[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 112 KB, 1198x822, temp2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320695 No.2320695 [Reply] [Original]

<span class="math">{\bf So~what~happened~to~global~warming?}[/spoiler]

It seems temperature rise has stagnated for a decade at least. Now that the sun has started to drop in activity, the temperature rise has stopped as well. Coincidence? The answer is obvious. The sun it what supplies the energy to the system. How the fuck can you people not see this?

>> No.2320699

>>2320695
Source?

>> No.2320701

Oh sorry, forgot to mention. The source for the image is <span class="math">Science[/spoiler], volume 326

>> No.2320707

>>2320695
Yes, the sun is the source of the energy. The problem is that without ozone more sun gets into the earth.

You are missing many key points about global warming.

Did you perhaps get the summary for the data on this from Fox News or the internet?

>> No.2320710

Sun has been at the low point in its cycle for the last eleven years. Instead of dropping the Earth's temperature has slightly increased.

Yup you sure disproved anthropogenic climate change with that argument. (irony)

>> No.2320713

>>2320707
No, I got it directly from the article in Science. Look it up. Why the fuck did you bring ozone into the discussion?

>> No.2320716

>>2320710
Except there has been no significant increase.
>Sun has been at the low point in its cycle for the last eleven years.
The entire duration of the sun's fastest cycle is eleven years... It <span class="math">\underline{\rm can't}[/spoiler] be at a minimum for eleven years. If anything, big fucking [citation needed].

>> No.2320721

>>2320701
Can you give a real citation? Like, an article name maybe?

>> No.2320727

>>2320721
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949.toc

It's the article by Kerr

>> No.2320733
File: 108 KB, 1198x822, 1294575503512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320733

Hm...

>> No.2320737

>>2320733
Fucking lol'd at your ms paint skills. That's no way to do statistics dude.

>> No.2320745

Well... So much for the ever vocal advocates.

>> No.2320750

>>2320745
I've been trying to finagle access to it, but apparently I can't. I did see the abstract, in which the author concludes that global warming is still an issue. Surely even you can see that there can be periods without warming in an overall warming trend?

>> No.2320756

>>2320750
Abstract? I doubt that since this article didn't have one. Are you sure you read the right one?
>Surely even you can see that there can be periods without warming in an overall warming trend?
Obviously, but the point is there has been no trend for at least a decade. Coincidentally the sun is also not very active. It seems quite plausible this is what driving climate change. Current models didn't predict a stagnation based on the level of CO2.

>> No.2320766
File: 84 KB, 872x454, Picture 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320766

>>2320756
This article, yes?
And isn't it possible that both factors are responsible? I don't doubt the sun's activity has an effect, but the effect of greenhouse gases has also been pretty well demonstrated

>> No.2320783

Can recommend this for all of you who are even vaguelly interested in the matter.

>Climate change - State of the science 2009

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4658574/Climate_change_-_State_of_the_science_2009

>> No.2320798

>>2320766
Yeah that's the right one. I guess it does have an abstract.
>I don't doubt the sun's activity has an effect
What? The little ice age was supposedly caused by solar hibernation. This has been predicted to happen again in the near future:
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

>> No.2320812

>>2320783
thanks

>> No.2320813

>>2320798
>I don't doubt
>don't
My point was only that multiple factors can, and likely do, contribute to global climate.

>> No.2320821

lols in the '70s all of you types were running around saying "omgs global cooling, next ice age imminent, we're all gonna die!!1"
We don't even have global climatic data dating back beyond the past century really, wtf could you be thinking?
Also, it's pretty fucking audacious to think that we humans could seriously single handedly destroy the fucking earth in a couple of hundred years. I don't see how we can be accountable for anything other than a microscopic effect on climate change, especially given the nature of other factors which affect our climate (i.e. the sun).

>> No.2320822

>>2320813
Whoops, I misread your post there.

Still, my point was that solar influence is clearly underestimated.

>> No.2320823

>>2320821
>it's pretty fucking audacious to think that we humans could seriously single handedly destroy the fucking earth in a couple of hundred years
This is the worst argument I've ever heard.

>> No.2320824

>>2320823
yet you provide no counter

>> No.2320835

>>2320821
I'm quite certain you're trolling, but the human capacity for ignorance is something that still manages to stun me on a daily basis.

