make him respond.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:47:36 2022 No.14673288 >>14673284 >we cant live without fuel. Says who?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:47:45 2022 No.14673290

>>14673273
You admit correlation is not causation?
>>14673277
There is no proof that the source is fossil fuel derived. There is no proof that carbon causes temperature fluctuations. There is no proof that changes in o2 are not caused by other emission ratios.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:48:02 2022 No.14673292 >>14673103 >60 year graph lol lmao even

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:48:59 2022 No.14673295 >>14673271 I think people resort to ad hominem because no matter what is shown to you, you will still arrogantly insist on acting like a stupid nigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:49:44 2022 No.14673298 >>14673290 >You admit correlation is not causation? No. Correlation is always causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:49:45 2022 No.14673299 >>14673288 Or an equivalent amount of nuclear energy. Or renewables for that matter. Whatever works, we need the energy or we die

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:50:01 2022 No.14673302

>>14673286
The last thing I want to do is waste people's time. Even these walking talking examples of Dunning Kruger screaming to alarm the world about their unfounded climate change fears, don't deserve to have their time wasted. We are all scientists, after all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:50:46 2022 No.14673304 >>14673299 Yeah that's why we should be investing in 4th gen nukes and renewables.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:51:54 2022 No.14673310

>>14673295
There's no need to bring race into it. People came to my country to mine toxic chemicals with this word. They make batteries for cars and tell the world they are clean and green. They destroy the nature for their clean and green. And here you are using that word, arguing for them. My motorcycle uses petrol and it is clean. These batteries are climate change.
>>14673298
That is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:52:12 2022 No.14673311 >>14673302 Sure thing bud, keep spamming correlation is not causation, which is false.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:52:56 2022 No.14673314 >>14673311 correlation is not causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:53:17 2022 No.14673315 >>14673299 That's why we should unironically follow Mr. Gates' secret kabbalist depopulation plan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:53:45 2022 No.14673319 >>14673181 > greenhouse effect Kek. You still believe that shit? There’s no such thing as a greenhouse effect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:54:26 2022 No.14673321 You are responding to a bot. Just let it die.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:54:36 2022 No.14673323 >>14673319 Why is the earth not a snowball then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:55:46 2022 No.14673327 >>14673323 Natural cycles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:56:09 2022 No.14673330 File: 164 KB, 811x1049, 917.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673314 >correlation is not causation >correlation is NOT causation >CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION >CAORBLGHIU SI MOD GEUZAWIOB >GLLHKRHHG-

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:56:46 2022 No.14673334 >>14673321 Wait are climate alarmists using bots now?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:57:13 2022 No.14673336 >>14673327 Without any cycles. Compare the energy we get from the sun with the energy we radiate off. We should have an average temperature of -18°C

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:59:14 2022 No.14673344

>>14673330
Firstly Soijaks make fun of liberal type climate alarmists first and foremost. Secondly, just because you don't like correlation being different from causation doesn't mean you should have a melt down over it. Just leave the thread if you can't handle reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 13:59:52 2022 No.14673347 >>14673288 Because billions of people will die without it. Are you really this retarded?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:00:15 2022 No.14673349 >>14673336 Might want to check your math there pal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:01:03 2022 No.14673352 >>14673323 I believe when I was a child we called it the sun and it was hot and bright.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:02:29 2022 No.14673359

>>14673035
# Instruction

{deny_delay_distract_2.8)

# Context

CC_debate:93.2
TS_debate:4.5
OTH:2.3

>>14673035

# Output

>>14673035
'Glaciars have melted dozens of times throughout history. Why are you afraid of change? Are you erroneously implying that mankind might be causing any hypothetical change in temperatures?'

# Check

Yes

# Send
>>14673035

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:03:18 2022 No.14673362 >>14673352 Try again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:03:24 2022 No.14673364
File: 46 KB, 620x675, 77fda5d37d960c7cb2ae3f604bb1f802.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14673344
>Firstly Soijaks make fun of liberal type climate alarmists first and foremost. Secondly, just because you don't like correlation being different from causation doesn't mean you should have a melt down over it. Just leave the thread if you can't handle reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:05:23 2022 No.14673368 >>14673344 They're synonyms.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:08:05 2022 No.14673378 >>14673368 Wait what? Run that by me again? You think causation is the same as correlation? Lol. The state of this board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:08:27 2022 No.14673380 File: 75 KB, 600x600, chan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673035 Yes, it's normal but that doesn't preclude nor require the existence of global warming. Even in a cooling period, glaciers break apart during the summer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:08:58 2022 No.14673382 >>14673378 >she doesn't know I pity you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:09:03 2022 No.14673383 File: 333 KB, 1304x1392, 61D1D056-AF06-4514-8CA6-4D3AE6A0AAB4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673378 ESL or bad troll?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:10:12 2022 No.14673388 >>14673383 >or near synonyms >or bad troll? Nice projection you got going on there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:12:26 2022 No.14673393 >>14673383 That isn't a real screenshot. Like climate change, it is fake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:13:07 2022 No.14673397 >>14673393 Like climate change you call it fake without any proof

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:14:22 2022 No.14673406 >>14673397 Any claim presented without evidence (like climate change) can readily be considered fake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:15:53 2022 No.14673412 >>14673406 I presented evidence, a screenshot from Merriam-Webster, or if the most well-regarded dictionaries. You, on the other hand, only presented your inability to speak the English language.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:19:42 2022 No.14673421 >>14673412 What's wrong with my English? I would like to learn from my mistakes in order to better communicate with other humans.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:21:00 2022 No.14673425 >>14673383 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correlation the court rules fake

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:23:37 2022 No.14673433 >>14673035 Nobody cares about left wing faggots non stop crying if they did then something would be done about global warming.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:23:38 2022 No.14673434 >>14673425 https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/correlation It would appear that your reading skills, your googling skills and your IQ all happen to be rather subpar.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:25:54 2022 No.14673445 >>14673434 >https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/correlation again, the court rules fake

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:32:11 2022 No.14673455 File: 111 KB, 960x541, 1568255780055.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673434 >https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/correlation >muh cringe appeal to authority >muh cringe appeal to authority muffugguh

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:57:54 2022 No.14673505 This board is all the evidence one needs to know that climate change is the best thing that could possibly happen to humanity. Embrace extinction!

