Press F for humanity

[Anonymous No.15267462]

So...uhhh....how long until the ark ships are ready to evacuate us all into space? Tick tock...

[Anonymous No.15267464]

>>15267462
So now that the time is up, will all the greens commit ritual suicide instead of shitting up society?

[Anonymous No.15267561]

If there hadn't have been the massive economic downturn due to the reaction to the fake covid-19 epidemic followed by the expense of the globohomo wars in every corner of the planet and mass immigration then westerners would currently be able to afford spending 150k on an electric car.

[Anonymous No.15267622]

https://thepostmillennial.com/greta-thunberg-deletes-2018-tweet-saying-world-will-end-in-2023-after-world-does-not-end

False alarm, everyone. Goalposts have been shifted and the end of the world has been postponed.

[Anonymous No.15267631]

>>15267462
Tell me how I know you're a disingenuous faggot or an ESL? Spices & herbs.

[Anonymous No.15267641]

>>15267622
kek!

[Anonymous No.15267650]

>>15267462
>So...uhhh....how long until the ark ships are ready to evacuate us all into space? Tick tock...

Three thousand years. Otherwise, never.

>unironically falling for the climate change psyop

The world isn't going to end, humans aren't going extinct.

Societal collapse, mass population decrease? Sure.

Is that a bad thing? No.

[Anonymous No.15267652]

>>15267650
"Billions must die."
t. 21s Century German Guy

[Anonymous No.15267654]

Common misunderstanding. In global warming contexts temporal references like "5 years from now" are to be understood as measuring from the time they are being read, not the time they were written. Doomsday is always just a couple more years away, and the only way to delay it is to buy a Tesla and donate to lefty politicians.

[Anonymous No.15267655]

>>15267631
>i am triggered badly, this thread is causing me emotional distress and you are to blame, i cannot be held responsible for my own behavior as i am too low iq to have any self control whatsoever

[Anonymous No.15267659]

>>15267631
Bequeath your wisdom unto me

[Anonymous No.15267662]

>>15267652
More like billions *will* die whether you want them to or not.

Keep shooting up more infinitecomfortium tho lmao

[Anonymous No.15267664]

>>15267662
>Keep shooting up more infinitecomfortium tho lmao
Schizo says what.

[Anonymous No.15267668]

>>15267664
>cannot read

Unsurprising.

[Anonymous No.15267673]

>>15267659
The 5 year figure is with regards to irreversible damage, not the consequences of irreversible damage. Translated to /pol/ish, it's like saying that unless we stop immigration in the next 5 years, the white race will be extinct. Not because 5 years of immigration will cause white people to keel over, but because demographic changes will mean that white voting/institutional power will become a minority and therefore the fate of white people as a class will be sealed.

[Anonymous No.15267684]

>>15267673
So if we've already caused irreversible damage that will wipe out all of humanity t. St. Greta then there's officially no further benefit to worrying about any of this.

[Anonymous No.15267686]

>>15267673
sorry shill, but we already passed the point of irreversible damage over 23 years ago, you're going to need to develop a new narrative which isn't in conflict with the current narrative if you want to convince anyone with your lies and shilling

[Anonymous No.15267689]

>>15267684
Yep, you can rest easy in the knowledge that your retardation has doomed your race.

[Anonymous No.15267691]

>>15267622
>>15267462
A big nina is coming, there's a typhon in latam thanks to it
I'm not a climate change denialist but they could use this phenomenon to insanely push more and more so read about la nina

[Anonymous No.15267693]

>>15267622
>>15267650
>>15267654
>>15267684
this is a knee-jerk alarm board

no pragmatic, level-headed posts allowed

[Anonymous No.15267696]

>>15267686
Except we are seeing irreversible damage to major ecosystems, especially marine ones. You just don't care

[Anonymous No.15267699]

>>15267696
Not due to muh carbon though. Due to chinks overfishing and all the poo in the ocean causing algae blooms that suck the oxygen out of the water.

[Anonymous No.15267705]

>>15267689
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU HAAAAAAAAAVEE TO BE FREAKING OUT LIKE MEEEEEEEEEEEE. THINK ABOUT THE POOR EARTHERINO YOU BIGOT. DONT YOU KNOW THE ENTIRE PLANET IS GOING TO BE A PILE OF SAND IN FIFTY YEARSSSSS. STOP REMAINING CALM. I KNOW ITS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BUT YOU CANT JUST SIT THERE NOT REACTING PSYCHOTICALLY TO EVERY HEADLINE. START SCREAMINGG NOW. WERE ALL GOING TO DIEEEEEEEEEE DONT YOU CARE YOU STUPID CHUD

Take paxil.

[Anonymous No.15267707]

>>15267689
Sweet.

[Anonymous No.15267708]

>>15267696
>we are seeing irreversible damage to major ecosystems
no you aren't, you're lying about having seen irreversible damage to major ecosystems as a means of forwarding your badly hidden political agenda

[Anonymous No.15267735]

>>15267686
The Maldives are already going under water, though. They've lost like 90% of their fresh ground water to salt water infiltration. And like the OP post, this is just saying that we might've hit the tipping point by y2k. That we didn't is largely because the arctic prefers to spread its diminishing volume rather than keep a constant depth, so the expected increase in albedo hasn't been as fast as feared.

>>15267699
Why is it that everything is everyone else's fault, never your own? What's your secret to being without flaw?

[Anonymous No.15267736]

>>15267696
Yeah, man. The entire planet's ecosystem will be zapped back to 1223 because you managed to convince a single anonymous imageboard user to bike thirty miles to his rural job instead of taking his blown-out 2002 Honda Civic.

You sure made a difference! Your average Amaerican is 100% equivalent to a multi-billion-dollar Chinese corporation pumping lead and nitrates in the ocean. Good job!

[Anonymous No.15267745]

>>15267736
What are you trying to prove here? Why make such a pointless post?

[Anonymous No.15267749]

>>15267745
The point is to mock religious extremists like (You).

[Anonymous No.15267751]

>>15267735
>The Maldives are already going under water, though.
They're atolls, anon. Atolls are the final stage in island erosion and can disappear at any time. They've been "going under water" for millions of years and this is their last gasp.

[Anonymous No.15267755]

>>15267696
and who do you think is doing this? the west?

>have a sustainable, nature conscious world population under 1 billion
>have a pseudo-utopia shithole with a exponentially-rising population over 7 billion that consumes and exploits every resource until the planet is a blown-out husk

you can only choose one

go to bed, you absolute pinhead

[Anonymous No.15267766]

>>15267751
if the maldives "prove" global warming the post glacial rebound disproves it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

[Anonymous No.15267767]

>>15267751
It's a matter of rates. Yes, they were always doomed by erosion, but the measurably accelerating sea level rise is bringing that date much closer. The number thrown around even as far back as your article is completely underwater by 2100. Is it fine to commit murder because everyone is mortal anyways?

[Anonymous No.15267772]

>>15267745
>single digit IQ reading comprehension

I'm saying that the people you need to convince aren't here. Why should these people care? They aren't the problem. They aren't the ones harming the planet.

Your average westerners with their old Japanese cars and lower-middle-class income have a carbon footprint that's an infinitessmal percentage of what a single Tesla battery block produces, let alone entire nations like China, India, etc.

[Anonymous No.15267773]

>>15267767
>the measurably accelerating sea level rise
Measure it, then. It's been steady at ~2mm/yr for the last 2 centuries globally. Any local difference is the result of natural processes, as atoll erosion accelerates the closer to the end of their life they are.

[Anonymous No.15267786]

>>15267773
>It's been steady at ~2mm/yr for the last 2 centuries globally.
I know you'll reject any graph I post out of hand, so may I ask instead that you post one that backs your claim? A paper or a dataset is fine too.

[Anonymous No.15267787]

>>15267755
I literally never mentioned the west lol. Every civilization on earth contributes to environmental damage e.g. the Philippines are the worst for dumping plastic into the ocean. But you are right that the west must act because, as always, it is the white man's burden to try and fix the problems of the rest of the world

[Anonymous No.15267789]

[Anonymous No.15267790]

>>15267789
You are very smart.

[Anonymous No.15267793]

>>15267786
Will this do?

[Anonymous No.15267797]

>>15267787
>But you are right that the west must act because, as always, it is the white man's burden to try and fix the problems of the rest of the world
lmao go fuck yourself, racist chud. back to /pol/ with you and your "billions must die" nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15267798]

>>15267772
Convincing people on a local level is important too. My town was able to stop a local river being polluted by a landfill waste site, and in doing so saved the population of rare freshwater mussels there. People who care are more likely to inspire others to care, and effect a greater change. Being disingenuous and lying that there is no problem helps nothing, being defeatist and claiming there's no point trying helps nothing, so I ask again, what was the point of your post?

[Anonymous No.15267801]

>>15267798
Sorry but what does actual toxic pollution have to do with fake global warmist crap? Conflating these issues just outs you as a bad actor.

[Anonymous No.15267804]

>>15267797
Weak bait

[Anonymous No.15267811]

>>15267804
/qa/ lost
trump lost

[Anonymous No.15267813]

>>15267811
we all lost

[Anonymous No.15267820]

>>15267793
Anon, your graph appears to be incorrect.

[Anonymous No.15267827]

>>15267801
All falls under the umbrella of protecting the natural world and the ecosystems within it. If you can get people to care about what happens in their backyard they'll care about bigger picture issues too, which climate change absolutely is. Another example would be cycling rather than driving. One person cycling isn't going to change shit, but if you convince enough people to do it, you would eventually see a real reduction in car use, and all of the air pollution and GHG emissions associated with it

[Anonymous No.15267830]

>>15267820
>i drew a random line
Thank you for your concern. Tide gauge records have a wide band of inaccuracy, but the line of best fit shows no significant trend of sea level acceleration.