Read up on the subject for fuck's sake. If you did, you would realize the absolutely stunning measures the fuckers involved in climate science go through to get as accurate a measure on things as possible. The bastards check everything from C02 absorbance in trees, the amount of solar radiation deflected by clouds/dust/icesheets, to the rise of great landmasses after the melting of the icesheets from the last ice age.

>> No.2320844

>>2320824
>it's pretty fucking audacious to think that we humans could seriously go to the moon
>it's pretty fucking audacious to think that we humans could seriously genetically alter organisms
>it's pretty fucking audacious to think that we humans could seriously split an atom

Physics doesn't know anything about audacity.

>> No.2320845

>>2320835
Right. And it's not like they ever forge data or anything right? ... Right?

>> No.2320848

>>2320845
If that's your thinking, you can never trust any data on any subject.

>> No.2320849

>>2320835
said people currently wiping their asses with green movement fear-mongered money
they're the real trolololols

>> No.2320851

>>2320849
And Fox News et al. profit from denying global warming. What's your point?

>> No.2320856

Atmospheric chemistry is not determined in the course of months (eg: winter is unusually cold).

It it not even determined in the course of years.

A few colder years means absolutely nothing, as the atmosphere changes in the course of centuries.

You know how world use of CFCs pretty much stopped in the 90s? Well, the concentration of CFCs will only have halved by 2100 or so. The impact of 50 years of CFC use will still be affecting people in 2500.

To take trends from climate data, you need to zoom out and rapidly, the trend is extremely clear.

>> No.2320857

>>2320845
Yes.

The "Climategate" business was schewed nonsense at it's worst. Nonsense which was cleared up within two weeks of the great "controversy" surrounding it.

>>2320849
I've never really understood this argument. Do people really believe scientists drive around in expensive cars and spend grant money on hookers, booze, and bling?

>> No.2320859

>>2320848
Horse crap. Didn't you hear about the climate gate fuck up? The fraud in the IPCC report? Gore and his movie?

>> No.2320861

>>2320851
lols how's that? it's not generating a greater fanbase for them, those fucking retards have been there! Point seems pretty obvious. Anyway, atleast green propaganda potentially generates new jobs.

>> No.2320864

>>2320859
Who gives a shit about Gore?

He's not a scientist, and really, anything said from that man should be an invitation to read up on the real science. He's not an authority in the field and anyone who considers him that has lost their way badly.

>> No.2320865

>>2320821

>We don't even have global climatic data dating back beyond the past century really

We do, actually. Climate data can be recovered from both geology and ice.

We actually have an incredible record of climate data.

>> No.2320868

>>2320861
>it's not generating a greater fanbase for them
Yes, it is.
Are you saying you can't see that Fox News (I only pick on them because it's an obvious example) does not profit from information that shows that global warming is false, whether or not that information is true? It works both ways, there's a profit motive to everything.

>> No.2320869

>>2320857
It's not scientists sitting around scheming and shit, but corporations searching for the profit with scientists payrolled.

>> No.2320873

>>2320864
He was one of the co-founders of the IPCC for fucks sake. If his movie has such blatant mistakes in it how the fuck are we supposed to believe the IPCC?

>> No.2320875
File: 16 KB, 500x354, fawcett_11yr_avg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320875

>>2320695 the temperature rise has stopped

Wrong: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm (graph shows temperature data from NASA, NOAA and the Hadley center). Also, it's fucking absurd to look at a period of time as small as a decade when examining something like global climate changes.

>>2320821 in the '70s all of you types were running around saying "omgs global cooling

Wrong: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

>>2320821 We don't even have global climatic data dating back beyond the past century

Wrong, ice core samples have proven to be reliable, and date back hundreds of thousands of years

>>232082 it's pretty fucking audacious to think that we humans could affect the climate blah blah blah, shitty argument

Well that's just just fucking silly. And wrong; http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

>> No.2320882

>>2320869
So, you're saying that there's a global conspiracy involving every major scientific institute on the planet, wherein Scientists - nerds who have spent their youth years studying their asses off for very few tangible gains - are to the very last man payed off to remain utterly silent about the matter and falsify data on a global scale?