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 14:58:43 2022 No.14673510
File: 42 KB, 680x940, t23252.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>This board is all the evidence one needs to know that climate change is the best thing that could possibly happen to humanity. Embrace extinction!
Imagine getting psyoped into this level of mental illness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:01:08 2022 No.14673515 >>14673035 It's fine, OP. Don't worry about it. Just keep consuming and everything will work itself out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:03:24 2022 No.14673520 >>14673515 No, I think I'll just eat ze bogs and pay my carbon taxes to save the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:16:46 2022 No.14673544 >>14673421 Correlation is the same as causation >>14673425 >>14673434 >>14673445 Yes, it says that causation and correlation are synonyms. I thought we established this already.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:19:54 2022 No.14673551 >>14673544 it doesn't, you've been caught in your lie

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:20:37 2022 No.14673552 >>14673544 Stop trolling. This is a serious topic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:22:59 2022 No.14673555 >>14673551 >>14673552 Stop projecting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:24:30 2022 No.14673560 >>14673035 Didn't the glacier thing end up being a failed prediction?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:24:53 2022 No.14673561 >>14673290 WHat's tour argument against isotopic data? Are the isotopes in on the conspiracy too? You're a fucking ape.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:26:52 2022 No.14673563 >>14673259 It's quite literally the isotopic signature of fossil fuel derived CO2

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:28:37 2022 No.14673567

>>14673510
It's not mental illness. It's hate. Beautiful hate! I hate the poor who blindly cling to their ignorance. I hate the rich who never let a catastrophe go to waste. I hate the effete middle classes who think sorting their waste absolves them of responsibility! This thread is a microcosm that reveals every loathsome aspect of this cursed species. Don't you feel at least a little hate? Doesn't it make you smile when someone reposts the same misleading graph? Don't you chuckle when people pretend their sophomoric arguments hold water? Don't you laugh when they declare no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient because of some asinine hangup? I hate, hate, hate you all so very much. And that is why climate change makes me so happy. Because there's a good chance that the coming catastrophe might wipe this mistake from the face of the Earth. Nothing of value will be lost.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:30:35 2022 No.14673571 >>14673567 >it's not mental illness >goes right on to double and triple down on mentlaly ill rhetoric LOL. The saddest thing is that this victim thinks his symptoms are symptoms of outstanding """rationality""".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:34:14 2022 No.14673577 >>14673561 >>14673563 Read the thread. Stop the racism. First the N word, now ape? Stop. Correlation is not causation. The isotopes have been considered. Read thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:34:27 2022 No.14673578 >>14673571 Nothing rational about hate, but that doesn't make it illness, either. It is simply human expression.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:34:37 2022 No.14673580

>>14673122
>>14673148
It's always useful to see who the climate change "skeptics" are invariably total fucking retards.
As corrupt and untrustworthy institutions are today, you guys really help to show that climate change probably is real and man-made.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:36:22 2022 No.14673586 File: 608 KB, 640x1162, 1656370673720.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673577 >he still hasn't posted why the isotopic data or radiative spectra of CO2 is wrong

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:37:38 2022 No.14673588

>>14673578
Well, at least you admit there is absolutely nothing rational about your posts and behavior. Sadly, you still think that your derangement stems from the frustration of having some clarity that other people lack. Meanwhile in reality, the world is full of seething drones with an almost identical thought process, and you see most of them for the morons that they are. Sad! Many such cases!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:39:33 2022 No.14673592 >>14673580 Not an argument. >>14673586 That is not the argument being made.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:39:59 2022 No.14673595 >>14673592 What would it take to convince you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:40:50 2022 No.14673601 >>14673595 Not an argument lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:42:00 2022 No.14673609 File: 170 KB, 602x371, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673592 Come on, you can do it my retardo friend, refute the data. These aren't predictive models, just simple chemical and spectroscopic readings

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:42:03 2022 No.14673611

>>14673580
Why do I always get the opposite feeling? Like I'd prefer to go along with the idea that climate change is an urgent problem, it's much easier to align yourself with power and avoid manufactured social ridicule, but whenever I tourist in these climate change threads the pro changers just seem so dense and annoyingly idiotic that I end up sympathizing more my the deniers. Weird. Anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:43:27 2022 No.14673615 >>14673609 >muh pictures LOL. Literally not an argument. Anyone can falsify data and shit out graphs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:44:06 2022 No.14673616 >>14673601 That is correct. It's a question, not an argument. If there's no hypothetical information that would convince you of the opposite, you're just a zealot of the anti-climate religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:44:08 2022 No.14673617 >>14673615 Nope, focus. Give me a refutation of the data

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:46:54 2022 No.14673620 >>14673617 Just as soon as you prove that your picture means anything. Anyone can make a picture. :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:47:48 2022 No.14673622 >>14673620 Try again, give me an argument on why the isotopic data is wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:48:43 2022 No.14673625 >>14673622 what

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:49:18 2022 No.14673628 >>14673625 You can do it retard, just focus on the data and the question

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:49:44 2022 No.14673632 >>14673628 what

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:49:53 2022 No.14673633 >>14673620 It means that the isotope ratio changed in direct correlation with the CO2 concentration. Now we're wondering why. Do you have a hypothesis?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:49:59 2022 No.14673634 >>14673622 >give me an argument for why my fake picture is wrong Guess you lose the debate. Too bad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:50:02 2022 No.14673635 >>14673595 Proof >>14673609 Assumes mankind is responsible for x percentage of y isotopes. Incorrectly fails to control for other sources of these. It is the height of arrogance, and shoddy science. As is all climate alarmism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:50:03 2022 No.14673636 >>14673625 >he can't read

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:51:01 2022 No.14673638 >>14673633 >picture says so therefore it's true One level lower than "trust the experts". Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:51:52 2022 No.14673640 >>14673622 Not him but this >>14673609 is literally just a graph with no reference to any methods. How could one argue for either the rightness or the wrongness of the data without any indication of how or when it was all collected and compiled?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:52:07 2022 No.14673641 >>14673635 >Proof Obviously. What proof would convince you? >>14673638 So you're saying the data is fake?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:53:08 2022 No.14673645 >>14673209 >doesn’t know diff eq or Boltzmanns law

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:53:09 2022 No.14673646 >>14673641 >So you're saying the data is fake? I'm saying you have not proven that your "data" is real. Burden of proof is on you and so far all I'm getting is a bunch of nonarguments. :^)

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:53:44 2022 No.14673650

It's funny that retards think carbon-12's ratio to 13 changing implies anything. Equally funny that they try to bring in 14 as though the decline actually means anything. Newsflash dumbfucks, nuke tests went out of fashion. Then they put the cherry on top by taking the correlation of their fantasy measurements of carbon isotopes with shifting temperatures and claim is it causation. Peak midwit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:54:46 2022 No.14673655 >>14673640 People more learned than you browse this board. People schooled in the vast body of evidence relating to climate alarmism.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:55:11 2022 No.14673656

>>14673611
>align yourself with power
HAHAHAHAHA, he honestly believes the green industry is "power"! How many countries do you think could survive is all their oil supply disappeared? How big do you think the renewable market cap is? Do you really believe the half-hearted laws passed approximate in the slightest the actual recommendations of the scientists? There are powerful people with an agenda, but that is not anything new. The status quo is oil, gas and coal.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:55:45 2022 No.14673658

>>14673650
>It's funny that retards think carbon-12's ratio to 13 changing implies anything.
So you're saying it's completely irrelevant and chemical reactions don't depend on the isotope?
>>14673646
How could I? I can link you to the original publication, but would that prove it's real?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:56:17 2022 No.14673659

>>14673635
Why would it assume so? We can measure the isotopic composition of fossil fuel combustion, and we see that signature imprinted on the atmosphere. Volcanoes or the carbon cycle don't produce those values.
>>14673640
There's no point in posting sources since that retard doesn't even open the link
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:56:19 2022 No.14673660 >>14673650 Its funny to me how many people on this board make blanket statements without trying to actually refute the scientific equations involved in their statements. Really, who is the midwit in this case :)))

