Climate Change

File: 180 KB, 1600x900, 350654A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Climate Change Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:30:39 2022 No.14698736 [Reply] [Original]

So what's your take on the Climate Change crisis. Is it real, a fabrication, can they fix it, or are we all going to be barbecue in 10 to 15 years?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:31:17 2022 No.14698738 >>14698736 Global warming is a >>>/pol/ topic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:31:57 2022 No.14698739 >>14698736 Shut the fuck up, how many threads do you want to create every day, fucking poltard incel, kill yourself already and don't shit up our board

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:32:50 2022 No.14698742 Its real, the climate is changing, but not because of humans. The earth goes through climate cycles whether we like it or not. A bigger concern than global warming is pollution, now THAT is our fault

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:36:52 2022 No.14698751 >>14698742 >The earth goes through climate cycles whether we like it or not Except it's not cyclical at all. Show the cycle or piss off

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:39:41 2022 No.14698756
File: 1.61 MB, 1293x1293, optimism wojak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14698736
it's real, it's caused by humans, but the apocalyptic scenarios that were made famous by scientists in the 70s are no longer true, partially because we have mitigated it and also because their data was not correct. Now the crisis has been downgraded from an existential one to an economic and political threat to the status quo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:43:14 2022 No.14698767 >>14698736 >So what's your take on the Climate Change crisis. That it's a boring, played out topic

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:47:30 2022 No.14698781 >>14698756 this

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:06:35 2022 No.14698818
File: 196 KB, 828x851, 1655532327118.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>is it real
yes the planet's average temperature is increasing
>a fabrication
completely
>can they fix it
no. and if "they" could fix it, it wouldn't be fixed by giving more money to the governments and corporations that caused it anyways, which is what the "solutions" are. cucks, all of you
>are we going to bbq
I'm bbqing tonight, so although possible, I believe that "they" will win and force all of us to live in pods inside of commieblocks and eat bugs. Not me, of course. They'll execute me in my home when I refuse the corn syrup military police.
>ok but can someone else fix it
the only solutions offered are not solutions. wind will not help much. solar will actively make it worse. electric vehicles will actively make it worse. the planet is warming and we don't like that, we know our emissions contribute. how much we contribute is incalculable. all you see are billionaires jerking eachother off with their groups of newpapers and media outlets, it's shilling, old school "you should buy my products" style, disguised as news and information. it's disinformation, plain and simple, designed to siphon your paycheck away from the oil elites and towards the "renewables" elites.
First they said your hair smelled, and then they started selling hairspray. Curious!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:08:22 2022 No.14698829 >>14698756 So our species survives, but we're going to have a shit time?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:09:01 2022 No.14698831

>climate change
global warming. it's global warming caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic CO2. Got that? Stop using weasel words.

It's also bullshit. The greenhouse effect due to atmospheric CO2 levels off at about 100 ppm. It might fuck up the ecosystem by accelerating the growth of plants.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:13:06 2022 No.14698846

>>14698831
You should be ashamed of that post...
It is absolutely going to completely and utterly destroy the environment.

The environment of deserts that is, since C3 plants benefit so much from enhnced CO2 that any kind of precipitation is going to sustain literal jungles at any latitudes.
Will somebody think of the scorpions ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:18:12 2022 No.14698858 >>14698829 yeah or it won't be too bad depending on how quickly we develop technologies to deal with it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:19:18 2022 No.14698861 >>14698831 climate change is more appropriate because a warmer globe makes places like europe colder in the long term by weakening the gulf stream

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:23:14 2022 No.14698870 >>14698846 t. underage it was global warming 20 years ago in high school. they changed it to climate change because the globe isn't warming and sea levels aren't rising. it's just an excuse to de-car you.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:26:33 2022 No.14698878
File: 56 KB, 506x280, E9ApAX-VIAEKROo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14698742
>Its real, the climate is changing, but not because of humans.
Wrong.

>The earth goes through climate cycles whether we like it or not.
Which cycle is causing current warming?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:27:47 2022 No.14698882 >>14698831 >The greenhouse effect due to atmospheric CO2 levels off at about 100 ppm. Source?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:31:08 2022 No.14698887 >>14698818 Nuclear is the actual solution

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:33:02 2022 No.14698890
File: 7 KB, 489x213, harries_radiation.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14698831
>The greenhouse effect due to atmospheric CO2 levels off at about 100 ppm.
Then explain this.
In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries et al. 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as in picrel: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries et al. 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs & Harries 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen et al. 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:36:00 2022 No.14698896
File: 144 KB, 1080x803, Screenshot_20220617-085624_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14698870
>they changed it to climate change
No one "changed" anything. They are two similar descriptions used at the same time, schizo.

>the globe isn't warming and sea levels aren't rising
But they are. Why are you lying?

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

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:36:24 2022 No.14698898 File: 454 KB, 648x1080, CC_virus_eco_cc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14698736

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:36:25 2022 No.14698899 >>14698818 meds

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:39:18 2022 No.14698904 >>14698890 Here's the culmination of that research, using kernelizations also derived from direct observations: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:41:58 2022 No.14698907 >>14698898 So if I'm reading that right, Covid-19 is a realistic photoshopped shark and Climate Change is an absurd teenage mutant ninja photoshopped shark? I'll cosign.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:43:16 2022 No.14698910 >>14698904 Are you ever going to read the paper you keep spamming as a non sequitur?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:44:47 2022 No.14698913 >>14698910 Sure, as soon as you explain how is a "non sequitur" in any context I've used it. Dumb schizo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:47:14 2022 No.14698919 >>14698913 It doesn't follow from any of the papers cited in the post you replied.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:49:56 2022 No.14698925

>>14698896
>No one "changed" anything. They are two similar descriptions used at the same time, schizo.
Well, actually, it was the bush administration that changed it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

And you'll find that even 20 years later, some /pol/ faggots have the same strategy.
>"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
>The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
>Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.

That's literally /pol/. "It's common sense that the climate changes, it has done so forever and will always change, also didn't scientists say that the earth would be a snowball bei 2000?"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:53:38 2022 No.14698936 >>14698925 Not him, but there's a truth in your post I'd like to highlight. The Guardian is literally no more or less credible than /pol/, which is to say both are pure bullshit with zero credibility.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:54:08 2022 No.14698937 >>14698919 What do you mean by follow? It uses satellite measurements of outgoing and incoming radiation and radiative kernels to directly observe the change in greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:55:05 2022 No.14698944 File: 1.47 MB, 1x1, LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14698936 >The Guardian is literally no more or less credible than /pol/, Here, without Guardian or anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:55:08 2022 No.14698943 >>14698925 >Well, actually, it was the bush administration that changed it. But they failed. Both terms are still being used regularly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:56:11 2022 No.14698945 >>14698943 >But they failed. Well, if it's a and I want it to be b, then I'm happy if it's b at least 50% of the time.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:57:38 2022 No.14698950

>>14698937
I know what it says because I've read it. I really don't think you have. You just spam it everywhere like a cat mom who's proud of her cat and wants everyone to see her cat baby. Tell me why you thought it made sense to reply to this post >>14698890 with that paper.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:06:25 2022 No.14698970

>>14698950
>I know what it says because I've read it.
Then you should be easily able to explain how the paper is a "non sequitur" in any context I've used it. But you fail every time. I've only ever seen one person ever make a substantive argument against the paper but it was just misrepresentations and grasping at straws to manufacture doubt. All you do is spam "non sequitur" which just tells anyone reading that you have no argument.

>Tell me why you thought it made sense to reply to this post >>14698890 # with that paper.
I just did. The paper even begins with a reverence to Harries et al. 2001. Doesn't you read the paper? It's on the first page. lmao. You must be some kind of masochist. Do you get sexually excited when you get outed as a lying moron?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:20:59 2022 No.14699002
File: 2.85 MB, 1359x1709, 1424276095537.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Not all scientists agree with climate change.

In 2009, Aldrin commented on climate change by saying: "I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it."[32]

Buzz is one of the smartest men in America, one of the few who went to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:35:51 2022 No.14699034 >>14698736 Well the weather has been crazy where i live. Last year we got our worst freeze in 100+ years, and now we've had all except three days this year month lower than 100 F

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:45:43 2022 No.14699063

>>14699002
>Not all scientists agree with climate change.
Not all scientists know anything about the climate.

>Aldrin
Is this really your best example? He's not even a scientist. His personal opinion has no importance.

>Buzz is one of the smartest men in America
Not even close.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:57:52 2022 No.14699088 File: 80 KB, 720x372, sc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14699063

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 22:02:23 2022 No.14699094 File: 411 KB, 1284x1057, C07964E7-47AE-4204-A514-27BFB97EAE3A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14698831 >The greenhouse effect due to atmospheric CO2 levels off at about 100 ppm God you’re retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 22:36:14 2022 No.14699159 >>14699088 He had engineering degrees, yes. What is your point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 22:57:19 2022 No.14699203 >>14699159 he's a revered scientist who went to the moon. Being a scientist is a pre-requisite for being an astronaut.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:33:20 2022 No.14699287 >>14698970 >The paper even begins with a reverence to Harries et al. 2001 Tell me what's wrong with your quote.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:39:47 2022 No.14699304 ITT: A bunch of unqualified people argue about a really complex science topic pretending as if they understand it just to defend their political agenda.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:40:35 2022 No.14699309 >>14699304 You don't need any qualifications to recognize and rightfully dismiss this scam.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:44:55 2022 No.14699318 >>14699309 Yeah right you just have to listen to a bunch of political commentators that don't know shit about anything other than defending their political party's talking points

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:46:38 2022 No.14699319 >>14699318 how is that any different from the scam the other anon was describing?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:48:44 2022 No.14699322 >>14699318 It's not a scientific question from the perspective of the public. Sorry that you're too brainwashed to see it, even after stating it outright yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:09:58 2022 No.14699359 >>14699203 >he's a revered scientist No, he's an engineer at best.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:10:59 2022 No.14699362 >>14699287 What quote?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:12:00 2022 No.14699367 >>14699304 No one here is arguing against the evidence, they can't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:13:56 2022 No.14699374 >>14699362 The one I quoted >The paper even begins with a reverence to Harries et al. 2001

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:14:06 2022 No.14699375 >>14699367 No one here, including you, is in a position to use any of your supposed evidence in their arguments, so it's strictly an argument about how much faith and trust one should put in what talking heads on TV are saying.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:17:53 2022 No.14699387 >>14699322 >It's not a scientific question from the perspective of the public. The public is wrong and brainwashed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:19:08 2022 No.14699391 >>14699374 You said "your quote."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:20:50 2022 No.14699396 >>14699387 >the public is... le bad Completely irrelevant. You've already conceded that it's inherently not a scientific discussion and thus your "scientific" evidence is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:21:17 2022 No.14699397 >>14699375 >No one here, including you, is in a position to use any of your supposed evidence in their arguments You desperately need that to be true, because you're competent incapable of arguing against the evidence. Pure cope.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:22:18 2022 No.14699400 >>14699396 >Completely irrelevant. Then why bring it up? >You've already conceded that it's inherently not a scientific discussion Where?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:23:55 2022 No.14699407 >>14699391 >You said "your quote." This is your quote (or the quote in question) >>The paper even begins with a reverence to Harries et al. 2001 >Tell me what's wrong with your quote.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:31:08 2022 No.14699422

>>14699400
>Then why bring it up?
I never bring it up. Pseuds like you do.