>> No.2320884
File: 127 KB, 1198x822, hurr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320884

>> No.2320887

>>2320873 If his movie has such blatant mistakes in it how the fuck are we supposed to believe the IPCC?

What the fuck? he's a politician, not a scientist. Him making mistakes about science does not disprove the science.

>> No.2320896
File: 38 KB, 231x240, troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320896

>> No.2320898

>>2320873
Al Gore started the Alliance for Climate Protection, not the IPCC.

The man's a regional politician. Just some random american. Not some Man-God with unfathomable sway over the scientists of the entire planet.

>> No.2320899

>>2320884
That's not how to do statistic you fucking moron.
>>2320887
A politician founding a supposedly scientific organization? That doesn't bring into question the objectivity of the organization?

>> No.2320900

>>2320868
Fox news is watched by people who didn't go to college and hate on intelligence.

No shit they hate global warming. It makes all those idiots feel superior, so they will keep watching the channel for more ego boosting even though they have never done shit in their lives worth being proud of.

As an engineer, man, you don't know how much cheaper things could be if we didn't have to safety proof things for the degree of idiocy of your average fox news viewer.

"Engineer! We don't need this safe, we need this Fox viewer safe!"
"You don't mean, they will try to have sex with the singing fish do you?"
"Yes, yes I do. move the electronics away from the orifices"
"kk"

>> No.2320908
File: 23 KB, 398x278, singing-fish-singing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320908

>>2320900
?!?!

>> No.2320921

>>2320859 Didn't you hear about the climate gate fuck up?

They were cleared of any wrongdoing by several independent investigations, including one ordered by the British government.

>>2320859 The fraud in the IPCC report?

I haven't heard anything about this, and Google can't find anything either.

>>2320859 Gore and his movie?

He made two errors in an entire movie - he attributed Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier to global warming when deforestation was a bigger cause, and he wrongly attributed a graph to a Dr Thompson when it was actually done by a Dr Mann. Holy shit, CLEARLY GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE!!!!!

(note; there's giant lists on the internet of supposed errors, but those are the only two actual real errors - http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm))

>> No.2320934

>>2320899 A politician founding a supposedly scientific organization?

Where are you getting this shit? Al Gore did not found the IPCC.

>> No.2320941

>>2320934
Whatever. He received the Nobel peace prize togeather with the IPCC.

>> No.2320952
File: 4 KB, 203x221, 1264946132137.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2320952

>mfw all arguments by the proponents are from skepticalscience.com, a liberal tree hugger blog.

>> No.2320959

here comes the sun dodododo, here comes the sun and i said it's all right (insert guitar riffs)

>> No.2320960

>>2320941

Jesus, you were originally saying that we couldn't trust the IPCC because it was founded by Gore, now that you've been proven wrong on that you're saying that we can't trust it because both of them won the nobel peace prize?

How does that make even REMOTE sense?

>> No.2320966

Did you... did you even read the article you took that diagram from? Because it answers your question. The Sun supplies energy, and temperature varies cyclically with this. Yes. Also, the greenhouse effect causes that energy to be stored, and the overall effect is rising temperatures.

The best part is that the current models predict this pretty damn accurately.

>> No.2320967

>>2320960
Because it's all politics, not science. Jesus it's not that difficult. Also, try to hide your butthurt a bit better.

>> No.2320969

>>2320966
>The best part is that the current models predict this pretty damn accurately.
>implying it does
[citation needed]

>> No.2320973

>>2320969
> citation: every fucking climate science article in the past 10 years

>> No.2320976

You know why so many people don't take global warming seriously? Because the scientists demand action, political action, thus politicizing the issue. It then ceases to be a matter of science and becomes a matter of belief as the politicians and other groups latch onto the various interests for their own gain. It is no longer a search for evidence, but a fight for popularity which are not won by matters of rationality nor result in rational outcomes.

It's the same damn mistake that keeps being made over and over again.

>> No.2320979

>>2320969
Read the article that OP's picture came from!

>> No.2320982

>>2320973
Clearly you don't have an appropriate citation. I've never seen this shit predicted ever. If it was in fact predicted it could have taken a lot or arguments away from the skeptics. But it wasn't. So it didn't. Now show me an article that mentions it or concede the argument.