[Anonymous No.15267832]

>>15267820
>i drew an arbitrary purple line in paint therefore the world is ending

[Anonymous No.15267836]

>>15267827
>protecting the natural world and the ecosystems within it
Ah, a messiah complex. It's not worth engaging with you then. I wish you luck living in your pod cycling to work in your bughive. I'm going to live in nature like a human being was meant to, eating red meat and having children.

[Anonymous No.15267838]

>>15267830
>>15267832
I'm sorry. Could you show me the line of best fit? Apparently I eat crayons.

[Anonymous No.15267844]

If we focus on just the time period before the Model T started being sold (1908) it's an even grimmer picture, I'm afraid...

[Anonymous No.15267847]

>>15267844
kek!

[Anonymous No.15267848]

>>15267836
>I'm going to live in nature like a human being was meant to, eating red meat and having children.
And shitposting on an anime imageboard?

[Anonymous No.15267853]

>>15267838
Here you go, from one of NOAA's baseline tide gauge stations (selected for its lack of geologic subsidence or glacial rebound).

[Anonymous No.15267861]

>>15267844
Hmm, you're right. What's an appropriate timescale to avoid noise here?

>>15267853
But this is a local guage? I thought we were discussing global averages.

[Anonymous No.15267862]

>>15267853
I should say lack of significant subsidence. It is subsiding very slightly due to the rebound in Canada, but the amount is only a fraction of a mm per year.

[Anonymous No.15267864]

>>15267861
>But this is a local guage? I thought we were discussing global averages.
This is one of NOAA's barometer stations that matches the global average due to its general stability. The trend line will be almost the exact same as the global, only with a smaller error bar.

[Anonymous No.15267869]

>>15267864
>that matches the global average due to its general stability
But it doesn't? At least, it doesn't match the graph you posted before. What am I missing??

[Anonymous No.15267871]

>>15267699
What about coral bleaching?

[Anonymous No.15267872]

>>15267869
>What am I missing??
A brain it seems. The addition of less stable stations widens the error bars and unscrupulous people exaggerate an upward trend from that. I chose to pick a graph from a source you would agree with, and now I'm showing you the raw data from the most accurate measurements used to create that data.

[Anonymous No.15267874]

>>15267871
That's caused by nitrogen pollution promoting the growth of algae that chokes the coral. Same original problem: too much shit in the ocean.

[Anonymous No.15267881]

>>15267798
>Convincing people on a local level is important too. My town was able to stop a local river being polluted by a landfill waste site, and in doing so saved the population of rare freshwater mussels there. People who care are more likely to inspire others to care, and effect a greater change.

Way to go. You moved the goalpost with so much force that you've completely changed topics.

We're not talking about hyper-local ecologies serving individual species. We're talking about heedless chemical pollution on an incalculably vast scale. We're talking about world-wide climate change, not a small rural towns with already insignificant ecological impacts.

If you want to help out your local wildlife, good. Good for you and good for your town, unironically.

The problem is you let your gigantic ego and hubris legitimately convince youself that saving a small generation of mussels did fuck all toward offsetting climate change, de-polluting oceans, or stopping the actual mass pollution factory that is the third world.

>Being disingenuous and lying that there is no problem helps nothing

I clearly suggested that there is a problem.

>being defeatist and claiming there's no point trying helps nothing, so I ask again, what was the point of your post?

Ecology consciousness is inevitable in the West, is my point. The people that sincerely want to help, will help, do help, and already have to the point that overall Western pollution is nearly neutral.

There is absolutely zero point in convincing a Westerner to cut back the nearly non-existant pollution he is producing in order to save the world.

[Anonymous No.15267885]

>>15267872
I still don't understand. The measured global average is unstable, but we know that this is wrong because the North American stations are reporting flatter trends. How can we be sure that the North American data applies to the rest of the globe? Aren't we risking systematic error here?

[Anonymous No.15267888]

>>15267885
>How can we be sure that the North American data applies to the rest of the globe?
Because the Earth is round, anon. Water doesn't pool in one part of the ocean more than another because it's a liquid affected by the force of gravity (equatorial bulge aside). These stations were chosen to be part of a special set of stations that are most insulated from outside rising or subsiding forces. The sea level rise measured there is, once tidal ranges are factored out, equivalent to a global average.

[Anonymous No.15267894]

>>15267462
>So...uhhh....how long until the ark ships are ready to evacuate us all into space? Tick tock...
It already happened.
The earth was destroyed by climate change thousands of years ago, and we are in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.15267899]

>>15267888
I don't know anon. That sounds a lot like fitting your data to your conclusions. Isn't it more scientific to measure directly rather than extrapolate using a theory? There's a lot that could still be unknown unknowns! Scientifically, this evidence implies that either the rest of the world is lying, or something in the model is incorrect. I'm not smart enough to know which.

[Anonymous No.15267904]

>>15267899
>Isn't it more scientific to measure directly rather than extrapolate using a theory?
NOAA already did that.
>Scientifically, this evidence implies that either the rest of the world is lying, or something in the model is incorrect. I'm not smart enough to know which.
The latter causes you to believe there are only two options. The real answer is that satellite measurements, taken since the 90s, have a slightly higher error range and predict a slightly higher rise in sea levels. The inappropriate blending of tide gauge and satellite data creates a sudden and abrupt shift upwards in the trend near the current year, even though on-the-ground tide gauge measurements are well within satellite error bounds.

[Anonymous No.15267918]

>>15267904
>NOAA already did that.
Could you show me a graph of their global average? And why didn't you lead with that instead?
>The real answer is that satellite measurements, taken since the 90s, have a slightly higher error range and predict a slightly higher rise in sea levels.
Huh. Is there literature on this discrepancy? How can we know which of these tools is right? Have there been attempts to apply corrections to the data? My gut instinct is that maybe it has to do with the coverage. Satellites can do all the world, including deep ocean, but maybe tide guages have issues there.

[Anonymous No.15267956]

>>15267918
>Could you show me a graph of their global average? And why didn't you lead with that instead?
I can't, because they mainly only do publicity graphs with satellite data. But all of the data is located here if you want it:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.html
>Huh. Is there literature on this discrepancy? How can we know which of these tools is right? Have there been attempts to apply corrections to the data?
Yes to all. The issue is that satellite altimetry relies on knowing the accurate positioning of the satellite and the difficulty of taking a measure of the same location due to orbital mechanics. The accuracy is improving, but the satellite data is very difficult to correct for due to a number of factors so (usually) it's displayed with large error bars instead.
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1064/1/012050
The first few sections of this article discuss the difficulties involved in accurate measurements of open sea tides with satellite tools.

Just be aware that I'm trying to engage with you honestly and openly for our audience, even though I know you're being disingenuous and asking questions out of a false naivete. I wish you the best even still and I hope you can eventually break free of the fear you've been made to feel.

[Anonymous No.15267982]

>>15267956
Game's over? Alright. I might have a go at plotting the data just to see. I think you're ultimately a victim of wishful thinking. The water from melting glaciers, shrinking (land) polar ice has to go somewhere. And the offhand rejection of the results of the wider scientific community didn't sit well with me. I was genuinely curious to see if there would be an explanation for the NA station discrepancy. Secretly, I wondered if the glacial rebound model makes too strong an assumption on the plate stiffness. I'm not a climate scientist, just someone who'se seen enough disengenous tactics from the "deniers" (a terrible term jfc) that I've made a small hobby of working through any rhetorical tricks that catch my fancy. In most cases I've seen, there have been glaring misuses of the data or outright fabrications such as the infamous editing magazine covers meme. It's jaded me a lot to your position. Nevertheless, I also wish you the best. Hopefully you're right.

[Anonymous No.15267988]

>>15267797
>c h u d

Go back to r*ddit, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15267993]

>>15267982
If you want to plot the data just be aware that this is the raw dataset of every station, so they didn't get rid of any of the outliers (you'll see a lot of stations with negative or extremely high sea level rise as a result, for example). That combined with the placement and number of sites can bias the raw dataset somewhat, though I can't recall which way it does off the top of my head. It's been a long time since I did any of this stuff seriously.

[Anonymous No.15267994]

>>15267956
Ah fuck, I forgot to thank you for actually providing an engaging conversation. It's late here. You might've noticed from my typos. Seriously, though. It was interesting. I'll sleep now.

[Anonymous No.15268001]

>>15267993
I was thinking to do a kind of heatmap/coloured points with colour being the gradient in a quadratic fit. Trying to take an average would be too tough. Would a median even be appropriate? It probably wouldn't if some stations are clustered together. Also, I mis-spoke. The engaging conversation, I specifically mean giving credible graphs and references. That was pretty cool of you.

[Anonymous No.15268012]

finally, climate change has been debunked

[Anonymous No.15268016]

>>15267881
>Westerner to cut back the nearly non-existant pollution he is producing
westerners are the biggest polluters

[Anonymous No.15268028]

>>15267622
>world-will-end-in-2023-
that isn't said, lrn2read

[Anonymous No.15268049]

>>15268016
>westerners are the biggest polluters
Funny way to spell CHINA
CHINA pollutes more than every other country on Earth combined.

[Anonymous No.15268055]

>>15268049
it totals since the 1800s West is way ahead

[Anonymous No.15268057]

>>15268049
in totals since the 1800s West is way ahead

[Anonymous No.15268065]

>>15268057
>1800's west
>50 million people with horses outpollute 1.5 billion chinks with cars and coal plants
k

[Anonymous No.15268070]

>>15268016
>>15268057

[Anonymous No.15268071]

>>15268028
If she wasn't ashamed of lying, why did she delete the tweet?