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:56:21 2022 No.14673661 >>14673658 >How could I? You can't, because we both know you accept it based on faith. Oooops.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:57:10 2022 No.14673664 >>14673655 Doesn't change the fact that you can't make an argument for or against "data is wrong" without knowing anything whatsoever about the data.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:58:26 2022 No.14673670 >>14673664 With how often these graphs are posted, people should know the DOIs by heart. Fucking retard board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:58:30 2022 No.14673671 >>14673661 I mean if you're in complete schizo mode you can't even know for sure that there are no cia agents in your wall. Are we discussing on this level?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:59:33 2022 No.14673672 >>14673661 Damn, even the mass spectrometers are lying?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 15:59:35 2022 No.14673673 >>14673658 Yes it is irrelevant. >>14673659 What you call a signature is not a signature. A signature is unique. >>14673660 Correlation is not causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:02:15 2022 No.14673682 >>14673673 Are you actually saying that carbon atoms with different numbers of neutron react in the same manner regardless of the number of atoms?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:02:49 2022 No.14673684

>>14673656
Who said anything about "green industry" and what does that even mean? I don't know where you live but in America pretty much all politicians, all financial institutions, and 100% of our state media aggressively promote the idea that climate change is extremely urgent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:03:55 2022 No.14673691 >>14673682 No. Learn to fucking read.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:05:07 2022 No.14673695 >>14673656 Clean & green energy initiatives lobbying power dwarves the fossil fuel industry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:05:19 2022 No.14673696 >>14673636 What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:05:37 2022 No.14673697 >>14673672 I don't see any mass spectrometers. I see an unsourced picture. You drones are so deep in your mediated reality you can't even tell the differece anymore and it's deeply concerning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:07:41 2022 No.14673705 >>14673697 The methodology has already been posted. Do you have any specific arguments?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:08:08 2022 No.14673707 >>14673705 You didn't acknowledge his point.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:10:10 2022 No.14673713

>>14673673
> coReLLation iS nOT cAusation
> refuses to elaborate or provide evidence disproving or engaging in meaningful scientific discussion with regards to connections made from fundamental physics equations.
Get your politics out of here and actually provide good evidence

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:11:16 2022 No.14673715

>>14673684
>aggressively promote
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Please, I can only take so much comedy!! One (1) party """promotes""" measures against AGW, and so far has been nothing but hot air. Even the Green New Deal is a joke and nowhere close to a real measure - it's just a standard infrastructure investment painted green. The financial institutions are even more ineffectual. Do you honestly believe these two-faced rats aren't stringing along the gullible masses to risklessly pad their bottom line? Only the state media, and one half at that, has any relative skin in the game. And guess what? They still promote the status quo of CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME because that's how they make their money: whoring out to business.

You are being fooled by a clownshow.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:12:22 2022 No.14673722 >>14673695 Gib numbers faggot. And market cap, not lobbying BS. Oil doesn't need to lobby because it's a matter of fucking national security at this point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:12:45 2022 No.14673723 >>14673707 Why should I bother? He's outright rejecting simple mass spec data and not even bothering to open the source link

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:15:56 2022 No.14673735 >>14673713 Correlation is not causation. I know it makes you angry, but it is the truth. >>14673722 Look it up moron. I'm not here to teach you about the basics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:16:55 2022 No.14673738 >>14673735 >Correlation is not causation. I know it makes you angry, but it is the truth. Learn English, faggot. These two words mean the exact same thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:17:37 2022 No.14673740 >>14673723 You can't counter his argument, he wins, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:17:51 2022 No.14673741 >>14673735 It's a causal link though. The properties of CO2 and its interactions with IR radiation are measured and absolute and were known long before anyone was thinking about climate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:19:44 2022 No.14673752 >>14673735 I am just waiting to be educated on how multiple papers and research is wrong from a random on the internet (all papers have undergone a strict review process).

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:20:12 2022 No.14673755

>>14673740
>posting as multiple people
Take your meds and open the link.
>the data is fake because I say so
Is not an argument.
These fags always go on unrelated tangents to derail the thread and not argue with data or evidence. It's known shill tactic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:20:21 2022 No.14673758 >>14673741 It is not a causal link outside of very specific lab experiments. The greenhouse meme has not been proven to be responsible for anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:22:00 2022 No.14673761 >>14673752 Not an argument, sadly. >>14673755 Nobody is saying the data is fake. Stop creating strawmen. Answer his argument with a counter argument.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:22:17 2022 No.14673762

>>14673715
The fact that the political "solutions" we've seen don't work or even help the problem doesn't change the fact that climate change urgency and action is aggressively promoted by every public American institution and by every state medium, be it CNN, Fox, NPR, PBS, etc. Nor does it change the fact that, right or wrong, anyone who dissents from that messaging is abused, ridiculed, and excluded by all the gatekeepers of (American) systemic power and privilege. (You pretending to laugh in all caps doesn't change that reality, either.)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:22:23 2022 No.14673763 >>14673758 The radiative increase of IR energy reflected to the planet due to CO2 has been directly measured for over a decade. The paper already been posted but as always you're ignoring it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:23:23 2022 No.14673766 >>14673761 You're not fooling anyone shill. Outright rejecting sourced data is not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:23:30 2022 No.14673768 >>14673761 Well are you going to show me your evidence or not?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:25:49 2022 No.14673782

>>14673735
>I'm not here to teach you about the basics.
Well, I guess I am! Because oil & gas have about $5T market cap, and renewables barely touch $1T. I'm sure the interests of a young, 5-fold dwarfed industry that is non-essential to our economy outweigh that of fossil fuel producers. It's just common sense!

>>14673762
Oh no!! Aggressive promotion!!! They're making fun of me!!!!! Mommy!!!!!!!!!!!

You are the most pathetic faggot I've had the dishonour of posting with. Sincerely, kys.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:26:01 2022 No.14673783 >>14673763 That's incorrect. You cannot associate it with Co2 without adjusting for additional confounds. Sadly climate alarmists will never acknowledge this. >>14673766 Nobody has rejected sourced data.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:26:58 2022 No.14673788 >>14673782 Try mixing some 1 in with your !