>Where?
Where you admitted that the vast majority of people don't have the expertise to reason about the climate and therefore have no expertise to reason about the validity of your "evidence", or what it actually entails.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:33:51 2022 No.14699425 >>14699407 No, that's your quote of me. ESL? Anyway, I'm not playing your dumb little game. You've proven yourself to be a liar and a sophist. Either tell me what you think is wrong or fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:35:32 2022 No.14699428 >>14699422 >I never bring it up. >It's not a scientific question from the perspective of the public. Why are you lying? >Where you admitted that the vast majority of people don't have the expertise to reason about the climate Where did I say that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:36:12 2022 No.14699432 >>14699428 You and your tribe will be dealt with. No amout of schizophrenic lying will help you then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:36:13 2022 No.14699433 >>14699425 You've proven yourself to lie in every post. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:37:24 2022 No.14699437 >>14699432 Says the guy who just got caught lying. lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:38:40 2022 No.14699439 >>14699437 You should try crushing your meds and snorting them, kike. You're really losing it here.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:46:55 2022 No.14699457

>>14699433
>You've proven yourself to lie in every post.
Show one lie then. Here's you lying about having read the paper:
>I know what it says because I've read it.
and then showing you didn't even read the first page that references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890
>Are you ever going to read the paper you keep spamming as a non sequitur?
>Tell me why you thought it made sense to reply to this post >>14698890 # with that paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 01:53:02 2022 No.14699551 >>14698738 fpbp dozens of global warming threads daily for a decade and the board can't come to a consensus on the issue, we should drop it and move on to other areas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 01:56:16 2022 No.14699557 File: 77 KB, 1080x803, 1658781360059762.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 03:01:56 2022 No.14699670 >>14699359 I'll remind you that going to the moon was just part of his distinguished career.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 03:10:09 2022 No.14699684 >>14699670 I'll remind you he was not a scientist and knew nothing about Earth's climate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 04:29:28 2022 No.14699814 >>14698751 If it's not cyclical, then is it random? And if the climate is random, then are humans even capable of altering it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 07:40:39 2022 No.14700080 File: 31 KB, 657x527, 1552061481115.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14698858 brb inventing carbon neutral gas chambers

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 10:31:51 2022 No.14700236 >>14699814 >If it's not cyclical, then is it random? You think cyclical and random are exhaustive? Why are you here?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 11:23:33 2022 No.14700320 File: 37 KB, 662x386, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] commies be like

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 12:24:49 2022 No.14700448 >>14698736 real i wouldn't mind a global barbecue in 10 to 15 years we'd have beef brisket and extinction

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 12:49:54 2022 No.14700529 >>14699557 What's that? A graph of your IQ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 12:51:43 2022 No.14700536 >>14699063 >>Aldrin >Is this really your best example? He's not even a scientist. His personal opinion has no importance. You might be thinking of Buzz Lightyear instead. Also, Neil Armstrong is neither a cyclist, nor does he play the trumpet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:30:36 2022 No.14700667 Yes, if it's not real explain why the CO2 isn't making the temperature go up

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:34:13 2022 No.14700685

>>14698736
Crisis is an inapt word.
A tsunami is not a crisis. A rogue tractor with the pedal locked on is not a crisis. Tectonic plates smashing is not a crisis.

Crisis would be something where you have to act right now or feel the penalties right now - that’s not what this is.
Act now or the penalties are inevitable is what it is.

So, calamity?

Anyway, pull your thumb out fucknuts, use market mechanisms to cover what til now has been an “externality”.
And if international politics are bothering your bussy just fucking do it anyway, the signal is as important as the action.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:05:40 2022 No.14700794 >>14699551 Consensus? Does it matter? Are "we" going to do something? Lmao >>14698818 This t. Biofag

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:08:31 2022 No.14700804 >>14700794 >t. Biofag That's about as relevant as being a plumber. Your professional opinion is worthless

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:09:34 2022 No.14700806 >>14700685 >use market mechanisms to cover what til now has been an “externality”. So, basically a carbon tax that goes to the poor bastards that suffer the consequences?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:15:50 2022 No.14700815 >>14700536 Can you translate this from Schizo to English?

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:23:58 2022 No.14700827

>>14700806
Carbon tax is broadly a bad mechanism, it does put a price signal into the market but government becomes the main arbiter of who is a winner and who is not.
And they tend to be bad at picking winners.

Cap and trade is imho the better mechanism.

As for the poor guy? It’s just making real the price that was always there, if poor guy can’t figure out that walking to the shops to pick up milk and bread - between main grocery shops - is viable sorry but I have no sympathy.

True loser in such an adjusted market is big oil, and sorry if they’re also people I don’t give a fuck if they’re crying themselves to sleep on their mattress of money while slightly soiling their pillow made of money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:24:17 2022 No.14700828 >>14700320 >Imagine being so retarded that you didn't know the difference between climate and weather

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:47:09 2022 No.14700876 >>14699457 Your lies aren't an argument. Tell me why you thought it made sense to reply to this post >>14698890 with that paper. (Or keep proving you lie in every post. Or both at the same time, maybe.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:48:14 2022 No.14700879 >>14700828 >Imagine being so retarded you didn't know that was the point of that anon's post

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:51:31 2022 No.14700888

>>14700879
No, his point was that he thinks hot days are used as proof of climate change and cold days are ignored. The reality is that climate is the long term trend of weather and the cold days do not offset the warming trend. He's a retard, and so are you.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:56:21 2022 No.14700903

>>14700888
Nice digits.
But you missed a window, everyone’s favourite burger specific weather is that drawn from climate instability, the polar vortex drifting off course and making crazy cold weather.
Still a climate change issue, and likely that anons post can be similarly attributed.
Or not, statistical variability doesn’t always point towards a smoking gun.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:56:42 2022 No.14700906 >>14700888 No, his point is literally what you wrote here >>14700828 The reality is that you're an illiterate retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:07:39 2022 No.14700938 >>14700906 Cope harder and learn the difference between climate and weather, retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:15:40 2022 No.14700970 >>14700938 Thanks for admitting you can't read, retard.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:16:01 2022 No.14700973

>>14700876
>Your lies
What lies? You can't show any.

>Tell me why you thought it made sense to reply to this post >>14698890 # with that paper.
I already did. See >>14698937.

Explain why you think the paper is a "non sequitur" in any context I've used it.

Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:31:42 2022 No.14701017 >>14699551 >let's postpone talking about reversing ecological disaster for another time boomer sighted

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:44:40 2022 No.14701035 >>14701017 >my heckin' peckin' cattlebrained opinions matter! If they did, you wouldn't have the right to vote.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:45:01 2022 No.14701036 >>14700973 >I already did. See >>14698937. Doesn't follow, thanks for admitting you didn't read the paper.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:55:08 2022 No.14701065

>>14701036
>Doesn't follow
What doesn't follow?

Explain why you think the paper is a "non sequitur" in any context I've used it.

Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890 #.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:00:25 2022 No.14701078 >>14700970 The irony

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:03:41 2022 No.14701089 >>14701078 >14701078

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:09:36 2022 No.14701105

>>14701065
>What doesn't follow?
What you wrote here >>14698937 about the paper you spammed here >>14698904 isn't responsive to the post here >>14698890

You can't even explain why you keep spamming the same paper. If it weren't so obvious you haven't read it, I'd actually assume you played some role in its authorship or publication. But the fact that you're a lying idiot who hasn't read the paper makes that assumption less likely.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:26:18 2022 No.14701156

>>14701105
>isn't responsive to the post here >>14698890 #
How so? They are all using satellite data to measure the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Explain why you think they are different.

>You can't even explain why you keep spamming the same paper.
I already did. See >>14698937. Explain why you think the paper is a "non sequitur" in any context I've used it.

>If it weren't so obvious you haven't read it
Projection. Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:27:39 2022 No.14701161 >>14701105 >I already did. See >>14698937. Thanks for admitting you didn't read the paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:31:05 2022 No.14701172 >>14701156 >I already did. See >>14698937. Thanks for admitting you didn't read the paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:38:34 2022 No.14701185 >>14698738 I've always thought it was weird how Climate Change denial was a right-wing thing. Isn't the warming likely going to be one of the biggest reason for mass migration in the coming decades?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:41:13 2022 No.14701199 >>14701172 Projection. Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890 #.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:46:33 2022 No.14701222 >>14698739 >our board

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:04:44 2022 No.14701268 >>14701199 >Projection. Thanks for explaining how you lie. Now try to explain why you spam the same paper you lied about reading in every thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:07:35 2022 No.14701284 >>14701268 What does the paper say? This should be easy for you if you actually read it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:10:02 2022 No.14701298 >>14701284 Not doing your homework for you. Thanks for admitting there's no logic behind your spam.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:11:28 2022 No.14701307 >>14701298 I'm not the guy you were arguing with. Tell me, in your own words what the paper says. You could even just sum up the abstract.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:15:48 2022 No.14701327 >>14701307 Lol sure thing, anon. You first and I'll tell you what you're wrong or right about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:20:07 2022 No.14701347 >>14701327 The point of this is to prove you read it. You can sum up the abstract, the results, or even make specific criticisms about the paper. Anything that demonstrates that you actually read it.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:26:09 2022 No.14701371

>>14701268
>Thanks for explaining how you lie.
You're delusional.

>Now try to explain why you spam the same paper
Already did. See >>14701156

>you lied about reading in every thread
Projection. Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:29:07 2022 No.14701386 >>14701347 Thanks for admitting you can't do any of that. If you ever read the paper, let me know.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:30:07 2022 No.14701394 >>14701371 >Already did. See >>14701156 Thanks for admitting you didn't read the paper.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:33:43 2022 No.14701414

>>14701386
I have read the paper. Have you? Tell me anything about it. This whole thread is filled with you insisting you read it without seeming to be able to comment on any of it. How about you just copy and paste a sentence that you think is important? Or any sentence at all. That would prove that you've at least opened the paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:34:18 2022 No.14701417 >>14698887 Nuclear is no solution.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:36:56 2022 No.14701429 >>14701394 Projection. Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:38:45 2022 No.14701438 >>14701414 Asking me for the same proof I'm asking you for isn't how this works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:38:59 2022 No.14701441 >>14701185 >I've always thought it was weird how Climate Change denial was a right-wing thing Keep thinking and maybe you'll reach the correct conclusion that you are brainwashed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:39:46 2022 No.14701446 >>14701429 >Projection. Thanks for explaining how you lie. Now try to explain why you spam the same paper you lied about reading in every thread

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:41:30 2022 No.14701449

>>14701438
I asked you first so your statement applies to you rather than me. Can you tell me the first author's name? Or even the just the title of the paper. If you can't summarize any part of the paper, copy and paste any part of it, tell me the name of the author, or even just the title then that's very compelling evidence that you haven't even opened the paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:43:22 2022 No.14701455 >>14701449 No, I asked first. You butted into the conversation to ask me the same question. You can answer my question and I'll reply to your answer; otherwise, fuck off.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:46:22 2022 No.14701467

>>14701455
No, I asked you first. That was my first post in this thread. You immediately responded with "Not doing your homework for you". It's your homework. Prove that you've read the paper. Prove that you've even opened the paper. At this point I would even accept the DOI as evidence, but I'm not sure you know what that is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:47:44 2022 No.14701474 >>14701441 into thinking what exactly?