[Anonymous No.15268166]

>>15267462
You don't understand do you, chud. Climate science is an inexact science. Which means it's exact because it has the word exact in it but it may also be wrong because it's inexact. Science is never wrong, it's only inexact. I AM the science

[Anonymous No.15268168]

>>15268049
Westerners are the biggest polluters in the West, chud

[Anonymous No.15268209]

>>15268166
kek

[Anonymous No.15268216]

There's a solution here you're not seeing, just kill all the jews and all the problems will go away.

[Anonymous No.15268357]

>>15267462
>X says that humanity will be wiped out... UNLESS Y
Where X = "an unnamed authority from any field" and Y = "action which coincidentially happens to benefit a certain agenda/industry/movement"
It's all so tiresome

[bodhi No.15268398]

>>15267654
ah yes, you were the only person smart enough to know that she didn't mean the end of the world was in 5 years. well you were smarter than AOC at least, as she said the world would literally end in 12 years or some shit 7 years ago

[bodhi No.15268400]

>>15267462
learn what tiktok dances you can do to solve global warming

[bodhi No.15268402]

>>15268166
climate science isnt a science at all troon. Where are the double blind studies?

[Anonymous No.15268420]

>>15267462
S

[Anonymous No.15268541]

>>15267673
OP didn't contradict this. You're arguing against a strawman in your illiterate head.

[Anonymous No.15268562]

>>15268541
Was it a strawman? 92 posts over 10 hours have all shared a common interpretation of OP's intent. It's almost like there's context associated with climate eceleb twitter screencaps on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15268657]

>>15267462
This is intellectually dishonest - the post doesn't say humanity will go extinct in 5 years, it says that the cause of humanity (eventually) going extinct needed to be stopped within 5 years

[Anonymous No.15268683]

>>15267462
So who was the climate scientist?

[Anonymous No.15268689]

>>15267462
>top pseudoscience goy says you should live in ze pod and eat ze bogs or else
Don't care. Defund climatology completely.

[Anonymous No.15268740]

>>15267673
Ah, so it's just "Things are gonna get worse if we keep doing this shit", except stated in a hyperbolic way.

[Anonymous No.15268745]

>>15267789
Corrected

[Anonymous No.15268749]

OH NO THE TEMPERATURE IS ONE DEGREE HOTTER

[Anonymous No.15268760]

>>15268740
>"Things are gonna get worse if we keep doing this shit",
It's more in the line of "Things will reach a point of no return, if we keep doing bad shit".
Say you postpone the regular maintenance of your car, and the mechanic tells you in 5 years, your car will have broken down. 5 years passes and somehow your car wasn't broken, then you say see that mechanic hasn't got a clue, my car isn't broken. But if you keep driving the car, wear and tear will eventually lead it to break down, which point no amount of fixing can repair it, or it will be extremely costly. Luckily buying a new car is much easier than buying a new Earth, though maybe they will sell a cheap copy on AliExpress.

[Anonymous No.15268766]

>>15268740
>hyperbolic
What do you suggest the appropriate response should be to an existential threat you have high confidence in happening? I never get a solid answer on what you guys think a legit climate crisis would look like and therefore how you'd distinguish observation from it.

>>15268749
A single degree extra in the body is called a fever, and is certainly not a fun time. Some systems are sensitive to small changes.

[Anonymous No.15268770]

>>15268766
>A single degree extra in the body is called a fever, and is certainly not a fun time. Some systems are sensitive to small changes.
Life on this planet survives anything from deserts to tundras, pseud. Your narrative is falling apart and your global warming scam is getting called out left and right.

[Anonymous No.15268778]

>>15268760
Or we could just advocate for voluntary human extinction, y'know....
Just convince people not to have children. Tell incels that they're actually doing something good for society by not having sex, and convince birth control providers that they should make their products and services cheaply available for everyone.
Also, convince negros, Muslims, and Evangelicals that birth control measures are not a bad thing at all.
If we could do this, then most of the world's problems would be solved.

[Anonymous No.15268780]

>>15268778
You can't convince people to recycle, how the hell are you planning on convincing them to not have sex?

[Anonymous No.15268783]

>>15267462
I tried watching Frozen Planet 2 and it's all climate change talking points. New time frame for an ice free Arctic is Summer 2039.

[Anonymous No.15268785]

>>15268760
>Say you postpone the regular maintenance of your car, and the mechanic tells you in 5 years, your car will have broken down. 5 years passes and somehow your car wasn't broken, then you say see that mechanic hasn't got a clue, my car isn't broken.
... and then the mechanic keeps coming and knocking on your door at odd hours of the night, pestering you and screaming that your car will break down in two more weeks as the weeks go by and nothing happens.

[Anonymous No.15268789]

>>15268785
>and then the mechanic keeps coming and knocking on your door at odd hours of the night, pestering you and screaming that your car will break down in two more weeks as the weeks go by and nothing happens.
Lol that is one dedicated mechanic, if only all of them are like that then we wouldn't even need to buy new cars. Then the car industry gets wind of this, if less cars are breaking down, that means less people are going to buy cars, so they lobby the government to prevent the mechanic from pestering you that much.

[Anonymous No.15268797]

>>15268770
>Life on this planet survives anything from deserts to tundras, pseud
If I dump you starkers in either environment, you would certainly perish. The animals in those environments took millions of years to adapt to them, adaptations that reduce their ability to survive other regions. If the climate changes faster than they can adapt or migrate (assuming there IS a path for them to migrate), they will perish. But that is beside the point, because you blissfully ignored the unavoidable fact that some systems are sensitive to small changes. If I put you in a 38C 100% humidity room, you would be in serious trouble because your body would have no way to vent that single degree of excess heat.

>>15268783
>why is consumer television not living up to my scientific standards??

>>15268785
Answer my question >>15268766. What would be the appropriate response if you knew it was going to happen?
>break down in two more weeks as the weeks go by and nothing happens.
We've established this is not the case, disingenous faggot, you.

[Anonymous No.15268802]

>>15268770
>Life on this planet survives anything from deserts to tundras, pseud.
Yes, let's also just ignore the fact we're witness the sixth mass extinction event.

[Anonymous No.15268809]

>>15268797
>>15268802
You and your flimsy, government-issued narrative are unwanted here. Keep pushing it, though. Can't wait for you to meet the physical consequences of your deranged shilling. People are getting really fed up with you and your handlers.

[Anonymous No.15268815]

>>15268809
You and your flimsy schizo talk is unwanted here. Keep pushing it, though. Can't wait for you to meet the physical consequences of your deranged schizo. People are getting really fed up with you and your handlers(machine elves).

[Anonymous No.15268818]

>>15268815
You are universally hated. Back to preddit.

[Anonymous No.15268820]

>>15268809
>Can't wait for you to meet the physical consequences of your deranged shilling.
State location and time. Let's see if you can walk the talk

[Anonymous No.15268822]

>>15268809
>I have no argument and I must babble

>>15268818
Well that can't be true; I for one like the other anon just fine.

[Anonymous No.15268823]

>>15268822
You are a known jewish shill. Any moment now you will enter your regular loop babbling about "concessions" and "arguments".

[Anonymous No.15268824]

>>15268818
You are universally hated. Back to your basement.

[Anonymous No.15268826]

>>15268822
Thanks anon, I like you too just fine.

[Anonymous No.15268825]

>>15268823
>babbling about "concessions" and "arguments".
>"arguments"
??? How does one into /sci/ without arguments???

[Anonymous No.15268828]

Daily reminder that climate psychotics are precisely the same people as pic related.

[Anonymous No.15268836]

>>15268828
Indeed. I too am a white man with a toned body who enjoys the benefits of modern medicine, a science invented and perfected by whites. Are you telling me you're not?

[Anonymous No.15268853]

>>15268836
At least you don't deny being a vaxxoid drone.

[Anonymous No.15268857]

>>15268853
Are you a car drone? A cotton gin drone? You're certainly an internet drone.

[Anonymous No.15268865]

>>15268828
Actually, studies shows that climate change denial has a political dimension and anitvaxx-ism has a spiritual dimension. To put it in 4chan terms climate change denial belongs on /pol/ and antivaxx belong on /x/, although of course I would say some overlap between the two.

[Anonymous No.15268895]

>>15268865
In fairness, the political response to climate change has been terrible. We would literally prefer to return to the dark ages rather than use the abundant energy of the atom.

[Anonymous No.15269025]

>>15268857
>>15268865
At least you don't deny being a vaxxoid drone.

[Anonymous No.15269035]

>>15268853
>>15269025
??? Uh, oil chads? I think your bot broke. lmao

[Anonymous No.15269128]

>>15267686
>>15267462
>>15267622
The date is the cutoff point for us to reverse the process, not when the world will end. I'm not saying they're right, i'm only saying you faggots ade retarded.

[Anonymous No.15269251]

>>15267699
You know that’s a wave height map of the Indian Ocean tsunami right?

[Anonymous No.15269254]

>>15267874
Coral bleaching is directly caused by heating making the coral expel the algae with it

[Anonymous No.15269666]

>>15267462
Do you really think we have the ability to build Ark Ships or ever will with the current decline of standards.

[Anonymous No.15270315]

[Anonymous No.15270318]

>>15269128
And in 5 billion years when the sun goes supernova and the world ends we'll know she was right.