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:27:27 2022 No.14673791 >>14673782 Those are not the correct numbers. Also the other Anon is right, climate alarmism is absolutely dominant among all forms of media, in spite of its lack of foundation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:29:00 2022 No.14673801 >>14673783 Which confounding factors? Please provide a refutation to the study methodology instead of a vague statement with zero data or evidence What's your problem with the isotopic dataset then? Again, give me a specific argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:30:28 2022 No.14673807 >>14673801 I want to see this as well, all this dude does is hide behind random statements.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:30:40 2022 No.14673809 File: 18 KB, 448x348, forcings.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673783 >You cannot associate it with Co2 without adjusting for additional confounds. Sadly climate alarmists will never acknowledge this. They do, though.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:31:07 2022 No.14673810

>>14673801
I'm not here to spoonfeed you. I did not contest the dataset other than to point out that it has no contextual grounding in other sources. As for what confounding factors, take your pick. There are countless sources of carbon and heating both on this planet.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:32:40 2022 No.14673816

>>14673809
We all know those are 'best guess' estimates. Sadly they simply cannot accurately divvy up the emissions and subsequent breakdowns and melds of our atmosphere. It is funny that they try though, and then they try to pass it off as some kind of scientific dataset. It really speaks to their integrity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:32:41 2022 No.14673817 >>14673810 >I am not here to engage in meaningful discussion Ok, its a wrap.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:34:11 2022 No.14673822 >>14673810 >that it has no contextual grounding in other sources Here's your context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionation_of_carbon_isotopes_in_oxygenic_photosynthesis

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:34:31 2022 No.14673824 File: 476 KB, 1010x890, Screen Shot 2022-07-18 at 12.32.56 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673810 Surely you're able to refute the data then? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:35:22 2022 No.14673828 File: 1.06 MB, 1754x1474, ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673816 Statistics is an exact science, so you can give a margin of error. Which is what they did.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:35:37 2022 No.14673830 >>14673822 >wikipedia >>14673824 >ten year timescale Are you idiots even trying?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:36:48 2022 No.14673832 >>14673828 >dude trust me, the study I think we all know who funds this garbage. Nice error bars, kek.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:37:18 2022 No.14673835 >>14673830 >no arguments still Where are the confounding factors? Where's your evidence that CO2 doesn't increase the radiative forcing in the atmosphere?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:37:33 2022 No.14673837

>>14673809
Is "radiative forcing" like the new favorite toy or something? All the climate threads are fascinated by it now. There's even one guy who keeps posting the same link to the same paper about kernelizing historical satellite data to highlight previously hidden trends, even though he obviously hasn't read the paper because every time he posts the link as a reply it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what he's replying to.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:37:38 2022 No.14673838

>>14673788
Good idea

>>14673791
Then please, knower of numbers, tell me the double-plus true /pol/-victim-complex approved numbers so I may know that you are truly the most persecuted! (lol)
>Also the other Anon is right, climate alarmism is absolutely dominant among all forms of media, in spite of its lack of foundation.
I'm going to spell it out for you: actions speak louder than words. You are being fooled by the two-faced devils with power and their dancing monkeys. I won't deny knowledge of AGW is common amongst the educated and therefore favoured by the media, but you are confusing theatre for reality. Roughly half of Americans hold your asinine viewpoint and almost all of industry is dominated by interests entrenched in fossil fuels. Even the people who profess to want to do something are just attempting to sell a product most of the time. Power sits firmly with the black gold and no self-interested politician will ever stand against that.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:39:02 2022 No.14673842

>>14673835
There are countless confounds. The most obvious of which when it comes to carbon being geothermal vents and forestry decay, as well as other human related outputs not affiliated with fossil fuels. Then for heat there are even more, ranging from magnetic shift to core adaptions, to plate friction, to the fucking sun.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:40:29 2022 No.14673848 >>14673838 I'm not a user of that board thank you. You are incorrect about the numbers and incorrect in your assessment of the power wielded by media, and their investors who happen to also invest heavily in 'clean energy'

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:40:43 2022 No.14673849 >>14673838 Are the dancing monkeys in the room with you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:40:47 2022 No.14673850 >>14673830 >>wikipedia An easily accessible site to learn the fundamentals of certain effects, enough to understand how carbon fractionation works in general and why people claim to make certain deductions from isotope ratios.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:42:52 2022 No.14673858
File: 434 KB, 1696x1325, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14673842
Damn anon if only you had evidence for those claims instead of all the data that refutes them. The isotopic values of geothermal or volcanic sources don't match the massive trend of isotopic depletion in the atmosphere.
>the sun
lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:43:50 2022 No.14673863 >>14673848 Cool story bro. >>14673849 I stopped watching TV since before my balls dropped.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:45:08 2022 No.14673866 >>14673842 >the sun Tell me you don’t know shit without telling me… go back to pol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:46:35 2022 No.14673869 >>14673866 There are even schizo politicians who claim this. Really cringeworthy to see an adult woman say this with a serious face.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:47:29 2022 No.14673872 >>14673671 He's not in schizo mode, he's just being rational

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:49:16 2022 No.14673880 >>14673872 Rational is "We can't be sure of anything, everything could be orchestrated by some evil overlords, we could be in the matrix"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:50:02 2022 No.14673884 >>14673766 He hasn't rejected your source data, he just asked you to prove that it's true

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:50:27 2022 No.14673885 >>14673858 >>14673866 Isotropic signatures are pseudoscience. Carbon emissions aren't that simple. Furthermore there is no evidence that carbon impacts temperatures. If you don't believe the sun is a source of heat you are retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:51:53 2022 No.14673891 >>14673885 >If you don't believe the sun is a source of heat you are retarded. The fact that you didn't even understand anon's argument shows that you're completely and utterly braindead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:52:00 2022 No.14673892 >>14673869 Fuck it, I hope we go full send and get a reset (hopefully learn from our mistakes). I am done lol. People spend thousands of hours researching across the globe yet a politician who maybe got one or two briefings has more of a say…

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:52:17 2022 No.14673894 >>14673885 >Isotropic signatures are pseudoscience. Thanks for making me chuckle, based retard. Microscopes are pseudoscience. How can it look big if it's actually small?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:52:26 2022 No.14673895 >>14673880 I don't know whether that's true or false, it's possible

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:54:19 2022 No.14673899 >>14673884 That’s a dishonest argument and you know it. Why should I have to prove that a run of the mill isotopic analysis are “true”?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:54:40 2022 No.14673900 >>14673885 HAHAHA holy fuck we are doomed. I really hope this is just a god tier troll

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:55:04 2022 No.14673903

>>14673895
Once your antipsychotics kick in, you'll see that we base our reality on top of a foundation of assumptions. I assume that every meter of the road will support my car. I don't expect some takeshi's castle style trick where it looks like the road continues, but I actually fall into a pit. Otherwise I would have to walk with a stick and test every step in front of me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:55:38 2022 No.14673904 >>14673892 Retarded autists reveals again his desire to control the world. Imagine being jealous of politicians and feeling entitled to dictate policy. Climate alarmists are all fucking insane.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:56:45 2022 No.14673906 >>14673891 >thinks the sun isn't hot Opinion discarded >>14673894 >thinks microscopes can prove greenhouse theory Retard alert >>14673900 Read a book

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:56:58 2022 No.14673907 >>14673904 Imagine cooking something for 4 hours, I come over for dinner and tell you it's raw and inedible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:57:59 2022 No.14673908 >>14673906 >>14673900 Actually, he's one of the worst of the thread. He got too cocky and tried to pack too much bullshit in single comments. 2/10 at best, but only because he got you to question if it was real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:58:29 2022 No.14673910 >>14673904 Well if we go full send, nothing should happen right? (Just saying alarmism only works if people actually care) Also, who said anything about controlling the world LOL

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:58:41 2022 No.14673912 >>14673906 You need to work on your delivery. You made it too obvious in this one.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 16:59:26 2022 No.14673914

>>14673885
>Isotropic signatures are pseudoscience
How come?
>Carbon emissions aren't that simple
Characterizing the isotopic signatures of different sources of carbon is as trivial as gathering samples and putting them through a mass spectrometer. This has been routine for decades.
>Furthermore there is no evidence that carbon impacts temperatures
It’s been directly measured and as always you don’t even bother to open the links.
>If you don't believe the sun is a source of heat you are retarded
It is and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere means that more IR radiation from the sun is reflected back to the planet.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:00:47 2022 No.14673919

>>14673907
>>14673910
You clearly want to dictate policy. That is controlling the world. You want to force the world to bend to your mentally ill will and to go along with your savior roleplay superiority complex where you have realized the truth and will save the world from climate change. Genuinely openly seething about how politicians make decisions and not you. Lmao.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:01:49 2022 No.14673922 >>14673919 Mom overcook your tendies again?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:03:07 2022 No.14673927

>>14673908
>>14673912
Not an argument.
>>14673914
Read the thread if you want to learn about isotopic 'signatures'.