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:48:29 2022 No.14701476

>>14701446
>Thanks for explaining how you lie.
You're delusional.

>Now try to explain why you spam the same paper
Already did. See >>14701156 (You) #

>you lied about reading in every thread
Projection. Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890 #.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:55:07 2022 No.14701507 >>14701474 >into thinking what exactly? Into thinking that your climate hoax is "science", and that anyone who questions conveniently happens to be part of the current year's corporate-media-constructed boogeyman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:56:15 2022 No.14701509 >>14701467 Your first post was you butting in to ask me the same question I was asking. You're an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:57:15 2022 No.14701514 >>14701476 >Already did. See >>14701156 Thanks for admitting you didn't read the paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:57:40 2022 No.14701518 >>14701509 >Your first post was you butting in to ask me the same question I was asking. Where did you ask that question?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:58:42 2022 No.14701525 >>14701514 Projection. Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:59:41 2022 No.14701529 >>14701518 For example >>14698950

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:00:42 2022 No.14701537 >>14701525 >Projection. Thanks for explaining how you lie. Now try to explain why you spam the same paper you lied about reading in every thread

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:03:29 2022 No.14701547

>>14701509
It would be trivial for you to prove that you've read the paper if you had read the paper. Instead you've spent this whole thread insisting that you have without demonstrating any knowledge of the paper. Prove that you've read it. Post anything at all that demonstrates your understanding. Post anything at all that proves you've read it. Post anything at all the proves that you've even opened the paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:04:29 2022 No.14701554 >>14701529 There is no question in that post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:04:36 2022 No.14701555 >>14701529 That's not the question he asked, and that question was already answered. See >>14701476. You haven't responded to the expansion, you just repeatedly ignore it and fail every time you're asked to explain your own claims.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:06:00 2022 No.14701562 >>14701537 See >>14701476

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:08:36 2022 No.14701574 >>14701507 How is atmospheric science not science? Also yes, it is convenient that some people who do openly "question" it happen to be on the payroll of some oil company or some such.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:09:01 2022 No.14701576

>>14701547
He didn't even read the first page of the introduction. Otherwise he wouldn't have made the idiotic mistake of claiming that it has nothing to do with the post talking about another paper it explicitly references on the first page. He's a pathetic liar and he knows it. Best to just ignore him.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:09:55 2022 No.14701581

>>14701574
>How is atmospheric science not science?
How would you know if it's science or not?

>it is convenient that some people who do openly "question" it happen to be on the payroll of some oil company or some such.
I'm sure it's convenient for your handlers, who have been shilling green scams for decades.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:10:29 2022 No.14701585

>>14701547
It would also be trivial for you post your impression of the paper and to then determine whether I've read it by the critique I've promised to give of your impression of the paper. That's the appropriate order of the conversation.
But you can't, of course, because you haven't read the paper.

>>14701554
>>14701555
Here, I've found you each a new retarded friend.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:13:51 2022 No.14701599

>>14701576
I know that. He's basically just trolling you, but you keep feeding him in every thread so here we are. You should be aware that it's an attempt to obfuscate the issue and to fill the thread with backlinks to make it unreadable in order to dissuade people who don't know about the topic from learning anything about the science. It would be better to ignore him completely.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:15:15 2022 No.14701605 >>14701585 Your critique of a statement I make does not demonstrate that you've read the paper. Post anything that proves you've opened the paper. Even just a screenshot. Literally anything at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:17:50 2022 No.14701616 >>14701605 You first, that's how the order works.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:19:41 2022 No.14701629

>>14701616
No, I asked you first. What's the title of the paper? What's the first author's name? What's the DOI? Can you give me a summary of any part of the paper? Can you copy and paste any sentence from the paper? Can you take a screenshot of the paper? Any of those things would prove that you have at least opened the paper. Why are you incapable of it?

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:21:37 2022 No.14701634

>>14701599
>attempt to obfuscate
It's not. I'm simply tired of the other anon spamming his same paper in every single climate thread with no regards to whether it's on-topic or off-topic. It's like how Tooker used to post his neighborhood of infinity paper over and over again in threads unrelated to RH.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:22:37 2022 No.14701641 >>14701629 You first, liar.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:42:15 2022 No.14701719

>How can it equal one?" he said. "If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be.
that's how chuds sound.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 18:44:41 2022 No.14701729 >>14699002 >Not all scientists agree with climate change. so what? Science isn't about opinions of scientists. It's about evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 20:05:28 2022 No.14701913 >>14698829 if your dutch, live on a small island or your country is hot your a bit fucked otherwise its just a economic issue

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:48:08 2022 No.14702290 >>14701641 Alright, here's the DOI 10.1029/2020GL091585 Now you. Prove you have read the paper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:49:09 2022 No.14702298 >>14701634 Nonsense. You haven't even read the paper, let alone refuted it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:50:58 2022 No.14702465 >>14698736 >can they fix it They have no interest in fixing it, climate change is a perfect tool to further their political agendas. They hate and suppress anything that would actually fix climate change such as nuclear.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:59:13 2022 No.14702480

>>14698736
It's tricky, the extra heat is kicking up the ocean dipoles to further autism, it will fuck us on food prices. Wheat is happy at 70F and corn at 80F. Our food dies at 110F, note Kansas cattle. For anyone who doubts the concept, I suspect OP- if carbon dioxide wasn't doing this the nights would be cooler than they are. We warm up the same we always do in day, just the dark side of the globe isn't cooling like it used to. It remains to be seen if this is a positive feedback loop, if it is- we are in trouble.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:00:01 2022 No.14702481

>>14702465
Nobody is suppressing nuclear power. It's simply too expensive to attract investors, even with the massive subsidies it gets. If you want more nuclear power then contact your representative and tell them you want more of your tax dollars spent on nuclear subsidies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:06:24 2022 No.14702494 >>14702481 The powers that be have programmed their leftist puppets to hate nuclear, for every person who supports nuclear there are 10 leftist NPCs who oppose it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:07:48 2022 No.14702496 >>14702494 Nonsense. Nobody is preventing you from investing in nuclear power. It's just not profitable so nobody does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:24:53 2022 No.14702533 >>14698736 Sealevels . Org Switch to 800,000 years. Temperature and sea levels are normal

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:40:45 2022 No.14702558 >>14702533 >Switch to 800,000 years. >Temperature and sea levels are normal Last data point in that graph is 2300 years ago. As usual, retarded deniers can only misrepresent and ignore evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:47:27 2022 No.14702565 File: 162 KB, 1080x590, Screenshot_20220723-072838~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Climate change is a cult

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:49:21 2022 No.14702566 >>14702565 As this thread shows, climate change denial is a cult. You can't respond to a single piece of evidence or provide any of your own. There's nothing there, just dogmatic belief.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:51:48 2022 No.14702571

Climate change is like Covid.
We pretend to care, but we don't really; the people who pretend to care the most, actually care more about exerting power against those who don't pretend.
The underlying problem is overstated as against the measures proposed to fix it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:53:15 2022 No.14702573 >>14702496 Nuclear power becomes profitable when profits are allowed.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:54:20 2022 No.14702576

>>14702566
>It's a dogma to question things the mainstream says shall not be questioned
Nice cognitive dissonance there cult boy. It's very simple. The IPCC isn't a legitimate source of info and the "projected models" are all bogus, as exposed by the IPCC email leaks. Lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:54:41 2022 No.14702578 >>14702481 >Nobody is suppressing nuclear power. Okay, I spotted the liar.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:58:12 2022 No.14702584

>>14702578
The problem with nuclear power these days is capable talent. Just look at Finland with their attempts to build a whole new reactor. Literally had the call up old boomers out of retirement that worked on the first one in the 80s because all the college grads kept fucking up

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:01:59 2022 No.14702588

>>14702566
>Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

>“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Checkmate, silly bitch

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:05:39 2022 No.14702592

>>14702584
At least this comment isn't an outright lie. It's merely mistaken and irrelevant.
Irrelevant because there exist today technologies for fission power that have no relation to 1970s-era tech.
Mistaken because my comment was directed against the "nobody is suppressing" comment. In fact this field is HEAVILY regulated, which means suppressed.
>but but but saaafety
Bullshit, compared to coal, these days.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:07:25 2022 No.14702598

>>14702592
Coal has actually been well refined, and isn't near as awful as it was in the 70s. The thing you zoomie retards need to understand is that these facilities don't simply rely on "sciencey stuff" and that's it. One wrong calculation and concrete pour and everything is fucked

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:13:02 2022 No.14702610
File: 400 KB, 1536x1279, cmp_cmip3_sat_ann-4-1536x1279.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14702576
>The IPCC isn't a legitimate source of info
Why not? It just compiles published research and data. If you don't like the IPCC then just read the researchfor yourself.

>the "projected models" are all bogus
Wrong. Pic related.

>as exposed by the IPCC email leaks
Which email leaks?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:14:06 2022 No.14702617 >>14702610 See >>14702588 Silly cultist

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:16:36 2022 No.14702624

>>14702588
As usual, retarded deniers can only misrepresent and ignore evidence.

>Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]

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

You can't respond to a single piece of evidence or provide any of your own. There's nothing there, just dogmatic belief.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:17:57 2022 No.14702630 >>14702624 >Accuses someone of dogmatic belief while denying red handed emails simply due to a Wikipedia link Hahahahahahaha climate cultists are this pathetic

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:19:22 2022 No.14702633 >>14702617 See >>14702624 Which emails show the IPCC isn't a legitimate source of info and the "projected models" are all bogus? They don't even show misconduct.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:20:03 2022 No.14702637 >>14702624 >Why aren't you providing evidence to disprove the papers scientists admit to falsifying Lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:20:53 2022 No.14702644 >>14702630 Yes, you have a dogmatic belief that the emails somehow invalidate the IPCC when they don't even show scientific misconduct. Post the emails already.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:21:23 2022 No.14702646 >>14702573 Nobody is disallowing your profits. Nuclear power even gets subsidies. Why don't you invest in nuclear, or call your representative and tell them you want them to increase nuclear subsidies?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:21:51 2022 No.14702648

>>14702633
>>“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

>“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

You are a cultist

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:21:54 2022 No.14702649 >>14702637 >scientists admit to falsifying Where?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:22:28 2022 No.14702651

>>14702637
Read the Wikipedia page, chud. The organizations who hire shills to falsify evidence conducted 6 million commissions that unanimously determined that falsifying data is not a scientific misconduct, and that their official line is still true regardless. The science is settled.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:22:52 2022 No.14702653 >>14702644 >They don't show misconduct because my Wikipedia arbiter told me they show no misconduct Says the cultist

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:23:54 2022 No.14702654 >>14702651 Kek

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:24:58 2022 No.14702657

>>14702649
>>“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Can cultists not read or something?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:33:29 2022 No.14702671

>>14702648
>>>“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones
And? What do his emails have to do with the legitimacy of the IPCC?