[Anonymous No.15270391]

>>15267673
So you're saying that even though nothing has happened, what it really means is it's too late to change it. So we should not care and move on? Thanks

[Anonymous No.15270430]

>>15268071
because since people like you can't tell the difference between the moment the steering wheel comes off vs the moment the car actually crashes, as a information-giving publication it wasn't a good one.
If anything, it was too optimistic, we probably lost control around 2000

[Anonymous No.15270446]

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

Social scientists have found that while some group members will leave after the date for a doomsday prediction by the leader has passed uneventfully, others actually feel their belief and commitment to the group strengthened. Often when a group's doomsday prophecies or predictions fail to come true, the group leader will simply set a new date for impending doom, or predict a different type of catastrophe on a different date.[16] Niederhoffer and Kenner say: "When you have gone far out on a limb and so many people have followed you, and there is much 'sunk cost,' as economists would say, it is difficult to admit you have been wrong."[17]

In Experiments With People: Revelations from Social Psychology, Abelson, Frey and Gregg explain this further: "...continuing to proselytize on behalf of a doomsday cult whose prophecies have been disconfirmed, although it makes little logical sense, makes plenty of psychological sense if people have already spent months proselytizing on the cult's behalf. Persevering allows them to avoid the embarrassment of how wrong they were in the first place."[18] The common-held belief in a catastrophic event occurring on a future date can have the effect of ingraining followers with a sense of uniqueness and purpose.[19] In addition, after a failed prophecy members may attempt to explain the outcome through rationalization and dissonance reduction.[11][20][21]

Explanations may include stating that the group members had misinterpreted the leader's original plan, that the cataclysmic event itself had been postponed to a later date by the leader, or that the activities of the group itself had forestalled disaster.[11] In the case of the Festinger study, when the prophecy of a cataclysmic flood was proved false, the members pronounced that their faith in God had prevented the event. They then proceeded to attempt to convert new members with renewed strength.[14]

[Anonymous No.15270467]

>>15267830
Can you explain this? It seems to be mildly accelerating. Are you saying this can be accounted for by increased accuracy of measuring tools?

[Anonymous No.15270470]

>>15268166
How has no one used this ironically before. Almost disappointed that I didn't think of it first

[Anonymous No.15270479]

>>15268766
>A single degree extra in the body is called a fever, and is certainly not a fun time. Some systems are sensitive to small changes.
Most disingenuous analogy ever. The temperature raising is a part of fighting the cause of the fever, not the fever itself. Humans can handle wild swings in external temperature fine. When some babies are born if they didn't receive enough oxygen they have to be kept at 3 degrees C lower for at least a week to mitigate seizures. Nevermind most locations on earth go through massive temperature changes during seasons. These are not the same thing and just blindly labelling completely different systems as 'systems altogether'. Ah fuck not even going to bother typing the rest: you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.15270493]

>>15268797
>The animals in those environments took millions of years to adapt to them, adaptations that reduce their ability to survive other regions
Most animals now can easily survive in plenty of different environments. And we're not talking about turning deserts into tundras. That will never happen. So I'm not sure why you're acting like that's the case. Almost all animals can survive a few degrees temperature change. It's called the change in seasons. The only issue, really, is fish and sealife which has less ability to regulate body temperature than most land animals

[Anonymous No.15270598]

She deleted the tweet. Tate bros, we won!

[Anonymous No.15270799]

>>15270479
>Non-infectious causes include vasculitis, deep vein thrombosis, connective tissue disease, side effects of medication or vaccination, and cancer.
The body can be "fighting" nothing so long as the white blood cells think it's appropriate to dump pyrogens. The fever is just self-induced hyperthermia. Hyperthermia is still bad regardless.
>In humans, hyperthermia is defined as a temperature greater than 37.5–38.3 °C
We can handle wild swings in external temperature because we have adaptations that allow us to increase heat production or more rapidly dump it into the environment. If those adaptations cannot not function, i.e. in the case of being immersed in a bath of 38C, then we will suffer and potentially die. The point is illustrative, since /pol/ - sorry, /sci/ doesn't believe in tipping points for anything but classical mechanics problems, and my last example with botulin toxin was ill received because no quantity is natural in the body unlike CO2 (fair).

>>15270493
Climate isn't weather, faggot. Insects and smaller mammals survive winter because they can go torpid. If winter conditions are extended to more of the year because weather patterns responsible for bringing in warm air shift, they will be endangered. In warmer climes, loss of precipitation is the serious concern. A permanent reduction in precipitation will lead to corresponding reduction in vegetation, which will then either fail to act as a sufficient food source or shelter, or become vulnerable to overgrazing. The issue with a 1C global change is that it's not some uniform increase. The weather patterns shift from the increase in energy, and therefore the distribution of heat. Already we are seeing multi-degree anomalies in parts of the world and an increase in extreme weather like heat domes which have caused huge, observable, die-offs.

[Anonymous No.15270894]

>>15267462
Like that top climate scientist which only takes air into account and not temperature of ocean? Or this one is another one?

[Anonymous No.15270895]

>>15270894
No for this time it's one who used logistic regression on temperature.

[Anonymous No.15270909]

Does anybody realize, that if we haven't use fossil fuels we would starve to death?

[Anonymous No.15270985]

>>15270909
I don't think anyone is discounting the benefit of fossil fuels bootstrapping us into the industrial revolution. But like milk or medicine, you need to be weaned off it when it's served its purpose. The EROI was always going to fall, for instance. Ignoring climate change, if we were to chase it to the last drop, we'd be back where we started at pre-industrial levels of EROI (see graph). It would be the height of stupidity not to use this opportunity to develop and switch to other sources of energy like nuclear and solar, but that necessarily means a loss in profits for energy companies, so it'll never happen.

[Anonymous No.15270988]

>>15267673
>>15267684
>>15267689
LET US CELEBRATE 3 MONTHS FROM NOW WITH A ROLLING COAL PARADE IN THE HONOR OF GRETA AND HER TOP CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15270991]

>>15270909
>fossil fuels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSff0pwc1Xc
>>15270985
>But like milk or medicine, you need to be weaned off it when it's served its purpose
>not eathing cheese until the last second of your life
no

[Anonymous No.15271005]

>>15267462
We almost stopped for 1 to 3 years due covid, wait until 2025 to be really safe

[Anonymous No.15271043]

>>15270799
>Climate isn't weather, faggot.
Except when it's convenient to the narrative.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/climate/britain-heat-wave-climate-change.html

[Anonymous No.15271055]

>>15271043
What should I call the kind of weather where heat waves get hotter, longer, and more frequent over a period measured in years and decades, then?

[Anonymous No.15271074]

>>15271055
>it...it's not hypocrisy! stop exposing the grift!
Give it up, as we've established humanity is already doomed so find something less hopeless to spend your finite remaining time thinking about.

[Anonymous No.15271080]

>>15271074
Answer my question, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15271088]

>maybe if I post another 50 graphs people will care about my evangelizing
>>15270446

[Anonymous No.15271091]

>>15271088
We are on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15271093]

>>15271091
Correct. So take the cult shit elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.15271099]

>>15271093
Answer my question first.

[Anonymous No.15271102]

>continuing to proselytize on behalf of a doomsday cult whose prophecies have been disconfirmed, although it makes little logical sense, makes plenty of psychological sense if people have already spent months proselytizing on the cult's behalf. Persevering allows them to avoid the embarrassment of how wrong they were in the first place."[18] The common-held belief in a catastrophic event occurring on a future date can have the effect of ingraining followers with a sense of uniqueness and purpose.[19] In addition, after a failed prophecy members may attempt to explain the outcome through rationalization and dissonance reduction.[11][20][21]

[Anonymous No.15271107]

>>15271102
>whose prophecies have been disconfirmed
What do you call the kind of weather where heat waves get hotter, longer, and more frequent over a period measured in years and decades? C'mon, this should be easy if it's been disconfirmed.

[Anonymous No.15271110]

[Anonymous No.15271117]

[Anonymous No.15271128]

[Anonymous No.15271137]

>>15270985
You know, usually the surrounding air is about 300degree kelvin, and you can cool it to produce power?

[Anonymous No.15271152]

>>15270985
So you don't think they discover less oil, because it's more expensive the less they discover?

[Anonymous No.15271172]

>>15271110
>Robert Reinhold, who, until his premature death in 1997, was a reporter for the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times
>Paul Ralph Ehrlich is an American biologist

>>15271117
>Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount
>We are at 422.5 of the 560 ppm mark

>>15271128
>biologist
>biologist
>journalist whose point stands unless you think we should return to leaded diesel and that resources are infinite
>biologist
>biologist (samefag)
>biologist (samefag)
>Hayes received his undergraduate degree in history from Stanford University
>Dr. Pete Gunter | Philosophy & Religion UNT Philosophy & Religion (may be wrong guy?)
>no proper citation
>ecologist
>https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/06/ap-hundreds-lakes-united-states-europe-losing-oxygen/
>biologist (samefag)
>biologist (samefag)
>ecologist
>legitimately wrong in his field, but not climate related
>in context of next quote
>has nothing do to with climate and everything to do with the economics of cutting it down
>ecologist

>>15271137
what?

>>15271152
That would require a global conspiracy between all entities capable of extracting and profiting from oil. All it takes is a single defector, motivated by greed, to break it. We might as well be discussing the illuminati.
Now answer the question.

[Anonymous No.15271175]

>>15271152
>>15271172
Shit, my "now answer the question" got misformatted. Apologies if you're not the right faggot.

[Strange Love No.15271977]

>>15271172

>That would require a global conspiracy between all entities capable of extracting and profiting from oil.