>> No.2320992

>>2320979
>Climate researcher Jeff Knight and eight colleagues at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, U.K., first establish that—at least in one leading temperature record greenhouse warming has been stopped in its tracks for the past 10 years. In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

>> No.2320996

>>2320952 mfw all arguments by the proponents are from skepticalscience.com, a liberal tree hugger blog.

It's a website run by climatologists. All the articles have links to primary sources (peer reviewed articles) backing up their arguments.

I link to it because they've thoroughly debunked pretty much every denialist argument.

>> No.2320999

>>2320996
surrender accepted

>> No.2321001

>>2320992

If you cherry pick start and end years (in this case, 1999 and 2008) you can make it look like any trend isn't happening. 2009 was the second hottest year on record, I wonder why they cut that out.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

>> No.2321005

>>2320992
Yeeeees... you are so close! Keep reading!

>> No.2321008

>>2320976
Forces in the media and people's everpresent desire to simplify everything into "Us vs Them" isn't exactly helping the matter, either.

Also, the various factors involved in AGW and other ecological issues tend to require that people change themselves to fix them, and that's never been popular.

>> No.2321011
File: 29 KB, 276x276, tim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2321011

>>2320996 skepticalscience.com, a liberal tree hugger blog.
80% of the articles are attacking alternative medicine spiritual hippy bullshit.

>> No.2321014

>>2320921
>no mention of the Lake Chad error in the link
hahaohwow.jpg

>> No.2321015

>>2321005
>implying this was predicted beforehand
Retard, the model can only account for stochastic flucutations in temperature, but the current stagnation wasn't predicted at all by models before the stagnation. This article is from 2009 anyway. Trying to explain it afterwards and predicting it are two different things.

>> No.2321016

>>2321001
>http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
see >>2321015

>> No.2321025

>>2320857

Well if I was back in school again I'd probably pick up some more stats and some chem in addition to my physics so I could consider doing climatology. There's a lot of research money in climate science right now. Nobody's getting rich doing research though.
Plenty of bling tradin carbon credits, scams already taking place and big money getting moved around the EU, to what ends? You think brokering carbon credits is doing anything but making people who know people rich?
Then there's that deal with the Chinese company. They've got a shitload of some refrigerant that's 300X more of a GH gas than CO2 stockpiled. They threatened to release it unless they got paid. So now there's a black market on GH gas production that's worth more in credits than it costs to produce. WTF? Score 1 for the alarmists.

>> No.2321027

>>2321016

So... they found a ten year stretch where only slight warming happened, during a period when solar radiance was low. Of course, the year after that ten year period was the second hottest on record, even while solar radiance was still very low so.... somehow this is evidence that Global Warming ISN'T happening to you?

Seriously, this is the best you've got?

>>2320999 surrender accepted

Well shit dude; if articles that meticulously source all their claims to peer-reviewed scientific literature isn't good enough for you, what is?

>> No.2321032

>>2321027
>Well shit dude; if articles that meticulously source all their claims to peer-reviewed scientific literature isn't good enough for you, what is?
You backing up your fucking claims.
>The best part is that the current models predict this pretty damn accurately.
They didn't. Fact. You don't even have a citation on that shit. Surrender accepted.

>> No.2321041

>>2321027
> if articles that meticulously source all their claims to peer-reviewed scientific literature isn't good enough for you, what is?
I think he requires a god to descend from the heavens, lightning bolts crackling in his eyes, booming voice proclaiming, "don't be a fucking dumbass." Of course, judging from his recent comments, it's probably safe to conclude that he'd misinterpret that....

>> No.2321061
File: 17 KB, 262x313, troll1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2321061

>> No.2321067

>>2321032 You backing up your fucking claims.

What claim haven't I backed up? Lemme know.

>>2321032 You don't even have a citation on that shit.

Not my post, but here you go anyway; a few articles on how climate models have proven accurate. The last couple are peer reviewed studies, one from 1988 (used in the 1990 IPCC report) and one from 2006 that examined the accuracy of the one from 1988 and found it excellent.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-do-we-know-climate-models-are.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

>> No.2321068

>>2321041
Nice ad-hominem. Herp fucking derp. No citation was provided for the claim made. That's a problem. How the fuck can you claim scientific rigor without seeing the need for appropriate citations?