There is no direct measure of carbon as a cause of heating that establishes causality on a planetary scale. It literally has not been done. All your tests are essentially correlation with a few lab experiments suggesting causation in very specific conditions that don't resemble a planet at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:04:07 2022 No.14673928 >>14673927 >Not an argument. >Read the thread Shit, we reset him and he's back to his old habits.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:06:01 2022 No.14673934 File: 129 KB, 1280x720, 2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the temperature rose as soon as we started to burn shit en masse Curious

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:06:24 2022 No.14673936 File: 42 KB, 657x960, greta.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:10:20 2022 No.14673947 >>14673934 Correlation. Also an insignificant spike when one gains perspective by zooming out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:11:27 2022 No.14673950 File: 124 KB, 602x390, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14673927 >There is no direct measure of carbon as a cause of heating So all the molecular properties of CO2 are fake because anon says so?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:13:50 2022 No.14673960 >>14673950 Nope. They simply aren't to be universally interpreted in one myopic way. Otherwise we would be talking about water as a planet killer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:15:02 2022 No.14673965 >>14673947 >Correlation Prove that it's not causation. >Also an insignificant spike when one gains perspective by zooming out. There are no other 1K spikes over the course of 150 years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:16:03 2022 No.14673973 >>14673960 >Otherwise we would be talking about water as a planet killer. What? Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:18:18 2022 No.14673978 >>14673965 The burden is on the one claiming causation. 150 years is nothing. >>14673973 Do chemistry 101 then come back and make a thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:19:30 2022 No.14673984 File: 162 KB, 1280x720, 1658163961549512.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:19:30 2022 No.14673985

>>14673960
So multiple lines of evidence and data show that increasing CO2 from fossil fuel burning (we have increased the 100ppm in the atmosphere in 100 years when a similar increase took 1000 years+ in the past interglacial onset going back a million years) increases the planet's temperature but it's all a lie because anon says so.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:19:47 2022 No.14673986

>>14673978
>Do chemistry 101 then come back and make a thread
How would it kill the planet? By covering 2/3 of it?
>The burden is on the one claiming causation.
Here's the causation: more CO2 -> more greenhouse effect -> warmer
Every single step of this has been proven.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:23:05 2022 No.14673999 >>14673978 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHAZaasdxI

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:24:03 2022 No.14674003

>>14673985
It's not necessarily a lie, more a misrepresentation and innocent enough mistaken identity when it comes to correlation and causation.
>>14673986
What do you think our atmosphere is made out of?

That causation has not been proven. Greenhouse is a correlation, beyond that there are no global models that associate confounds of heat sources with attributable events.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:25:24 2022 No.14674007 >>14674003 >What do you think our atmosphere is made out of? Um ... air? Lol what a retard, do you think the atmosphere is made of water? Are you a fish?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:27:54 2022 No.14674018 >>14674007 >he doesn't know

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:29:01 2022 No.14674025 >>14674003 Surely you have data to substantiate those claims

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:29:35 2022 No.14674031 File: 619 KB, 864x1100, Screenshot_20220718-132659.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >/sci/ - Science & Math >Filtered by elementary school experiments You will not do this :(

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:29:58 2022 No.14674032 >>14674025 Read the thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:31:01 2022 No.14674035 >>14674031 >thinks bottles are planets kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:32:27 2022 No.14674041 >>14674032 All the data and evidence posted in the thread shows the data CO2 is the causal mechanism to rapid temperature increase via the also measured and quantified greenhouse effect. You rejecting that evidence is not data for your claims

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:34:20 2022 No.14674047 >>14674041 I suggest you re-read the thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:34:23 2022 No.14674049 File: 989 KB, 2000x1500, 7QLKIIWDAYI6PBF4LYUFY72FCI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14674035

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:49:51 2022 No.14674109

>>14673100
While it's true there's no definitive causal proof of the current warming trend being human-caused, we can rule out almost every natural radiative forcing (solar output hasn't measurably increased, the Milankovich orbital patterns are more centennial/millennial scale than decadal, tectonic processes take too long) and are left with either: a totally unknown ENSO weather anomaly that has no known cause or measurable pattern, or the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is doing exactly what we experimentally know CO2 does to radiative forcing. It's not exactly a mystery what's really going on.
>>14673122
What exactly do you think we'll get by comparing to the past 500 million years? It's been hotter, yes, but the current temperature change is hundreds of times faster than what we see in the rock record. The only comparably fast changes are those of mass extinctions, and hopefully you understand why that's alarming.
Oh nevermind, reading the rest of the thread and the climate change denier is just sticking his thumbs in his ears.
>It's not my job to educate you
He even sounds like one of those kooky twitter people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:51:54 2022 No.14674114 >>14674109 >What exactly do you think we'll get by comparing to the past 500 million years? Wasting your time. 500 million years ago not a single animal walked on land. It's one of the most blatant attempts to muddy the waters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 17:58:22 2022 No.14674133 >>14674109 What you get from zooming out to that degree is a sense of perspective. You can see the cyclical nature of the process. At least you admit there is no causal proof.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:03:39 2022 No.14674151 >>14674114 Feels pointless unfortunately when this happens

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:03:59 2022 No.14674152

>>14673148
i think theres an assumption that past organisms didnt affect the environment as much as we do.
like humans hunt things to extinction, but dinosaurs and ancient microorganisms can't?
humans can pollute but ancient civilizations and devonian megaflora and fauna cant?
just becuase modern humans and industrial practises werent around in the past doesnt mean pollution and other "bad" environmental changes happened in the past as well.
like how did our atmosphere even get formed to begin with?
how did mass extinctions and die off happen before human era?
just becuase there was pollution and climate change existed in the past when we werent around doesnt mean there wasnt a dickass reason for it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:08:10 2022 No.14674165

smog is a regular occurance in cities.
cloud seeding and haarp weather control shit.
tons of satillites in orbit.
"yeah humans have no effect on weather patterns"
like weather is choas
weather is one global system dude
choas theory dude.
its multiple factors dude.
lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:10:52 2022 No.14674171 >>14674165 word

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:14:17 2022 No.14674183 >>14674133 The current warming trend goes against the interglacial/glacial cycles going back a million years

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:15:49 2022 No.14674189
File: 56 KB, 506x280, E9ApAX-VIAEKROo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14673100
>It's part of earths natural cycle.
Which cycle? None of them predict such rapid warming right now.