Weird way to spell OPEC. ;)

[Anonymous No.15271999]

>>15267462
Greta you make that sounds like a bad thing.
Most people are fucking idiots that deserve to die, so they are just spelling their own demise.
Whereas I have already been enlightened by the God of Mathematics and will be saved, unlike the hylic beasts.

[Anonymous No.15272040]

>>15270467
>Can you explain this? It seems to be mildly accelerating. Are you saying this can be accounted for by increased accuracy of measuring tools?
I already did later in the thread. The shift to satellite measurements makes it appear to be increasing, but that's due to quirks with how satellite measurements work.

[Anonymous No.15272043]

>>15271107
>What do you call the kind of weather where heat waves get hotter, longer, and more frequent over a period measured in years and decades?
I wouldn't know, because that isn't happening.

[Anonymous No.15272051]

>>15271080
what should we call it when winters are also getting colder then?

[Anonymous No.15272074]

>>15271977
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/13/6-of-the-worlds-top-12-oil-producers-arent-in-opec.aspx

>>15272040
G'day again. What are your thoughts on the limited position distribution of the stations? Skeptical science (yes, yes, I know) has an interesting graph, albeit showing what I presume is only a subset. Apologies for not getting around to doing the plot - I tied up my bandwidth doing some file recovery for today. Not that anonymous was ever liable to deliver, but I still want to acknowledge my failing, there.

>>15272043
Then what is this graph? >>15271080

>>15272051
If it's over a period of years & decades such that it can't be attributed to weather, then climate change. It's a predicted and desu obvious consequence of jet stream breakdown. You can almost think of it like becoming a desert bc. weather influence on temperature decreases, leaving you at the mercy of insolation & radiation.

[Anonymous No.15272095]

>>15272074
>What are your thoughts on the limited position distribution of the stations?
Already addressed. Earth is a globe. Water will find its level on the globe due to gravity and fluid dynamics, relative to certain things like the equatorial bulge due to the rotational force of the Earth and whatnot. If you look at the graphs you can see that the "acceleration" is due to the introduction of satellite measurements, which show a linear trend but use a slightly higher base value (~3mm/yr plus or minus). The abrupt shift in data sources causes an apparent but not genuine acceleration.

[Anonymous No.15272115]

>>15272074
>It's a predicted and desu obvious consequence of jet stream breakdown.
polar vortex/jet stream patterns are caused by birkeland currents. this is very well studied.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos13071132

[Anonymous No.15272139]

>>15272095
But isn't it concerning that the satellites independently agree with gauges that the trend wildly varies by location, and therefore the only way to get an accurate estimate of the *global* movement is to have a much more uniform spread of gauges? Yes, water will find its level modulo gravitational factors (does varying Earth density play a measurable role?), but that's still putting a lot of trust that your model is free of confounding factors to extrapolate so widely. If we can't trust either system of measurement (incompleteness vs. error) I lean towards sea level acceleration because ice mass is decreasing at what appears to be an accelerating rate.

>>15272115
Intuitively I'm skeptical of the notion the magnetic field is strong enough to have such an effect on uncharged particles, but I'll give this my layman's read/research. It's certainly an interesting notion.

[Anonymous No.15272153]

>>15272139
>But isn't it concerning that the satellites independently agree with gauges that the trend wildly varies by location
No, because the trend does wildly vary by location due to geologic reasons. That's why you pick known good locations with stable elevations that can get rid of the geologic noise (they do this using GPS devices at the tide gauge location to measure changes in the ground level).

[Anonymous No.15272223]

>>15272139
I think a confounding factor here, then, is that there are two related but independent "problems". I'll concede sea level rise because I don't know enough about the subject to suggest possible issues with your method beyond "unknown unknowns" and significant variation in Earth's gravitational field or effect of persistent ocean currents creating bulges/dips. GPS and accelerometers are all fairly solid tech to my understanding; I'll have to have a read. But what of sea volume increase? If the ridiculous amount of tectonic movement observed is lowering the sea floor in counter to sea volume increase, then it's basically luck whether this trend continues AFAIU the science. Isn't it still a wise strategy to then minimise ice melt? And by the way global warming operates, this necessarily means proaction, as any attempt to reverse warming will take decades to centuries.

[Anonymous No.15272226]

>>15267956
That’s great but it doesn’t explain why global average tide sauce data shows acceleration of sea lever rise even when satellite data is not included

[Anonymous No.15272230]

>>15272226
>acceleration of sea lever rise
Not happening. Millions of picrels of the same places over 100 years ago with same average sea level.

[Anonymous No.15272257]

>>15272230
>random pictures don’t show it
That’s an incredibly stupid argument to make

[Anonymous No.15272270]

>>15272115
A quick question since I'm still trying to get my head around the concept, but if the polar vortex's instability is due to solar weather, then why haven't we observed this on the other planets? The only result a search turns up is Venus' south pole being unstable - but the asymmetry wouldn't be explained in this model. To be fair, I looked to see if Earth's instability is also asymmetric, and it appears to not be the case?

[Anonymous No.15272313]

>>15272257
>That’s an incredibly stupid argument to make
>STOP looking at reality and facts!
>Only believe what you are told by big government and corporations, not what is real! REEEEE!
KEK!

[Anonymous No.15272347]

>>15272270
it would depend on changes in those planets magnetic fields (our pole is wandering quickly right now = disrupted inputs) & also it's hard to study planets you dont live on. lots of data on jupiter since juno orbiter so research on its birkeland currents & vortices is ongoing.

See:
Birkeland currents in Jupiter’s magnetosphere observed by the polar-orbiting Juno spacecraft
kotsiaros et al

Jupiter’s interior and deep atmosphere: The initial pole-to-pole passes with the Juno spacecraft
bolton et al

this paper especially is interesting (simulations of magnetized plasma vortex crystals)
Polar vortex crystals: Emergence and structure
siegelman et al

gookmoot hates my doi links sometimes sorry

[Anonymous No.15272359]

>>15272270
>>15272115
The conclusions this anon is making are sus as fuck. The data presented in the paper shows that there’s no increased trend of both magnetic storms and solar irradiance. The atmospheric interactions of magnetic storms are happening above 100 km.
That goes against observational data that shows the North Pole is warming the fastest, as a direct result of increased greenhouse forcing.

[Anonymous No.15272364]

>>15272359
>North Pole is warming the fastest, as a direct result of increased greenhouse forcing.
Good! An ice covered wasteland is not useful for 99.9999% of lifeforms.
Warm that shit up.

[Anonymous No.15272372]

>>15267462
you don't get it.
fossil fuels = pouring money to russia & arab countries.
global warming = nuclear war
few more months until nukes come out.

[Anonymous No.15272383]

>>15267462
>ESL thinks she means humanity will be destroyed in the next 5 years

[Anonymous No.15272387]

>>15272359
jupiter polar heating explained by solely solar means. similar drama as earth.
https://www.space.com/jupiter-auroras-cause-mystery-heating

seems to be all induction.

[Anonymous No.15272389]

>>15272359
Hmm, fair. It's still interesting though because as far as I've read, there's no reason to believe the phenomenon doesn't occur. GCRs and SPEs WILL ionize the atmosphere, and apparently to a significant extent, and thereby be encouraged into further motion by the Earth's field. The only point of contestation is the significance of its impact. Still reading and doing napkin maths. Trying to remember Flemming's right hand rule baka.

[Anonymous No.15272395]

>>15272313
>dude random undated uncalibrated pictures are more reliable than tidal gauge data

[Anonymous No.15272400]

>>15272395
If the high tide line hasn't changed in 100 years it does seem meaningful.

[Anonymous No.15272408]

>>15272395
>uncalibrated pictures
LMAO!
"The pictures must be "calibrated"! "Calibrate" those photographs now! They go against the grift narrative and prove sea level is the same as the 19th century!"

[Anonymous No.15272409]

>>15272387
Yo simply can’t compare atmospheric dynamics of Jupiter with its intense magnetic fields and different atmosphere to the observed weak interactions of the lower atmosphere of the Earth to solar storms. There’s no increasing rate of solar storms and they are pretty short in duration. In a previous thread I plotted raw daily temperature data during magnetic storms for you and there’s no anomalous warming to be seen.

[Anonymous No.15272417]

>>15272115
>>15272270
>>15272347
Ok, I'm a brainlet - how is the vortex suppose to speed up because of this? The protons should be flowing opposite to the vortex, and ionized particles will be motioned in a completely orthogonal direction. So far as I can see, the paper you linked doesn't suggest a mechanism, and I can't really think of one other than my hand signs are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15272418]

>>15272409
see >>15272115
observed interaction is strong. co2-onlyism is a cult.

[Anonymous No.15272422]

>>15272417
probably an error in your calculations.

[Anonymous No.15272437]

>>15272389
There isn't. The magnitude of the greenhouse forcing compared to any minor heating due to ionization in the atmosphere. These events are short in duration and there's not observed effects on the lower atmosphere.
>>15272387
That's simply not true. The energy input during CME events are well quantified.

[Anonymous No.15272451]

>>15272418
>http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos13071132
>paper being circulated in climate denier tweets
I'm not saying the author is a denier or anything but people are misrepresenting the conclusions of her research

[Anonymous No.15272466]

>>15272437
>The magnitude of the greenhouse forcing compared to any minor heating due to ionization in the atmosphere
Probably. I'm more just interested in the velocity correlation, unless that's what you mean.
>>15272422
Yeah, I got the magnetic convention wrong. Protons should be motioned clockwise like the vortex. Still unclear why that would speed up the heavier particles which themselves are encouraged to move perpendicularly. Maybe induced motion is a red herring, and it's about diffusive processes? Would really like to see a proposed mechanism or a quote from a section I must be missing.