>> No.2321069

{\bf
bold~post~test!}

>> No.2321072

>>2321067
>What claim haven't I backed up? Lemme know.
The claim that the current stagnation was predicted beforehand. It's not in any of those.

>> No.2321074

>>2321068 No citation was provided for the claim made

Again, let me know what claims I've made you want a citation for, and I'll happily find you one

>> No.2321087

>>2321074
-> >>2321072

>> No.2321092
File: 33 KB, 450x267, ipcc_ar4_model_vs_obs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2321092

>>2321072

...You seriously read all those links and posted a reply in 3 minutes? damn, you're a fast reader. The recent "stagnation" as you put it fell within predicted variability. Here's the IPCC's model plotted against observed temperature

>> No.2321099

OP here. I'm done trolling, this has been fun. You niggers should really learn not to feed so much. Really, wasn't it bloody obvious I was trolling? I ignored pretty much any good argument...

>> No.2321100

>>2320713
>No, I got it directly from the article in Science. Look it up. Why the fuck did you bring ozone into the discussion?
>Why the fuck did you bring ozone into the discussion?
>ozone
>we're talking about global warming

this is where you're stupid, and where i laughed while reading this thread.
>

>> No.2321102

>>2321100
This is where you're feeding me and my tummy is full.

>> No.2321107

>Implying rednecks don't mostly live in deep south.

There are alot of mountain rednecks, but once you remove the bible belt w/ sea rise = game over.

Plus when rednecks see an ocean ports, surfing beaches, and immigrants they turn into liberals.

>> No.2321108

>>2321102
oh troll, you so funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggB33d0BLcY

>> No.2321113

>>2321108
Jesus Christ, it wasn't THAT funny. How can he not know it's a goat btw...

>> No.2321126

>>2321032

"peer review" get thrown out in a lot of discussions as a synonym for "consensus" or "correctness". In the case of climate change a lot of problems I see are with methodology. That doesn't always get picked up on during the "peer review" process. I don't think scientists are deliberately misrepresenting the data, but I do believe there is some confirmation bias going on right now. At least in the way data is processed.
I think the confusion really comes from the alarmists touting the extreme ends of the predictions as certainty, when all they really are is "probable".

>> No.2321129
File: 32 KB, 636x437, article-1162659-03F1FE10000005DC-823_636x437.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2321129

>>2320821
You know that 75% of all air molecules are under a height of 12 kilometers? That's 0.003% of the earth's circumference. The atmosphere is actually very thin and our factories world wide are pumping every hour trough day and night gases into it.

>> No.2321136

>>2321126 In the case of climate change a lot of problems I see are with methodology.

What are these mysterious "problems" specifically?

>> No.2321138

>>2321126
No one is propagating absolute certainty. If you speak to the actual scientists themselves their views are always incredibly nuanced. Even the IPCC ar4 has probability estimates and such. There is however consensus and confirmation bias might be a slight problem, however provocative papers (in the sense that they use good methodology to debunk current views) are a lot easier to publish.

>> No.2321148

>>2320710
>Yup you sure disproved anthropogenic climate change with that argument. (irony)
>irony
You mean sarcasm.

>> No.2321152

There are four major confounding factors in predicting annual temperature over a ~10 year time frame. These are solar irradiance, aerosol levels, greenhouse effects, and ocean/surface interaction. (I'm assuming surface albedo doesn't change much over that time frame, and a few other things. The IPCC report is probably the most accessible thing if you really want to know.)

The solar irradiance part is well-known. All else being equal, it should have contributed to a possible slight warming/neutral effect at the start of that 10 year period, followed by cooling for the rest.

Aerosol levels are not terribly predictable. At the moment, we use fairly simple models for them, but obviously we can't predict volcanic eruptions and so forth all that accurately. Anyway, they're not important here, except that they add to the noise in the predicted data.