>>“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
Sounds like typical data management talk taken out of context.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:34:29 2022 No.14702673 >>14702653 >They show misconduct because I SAID SO LOL. Just show the misconduct, retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:35:30 2022 No.14702675 >>14702657 Where does this say anything was falsified? ESL?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:36:00 2022 No.14702680 >>14702671 The IPCC uses his data as a means to forward their goals dumbfuck >The people that fund us are upset with our findings >Typical data management Maybe to a cultist clutching his bullshit dogma

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:36:51 2022 No.14702682 AGW schizos lost. Notice how they continue their script even when you provide definite proof of their scam. LOL

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:37:22 2022 No.14702684 >>14702673 >>14702675 >The people that fund us are upset by our findings, we need to hide things better >WHERE DOES IT SHOW?? Redditor cultists are adorable

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:38:23 2022 No.14702687 >>14702682 At this point they are just kicking and screaming with their fingers in their ears, kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:40:34 2022 No.14702693 >>14702682 Very similar to the tactics Hitler says the Jews use in Mein Kampf. Probably a coincidence

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:43:24 2022 No.14702698

>>14702680
>The IPCC uses his data as a means to forward their goals dumbfuck
What does his data have to do with his emails? He didn't even contribute to AR5.

Your entire line of argument is idiotic: some guy doesn't want their emails FOIAed -> data is falsified -> IPCC is bogus

>>The people that fund us are upset with our findings
??? You must truly be ESL if you got that from what you quoted. All it says is that the funder was fine with not releasing the original data.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:44:36 2022 No.14702700 >>14702684 >>The people that fund us are upset by our findings Where does it say that? You're either illiterate or delusional. Which is it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:44:55 2022 No.14702701 File: 234 KB, 900x900, 1610719384708.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >What does his data have to do with his emails?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:45:52 2022 No.14702703 >>14702701 What does his data have to do with his emails?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:45:59 2022 No.14702704 File: 418 KB, 1024x1024, 1649798777102.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Where does it say that????? Imagine losing an argument this hard. lol

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:47:22 2022 No.14702708

>>14702698
>>14702700
>You must be ESL
>WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?
>exact quote: >>“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,”

Hahahahahahahahaha redditor cultists s everyone. Read and laugh, read and laugh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:47:26 2022 No.14702709 >>14702704 Where does it say that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:48:54 2022 No.14702711 >>14702709 Right here >>14702708

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:49:10 2022 No.14702712

>>14702708
>Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden
This doesn't say anything like the funders are upset with the results. Thanks for confirming you can't read. You're not a reliable source of info on what anyone has written in English.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:50:07 2022 No.14702715 >>14702712 >I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” >Where does it say they are upset? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:50:44 2022 No.14702717 CC is a useful smokescreen to mask the dozens of other environmental disasters taking place on a global scale. Doesn't matter if CC is real or not. We are heading for a major reset one way or the other.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:52:01 2022 No.14702719 >>14702717 Environmentalists cause problems and then claim to be the bastion of change. In my lifetime environmentalists replaced paper with plastic

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:54:36 2022 No.14702726

>>14702711
It doesn't though. It doesn't say funders are upset with anything. You can't read. Hidden doesn't even refer to hidden from the funders, it refers to the original data not being released. This doesn't even mean that the data is unavailable. Richard Muller analyzed it and found the same results.

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

You're not a reliable source of info written in English.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:55:12 2022 No.14702730 >>14702726 Lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:55:37 2022 No.14702731 >>14702715 Where does it say they are upset? Why can't you answer a simple question?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:56:38 2022 No.14702732 >>14702730 Not an argument. Thanks for confirming you can't read.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:59:28 2022 No.14702737 >>14702731 >>14702732 >It says the funders are not happy, not upset The redditor cultists really are this desperate lol

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:59:44 2022 No.14702738

>>14702715
Let me break this down for you since you seem to be struggling with your second language:

>the main funder
This is the subject

>they are happy
This is the opposite of "upset"

>about not releasing the original station data
These are not "results" they are data.

Let me know if you're still confused, we can go to less complex sentences.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:01:18 2022 No.14702740 >>14702738 >>they are happy Where does it say that

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:02:54 2022 No.14702743

>>14702737
>>It says the funders are not happy
>they are happy about not releasing the original station data
Is this some form of dyslexia? Did your broken brain move the word "not" from in front of "releasing" to "happy?"

Deniers are hilarious. They're so stupid I don't evergreen have to say anything, they embarrass themselves auromatically.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:03:14 2022 No.14702744 >>14702738 NTA but why would they be happy with withholding data

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:03:31 2022 No.14702745 This denier shill is on every thread derailing it with unrelated topics when asked to refute data. Now he’s changed topics again

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:04:16 2022 No.14702746 >>14702743 >>>It says the funders are not happy >>they are happy about not releasing the original station data You just played yourself homie. See this anon >>14702744

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:05:12 2022 No.14702749 >>14702740 >Where does it say that Right here: >>14702648 >>14702657 >>14702715 You quoted it several times. So are you illiterate? Dyslexic? Or just plain delusional? We need to know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:05:29 2022 No.14702751 >>14702745 I don't know wtf you're talking about, why would any entity pushing AGW be happy with not posting specific data?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:07:08 2022 No.14702755 >>14702744 It's standard data management. Why would you release original data full of errors?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:08:10 2022 No.14702756

>>14702749
I think you may be really stupid. That anon is obviously being facetious so that you focus on the misgivings while identifying the fact that A. Scientists are being funded and B. Acknowledging their funders are happy by them omitting data, which must be kept secret

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:08:33 2022 No.14702758

>>14702746
>>>>It says the funders are not happy
>>>they are happy about not releasing the original station data
Yes.

>You just played yourself homie.
How so?

And please explain why you failed to read basic English correctly? Illiterate, dyslexic, or delusional?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:09:11 2022 No.14702759 >>14702755 If it was full of errors why keep it a secret?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:11:05 2022 No.14702763 >>14702758 You say I'm illiterate, but you should really look up the term "foil" and how it applies to Watson, cult boy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:12:33 2022 No.14702765 File: 72 KB, 624x624, brainwashed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14698736 Being gullible enough to believe scientists, professional liars and globohomo faggots on payroll is a sin.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:13:03 2022 No.14702766 >>14702588 >Checkmate, silly bitch I thought you were trolling through most oft this thread but that gave it away. You can't be retarded and cringe.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:13:37 2022 No.14702769

>>14702756
>That anon is obviously being facetious so that you focus on the misgivings
What "misgivings?" That makes no sense.

>Scientists are being funded
Wow, what a shocking fact.

>Acknowledging their funders are happy by them omitting data, which must be kept secret
Why would you not omit data full of errors? It's OK if you've never done data management or research, but don't try to pretend like you know what you're talking about and take a bunch of quotes out of context.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:13:49 2022 No.14702770 >>14702766 See >>14702763 You are legit 2 steps behind

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:14:43 2022 No.14702772 Not only is it real its too late and voting your way out of is not going to happen cause democrats are beholden to the same lobbyist groups republicans are. Basically unless someone figures out space travel we are fugged

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:15:05 2022 No.14702773 >>14702769 Who says it's full of errors? The quote clearly portrays a notion where an original study didn't produce the results desired

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:15:38 2022 No.14702774 >>14702759 It's not a secret, the methods used to process original station data is well known. Hidden just refers to it not being published, which you wouldn't do because it's full of errors.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:16:40 2022 No.14702778 >>14702763 >You say I'm illiterate Because you just proved you are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:17:09 2022 No.14702780 >>14702774 >The methods were flawed but the new methods are solid, just a coincidence the "funders" are happy It's cute how you children also unironically use terms like "bootlicker"

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:18:58 2022 No.14702782

>>14702772
>democrats
>republicans
The problem isn't even the US. It's the Tragedy of the Commons as applied to the entire Earth. Only a mega-country willing to bully every other country into compliance would be capable, but you can't be that powerful of a country while restricting your emissions to that degree. It's a winless situation no matter what country you're in (if you're in a country that matters, anyway).

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:19:33 2022 No.14702783

>>14702773
>Who says it's full of errors?
Climatologists, statisticians, data scientists. I recommend you read Zeke Hausfather's work, he's very approachable to laymen.

>The quote clearly portrays a notion where an original study didn't produce the results desired
It clearly doesn't, my retarded friend.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:20:00 2022 No.14702785 File: 445 KB, 1080x934, Screenshot_20220726-221901~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14702778 You're going to fail, cult boy. Anyone reading this can see it clearly

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:21:09 2022 No.14702791 >>14702780 >>The methods were flawed but the new methods are solid What new methods? >It's cute how you children also unironically use terms like "bootlicker" I've never used that term. Keep your delusions to yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:21:23 2022 No.14702792 >>14702783 Are these the same ones being funded by the source that is happy with the withholding? Are you the cultist talking about dogma? Lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:22:09 2022 No.14702795 >>14702785 Not an argument. Explain why you failed to read basic English.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:22:30 2022 No.14702796 >>14702791 >What new methods? >Our funders are happy with us withholding the "original" findings Man you guys really are low IQ mouth breathers

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:23:48 2022 No.14702802 >>14702795 >Refuses to address the pic >Not an argument This anon gets it and so does anyone lerking, culty >>14702751 >>14702744

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:24:09 2022 No.14702803

>>14702792
>Are these the same ones being funded by the source that is happy with the withholding?
No, Berkeley Earth for example is an independent skeptical organization.

As this thread shows, climate change denial is a cult. You can't respond to a single piece of evidence or provide any of your own. There's nothing there, just dogmatic belief.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:25:27 2022 No.14702805 >>14702796 >>Our funders are happy with us withholding the "original" findings That's not what he said. The original data is not a "finding." As usual, retarded deniers can only misrepresent and ignore evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:25:31 2022 No.14702806 >>14702803 Again, NTA, but everything provided on top of the fact that your opinions are found all over NBC and plebbit shows the opposite

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:26:28 2022 No.14702808 >>14702802 >>Refuses to address the pic I don't address non-arguments. Answer the question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:27:36 2022 No.14702810 >>14702806 Doesn't follow. Try again.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:27:50 2022 No.14702811
File: 66 KB, 850x496, 0F7C2E20-E927-410A-8312-63A48B577D04.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14702751
What those emails were referring to was some some models on short term energy fluxes of research at CRU and graphs in the layperson summaries of the IPCC where they’re discussing proxy data and instrumental datasets.
>>14702792
These data aren’t “hidden” as the other guy said it’s not published in the paper. All these data are available and as a response Barkley Earth, a climate skeptic funded project analyzed the data and returned the same conclusions as from CRU.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:27:57 2022 No.14702812

>>14702805
>>14702808
>they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

This is where you cultists run into a crossroads.
Exact quote
>they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
So the original models are flawed, which shows an issue with validity, or they are intentionally withholding data. Which one is it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:28:57 2022 No.14702814 >>14702810 >>14702811 >Desperate redditor buzzwords and straw clutching I win job done

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:29:53 2022 No.14702816 File: 64 KB, 500x500, 1CFF6135-BFB7-4A91-8DC2-E02033D1D60E.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14702814 >no arguments yet again

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:30:41 2022 No.14702817 >>14702816 I don't argue with children throwing tantrums

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:34:23 2022 No.14702823

>>14702817
Berkeley earth was specifically organized by skeptics after the e-mail controversy to address the perceived specific issues about the stations data quality and data selection. They came to the same conclusion as the other data products. Now address their data.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:35:14 2022 No.14702827 >>14702823 I have no idea what Berkeley earth is and it has nothing to do with what was proposed, cult boy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:36:56 2022 No.14702831 >>14702566 >Dogmatic cultists disagree with things spewed on cable news and television What fucking timeline is this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:41:13 2022 No.14702840 It's so funny when cultists are desperately posting in their discord asking for help to combat the "evil deniers" hahahahahha