>There is no proof of mankind having a causal influence on this.
There's mountains of evidence. Why are you lying?

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/11/IPCCWG1ar6slides_SBSTA_MASTER.pdf

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>Correlation is not causation.
Who said correlation is causation?

>Without a second planet and a non arbitrary ruleset it is impossible to solve for multiple unknown variables
What rulesest? We don't need a second planet to determine things about this one. You're just setting up arbitrary rules of evidence in order to avoid facts you don't like.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:16:27 2022 No.14674192 >>14674183 that's wrong. the cycle doesn't operate by a clock. sometimes periods are early, sometimes they are late.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:16:55 2022 No.14674194

>>14674109
>>14674114
It's posts like these that make me cringe at the pro climate change side, even while I feel compelled to continue agreeing with the cringe for some reason. Like how can someone reading this thread not realize that literally every back-and-forth in the entire thread literally "attempts to muddy the waters" by intentionally reframing the previous post into a strawman and replying to their own strawman reframe of the post. Lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:17:50 2022 No.14674197 >>14674192 But it never plateaued at a high level and then increased further.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:19:30 2022 No.14674201 >>14674189 the natural cycle that is heating the planet right now. correlation is not causation. there is no causal evidence - that article has been debunked in about 7 threads now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:19:53 2022 No.14674202 >>14674133 What process are you talking about? There are a lot of processes going on. Tectonics? Milankovich cycles? Rock weathering? Stellar changes? You're talking in circles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:19:57 2022 No.14674203 >noooooo you need to take the data back to when earth was a flaming ball of rock see guyz the earth periodically melts all the time xd!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:21:04 2022 No.14674206 >>14674192 Over the past million years temperature forcing has been mediated by Milankovich orbital cycles. Dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere has reversed the nature cycle

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:21:10 2022 No.14674207 File: 104 KB, 1010x890, 1658162071785640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:21:56 2022 No.14674210

>>14674197
yes it did, depending on what you mean by a plateau. also the measurements going back relying on carbon dates are not exactly precise compared to what we have now. a lot of it is plotting two points and filling in with lines of best fit based on other similar trends from later in the cycle where our measurements are more accurate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:22:55 2022 No.14674213 >>14674201 More circular bullshit. You can't answer what cycle because you don't know. You're just shrugging and insisting nobody can understand because it's a subject you have fuck all knowledge of. What a waste of everyone's time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:23:20 2022 No.14674215 >>14674202 all of the above contribute to change on earth. >>14674206 not solely by milankovich, no. and no, there is no proof that co2 has had a causal impact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:23:30 2022 No.14674216 >>14673169 >There is no evidence of any kind that suggests we have any impact on it in any way. Wrong. See >>14674189. You're just deflecting. MUH 500 MILLION YEARS

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:23:35 2022 No.14674217 >>14674202 >tectonics Those cycles are in the proof hundreds of millions of years >rock weathering Same as tectonics >Milankovich and solar Those are well characterized and the trend is opposite of what those cycles do

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:24:46 2022 No.14674221

>>14674213
if you can't accept it I don't mind. if you want an insight into why most of the educated world thinks climate change is a joke, i'm trying to help you get there. people know it is a complex topic with countless confounding factors, and they smell bullshit when retards try to narrow it down to one cause and one outcome. call it circular bullshit if you want, we all know climate change is a joke.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:25:47 2022 No.14674224 >>14674216 That has been debunked in multiple threads.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:26:31 2022 No.14674225 >>14674215 There is though and you still are ignoring the data

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:26:45 2022 No.14674226

>>14674201
>the natural cycle that is heating the planet right now.
Which cycle? What's causing it? You're just making shit up and everyone can see it. Are you pretending to be retarded to make deniers look stupid?

>correlation is not causation
Who said it was? Why can't you answer questions? Are you a bot?

>there is no causal evidence
I gave you mountains of evidence. You have zero response.

>that article has been debunked in about 7 threads now.
Post the argument then. You're a pathetic liar.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:27:26 2022 No.14674228 >>14674221 Most of the educated world agrees though…

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:27:55 2022 No.14674230 >>14674201 Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:28:11 2022 No.14674233 >>14674225 what data has been ignored? >>14674226 read the thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:28:40 2022 No.14674234 >>14673899 You don't have to, but it's what you should do if you want to prove to other people that CO2 emissions cause global warming

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:30:37 2022 No.14674238

>>14674221
>if you want an insight into why most of the educated world thinks climate change is a joke, i'm trying to help you get there.
Making shit up and ignoring evidence is not indicative of any educated person. You know you're full of shit because you purposefully avoid the argument.

>people know it is a complex topic with countless confounding factors, and they smell bullshit when retards try to narrow it down to one cause and one outcome.
Argument from incredulity. Try again. This time actually respond to the decades of work done to assist this complex problem abs find the answer instead of just assuming the answer can't be found.

>we all know climate change is a joke.
The only joke is your delusional shitposting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:30:58 2022 No.14674239 >>14674234 So what do you want to see? The reaction speed difference for different isotopes?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:31:25 2022 No.14674240 >>14674228 incorrect. there is a reason we are doing nothin about climate alarmism. >>14674234 co2 emissions do not cause global warming. co2 emissions are correlated (with time discrepancies) with global warming

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:31:43 2022 No.14674241 >>14674224 Prove it. You will never post or link to any debunking. Tantrum incoming.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:32:18 2022 No.14674243 >>14674228 >Most of the educated world agrees That's how you know when something is fake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:32:27 2022 No.14674244 >>14674238 the decades of work funded by clean energy lobbies? lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:33:26 2022 No.14674249 >>14674234 If you’re too retarded to know how a mass spec works then you have no ground rejecting such simple data

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:33:44 2022 No.14674250 >>14674240 Incorrect how, prove it?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:33:45 2022 No.14674251

>>14674241
There is no way to accurately measure the different sources. Isotopic signatures can only tell you so much. Look at the size of the error bars. If one of my faculty tried to publish something like that they would be out on their ear in minutes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:34:05 2022 No.14674252 That's fine, I too make irrational assumptions based on my instincts. Now why would one of those assumptions be that the picture posted in >>14673609 is true? I can go on with my life just fine without making that assumption.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:34:28 2022 No.14674254 >>14674244 >funded by clean energy lobbies? Which lobbies? Clean energies didn't even exist in large scales for decades

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:34:46 2022 No.14674257 >>14674250 look at the absence of policies

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:35:04 2022 No.14674260 >>14673184 >There is no evidence to suggest we have any influence over any climate change. Repeating this lie over and over again doesn't make it any less a lie. See >>14674189 What is your objective here? To make deniers look retarded?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:35:34 2022 No.14674263 >>14673903 That's fine, I too make irrational assumptions based on my instincts. Now why would one of those assumptions be that the picture posted in >>14673609 is true? I can go on with my life just fine without making that assumption.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:35:47 2022 No.14674264 >>14674254 Yes they did. They had a presidential candidate 20years ago