The other major variable factor in a 10 year time frame (other than greenhouse gas concentrations) is ocean currents, and in particular the El Nino/La Nina cycles (ENSO), with contributions from smaller cycles like the MJO. And it turns out that we can't yet predict the strength and duration of those all that accurately. (We may never be able to... it's a chaotic system.) This is the major source of error in <10 year models (and why the only people who really talk about climate on <10 year scales are climate denialists). But... and here's the key point... if you leave out ocean cycling or assume that 1998-2008 was the same as the previous cycles, then your models don't predict the "stagnation." If you plug the measured ocean current data from that time frame into any of the major models used today, you get a great reproduction of the observed surface and subsurface temperature data.

>> No.2321155

>>2321152
We just didn't have the data in 1998, so the variability in the predictions over the next decade was high. In particular, the 2007-2008 La Nina is the only reason why those years weren't clearly the hottest on record, but were statistically tied with some other years. Assuming no record-setting La Nina in the next decade, the average temperature will surely rise.

The major problems lately involving ocean circulation have been that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are rising slightly faster than models predict. Basically, the last decade had weird currents that hindered gas absorption. So while it looked like temperature was stabilizing, we're getting ready for a big rebound effect. And this will always happen... the small decadal variations caused by ocean cycles average out in the long term.

>> No.2321165

>>2321092
A beautiful triumph of modern science.

>> No.2321186

>>2321155 Assuming no record-setting La Nina in the next decade, the average temperature will surely rise

This has actually already started - 2009 was the second hottest year on record, and 2010 will end up the hottest year on record once data for the last few months is released:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/hottest-year/#more-3269

>> No.2321203

>>2320733
exactly what I was thinking. A couple of years is not much time to an upward trend

>> No.2321505

>>2321138

not by the scientists, but by the political nuts. "We have to do this because the temperature could rise 6 degrees in the next 30 years, causing destruction and chaos". Well yah it could based on what we know, but we don't know enough and it could only go up by .5 degrees. And that 6 degrees is based on projections in Alaska, not NA wide.
GW isn't an exact science and everyone likes to cherry pick their own data from their own model or study and it's just a pain in the ass frankly.
It's really one of those "is what it is" problems. We can only stop using coal world wide, we can only build so many nukes at a time. And we can only use electric vehicles and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels as fast we can.
meh, I just see this fascination with global warming as a reason to create panic and start gouging the public. I can change my light bulbs to CF's, buy an electric car and run my house off of a windmill and it isn't gong to make any difference as long as there are a billion Chinese and Indians that want electricity and a car to get to work.
The way I see it the scientists have got another 30 years to crunch the numbers and run the models before the World is going to be in any position to make meaningful decisions to help mitigate.
/rant

>> No.2321528

Without "greenhouse gases" the earth would be a lot colder.

There has been a dramatic increase of "greenhouse gases" since the industrial revolution. combustion->CO2, for instance (quite a large amount of CO2 per reaction, especially with gasoline). Understanding exponential growth is really important.

There's scientists, and there's businesspeople dressed up like scientists.

>> No.2321545

because its part of their religion

liberal atheism is a new religion for a new millenium

>> No.2321554

This is a goverment conspiracy

We cant trust the most scientist since they are paid by govement and al gore.

We cant trust NASA since they are piad by goverment.

Its all a liberal scam to hike taxes HURRR DURRR.

I cant belive people still argue about this shit.

>> No.2321605
File: 20 KB, 378x287, pastafariandrawing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2321605

>>2320695
There are no more pirates to kill,
so the Temp stopped rising! Duh!!!

>> No.2321634

>>2321554
>implying scientists arent given money for evidence they DO find for global warming

if you were some retarded womens studies professor or climatologist and your paycheck depends on finding bullshit instead of truth, youd do it too (because youre an atheist and have no honor). why do you think they unionize and have tenure and such? to protect their asses from the wrath of truth, supply and demand, and justice.

>> No.2321777

This thread is a bunch of liberals circle jerking.

>> No.2321799

OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE

>> No.2321821

>>2321777
Politics and science shouldn't mix, and your profound fucking ignorance is the prime example.

>> No.2321838

>>2321821
>ad hominem
Nice one, faggot.

>> No.2321843

>>2321777
reality has a liberal bias.

>> No.2321859

>>2321843
I think you mean homosexuality

>> No.2321893

>>2320695
Fucking lol. I knew it...