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:41:22 2022 No.14702841 >>14702827 As I said, because you refuse to read, it was organized to analyze the station data that was supposedly hidden (which really isn’t hidden, just not attached to the papers), specifically to address the emails

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:42:30 2022 No.14702844 >>14702841 If the source was lacking validity then there would be no need to mention it or the "happiness" that it was excluded

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:45:53 2022 No.14702856 >>14702844 You’re purposely misrepresenting the facts. They’re talking about specific instances of publications and papers. There was no hidden data in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:46:59 2022 No.14702859 >>14702856 >There was no withholding data they just didn't acknowledge the original study "full of errors" while mentioning secrecy Uhhhh okay

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:51:04 2022 No.14702864

>>14702844
These are quotes from the founder of Berkeley Earth
>"I was deeply concerned that the group had concealed discordant data"
>"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK”
>"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:52:13 2022 No.14702867 >>14702864 And? Btw shout out to the cultist redditor anon mentioning "dogmatic thinking" kek

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:54:22 2022 No.14702872

>>14702859
Read the methodology of Berkeley Earth. It address those claims. It’s talking about stations labeled as bad quality. When they looked at those they found that the conclusions from the UK researches were correct. Again, there’s no data withholding in any of this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:55:50 2022 No.14702875 >>14702872 >It’s talking about stations labeled as bad quality. By who? This obscure group that doesn't address the actual issue?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:57:06 2022 No.14702879 >>14702867 >I’ll ignore the work done to investigate if there was any hidden data

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:57:25 2022 No.14702880 >>14702565 This along with the seething it caused is really all I need

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:58:14 2022 No.14702881 >>14698736 It is real, but not apocalyptic or unstoppable, at least so long as ExxonMobil stops lobbying

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:58:31 2022 No.14702883 >>14702879 >Trust the random group I mentioned while I fail to actually address the point Cultist gonna straw man I get it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:59:32 2022 No.14702884 >>14702881 Yes, meanwhile "green" corporations are being sued in international court for using slave labor for their cobalt and lithium

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:59:44 2022 No.14702885 >>14702875 Stations are marked as low quality if they are poorly man trained and have downtime. These are weather stations put up my may different people not associated with the BE.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:02:13 2022 No.14702891 >>14702885 Good point, it's amazing how meteorologists can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather in a 40 mile radius, but these global projection models are spot on

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:06:01 2022 No.14702896 >>14702883 >I refuse to read any information This argument about the emails and the stations is a decade old at this point and the physicists who reanalyzed the data found the same results as all others

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:07:47 2022 No.14702905 >>14702891 There are zero projection models in these datasets. It’s all instrumental data

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:08:17 2022 No.14702906 >>14702896 You can bring up shill groups that nobody knows, but it fails to address the basic notion that hiding data followed by damage control ruins validity, unless you're a dogmatic cultist worshiper

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:09:56 2022 No.14702908 >>14702905 Odd considering the main consensus from your side outlined the Yellowstone caps being gone by now, or all of the other horse shit proposed in 2005

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:14:27 2022 No.14702920 >>14702906 No data was hidden at any point here though

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:19:56 2022 No.14702931

Human-made climate change deniers cherrypick articles from 2 or 3 decades ago saying shit like "X city will be Y feet underwater in Z years" and then when it turns out to be false they feel a bloated sense of superiority that they are 100% correct. It doesn't prove climate change from humans isn't happening, it just means that it is happening in other ways than what are envisioned and over a greater time period.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:28:04 2022 No.14702948 File: 363 KB, 850x432, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14702906 All of the data used in BE, HADCRUT, NOAA and NASA's instrumental datasets are publicly available.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:39:29 2022 No.14702970 >>14702908 According to who?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:22:32 2022 No.14703120 >>14702931 >"The experts" are allowed to be wrong and their validity shall never be questioned ??? Lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:24:40 2022 No.14703122 >>14702970 "The experts" >>14702948 Let's be real, you simply Google "proof of climate change" then paste whatever model comes up

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:26:48 2022 No.14703125
File: 23 KB, 615x385, 2019-06-10_8-54-51.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14702970
When I visited Yellowstone these signs were everywhere using the "projected data" you rely on. And when it never happened, of course they were quietly removed

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:33:15 2022 No.14703134 >>14703122 >>14703125 So nobody

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:36:03 2022 No.14703141 >>14703134 https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html I'm glad you agree those pushing AGW are a bunch of nobodies

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:38:57 2022 No.14703150 >>14703141 So you get your idea of climate science from the news? It's no wonder you're so confused.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:40:10 2022 No.14703155 >>14703150 Ironic considering you align your opinions with celebrities and cable news

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:43:49 2022 No.14703167 >>14703155 You mean celebrities and cable news align their opinions with climate science. That doesn't make them good science communicators. You should try picking up a book.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:51:24 2022 No.14703182

>>14703167
>You mean celebrities and cable news align their opinions with climate science
Also ironic considering another anon ITT was the one bringing up "dogmatic beliefs."
>I believe "the climate science" kek are you 12? The "science" has changed from one end to another over the past few decades

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:54:14 2022 No.14703186 >>14703182 You seem confused. Have you tried picking up a book yet?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:54:28 2022 No.14703188 >>14703182 >Also ironic considering another anon ITT You're having a go at this anon because of what a completely different person said? Are you retarded? you lose lmao

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:56:15 2022 No.14703192

>>14703186
I e picked up several over the years, which have all predicted wildly different outcomes that never happened, with "believers" as spastic as you are. When winters were terrible in the 80s and 90s "all the top scientists" were reported an oncoming ice age lmao

>>14703188
It still applies, you are cultists

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:57:09 2022 No.14703194 >>14703192 >It still applies, you are cultists I read in another thread somewhere that some anon wanted to have sex with horses, therefore you're into bestiality too! BTFO

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:57:09 2022 No.14703195 >>14703192 Which books?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:03:13 2022 No.14703213

>>14703194
Huh?

>>14703195
Actually hard to find on Google but this was a pretty infamouse one
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/3592121-the-cooling

Complies all the data from "top government scientists." This dude also went on to write for the Harvard Crimson too simply based on his "activist" work lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:06:30 2022 No.14703229 >>14703213 Kek I remember this shit. When I was a kid I was pissing my pants when I heard "ice tornados" we're going to destroy us all

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:09:25 2022 No.14703233

Regardless, putting a fuckton of CO2, Methane, Lead and Nitrous Oxide in the atmosphere is just an obviously bad thing to do. We're biologically adjusted to a particular environment. We've made plans and settled down based on this particular environment. Adding gases to the atmosphere that didn't used to be there is obviously going to affect the original system. All of this is a conclusion you can come to on your own without media/scientists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:10:31 2022 No.14703238 >>14703213 >Huh? Don't play dumb horsefucker I seen it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:11:58 2022 No.14703240 >>14698736 >but what about muh ecunahmic grof >derp me know >muh nucular >muh carbon taxes >muh fusion >muh mars colonies I gotta say.. i never had much hope for "homo-sapiens".. LOL

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:14:22 2022 No.14703245 >>14703233 Know what also seems like a bad thing? Cutting down thousands of acers of forest to make way for plastic solar/wind farms, while also using millions of gallons of water to leech lithium out of salt fields

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:14:43 2022 No.14703246 >>14703233 BuT iT iS oNlY 150 pPm ThAt We AdDeD

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:15:34 2022 No.14703248 >>14703246 Don't try and act like you know what that shit even means

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:17:22 2022 No.14703251 >>14703245 Not to mention converting small footprint people from tropical countries into large footprint people from western countries for the sake of "muh profits", "muh ecuhnawmic growf"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:18:45 2022 No.14703258 >>14703251 Why even bother mentioning tropical people? The "toothless uneducated climate deniers" live a 1,000 times greener lifestyle than these cultists pop science fags

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:21:03 2022 No.14703265 >>14703258 Yup. We need to replace bubba's 1997 diesel pickup truck and replace it with a battery powered car yay science!

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:26:55 2022 No.14703280

>>14703258
>>14703265
Just for the record.. My position is that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat to future civilization on par with non-renewable resource depletion... and nothing has done more to convince me that corporate and political "leaders" in the west are completely and utterly full of rancid horseshit than their response to it, not even the covid debacle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:28:17 2022 No.14703281 >>14703258 >>14703265 or even the way they've allowed trans industrial complex to grow

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:28:20 2022 No.14703282 >>14703280 >I'm convinced that this isn't a plot to make.rich people even richer by scaring normies with the weather for the 284758th time Sure thing dude. I remember when we replaced paper with plastic to "save the trees"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:30:32 2022 No.14703287 >>14698751 It is absolutely cyclical and if you’re too lazy to look up the BASIC science that proves that then that’s your problem

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:32:25 2022 No.14703291 >>14703282 You must be pretty old then. Maybe you should take a little nap and then come back and read the rest of what I just wrote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:33:45 2022 No.14703297 >>14703291 Perhaps you'll understand when you grow out of your teens and live through about a dozen "doomsday events" as predicted by "science"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:36:34 2022 No.14703305 >>14703297 perhaps when all the giant millenia old trees in california are gone you'll understand, but i doubt it... your position is a self-serving one

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 06:45:34 2022 No.14703326 >>14703305 You're a little kid no one gives a fuck about your perceived big issues. Fact of the matter is, by 2042 "global warming" will be forgotten and we'll be onto some other cry baby horse shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:15:45 2022 No.14703673 >>14702290 >>14702298 Posting the DOI isn't responsive to whether you've read the paper and what you think of it. Try again, liar.

e Wed Jul 27 11:30:36 2022 No.14703698

>>14701105
Following your conversation with the schizo was a fund adventure, given I ended up doing so in reverse. You are correct, I think, the anon didn't read anything and has spent the whole thread avoiding addressing the literature at all.
>>14701156
>How so? They are all using satellite data to measure the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Explain why you think they are different.
Because the paper you've linked comports with what he originally posted. So, yeah, you're either trolling or a colossal fucking dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:57:08 2022 No.14703748 >>14702812 >So the original models are flawed What original models? Station data is not a model. >or they are intentionally withholding data Not publishing original station data. Answer the question already.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:00:59 2022 No.14703756 >>14702931 >Human-made climate change deniers cherrypick articles from 2 or 3 decades ago saying shit like "X city will be Y feet underwater in Z years" Except they can't even do that. Not one example in this entire thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:06:50 2022 No.14703767 >>14703182 Yes, you have not been able to raise a single substantive objection to climate science. You simply believe it's wrong dogmatically.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:07:51 2022 No.14703772 >>14703756 Because they know it's the truth. They just know. If you don't know it then you're dumb and you should do your own reserach. Source: Bing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:14:30 2022 No.14703785 >>14703245 Better than the alternative.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:15:30 2022 No.14703788 >>14703248 Not everyone is as ignorant as you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:18:47 2022 No.14703794 >>14703287 So no proof it's cyclical. Why did you lie?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:27:17 2022 No.14703811

>>14703698
You're incredibly confused. The first person you replied to didn't post this >>14698890 and said the paper I posted here >>14698904 didn't comport with that post. He has completely failed to address the literature even though it's been exclaimed to him several times.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:41:26 2022 No.14703828 >>14703811 Your paper doesn't comport with the post you replied to, lying idiot. Stop spamming your juvenile paper that never adds nothing to the conversation you spam it into.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:43:23 2022 No.14703832 >>14703811 Your paper doesn't comport with the post you replied to, lying idiot. Stop spamming your juvenile paper that never adds anything to the conversation you spam it into.

e Wed Jul 27 12:45:29 2022 No.14703836

>>14703811
No, I am not. This was what that post replied to, and this is you, yes?
>>14698831
>It's also bullshit. The greenhouse effect due to atmospheric CO2 levels off at about 100 ppm. It might fuck up the ecosystem by accelerating the growth of plants.
Then we have what you wrote here >>14698904 which does not support the aforementioned claim.
>This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.
As this clearly states there's been a bit of a tradeoff as well due to reductions in aerosol emissions.