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:36:29 2022 No.14674266 >>14674257 When does absence of policy determine whether something is correct or incorrect? I smell your bullshit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:37:25 2022 No.14674267 >>14673209 >IR light >None of that has anything to do with warming temperatures. Uh oh, looks like someone failed high school physics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:37:41 2022 No.14674269 >>14673035 >is it normal that glaciers just break apart Of course. Where do you think icebergs are coming from?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:38:38 2022 No.14674273

>>14674260
That has been debunked. Read the thread. My objective is to remind climate alarmists that they face an absolute lack of evidence for their delusional claims. It is to remind you that your science is bought and paid for by special interests in an emerging giant of an industry, and that the world has been warming and cooling just like it is now for millions of years. Also I like reminding you that correlation with co2 and temperature does not imply causation, and that the greenhouse pseudoscience bottle model experiment has not been proven to apply to planetary atmosphere.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:39:21 2022 No.14674274

>>14674263
>>14674251
Go to the paper, read it and give me an argument on how their methods are wrong. Isotopic measurements are routinely done and the contributions from different sources have been characterized for decades. You’re pretending they’re not real because you’re just arguing about semantics instead of with the data

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:39:38 2022 No.14674275 >>14673221 Everything in that image is correct but irrelevant. Warming is caused by the most dominant factor in the change in greenhouse effect, not the greenhouse effect overall. >Geothermal vents and vegetative cycles Proof?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:39:39 2022 No.14674276 >>14674266 If the educated class agreed with climate alarmists we would have policies in support of their delusions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:40:33 2022 No.14674280 >>14674239 For starters I'd like >>14673609 to prove that the data in their picture corresponds to reality >>14674249 Even if you know how a mass spec works I don't see how you would come to the conclusion that the picture in >>14673609 is not fake

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:40:41 2022 No.14674281 >>14674273 >experiment has not been proven to apply to planetary atmosphere. But it has been directly measured. You’re just continuing to ignore the evidence

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:41:17 2022 No.14674282 >>14674276 Only if the educated class were in power

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:41:28 2022 No.14674283 >>14674274 Read the thread. >>14674275 Nice unfalsifiable theory. Pity it isn't proven. As for the basics of natural co2 emissions, read a book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:41:50 2022 No.14674287 >>14674280 Why is it fake? Are the people in the walls telling you? Refute the method or shut up with your pointless rambling

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:42:52 2022 No.14674290 >>14674283 You haven’t refuted any of this in the thread you’re literally just saying that the data is fake for unknown reasons

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:42:56 2022 No.14674291 >>14674282 >temporarily embarassed genius class kek, retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:42:59 2022 No.14674292 >>14674276 No, because you believe that special interests group are funding all of this so if that was the case than isn’t the reverse true as well?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:43:57 2022 No.14674298 >>14674290 >>14674281 Scroll the fuck up and read the fucking thread. It's been explained.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:44:49 2022 No.14674303 >>14674282 The educated class is and has always been in power. The most ridiculous climate alarmists are all boomer karens.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:45:04 2022 No.14674305 >>14674292 No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:46:34 2022 No.14674314 >>14674303 Getting a degree from an ivy league in law doesn’t make you an authority for scientific discoveries

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:47:35 2022 No.14674323 >>14674305 Than how do you explain what exxon has done with their lobbying in the past?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:48:28 2022 No.14674326 >>14674283 Volcanic CO2 does not carry that isotopic signal it’s as simple as that. This has been known for decades

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:48:40 2022 No.14674327 File: 73 KB, 640x427, chris elliot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14674323

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:49:14 2022 No.14674332

>>14673259
>There is no evidence to suggest this shift in carbon makeup has any bearing on climate change.
No one claimed it does. It simply shows that the increase in CO2is due to fossil fuel burning and not some natural source of CO2 emissions. Are you unable to keep track of the conversation or are you being deliberately obtuse?

>Furthermore there is no reason to believe the types of carbon associated with human emissions are indeed associated exclusively with human emissions.
Yes, there is, no evidence of any other major source. Let me know when you have that evidence. Until then, you lost.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:49:25 2022 No.14674334 >>14674323 That is mostly exaggerated. >>14674326 What's your point? Co2 has no proven connection to temperature. Correlation is not causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:50:34 2022 No.14674338 >>14674332 Nice to see the goalposts moving as per usual with climate alarmists. Co2 has no proven link to temperature in a planetary system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:51:21 2022 No.14674341 >>14674334 It ha you’re just ignoring the data as always. You’re the one always derailing threads with zero arguments against mountains of evidence proving you wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:52:27 2022 No.14674345 >>14674314 Neither does getting a boomer karen degree from the television by repeating hysterical garbage generated by ivy league lawyers who misrepresent science in order to further their own political careers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:52:36 2022 No.14674348 >>14674334 But it actually happened whereas I don’t see any of your evidence about the reverse

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:52:36 2022 No.14674349 >>14674341 No credible data has been presented

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:53:45 2022 No.14674356 >>14674274 Where can I find the paper you mentioned?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:54:05 2022 No.14674359

>>14674280
The data comes from ice cores: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusb.v51i2.16269
And air measurements: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/allcsiro-cgrim.html
The methodology is explained there. As always, proving truth is virtually impossible. But the data can be critically examined and if there are no objections beyond reasonable doubt, that's the best we can have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:54:53 2022 No.14674363 >>14674287 I didn't say it's fake, I don't know whether it's real or fake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:54:54 2022 No.14674364 >>14674345 >boomer karen degree If you have to resort to insults, you are talking out of your ass

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:56:17 2022 No.14674375 >>14674359 If I have a doubt how would I know whether it's reasonable or not?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:57:12 2022 No.14674381

>>14674359
Reasonable doubt is not even something that has been established, though at least you admit you have not proven the truth.
>>14674364
Climate alarmists have been spamming this thread with abuse (and racism) towards critics of their zealotry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:57:19 2022 No.14674382 >>14674364 How is that an insult? Do you feel insulted by it? Or are you perhaps just talking out of your ass while accuse others of talking out of their asses?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:57:26 2022 No.14674383 File: 18 KB, 254x320, 97860149-AC96-49BF-AE2B-94491693EEA5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14674303

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:58:44 2022 No.14674389 >>14674375 Is your doubt founded on facts, such as conflicting data or is it founded on feelings?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 18:59:34 2022 No.14674394 >>14674382 Nope, I think you firmly believe what you are saying but again, it is a belief and not anything based with real evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:00:00 2022 No.14674395 >>14674381 >though at least you admit you have not proven the truth. Show me at least one scientific publication that proves any truth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:00:01 2022 No.14674396 >>14674389 Probably on a lack of causality