>>15272115
>>15272451
Any luck with works citing her? I'm trying to find a proposed model, since AFAICT, her papers just show some correlation and propose long-term solar cycles to explain these long-term changes in behaviour.

[Anonymous No.15272471]

>>15272437
>The magnitude of the greenhouse forcing compared to any minor heating due to ionization in the atmosphere
Probably. I'm more just interested in the velocity correlation, unless that's what you mean.

>>15272422
Yeah, I got the magnetic convention wrong. Protons should be motioned COUNTER-clockwise like the vortex. Still unclear why that would speed up the heavier particles which themselves are encouraged to move perpendicularly. Maybe induced motion is a red herring, and it's about diffusive processes? Would really like to see a proposed mechanism or a quote from a section I must be missing.

>>15272115
>>15272451
Any luck with works citing her? I'm trying to find a proposed model, since AFAICT, her papers just show some correlation and propose long-term solar cycles to explain these long-term changes in behaviour.

[Anonymous No.15272491]

>>15267699
>/pol/troon thinks this is a real image
lmao

[Anonymous No.15272521]

>>15272471
Now I have the time to read the paper this seems weak as fuck
>Comparing the data in Figure 6 and Figure 13a, we can note that the strengthening of the vortex from ~1980 to ~2000 took place when there was an increase in occurrence of magnetic GC storms, whereas the weakening of the vortex in ~1950–1980 was observed under a decrease in GC storm occurrences.
This is a very weak evidence to suggest strong mechanistic coupling between the vortex, warming and solar activity. Note how the anthropogenic warming trend is removed without explanation and the correlation is not quantified in any way, just suggested.

[Anonymous No.15272538]

>>15272521
I don't think this paper is attempting to disprove AGW, anon. That Anthony Watts has integrated it into his alternative model and made her popular with skeptics is irrelevant imo. Agreed that it's mostly of academic interest unless she can define a model and quantify the magnitude of the instability effect in relation to the instability from smaller temperature gradient.

[Anonymous No.15272548]

>>15272538
I'm not accusing her of anything but the fact that pic related is her only citation and it's some unaffiliated self published guy is pretty sussy baka

[Anonymous No.15272549]

>Veretenenko’s paper focuses only on the troposphere-polar vortex part of the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (Fig. 8.1, red oval). It also lacks an explanation of the energetic changes necessary to change the climate.
>A. Watts
lol

[Anonymous No.15272558]

>>15272549
>Anthony Watts
The fact that this Heartland Institute paid oil shill rejects her data is pretty wild. Shamefur display to the denier anon who posted it here.

[Anonymous No.15272577]

Afternoon sciencebros. Any progress today on narrowing down when we're all gonna die or is it still "Some time between June and the heat death of the universe"?

[Anonymous No.15272581]

>>15272408
amazing arguments here

[Anonymous No.15272590]

>>15272408
Not meaning to dogpile, but why do Americans spazz out so much about "grift". Everything's always "grift" this and "scam" that. Are they just that brainfucked by their commerce-oriented culture? Not trying to flamewar either. It's just so weird to me and almost always signals the poster is a flat-earth skeptic who just assumes whatever position is contrary to the mainstream as his stance.

[Anonymous No.15272599]

>>15272558
Tell me when you get your work into a peer reviewed journal.

[Anonymous No.15272600]

>>15272491
>>15269251
of course it's fake
the area immediately to the west of India is far too blue

[Anonymous No.15272602]

>>15272590
A teenage girl with no visible talents became a multimillionaire world traveler and messiah figure because she agreed to be a mouthpiece for the green industry. If that's not a scam then what is?

[Anonymous No.15272628]

>>15272602
>A teenage girl with no visible talents became a multimillionaire world traveler and messiah figure because she agreed to be a mouthpiece for the green industry. If that's not a scam then what is?
Yep.
Look at the fancy uber expensive furniture the climate scam has bought her.

[Anonymous No.15272629]

>>15272602
>became a multimillionaire world traveler and messiah figure
Her parents were fairly wealthy and well-connected IIRC.
>Svante Fritz Vilhelm Thunberg (born 10 June 1969) is a Swedish actor, author
>Sara Magdalena Ernman (born 4 November 1970) is a Swedish mezzo-soprano opera singer
>Thunberg stayed at home to look after their children,[6] selling his Porsche
That Americans from both aisles are retarded and boosted her (left sperg out over the old maxim "from the mouth of babes", right sperg out over butthurt from a child telling them off) is further inevitability for her success. I wouldn't call that a "fraudulent business scheme", because what's the fraud being committed? She was set up for success, got adopted as a figurehead, and made money because people wanted to support her in her role as a figurehead.

[Anonymous No.15272631]

>>15272629
>>15272628
>>15272602
This is irrelevant to the science being discussed.

[Anonymous No.15272634]

>>15272599
>peer reviewed journal.
That's bascially same as blogging with friends. No credibility at all.

In fact anything that is "peer reviewed" is even more sus to begin with, since it is "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" type of nepotism.

[Anonymous No.15272635]

Greta's just a naive child who's drunk way too much koolaid. The scam is the cultists who decided to shove her in front of the cameras after 20 years of Al Gore failed to move the needle.

[Anonymous No.15272637]

>>15272631
No, it is completely relevant and you know it, which is why you are trying to deflect.

[Anonymous No.15272639]

>>15272635
I must be missing something here, but where's the fraud?

[Anonymous No.15272643]

>>15272639
I'm not here to deprogram you.

[Anonymous No.15272646]

[Anonymous No.15272647]

[Anonymous No.15272649]

[Anonymous No.15272653]

[Anonymous No.15272655]

[Anonymous No.15272658]

[Anonymous No.15272660]

>>15267462
Climate Change Hoax = Fear Porn for doomers, and scam by the rich 1% elite.

[Anonymous No.15272661]

etc

[Anonymous No.15272667]

>>15272643
>I'm not here to deprogram you
You must understand that this doesn't exactly help your position, right? Unless you're just masturbating in public and don't give a shit about anything. As for the pic, the actual quote:
>Some of the models suggest to Dr. (Wieslav) Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years
Context:
>the 75% figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a ‘ballpark figure’
Wow.

>>15272646
>The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.
So someone with no scientific background does some maths and comes up with nonsense figures? Will you be posting quotes- sorry, headlines, from the village idiot next?

>>15272647
>Given present trends in extent and thickness, the ice in September will be gone in a very short while, perhaps by 2015. In subsequent years, the ice-free window will widen, to 2-3 months, then 4-5 months etc, and the trends suggest that within 20 years time we may have six ice-free months per year.
A half-decent one for once! The prediction is qualified on the trendline remaining stable, and the trendline decelerated, so the extrapolation proved incorrect. The general trend is still downwards, though.

>>15272649
>that byline
lol, you can tell the shills are reaching when even journos are skeptical
>Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."
Same thing as before but with the addition that they call it a lower bound

[Anonymous No.15272682]

>>15272653
>>15272655
>>15272658
>>15272661
>>15272643
Deniers start spamming irrelevant images when they got btfo on the "sources they posted"
>>15272637
I'm not deflecting. Please tell me how the paper you posted provides any sort of justification and evidence of your claims that the polar vortex is strongly influenced by CMEs.
>>15272115
You say here it's very well studied and what you posted is this not quantified "correlation"?
>>15272521

[Anonymous No.15272685]

>>15272667
>Sure, you've showed me prediction after prediction turning out wrong, but I can look at them one at a time and call each one an unlucky fluke without considering the larger trend of all of them being wrong.
Statistically invalid, but fully expected from a leftard.

[Anonymous No.15272688]

>>15272682
>Failed predictions from "climate experts" are irrelevant.
Congratulations: you have just made the Theory of Climate Change unfalsifiable!

[Anonymous No.15272690]

>>15272688
I don't care about what some journalists said.
Don't deflect and stay on topic, where's the correlation between CME's and the polar vortex in the figures taken from the paper you posted?

[Anonymous No.15272700]

>>15272690
>the paper you posted
I haven't posted any papers, retard.
It might come as a shock to you that more than one person in /sci/ thinks you're a brainwashed little boot-licker based on the objective fact that 100% of the independently verifiable predictions of AGW have turned out to be wrong.
The norther ice cap isn't gone, Greenland hasn't melted, Florida isn't under water, the glaciers haven't vanished, it still snows every winter, and the pre-adjustment average of all historical US weather stations shows a DOWNWARD trend in temperature, not upwards.
(I assume your side only makes those corrections to the raw data from thermometers because thermometers are white supremacists or something, right?)

[Anonymous No.15272706]

>>15272653
>Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
>Peter Schwartz is an American futurist, business executive, innovator, author, and co-founder of the Global Business Network, a corporate strategy firm
>Doug Randall Singularity Expert: Foresight, Narratives, Thriving in uncertainty
Would anyone in their right minds ever take these two clowns seriously? I'm laughing my ass off right now.

>>15272655
It says below that sections that this is about the "10 year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control".

>>15272658
Fair, a local environmental affairs director is alarmist about a problem close to home in the hopes others provide relief. While his prediction for drinking water drying up is premature, it has in fact been polluted severely by seawater. There's an interesting paper on direct measurements of sea level in Tuvalu, a related country.

>>15272661
This is actually a good one. I'll have to look into it further. Why can't you guys post more stuff like this? It's probably a systematic error, but it's better than out-of-context headlines and quotes from nobodies.

[Anonymous No.15272712]

>>15272706
>Why can't you guys post more stuff like this?
Everything "we guys" post is "like this" you just have so much motivated reasoning that it takes thousands of hammer-blows to break through your thick skull.