At what point does your linked paper support claiming "CO2 levels off at about 100 ppm"? It doesn't say that.

>>	e Wed Jul 27 12:48:37 2022 No.14703843 >>14703832 Honestly at this point I just want to know why he thinks a paper says something it doesn't.

>>	e Wed Jul 27 12:51:30 2022 No.14703848 >>14703811 It is possible I have confused you with >>14698831 when you were instead the one posting papers to debunk that post. If that's the case, I apologize.

e Wed Jul 27 12:59:15 2022 No.14703853

>>14703832
Wait okay so maybe I did confuse him. Why are you claiming he's lying if he's the one posting multiple sources demonstrating CO2 does not "level off" greenhouse effects?

I genuinely cannot figure out which anon is which. I wish this board defaulted to enabling poster hashes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:02:57 2022 No.14703951 >>14703673 And yet you failed to do even that, demonstrating that you have not even opened the paper.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:05:03 2022 No.14703954 >>14703213 Lowell Ponte is not a scientist

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:13:07 2022 No.14703969

>>14703853
>he's the one posting multiple sources
That anon isn't posting multiples sources, he's obsessively spamming a single (very recent) paper which one assumes he's either associated with or paid to spam. (Or he could just be a schizo with a favorite toy.) In any event, whatever he is or isn't, the post he parasitzed with his spam was already complete and sufficient on its own.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:14:41 2022 No.14703973 >>14703951 That I won't post out of order demonstrates nothing other than your own failure to engage.

>>	e Wed Jul 27 14:19:13 2022 No.14703982 >>14703969 That doesn't explain why you think that it's wrong. Are you the one claiming the greenhouse effect flatlines at 100 ppm or not? Just repeating a claim of spam didn't address what I asked at all. What, exactly, is your issue? What's the lie here?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:19:52 2022 No.14703983

>>14703973
Nonsense, I asked you first and despite that I still demonstrated that I've opened the page first. I even broadened the request from demonstrating that you've read the paper to demonstrating that you've ever opened the page. You still failed. You haven't read the paper.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:32:53 2022 No.14704030 File: 126 KB, 1506x646, Screen Shot 2022-07-27 at 10.31.21 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14703969 There's plenty of research on that topic, but you refuse to even open links https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:38:28 2022 No.14704044 >>14703983 You don't butt into a conversation and tell me what to do. I've given you fair terms: tell me what you think the paper says and I'll engage. The fact that you won't or can't tells me you're either a liar or an idiot or both.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:42:56 2022 No.14704059 >>14703982 I don't think it's wrong. Have you read the paper or are you just another idiot like these two apparently are. >>14704030 >>14703983

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:44:17 2022 No.14704064 >>14703982 The denier is the one claiming that CO2 forcing levels off at 100 ppm which is bullshit as shown in the two papers about the subject.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:47:32 2022 No.14704076

>>14704044
Your comment on a statement I make does not evidence that you have read the paper. Tell me anything about it. What is the title? Who is the first author? Can you summarize any part of the paper? Can you copy and paste any part of the paper? Can you post a screenshot of the paper? The fact that you seem incapable of doing any of those things tells me that you haven't opened the paper, let alone read or understood it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:49:55 2022 No.14704085 >>14704076 You first, liar. The fact that you wrote all that gibberish instead of a simple description of the paper tells me all I need to know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:53:11 2022 No.14704097 >>14704085 I've already done it. You can't even post the title of the paper because you haven't opened it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:56:31 2022 No.14704104
File: 894 KB, 1000x750, obama-marthasvineyard-house (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>ITT middle school children arguing over a paper they don't understand but found on r/science

You cultists are pathetic, the weather is fine. Kill yourselves. Hence the reason why all the people pushing your scam are buying ocean front mansions

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:57:11 2022 No.14704107 >>14704097 You posted the DOI, dipshit. I'll be back in four hours or so, maybe you'll have opened the paper by then?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:57:50 2022 No.14704109 >>14704064 >The denier Holy shit this isi literally a religion for you teenagers, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:59:01 2022 No.14704113 >>14704109 Are you going to engage with the posted data at any point? Or are you just shitposting?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:59:34 2022 No.14704115 >>14704104 100% this. Some r/science post with the talking points summarized that they repeat like drones. These retards are so unselfaware they don't realize that they all repeat the exact same lines verbatim

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:00:38 2022 No.14704117 >>14704113 Don't get snippy with me cult boy, I was in highschool when your arbiter Al Gore was using "The Day After Tomorrow" clips in his documentary. Grow up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:01:46 2022 No.14704121 >>14704117 Come on, retard, you can do it. Open up the papers and refute their data and stop derailing the thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:03:29 2022 No.14704125 >>14704115 Can you explain how the observational determinations of the CO2 radiative forcing are wrong?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:04:01 2022 No.14704127

>>14704121
>The papers the papers the papers!
Back in 2010 while you were still in elementary school, the "climate scientists" were already caught admitting they intentionally omit data counter to their narrative. You're a Sophist puppet, and little child repeating things you don't understand just to push your religion

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:04:58 2022 No.14704132 >>14704127 Nope, still not there. Engage with the data

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:05:03 2022 No.14704133 >>14704125 Why bother? You haven't a clue what you're even saying at this point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:06:03 2022 No.14704138 >>14704132 >Engage the data the authors admit to being forged Like me saying the proof God exists if you open the bible. You're pathetic

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:07:11 2022 No.14704143 >>14704138 Nope, two completely different studies and demonstrably there was no forged data.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:08:05 2022 No.14704146 >>14704143 >nuh uh doesnt count Go dye your haie, little man

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:09:05 2022 No.14704149 >>14704143 >Okay so they admitted to only publishing data and models that fit with the DOE agenda, but now they're honest! Lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:09:38 2022 No.14704152 >>14704146 Focus you little retard, you'll get there eventually

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:10:34 2022 No.14704157 >>14704152 See >>14704149 You keep back talking me I'll fuck your mom and she'll forget to bring you your tendies

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:16:26 2022 No.14704174
File: 478 KB, 1036x826, Screen Shot 2022-07-27 at 11.11.34 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14704157
Not even remotely the same papers and there was no forged data at all.
I'll help you a bit retard anon.
Tell me where in the graph do you see CO2 forcing leveling off. This is measured with ground based interferometers. Either engage or shut up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:18:00 2022 No.14704181 >>14704174 Are you fucking stupid? They admitted to lying once but now they're accurate? >Look at this graph You are a little kid that has no idea what metric were even used to come up with it. You are a pathetic cultist little shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:22:43 2022 No.14704190 >>14704181 There was never any lying, this was all verified. What exactly is groundbreaking about radiance spectral measurements? Are you a retard boomer shitposter that's lost from facebook? Do we need to call silver alert?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:24:48 2022 No.14704196

>>14704190
>There was never any lying, this was all verified.
According to who? The exact same entity that admitted to lying the first time? Also you have no idea what these instruments are, or even how the data is compiled. You just read your r/science then copy and paste whatever you're told to say. You are a cultist

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:29:54 2022 No.14704205

>>14704196
There was no lying, I don' know why your boomer brain can't understand that.
If you're such an expert then tell me the flaws in their methodology. This is CO2 concentration and radiance spectra from an optical instrument. No point in arguing against someone who dismisses data out of hand.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:32:00 2022 No.14704210

>>14704205
>There was no lying, I don' know why your boomer brain can't understand that.
Kek throwing a tantrum now I see? You're immature child like mind seems like it cannot grasp ruined validity in wake of pop science redditor nonsense. Perhaps you should read chicken little again

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:32:53 2022 No.14704211 >>14704210 >still not engaging some simple data Focus boomer

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:34:04 2022 No.14704213 >>14704211 Chicken little. Read it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:35:02 2022 No.14704215 >>14704213 Nope, look at the graph boomer. This is a very simple task

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:35:44 2022 No.14704217 >>14704215 How about I just smack you across your mouth like mom shoulda have done?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:36:36 2022 No.14704221 >>14704217 >boomer can't open a link and turns to violence sad

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:37:54 2022 No.14704222 >>14704221 >Little kid can't understand validity in wake of his redditor religion being voided That's it, youre grounded from anime

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:41:10 2022 No.14704228 >>14704222 >he claims while providing no arguments against the posted data

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:42:23 2022 No.14704233 >>14704228 I already did. I pointed out that the IPCC/CS crowd was already caught forging data. This ruins their validity. Your only response has been "nuh uh doesn't count"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:45:28 2022 No.14704237 >>14704233 There was no forged data though. Did you already forget skeptics went through the data 10 years ago and found no forging? The paper I'm talking about is unrelated to this though

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:46:33 2022 No.14704241 >>14704237 Did you forget the 5,000 emails from 2010 that outright showed communications between "the scientists" calling their own data garbage? Little man

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:46:58 2022 No.14704243 >>14704107 How could I have gotten the DOI without opening the paper? You have failed to do anything to evidence that you have opened, read, or understood the paper. It's clear that you haven't read it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:51:13 2022 No.14704252

>>14704241
This shit was figured out 10 years ago

>From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forces. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:52:57 2022 No.14704255 >>14704252 >The scientists outright said in their emails that they were biased and forged data but this literal who organization says that there was no bias You're fucking stupid, cult boy

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:59:06 2022 No.14704276

>>14704255
Oh boy you're obfuscating again trying to avoid engaging in any sort of honest argument. There was no forged data, simply raw data not attached to the publication. How many times do I have to repeat it you boomer? Station data is publicly available.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:00:12 2022 No.14704278 >>14704276 >The scientists said they forged their data but there was no forged data Try not to have to much of a meltdown their cult boy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:02:03 2022 No.14704282 >>14704278 Where's the forged data? The email quote literally says the raw data wasn't included in a publication

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:06:16 2022 No.14704292 >>14704282 The email quote from the random org you posted? Read the thread you nigger, they've been quoted here >>14702648 You fail to seem to grasp that actual adults existed in 2010 back when you were still playing Legos in your jammies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:09:41 2022 No.14704305 >>14704292 Show me where it says that any data is forged. It talks about station data releases for a specific publication. As previously and many times mentioned here, that data has always been available.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:15:51 2022 No.14704326

>>14704305
Read the actual email leaks cult boy, they admit to A. Intentionally with holding models and projections that contradict what they want to find
B. Discuss how much effort was put into to skew the reports on order to find what they want to find
C. Literally discussing how to cover their tracks from FOI requests. You put faith in these people because you are 'literally' a cultist

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:35:20 2022 No.14704403 >>14704326 I can guarantee you haven't read the emails. Even your selected quotes from secondary news sources don't show any of this

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:40:24 2022 No.14704423

>>14704403
The emails were literally everywhere in 2010 and this was back before major censorship implementation from the likes of Google and co. You were still a toddler back then too.
>Don't show any of this
>IPCC scientist, "we are above FOI requests but a way to cover yourself is to delete all emails when finished"

Hahahahahahahaha yeah dude sounds really like "settled science"

e Wed Jul 27 17:01:24 2022 No.14704473

>>14704326
Let's assume you have evidence of some people forging data. Are any of them on the papers linked? Do you have evidence the data in said papers are "forged"? Because saying "Sam" forged something is completely irrelevant if "Sally" wrote it.