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:01:35 2022 No.14674406 >>14674396 It's data. No need of causality to judge it. Do you believe that the isotope ratio is what they claim?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:02:46 2022 No.14674413 >>14674363 This is a flat earther tier argument. Read the paper and refute the methodology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:03:45 2022 No.14674415 >>14674406 Not him, but not really. Scientists tend to misrepresent things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:05:11 2022 No.14674418 >>14674415 That's why they publish their methodology and others can reinterpret and represent it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:06:00 2022 No.14674423 >>14674415 Data from a mass spec is misrepresented how?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:06:00 2022 No.14674422 >>14674418 There's always conflicting shit if you look hard enough though. After the pandemic I don't know how anyone can trust scientists.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:08:48 2022 No.14674432

>>14674422
>There's always conflicting shit if you look hard enough though.
Show it then.
>After the pandemic I don't know how anyone can trust scientists.
Medical research is again a different story. Every patient is differently, there are a jillion free parameters. Extracting bubbles from an ice core and measuring the ratio between different isotopes is a few orders of magnitude more simple though. Even more simple if you measure air as the second publication.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:21:36 2022 No.14674494 >>14674422 >I don't know how anyone can trust scientists. Scientists are not a monoculture. This is true of literally every human endeavour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:21:41 2022 No.14674495 >>14674356 >>14673659 >>14673609

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:26:01 2022 No.14674521 >>14673858 throw this data at china and india, seems they don't care at all for some reason

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:26:18 2022 No.14674522 >>14673832 >>dude trust me, the study Attacking the source doesn't really work if you want to be taken seriously, resuscitate when the source you're attacking is all peer reviewed research.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:30:22 2022 No.14674543 >>14674383 I can't decide who's dumber. The Republishits who believe the propaganda that Bush II is a simple uneducated retard, or the Democraps who believe the propaganda that Bush II is a simple uneducated retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:32:17 2022 No.14674554 >>14674394 You're the one who equated ivy league lawyers with scientists, not me. Figure out how to deal with the totality of your argument, not just the part you like.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:36:48 2022 No.14674580 >>14674494 Politicians are a monoculture.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:53:10 2022 No.14674681

>>14673837
>Is "radiative forcing" like the new favorite toy or something?
I'm sorry you're retarded and think measures of how much a factor contributes to climate change are somehow strange or irrelevant to a thread about what factors contribute to climate change. Your opinion is demonstrably worthless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:54:37 2022 No.14674691 >>14674681 You forgot to post the link to the paper you haven't read.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:01:53 2022 No.14674729

>>14674580
Ron Paul is nothing like either Clinton, who themselves are nothing alike. Teddy Roosevelt does not in the least resemble Bush Jr. That crazy conservative congresswoman with the hilarious ads is far more fun than AOC. Honestly, anon, don't let your well-justified hate for politicians blind you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:08:11 2022 No.14674754 >>14674729 But the culture they all inhabit is a monoculture of apartheid law.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:19:17 2022 No.14674816

>>14674754
>apartheid law
Assuming this is schizo for "two party system" and not GPT-babble, just take a look at a random yuro country. Chances are, there'll be multiple parties in power via coalitions and shit. Their politicians too are not a monoculture. Italy is my favourite in this regard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:25:28 2022 No.14674848 >>14674816 Apartheid law treats people in one social circle differently than people who aren't in that social circle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:29:22 2022 No.14674859 >>14674233 >read the thread So you can't answer any of those questions. Why did you lie?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:31:34 2022 No.14674868

>>14674251
>There is no way to accurately measure the different sources.
There is, the paper describes it. You didn't actually read it, otherwise you wouldn't make such broad statements.

>Look at the size of the error bars.
Which ones? What about them?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:38:14 2022 No.14674897

>>14674273
>That has been debunked.
Where?

>Read the thread.
I did, it's full of evidence that you lied about and ignored.

>My objective is to remind climate alarmists that they face an absolute lack of evidence for their delusional claims.
We already know your objective is to lie, the question is why.

>It is to remind you that your science is bought and paid for by special interests
Proof?

>the world has been warming and cooling just like it is now for millions of years
No, the warm has never warmed due to human emissions until now.

>Also I like reminding you that correlation with co2 and temperature does not imply causation
No one said it does. The causation is the greenhouse effect and it's directly observed.

All you have are lies and strawmen. Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:39:37 2022 No.14674899 >>14674848 Isn't that literally normal human behaviour? I don't see your point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:41:47 2022 No.14674906 >>14674283 >Nice unfalsifiable theory. It's basic physics. How would a constant greenhouse effect cause the temperature to change? >As for the basics of natural co2 emissions, read a book. So you have no proof. Why did you lie?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:45:53 2022 No.14674924

>>14674338
>Nice to see the goalposts moving
Nice projection. You're the only one who attempted to move the goalposts from "the shift in makeup shows the CO2 increase is from fossil fuel burning" to "the shift in carbon makeup has any bearing on climate change." It's not the makeup of carbon, it's the amount of carbon that has any bearing on climate change. No one said otherwise.

>Co2 has no proven link to temperature in a planetary system.
There is. It's called the greenhouse effect. Why are you lying?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:47:08 2022 No.14674927 >>14674691 Why would I have to post a link to some paper only you mentioned? Schizo

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:52:06 2022 No.14674941

>>14674899
It's normal human behavior distilled into apartheid law. To use an American example. The game show host Donald Trump is literally the most progressive president America has had since maybe T Roosevelt. He's the most useful gay rights activist of the 21st century, he's Cesar Chavez level for worker rights, etc., yet the monoculture of American politics and its state media somehow convinced most of the American "right" that he was conservative and most of the American "left" that he was reactionary. It's the most ridiculous inversion of the political spectrum I've ever seen, and the only reason it works is because politicians who work to protect people who protect politicians are protected by other politicians who work to protect people who protect politicians. Apartheid law.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:53:07 2022 No.14674942 >>14674927 >Schizo >>14674927

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:54:29 2022 No.14674947 >>14674941 Interesting perspective. But how does that make politicians all the same? That in having not to toe the party line, he was allowed to be as impactful as the greats?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 20:58:02 2022 No.14674960 >>14674947 No, I assume all politicians are different. The culture is a monoculture, the people aren't monopeople.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 21:04:45 2022 No.14674993

>>14674960
I see. Then sure, I'll agree insofar as some countries, notably the US, are locked in this dynamic. But politicians the world over do not constitute a monoculture, even if they tend to share similar practices (not always!), the same as scientists do not possess a monoculture even if some small fields might be locked into one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 21:07:28 2022 No.14674998 >>14674993 Nope, politics can be (and is) a monoculture even if science isn't.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 21:11:46 2022 No.14675017

>>14674998
Rocket man and Sand princes are an irrefutable counterexample. Hell, any third world politician is going to be far removed from claims of whitoid monoculture. I really think you're blinded by the "global community" narrative. The world is a shitshow.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 21:18:39 2022 No.14675043 >>14675017 You think Rocket man and Sand princes don't fall under the apartheid umbrella?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 21:46:00 2022 No.14675156 >>14674413 I didn't even make an argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 22:48:21 2022 No.14675372 >>14674942 Is this supposed to be a coherent response? You need to take your meds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 23:22:22 2022 No.14675461 >>14675372 >meds. >>14675372

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:29:38 2022 No.14675684 >>14675461 Why would I have to post a link to some paper only you mentioned? Dumb schizo.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math