[Anonymous No.15272716]

>>15272685
The only predictions worth refuting are the IPCC's, and they've been on track so far. And they're not "unlucky flukes". If anything, they're damned lucky because this has all been a lot more gradual than it could have been. You're reading extrapolations indescriminately as predictions and getting surprised that they are just extrapolations. If a doctor says that if your fever doesn't break in five days, you'll die, you understand he's not attempting prophesy. Why do you refuse to understand the same for other sciences?
>Statistically invalid
Show me the statistics. The fact you're getting all this from journal headlines, which has been demonstrated to not correspond to the trends in published papers, has me skeptical.

>>15272690
>>15272700
Yeah, unfortunately there's a lot of these retards. Sometimes a smart one comes along and posts interesting stuff.

>>15272700
>predictions of AGW have turned out to be wrong
>list things that are literally in progress, very observably
>ignores pic related

[Anonymous No.15272719]

>chartposting again
>"m...my charts are definitely better than all the charts the last 50 years of hilariously failed climate predictions were based on!"
Give it up.

[Anonymous No.15272721]

>>15272719
Again, this is /sci/. What else are we supposed to post? Newspaper clippings like you? I guess that would feel familiar to you, wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.15272724]

>>15272721
>I keep posting the same old discredited hysteria because what else am I supposed to post?
sad

[Anonymous No.15272725]

>>15272724
You didn't answer my question. You seem to have a habit of doing that.

[Anonymous No.15272728]

>>15272725
He did, you just didn't like the answer.

[Anonymous No.15272730]

>>15272728
Ok, where are some non-discredited graphs to post, then?

[Anonymous No.15272731]

>>15272725
I'm not here to deprogram you, I'm here to mock you.

[Anonymous No.15272738]

>>15272731
And I'm here to demonstrate to the world how dishonest you lot are. Also having some fun figuring out where the deception lies.

[Anonymous No.15272741]

>>15272738
>having some fun figuring out where the deception lies.
>>15270446
>after a failed prophecy members may attempt to explain the outcome through rationalization and dissonance reduction.

[Anonymous No.15272754]

>>15272741
Ok, let's ignore that I conceded sea level rise and instead consider these hypotheticals:
>how could you distinguish a cultist from someone who has actual certainty?
>how is your own behaviour not cultish?
For a category to be useful, it needs to have a reasonably defined set of things that it doesn't include.

[Anonymous No.15272757]

>>15272700
>and the pre-adjustment average of all historical US weather stations shows a DOWNWARD trend in temperature, not upwards
This is just straight up false. The adjustments are tiny.

[Anonymous No.15272759]

>>15272719
So I'm posting data and you're posting some rambling an inbred brit made?

[Anonymous No.15272766]

>>15272754
Why concede? the tide gauges show the same accelerating rate as the satellite data.

[Anonymous No.15272768]

>>15272766
Not the supposedly geologically stable ones he posted, and although one's first instinct is to take data from an ensemble, his argument for why those few are sufficient is pretty solid. The only way I can think for them to be wrong is if there's vertical motion in the water that's countering the sea level rise.

[Anonymous No.15272784]

>>15272773
Huh? I'm literally asking you to prove that this isn't a label you can just slap on any damned thing. Surely you'd agree that words like (the colloquial version of) "spook" are useless because literally everything is a "spook". The doomsday cult thing looks suspect because it doesn't, on the face of things, have a way to distinguish doomsday cults from organizations that happen to be 100% justified. Please, I'd be very curious to know. (and also, you shills never seem to be able to handle these counterfactuals, which shows the "depth" of your thinking)

[Anonymous No.15272792]

>>15272768
A single site's data is not relevant to the global average. He's posting verbatim stuff from Watt's blog including the fundamental misunderstanding of how global sea level is calculated.
He still hasn't responded why he claimed that CME's are causing polar vortex instability.

[Anonymous No.15272807]

>>15272792
>A single site's data is not relevant to the global average.
Why? We're not talking about absolute values, here, but derivates. Assuming input water can equillibriate in a reasonably short amount of time (<1yr), and that the gravitational field is not changing underneath you or systematic error, then a measured rate in one location should be applicable to all locations modulo noise by virtue of the least energy principle.
>He's posting verbatim stuff from Watt's blog
Link me? Skimming through the articles, I don't see this argument being made, just blanket skepticism on the value of ALL the instrumentation.
>He still hasn't responded why he claimed that CME's are causing polar vortex instability.
Yeah, it's why I (sadly) agree that he's probably a shill and not an actually engaged skeptic. I want to believe, though.

[Anonymous No.15272821]

God, reading through Watts' shitty blog is a chore. Guy should tone it down a little so people don't immediately think facebook qoomer when their eyes bleed from the barrage of bolded sections and haphazard figures. Seriously, CSS isn't that hard. You can make it pretty if you try, Tony!

[Anonymous No.15272826]

>>15272807

[Anonymous No.15272847]

>>15272821
Ah, I see. He has a shitload of guest bloggers. Larry's the qoomer shitting up the site.

>>15272826
I don't see any mention of anon's argument on the wide applicability of tide gauges in geologically stable areas, though? Larry's just doing the mental midget thing of cherry picking data without justifaction in this one, albiet broader - all of the "U.S. coasts or Pacific or Atlantic island groups". That seems dubious, and contradicts anon anyways.

[Anonymous No.15272850]

>this was posted 100% unironically
lol. lmao, even.

[Anonymous No.15272879]

>>15272850
Answer the question why did you post junk evidence saying CMEs affect climate?

[Anonymous No.15272897]

>>15272879
Anon, go to bed. You've got the wrong guy. Have the standards dropped so low that this picture can believably be taken as a skeptic "argument"? Lmao. It's a graph from the sidebar on Watts' content farm. I'm making fun of it because you can use the tactic to downplay anything. Disprove weather by plotting it Kelvin! Show that the """unsafe""" levels of radon gas are indistinguishable from zero! What little respect I might've had for Watts has completely collapsed on closer inspection of his site. I hope he's happy with all the money he's made.

[Anonymous No.15272919]

>>15267673
>irreversible damage
this, in itself, is an impossible concept

[Anonymous No.15272922]

>>15267745
he's mocking you for being a complete utter retard

[Anonymous No.15272936]

>>15267464
They may need some encouragement.

[Anonymous No.15272949]

>>15272919
There's vast gulf between theory and practice. Theoretically, yes, we could fix climate change even after hitting some tipping points. Practically: how? Say the arctic goes ice free. Do we build the world's biggest pool tarp? That's an area the size of a continent. Something exotic? You're banking entirely on it not being a dud. While you can't say with 100% confidence that there's no way to wiggle out, the odds against you are rising with every year.

[Anonymous No.15272974]

>>15272949
Are you retarded or just pretending? The arctic has been ice free multiple times in the past. CO2 levels have been around 2,000 ppm multiple times in the past. All of this has changed without any intervention from anyone.

Just admit that you have a messiah complex and fuck off this board for good.

[Anonymous No.15273012]

>>15267462
Greta is looking bad fast. You'd think with all the scam money she could afford some meth to thin up and some plastic surgery.

[Anonymous No.15273018]

>>15273012
The weight of being the person holding the bag for globohomo is heavy. People in Sweden despise her now because they're having trouble paying for heating in the winter due to policies she advocated. She knows that when they get mad enough, the people who propped her up will leave her out to dry.

[Anonymous No.15273275]

>>15267462
>National Snow and Ice Data Center scientist Ted Scambos

[Anonymous No.15273665]

>>15272974
>Are you retarded or just pretending?
Right back at you with these stupid word games. Irreversible is meant in the context of human ability on reasonable timescales. Even death isn't irreversible if you want to start wanking yourself to things that can happen in the next million years. The issue is that any natural return to pre-industrial temperatures will take on the order of thousands to millions of years, and human attempts at reversal could be on the order of centuries assuming we keep our shit together while everything gets worse. Compared to the opportunity we had before the 00s, where literally all we had to do was gradually reduce and everything would almost certainly be fine because no positive feedback loops had been hit, the window of opportunity today looks incredibly grim.
>messiah complex
Same question as to the cult retard: what would it look like if there was no messiah complex?

[Anonymous No.15273673]

Why are destroying the planet? Because we fucking can. WE ARE GODS!

[Anonymous No.15274871]

>>15273665
>Same question as to the cult retard: what would it look like if there was no messiah complex?
People wouldn't be talking about this at all if they had no messiah complex. It's a nothingburger and would remain one as people focus on real problems like ocean pollution, plastic waste, etc.

[Anonymous No.15274892]

>>15274871
So in the case of an impending disaster that can be averted by collective action, a mentally healthy person without a messiah complex would be silent on the topic? This seems odd.
>focus on real problems
We should be tackling those too. We can tackle multiple problems at the same time. The issue is that we seemingly refuse to tackle the one that actually threatens our civilisation.

[Anonymous No.15274906]

>>15274892
>So in the case of an impending disaster that can be averted by collective action
That's the part that the messiah complex creates. There just isn't an impending disaster. It's all in your head, and you created it because you want to save humanity from itself.
>We can tackle multiple problems at the same time. The issue is that we seemingly refuse to tackle the one that actually threatens our civilisation.
Again, messiah complex. Our civilization is threatened by mass poisoning from endocrine disruptors in the water supply and pesticides in all our fields, not by harmless CO2. Focusing on CO2 at all diverts trillions of dollars that could be spent actually saving the ecosystem from pollution sources through water filtration programs and soil remediation.