Honestly now that I have you anons straight I can't think you're anything but a troll.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:01:34 2022 No.14704475

>>14704403
Micheal Hulme, (at the time) professor of climate studies at Cambridge.
>So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal. I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of "sound science" and Tyndall's reaction to it some thought recently.

This is just one out of thousands, btw. You really haven't a clue.

>>	e Wed Jul 27 17:02:31 2022 No.14704481 >>14704475 ...Nothing in that quote is about forging data. The fuck?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:02:56 2022 No.14704483 >>14704473 >Okay so you have evidence of them forging data and covering their tracks. But what about THIS paper? You are so fucking pathetic lol

>>	e Wed Jul 27 17:03:32 2022 No.14704485 >>14704483 >You are so fucking pathetic lol If you think asking for evidence is pathetic, why the fuck are you on /sci/?

>>	e Wed Jul 27 17:04:48 2022 No.14704491 >>14704483 So let's use your logic >A catholic priest is convicted of pedophilia >All catholics are pedophiles This is the logic you're using right now.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:09:00 2022 No.14704504

>>14704485
>>14704491
Nah more like, "The Catholic Church has confirmed covered for pedos but who are you to say that this pedo priest was protected?

Also
>...First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results.

-Fillipo Giorgi, author of IPCC assessments

>>	e Wed Jul 27 17:11:10 2022 No.14704510 >>14704504 That quote has nothing to do with fraud either. That's twice in a row now you've completely failed to support your case. Are you a crazy person or something?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:12:13 2022 No.14704515

>>14704510
It doesn't end there
>The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.

You are a cultist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:13:55 2022 No.14704517 >>14704510 >Okay so they are using models reviewed by nobody while ignoring models that contradict themselves but where's the fraud? Hahahahahahahahah

e Wed Jul 27 17:15:50 2022 No.14704524

>>14704515
A scientist doing what scientists usually do and arguing in favor of stricter standards and scrutiny on outlier models is also not evidence of fraud.

Nor does it have to do with anything linked so far in this thread.

Nobody's a cultist here. You're just wildly flailing and grasping at straws and trying to cherrypick things. What's astounding to me is you aren't even cherrypicking anything that actually supports your case. It's like you haven't even read what you're copy pasting. Are you even a real person?
>>14704517
>>Okay so they are using models reviewed by nobody while ignoring models that contradict themselves but where's the fraud?
You can't have it both ways. First you people declare there's a conspiracy due to some cabal altering the data, now you're saying there's a conspiracy due to nobody reviewing the models. That trick only works on children.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:17:49 2022 No.14704528

>>14704524
>A scientist doing what scientists usually do and arguing in favor of stricter standards
You fucking NIGGER cultists he's literally saying there are no standards at a and the conclusions set for the are flimsy to the point where the IPCCs credibility is in question. You really are a pathetic piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:18:50 2022 No.14704532 >>14704528 No standards at all*

e Wed Jul 27 17:20:34 2022 No.14704537

>>14704528
>You fucking NIGGER cultists he's literally saying there are no standards at a and the conclusions set for the are flimsy to the point where the IPCCs credibility is in question. You really are a pathetic piece of shit
Somebody's opinion on a specific issue from an e-mail leak that's rather dated, and pertains mainly to the IPCC. That has nothing to do with what was linked, as I said, you're just throwing out irrelevancies. Even if someone had linked a publication by the IPCC, that does not address anything but a model that author was criticizing.

Again, all you are doing is saying "A catholic was a pedo therefore all catholics are pedos".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:21:41 2022 No.14704540 >>14704537 Hahahaha you can can throw a kike tantrum all you want, anyone actually reading this can easily see what a tiny little worm you are

>>	e Wed Jul 27 17:22:44 2022 No.14704544 >>14704540 You're projecting real hard here pal. Calmly explaining the mistakes and ridiculous inferences you're making to avoid addressing anything of substance isn't "a tantrum". Go back to /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:23:38 2022 No.14704547 >>14704544 >You're projecting real hard I don't need to project any rational adult can see you're desperate here

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:24:54 2022 No.14704552

Climatologist cultist Tom Wigley
>Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".

>WHERE IS THE FRAUD?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:32:29 2022 No.14704575 File: 70 KB, 1024x775, Wigley-ART-Fig-1-PDF-version-1024x775.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14704552 Keep in mind climate cultists ITT will take this man's work and say, "BUT LOOK AT THE GRAPH! AHHHHH LOOK AT IT!"

e Wed Jul 27 17:48:34 2022 No.14704617

>>14704552
Read the full discussion. Anomalies in certain datasets exist, such as ship data, due to a whole host of factors they're discussing in that e-mail chain. He is not talking about falsifying data, he's talking about the differences in recorded temperatures and how to reconcile land v ocean datasets. Hence "We are still left with why the blip" and "we'd still have to explain the land blip" even if they're reconciled. Again, you quote something not showing any fraud at all.
>>14704575
This remains completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:50:46 2022 No.14704624

>>14704617
Anamolies have nothing to do with what he writes, he himself is intentionally altering numbers on order to fix a conclusion, and he is confiding in a fellow climatologist on how to explain it. It has everything to do with what's being discussed you piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:52:59 2022 No.14704628 >>14704617 I know completely understand Hitler's assessment of you people in Mine Kampf. The only way to deal with you insects is a gas chamber

e Wed Jul 27 17:56:47 2022 No.14704645

>>14704624
>he himself is intentionally altering numbers on order to fix a conclusion,
Clearly not. Again, very clearly writes "we'd still have to explain the land blip". It doesn't reconcile even if altered. Again, an issue they were discussing in 2009 about the data. Read your own quotes please.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:01:36 2022 No.14704662 >>14704645 >Clearly not >Actual quote "'ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately." Try again piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:07:25 2022 No.14704678 >>14703836 >This was what that post replied to, and this is you, yes? >>>14698831 # Not me. >Then we have what you wrote here >>14698904 (You) # That's me.

e Wed Jul 27 18:08:22 2022 No.14704680

>>14704662
>>Actual quote "'ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately."
>Try again piece of shit
...Because he's talking about normalizing the data. You know, that thing you do in statistics? The very next e-mail from Phil mentions that explicitly.
>Land warming in the 1940s and late 1930s is mainly high latitude in NH. One other thing - MOHC are also revising the 1961-90 normals. This will likely have more effect in the SH.

You do realize you can't just shove multiple disparate datasets together, which have different margins of error, different temperatures, etc, right? Or are you one of those "math is voodoo" types? Also, Phil wrote before that,
>Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the adjustments won't reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it. It won't change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug 45.

And he did misinterpret what Tom wrote, given Tom mentioned 'we still have to explain the blip' multiple times. Since no matter how the normalization is determined there remained, again in 2009, discrepancies. I suggest you look up what data normalization is.
>>14704678
Thank you. Sorry, again, I ended up lost until I spent quite a lot more time re-reading the thread. Christ this board needs to enable ID's.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:10:05 2022 No.14704686 >>14704680 >So if we can reduce this variable by a number ive chosen, it will give us this, but we still need to explain... Like I said, anyone can see you're desperate. You are a pathetic waste of life

e Wed Jul 27 18:12:42 2022 No.14704691

>>14704686
>Like I said, anyone can see you're desperate. You are a pathetic waste of life
Desperate? Why would I be desperate when you don't know high school math? Again you can just read the actual full e-mails. What I said is true. Here's the ending of Tom's e-mail you omitted, proving what I said is the case.
>So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
They're clearly talking about data normalization.

I ask again: Do you genuinely think normalizing disparate datasets counts as fraud? If so, I'm going to throw my head back and laugh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:13:48 2022 No.14704693 >>14704104 Your shill talking points are so stale https://youtu.be/deVkQB6jb7g

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:14:15 2022 No.14704695

>>14704243
>How could I have gotten the DOI without opening the paper?
Lol, thanks for proving my conjecture that you're either a liar, an idiot, or both.
This thread is only on page 7, though. You still have time to open the paper, read it, and engage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:14:29 2022 No.14704696 >>14704691 Keep treading your wFer kike, hopefully that tiny goofy hat can serve as a flotation device

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:15:37 2022 No.14704701 >>14704149 >>Okay so they admitted to only publishing data and models that fit with the DOE agenda Where?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:16:18 2022 No.14704703 >>14704693 >The cultists copes over a YouTube vid desperate to throw the dust on "climate change" pushers living in 25 million dollar homes on the ocean Go dye your hair and kiss a George Floyd statue

>>	e Wed Jul 27 18:16:23 2022 No.14704705 >>14704693 >Your shill talking points are so stale Again: Do you genuinely think normalizing disparate datasets counts as fraud?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:17:19 2022 No.14704707 >>14704705 Again, do you think using your redditor buzzwords will get you out of this tail spin?

>>	e Wed Jul 27 18:17:53 2022 No.14704709 >>14704707 >redditor buzzwords Sooo you don't know what normalization is, do ya? Wow.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:18:48 2022 No.14704711 >>14704709 Oh I'm well aware, but it doesn't matter because you will use anything to bend reality to fit your cult dogma

e Wed Jul 27 18:19:35 2022 No.14704712

>>14704711
>Oh I'm well aware, but it doesn't matter because you will use anything to bend reality to fit your cult dogma
"Bend reality" by quoting the e-mails you cited showing they're talking about data normalization, not falsifying data... ? How is citing reality "bending reality"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:21:04 2022 No.14704725 >>14704712 There is no talk of organization here in the emails. Coupled with your other cultist arbiter's admissions, it's very clear that you 100% rely on flimsy nonsense on order to push a silly doomsday pity party

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:21:15 2022 No.14704726 >>14704680 >>14704691 > Phil > Phil > Tom > Tom > Tom's I'm not the anon you're talking to, but fyi it's really smarmy and narcissistic to informalize them by first name.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:21:19 2022 No.14704727 >>14704241 >Did you forget the 5,000 emails from 2010 that outright showed communications between "the scientists" calling their own data garbage Where?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:23:42 2022 No.14704734 >>14704727 >Zoomie born after 1999 never heard of climate gate Kek inb4 you scramble and check Wikipedia

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:24:36 2022 No.14704736

>>14704423
>The emails were literally everywhere in 2010
Yes, and none off then show forging or any kind of scientific misconduct. You're free to post them if they do. But you won't, because you're just repeating bullshit you gullibly swallowed like a cultist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:25:42 2022 No.14704741 >>14704736 I mean if you ignore the posts ITT documenting I guess you can come to that conclusion

e Wed Jul 27 18:26:07 2022 No.14704743

>>14704726
>I'm not the anon you're talking to, but fyi it's really smarmy and narcissistic to informalize them by first name.
My primary language is not English, and I don't see how that is given I am referring to informal e-mails. Also this is 4chan what are you smoking?
>>14704725
>There is no talk of organization here in the emails.
I literally cited the reply e-mail talking about norm adjustment, and the other e-mail by Tom Wigley clearly is discussing this issue "this still leaves an ocean blip". If it was fraud there wouldn't be a discrepancy being discussed. Nice try though... ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:26:43 2022 No.14704744 >>14704736 >Dude you don't believe that the weather is getting catastrophically scary?? You cultist Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:27:44 2022 No.14704751

>>14704743
>If it was fraud there wouldn't be a discrepancy being discussed. Nice try though... ?
This is your cultist brain trying to come to this conclusion, when in reality they are clearly discussing altering a variable then trying to explain it's outcome

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:28:16 2022 No.14704754 >>14704705 No idea what you're talking about. That doesn't respond to my post.