[Anonymous No.15274941]

>>15274906
Ok, but that wasn't the point of my question. The point of my question was to establish what it would look like in a legitimate scenario where the person aware of an impending disaster is mentally healthy. This way we can assess the degree by which observation matches the two proposed hypotheses: messiah complex or legitimate forewarning. Otherwise, we make ourselves vulnerable to the case in which there is an avertable disaster visible to some subset of society. If you're from /pol/, this situation should be familiar...
>you want to save humanity from itself
>Our civilization is threatened by mass poisoning from endocrine disruptors in the water supply and pesticides in all our fields
Yes, and it seems you do too if you want to combat mass poisoning. Let's fight the good fight!
>harmless CO2
Nitrogen is perfectly harmless right up until it starts displacing oxygen from your air. The greenhouse effect is a trivial observation of the asymmetric absorption spectrum in CO2 and the fact sunlight peaks in the visible (transparent) frequencies. Like Nitrogen, it's harmless right up until it starts displacing the Earth's equilibrium temperature.
>diverts trillions of dollars
That seems excessive. Who's able to outspend congress like that? And on environmentalism for that matter?

[Anonymous No.15274969]

>>15274941
>The point of my question was to establish what it would look like in a legitimate scenario where the person aware of an impending disaster is mentally healthy.
And I told you that you have to actually have a disaster for a mentally healthy person to react to. Hence...
>Yes, and it seems you do too if you want to combat mass poisoning. Let's fight the good fight!
I knew you planned on trying to make some sort of silly rhetorical trap like this but I wanted you to see how enormously deranged your side looks when it ignores all these problems. A mentally healthy person sees local problems and says that they need to be solved at their root, with a judicious application of prevention. No lies, no manipulation, no mass social controls. Just filter sewage and make sure waste is handled with care. Offer solutions, not FUD and totalitarianism.
>That seems excessive. Who's able to outspend congress like that? And on environmentalism for that matter?
It's the total cost of "green" programs globally, and the loss of productivity caused by shutting down power plants makes it even higher.

[Anonymous No.15274974]

>>15274941
>The greenhouse effect is a trivial observation of the asymmetric absorption spectrum in CO2 and the fact sunlight peaks in the visible (transparent) frequencies. Like Nitrogen, it's harmless right up until it starts displacing the Earth's equilibrium temperature.
BTW this is utter nonsense. CO2 is a beneficial gas and no periods of Earth's history have been more productive and fertile than the high-CO2 periods.

[Anonymous No.15274979]

>>15268049
>Funny way to spell CHINA
>CHINA pollutes more than every other country on Earth combined.
China really needs to be wiped off the face of the planet, for the benefit not only of the ecosystem and environment, but the entire human species.

The sooner the world acts against China the better. It's been building for decades, and is about to hit the fan.

Removing China from the equation would reduce all global pollution by over 61%. That is massive, and not right that just one country should pollute that much.

[Anonymous No.15274982]

>>15273018
>She knows that when they get mad enough, the people who propped her up will leave her out to dry.
Hopefully they do more than that to her and her family and her financial backers.

[Anonymous No.15275008]

>>15274969
>And I told you that you have to actually have a disaster for a mentally healthy person to react to.
Ok, so pick one to suppose. We're trying to establish criteria for distinguishing messiah complexes from people responding to legitimate threats. It doesn't have to be climate, so long as it's something that's only obvious to a relatively small segment of the population before the "doomsday".
>A mentally healthy person sees local problems and says that they need to be solved at their root
This works if Joe down by the river is dumping car batteries for fun, but the kinds of issues you mentioned require collective action because they all share the trait of being unpaid negative externalities. Everyone is incentivised to pollute or do things in a way that pollutes (i.e. outsource) because it's cheaper than being responsible. Those that voluntarily behave in a responsible manner will lose out in the market. The problem is complicated when magnified to international behaviour. Local action is insufficient.
>No lies, no manipulation, no mass social controls.
Indeed. Thankfully, the mentally healthy people at the IPCC have abstained from any such behaviour. It's reprehensible that politicians lack such scruples, but also typical for their ilk. I can condemn self-declared "leaders" while still recognising the truth they were opportunising on.
>Offer solutions, not FUD and totalitarianism.
Nuclear. Real carbon credits. WFH. Externality taxes to pay for green transition (e.g. electric car) tax breaks. Totalitarianism is wrong.
>loss of productivity caused by shutting down power plants
I fucking hate Krauts and Franks for pulling this BS. With any luck, their ruling parties will be fucked next election. They had plenty of time to build out green plants, and independence from Russia as motivation, but mediocrity wins out.

[Anonymous No.15275013]

>>15275008
>Thankfully, the mentally healthy people at the IPCC have abstained from any such behaviour.
lol this discredits you so badly

[Anonymous No.15275027]

>>15274974
That those periods were fertile does not discount that they came with a correspondingly much higher temperature, and therefore a completely different climate. If we had evolved and built a civilisation during such a period, we would also be quite happy with that state of affairs. The issue is in the changing from one climate to another.

>>15275013
My goodness! Could you tell me where they have lied, manipulated, and/or enacted social control? I need to tell all my friends on facebook!

[Anonymous No.15275042]

>>15275027
>My goodness! Could you tell me where they have lied, manipulated, and/or enacted social control? I need to tell all my friends on facebook!
https://archive.is/fPMz3
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

[Anonymous No.15275046]

>>15267462
Probably never because she makes these tweets every five years and deletes them when five years pass. Do you really believe you're doomed this time of all times?

[Anonymous No.15275059]

>>15275046
Don't forget Al Gore, Michael Mann, and Paul Ehrlich all making predictions and then reneging on them and memoryholing them when their apocalypse had to be postponed. Every doomsday cult is like this. Climate sois are just the kind that hang on like 7th Day Adventists, rather than the Jonestown or Heaven's Gate type.

[Anonymous No.15275106]

ITT: retard fossil fuel shills deliberately mischaracterising arguments

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you can't dispute this.

[Anonymous No.15275124]

>>15275042
>Le climategate!!!
lel

[Anonymous No.15275141]

>>15275042
Good of you to link the top article. Second is drivel, though.
>The Lavoisier Group is an Australian organisation formed by politicians and dominated by retired industrial businesspeople and engineers.
Wiki claims there's a book that shows their published papers have no consistent position, and follow the usual playing it down at each concession (not real -> not human -> nothingburger -> too expensive). Some anon with more free time could find and post the relevant papers.

Now, onto the meat of the CRU. So far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong!) the CRU was not part of the IPCC itself but only one of many sources for the report. We cannot honestly expect that every research group has impeccable behaviour. As for not sharing the emails, it does indeed appear they broke the law, even if they may have believed the emails fell under the exceptions (yes, there ARE exceptions, and without a court ruling, we will never know for sure if they were justified in refusing e.g. for confidential data they are contractually obliged to protect). In anticipation of the "hide the decline" out of context quotes, they've been investigated thoroughly and declared to not have committed fraud by eight independent committees from multiple countries. If it was actually the case, Russian and Chinese scientists would have yelled it from the rooftops.

[Anonymous No.15276116]

[Anonymous No.15277448]

>>15276116
Warmists will seethe about their ideology being hated by the masses.

[Anonymous No.15277477]

>>15267462
Climate change is the liberal doomsday prediction, and white guilt + social justice (aka non-white LGBTQ2IA+ supremacy) is their moral code.

[Anonymous No.15277503]

>>15271172
>All it takes is a single defector, motivated by greed, to break it.
You are literally retarded to think this way. The news has zero interest in informing people on these issues and anyway there is an entire political and media establishment in place to prevent it from happening, let alone gaining traction.

[Anonymous No.15277692]

>>15277503
99% of the population agrees that global warming is fake and yet the MSM is still constantly spamming up every day with fake news about how the world is about to come to an end because people in civilized nations are allowed to own their own transportation vehicles.

[Anonymous No.15277862]

>>15277503
You can see how this works with men like Seymour Hersh. The most trusted journalist of multiple generations was frozen out of media completely because he crossed the red line once. Now nobody would even air his reports on Nordstream despite it being the scoop of the decade that the USA did a false flag bombing of Germany.

[Anonymous No.15278709]

global warming is fake

[Anonymous No.15279890]

https://twitter.com/BenFordhamLive/status/1636091790272135168

[Anonymous No.15279909]

>>15277862

>Hersh

Ok so like just a guy then

[Anonymous No.15279962]

>>15278709
>what are tides

[Anonymous No.15279967]

>>15279962
You can see the high water mark is unchanged in both pictures.

[Anonymous No.15280074]

[Anonymous No.15282032]

>>15279967
>You can see the high water mark is unchanged in both pictures.
Notice how whenever photographic proof of sea levels being the same over 150 years, always get deleted?

[Anonymous No.15282120]

>>15282032
The mods also delete any thread where one specific AGW shill gets so mad he breaks character. I think he or one of his handlers is a janny here.

[Anonymous No.15282236]

>>15272919
I wanna see you lock up the methane hydrates back in the ocean

[Anonymous No.15282249]

>>15282236
Why didn't the Earth explode from methane hydrates when the temperature was 10 degrees hotter and we had worldwide rainforests?

[Anonymous No.15282270]

>>15267650
> world is ending tho
> it's fine, it's good, i don't care

[Anonymous No.15282272]

>>15282120
4chan is just another globalist left-wing shitsite based out of California.
There is no free-speech here at all.

[Anonymous No.15282276]

>>15267650
>Societal collapse, mass population decrease? Sure.
>Is that a bad thing? No.
I welcome that.
Society is a scourge.
Humans are meant to live with nature, as the cave-men did.