>>	e Wed Jul 27 18:28:19 2022 No.14704755 >>14704751 >This is your cultist brain trying to come to this conclusion Nope. I quoted it repeatedly above. You're clearly trolling at this point.

>>	e Wed Jul 27 18:29:21 2022 No.14704759 >>14704754 >No idea what you're talking about. That doesn't respond to my post. Fuck I misclicked on the wrong post. Sorry. Falling asleep on my keyboard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:29:22 2022 No.14704760 >>14704755 >I quoted No, you falsely interpreted it using your dogmatic leash

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:29:32 2022 No.14704762 >>14704703 Not an argument. Try again.

>>	e Wed Jul 27 18:30:22 2022 No.14704765 >>14704760 >No, you falsely interpreted it using your dogmatic leash You mean quoted in context. Again, do you genuinely think normalizing disparate datasets counts as fraud?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:30:23 2022 No.14704766 >>14704762 Struck a nerve. Nice

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:31:23 2022 No.14704768 >>14704765 It's not normalization though, you're a desperate cultist pig

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:31:36 2022 No.14704769 >>14704743 >My primary language is not English. No wonder you didn't understand how the boy girl paradox works.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:32:39 2022 No.14704776

>>14704734
I'm 31 years old and I've heard of it, it's a nothingburger where some retarded deniers took a few quotes out of context and misrepresented them because they didn't even have a basic understanding of what was being discussed. Now where are those emails where the scientists said their data was forged?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:33:40 2022 No.14704781 >>14704741 >I mean if you ignore the posts ITT You're the one ignoring them. None of them say what you've claimed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:34:17 2022 No.14704785 >>14704776 >I'm 31 years old and I've heard of it, If this is truly the case you have absolutely no business discussing this topic

>>	e Wed Jul 27 18:34:28 2022 No.14704787 >>14704768 >It's not normalization though Source: Your ass. >>14704769 ...Yes. Being fluent in multiple languages is totally evidence I have less understanding. Totally.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:34:41 2022 No.14704789 >>14704744 So you can't even show one that says data was forged, and now you're trying to change the subject with childish strawmen. Why did you lie?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:35:18 2022 No.14704793 >>14704781 Try all you want cultist, any rational person skeptical by the topic can easily discern the obviousness here

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:36:19 2022 No.14704799 >>14704789 I did and you threw a tantrum, and that "straw man" truly shows how ridiculous you are. This would make for a perfect Chicken Little/ Emporer has no clothes crossover story

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:36:22 2022 No.14704800 >>14704766 See >>14704762 Let me know when you have an argument or an explanation for why you lied about beachfront property, otherwise you won't be getting any more sweet at (You)s.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:37:23 2022 No.14704805 >>14704785 Why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:38:34 2022 No.14704810 >>14704805 Because it obviously shows you subscribe to an echo chamber

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:38:40 2022 No.14704812

>>14704787
You're the one who just claimed your own English is so flawed that it's worth bringing up that flaw as a defense. Which is it? Also I'm pretty sure at least half of the posters here are fluent in at least three languages. You think that makes you special?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:39:25 2022 No.14704814 >>14704793 Yes, they can easily discern that type spouting nonsense and misrepresenting quotes. >>14704799 >I did Where?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:39:35 2022 No.14704816 >>14704762 How is it a straw man? Do you not believe a doomsday scenario is at play "if we don't act"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:40:36 2022 No.14704822 >>14704814 Lol go for it. Have any person read this shit and go on your nonsense shpeel how it's "actually normalization" lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:41:43 2022 No.14704826 >>14704810 >>14704805 >>14704800 >>14704799 >>14704793 >>14704789 >>14704787 Can you faggots stop shitting up the thread with your elementary school debate-team bullshit about emails from last decade? I'm trying to exterminate a paper-spammer here.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:46:27 2022 No.14704844

>>14704810
>Because it obviously shows you subscribe to an echo chamber
You're projecting. You just repeated ridiculous claims you read on some blog about climategate and then repeatedly failed to show any quotes to back up your claims. Gullible retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:51:03 2022 No.14704860 >>14704844 Here, I'll finish your debate for you so you can stfu. >but the emails said it was a "trick" >yes a "trick" means a technique >stop weaseling out, a "trick" is a lie >you're the one weaseling "lie" into trick >no u >no u \scene

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:02:24 2022 No.14704900 File: 198 KB, 521x437, figure-spm-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14704816 >Do you not believe a doomsday scenario is at play "if we don't act"? No. I think global warming will be very harmful (pic related) and is worth mitigating.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:03:22 2022 No.14704904 >>14704900 >The weather will harm us if we dont act and if you don't believe me you're a cultist ...Bahahahahahahahahaha

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:03:24 2022 No.14704905 >>14704822 >Lol go for it. Already did. You made a fool of yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:17:05 2022 No.14704952 >>14704826 You're not getting a response until you explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page of the introduction where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:19:27 2022 No.14704964 File: 1.87 MB, 1x1, 2020GL091585.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14704695 You still haven't provided any evidence of ever having opened the paper. Here, I'll make it easier for you. Now you don't even have to follow the link.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:28:55 2022 No.14704992 >>14703326 By 2042 you'll be too dead or senile to witness this prediction age like milk

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:34:21 2022 No.14705013

>>14704952
>>14704964
You're the only liar here. Your claim was that the paper you keep spamming is literally "the culmination of that research" >>14698904. Lol, that's called a grandiose delusion. All your spam paper does is take Soden's two-factor decomposition of climate feedback (cf. Quanitfying...kernels, J. Clim, 2008) and extends some of his formalizations of the first factor to infer long-term, global IRF measurements from 15 years of satellite data. Data which has ALREADY been properly inferred. The paper adds nothing whatsoever of value, just the frivolous claim that it's free from model bias. "Culmination of that research" fucking lol.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:36:47 2022 No.14705017 >>14704904 Another strawman. Everything in that image is cited in AR4. It didn't mature if you believe me, the research speaks for itself.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:48:17 2022 No.14705048

>>14705013
>All your spam paper does is take Soden's two-factor decomposition of climate feedback
Incorrect, the kernels come from Kramer's 2019 research. Why do you think making shit up about something anyone can look up is a winning strategy? Do you think no one will bother checking? How many times do you need to get caught lying before you stop?

>Data which has ALREADY been properly inferred.
Those inferences suffer from various limitations, discussed in the introduction. Did you read it?

>The paper adds nothing whatsoever of value, just the frivolous claim that it's free from model bias.
Where? What a pathetic lie. You have no shame.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:54:49 2022 No.14705063

>>14705048
>Kramer's 2019 research
Thanks for proving you're a liar and an idiot. (And maybe a plagiarist?) Radiative kernels and climate response pattern were proposed and formalized by Soden in 2008. Your spam paper even makes the correct attribution.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:54:50 2022 No.14705064

>>14705013
Also, none of your lies explain why you claimed the paper was not related to the others. It clearly is related, attempting to measure the same thing via a more observation-driven method, and even references one of them. It seems only now did you even attempt to read the paper but you couldn't even do that correctly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:57:00 2022 No.14705071 >>14705063 >Thanks for proving you're a liar and an idiot. >To diagnose dRx or dRCSx we use observational-based radiative kernels developed from the CloudSat Fluxes and Heating Rates product 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR (Kramer et al. 2019). QED. You lied.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:59:01 2022 No.14705078 >>14705064 It's not. Your spam paper is irrelevant and contributes nothing, let alone a "culmination." Your spam paper is like something a mediocre graduate student would elucubrate 48 hours before the paper was due. You're delusional.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:00:02 2022 No.14705082 >>14705071 >Here, we circumvent these limitations by applying radiative kernels (Soden et al., 2008) QED. You lied.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:01:04 2022 No.14705088 >>14705078 Your puerile insults don't explain why you claimed the paper was not related to the others. It clearly is related, attempting to measure the same thing via a more observation-driven method, and even references one of them. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:01:50 2022 No.14705091 >>14705088 Delusional.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:02:32 2022 No.14705094 >>14705082 That is a reference to the general concept. The kernels are from Kramer 2019, as I already showed you. Keep grasping at straws, liar.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:03:33 2022 No.14705098 >>14705091 Nope, still not an explanation of why you lied. Try again. Use your words like a big boy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:03:53 2022 No.14705103 >>14705094 Thanks for proving you're a delusional liar with grandiose delusions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:04:54 2022 No.14705112 >>14705098 I'm sorry you can't even defend the relevance of your own spam.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:07:25 2022 No.14705124

>>14705103
Not a response. You lied about the research preceding the paper, the paper's methodology, sources, and claims. And you can't even defend yourself. The only rational explanation for this behavior is that you're sexually excited by humiliating yourself. I'm not interested in playing your sex games, give someone else.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:10:29 2022 No.14705131

>>14705124
>Not a response. You lied about the research preceding the paper, the paper's methodology, sources, and claims. And you can't even defend yourself. The only rational explanation for this behavior is that you're sexually excited by humiliating yourself. I'm not interested in playing your sex games, give someone else.
I'll just quote back your post in full so people can see what it looks like when a schizo's delusions of grandeur are pierced and his brain implodes. The language is Freudian, even.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:14:39 2022 No.14705141 >>14705112 I already did, see >>14705064. Explain why you lied.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:23:02 2022 No.14705178

>>14705131
I'll just reiterate your lies that you have utterly failed to defend:

>isn't responsive to the post here >>14698890
How so? They are all using satellite data to measure the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Explain why you think they are different.

>You can't even explain why you keep spamming the same paper.
I already did. See >>14698937. Explain why you think the paper is a "non sequitur" in any context I've used it.

>If it weren't so obvious you haven't read it
Projection. Explain why you lied about reading the paper when you didn't even read the first page where it references prior attempts to do the same thing discussed here >>14698890.

>All your spam paper does is take Soden's two-factor decomposition of climate feedback
Incorrect, the kernels come from Kramer's 2019 research. Why do you think making shit up about something anyone can look up is a winning strategy? Do you think no one will bother checking? How many times do you need to get caught lying before you stop?

>Data which has ALREADY been properly inferred.
Those inferences suffer from various limitations, discussed in the introduction. Did you read it?

>The paper adds nothing whatsoever of value, just the frivolous claim that it's free from model bias.
Where? What a pathetic lie. You have no shame.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:55:17 2022 No.14705247 >>14705013 So you still haven't read the paper. Fucking unbelievable. I even posted the PDF for you to download. You should be ashamed.

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