[ 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: 37 KB, 614x492, greenpeace-nazi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2439031 No.2439031 [Reply] [Original]

Who else has stopped talking with their non-scientific friends and family about climate change because all they can talk about are liberal talking points with no real understanding about how humans are too insignificant to cause any realistic change to the climate

>> No.2439051

why bother with that, theyre making the world a better place

>> No.2439058

>>2439031

>implying we have friends

>> No.2439061

>>2439051
Destroying the societies economy and ability to progress all for a lie does not help the world

>> No.2439067

>Implying humans can't go extinct

>> No.2439076

6 billion humans, too insignificant to affect the climate, WHAT?

>> No.2439077

>>2439051
A world that deals in lies and manipulation is not a better place. I'd rather live in an honest world with pollution than a dishonest world without it.

>> No.2439106

>>2439077

>I want to live my disgusting, polluting, selfish, consumeristic life at the expense of future generations and the billions of people in the third world without any guilt

>> No.2439113

herp.

science isn't science, because i say so.

derp.

>> No.2439140

>>2439106
Different guy here.
That is definitely preferable to the alternative, living like a wild animal because hippies think that all technology is evil.

>> No.2439150

>>2439140

>and fuck the 3 billion people who DO have to live like wild animals to support my lifestyle

>> No.2439178

>>2439140
well yes, I believe that's the ideal way of life according to librul scum

but it doesn't have to be that way, we can improve our technology to NOT damage the world, and actually take care of stuff like recycling and planting trees, not neccesarily having to live like dogs.

fuck eveyrone who thinks that way by the way

>> No.2439187

Even if global warming was a slight possibility, human rights and freedom should never be trampled on.

>> No.2439192

>>2439150
Your logic:
Send ourselves back to the stone age so nobody has to live in the stone age.
Wait, wat....?

>> No.2439209

>>2439187

First, no humans means no human rights. Second how does fighting climate change fuck with your rights?

>> No.2439211

>>2439178

I think a lot less "librulzzzzz" as you so lovingly call them think that way, of course you're also probably an idiot to begin with since you clearly buy into partisan hate-mongering garbage. What sane person would deny comfort and stability through wise implementation of technology?

>> No.2439218

>>2439209
He thinks global warming will make humans go extinct.
How cute : 3

>> No.2439233

>>2439209
Because the only way to enforce anything to stop so called climate change is to restrict the freedoms of people by telling them what they can and can not do. This only leads to statist tyranny

>> No.2439261

>>2439233
It could, unlike you I don't assume in absolutes

>>2439218
Can you give an example, because technically any government regulation is "statist tyranny" or do you think nuclear non-proliferation tramples your rights?

>> No.2439263

>humans are too insignificant to cause any realistic change to the climate

herp

derp

are you serious?

It's funny how you types are like "fuck yeah humans are the superior lifeforms, fuck nature, fuck animals, we rule over you" but when it comes to the environment you act humble, suddenly humans have no influence over anything. If I'm wrong about this generalization I'm sorry but I really doubt that I am.

>> No.2439269

>>2439233
>> Implying being told what to do is equivalent to violating human rights

A damaged environment is a much harsher tyrant than any human ever could be.

>> No.2439276

>>2439233

Nothing should be regulated! I should be allowed to kill you where you stand because to say I can't would be tyranny!

Don't make such a painfully ambiguous point, what 'freedoms'? Should we have no morals because they constrict freedom? There are rules for a reason.

>> No.2439277

Everyone here: You do know that proposed solutions to the proposed climate change is reduce waste and improve efficiency by every person on the planet, not to get rid of cars, computers and airplanes. How fucking stupid are you people? This isn't some stupid liberal conspiracy, that seems to be the only term you Americans know.

If you yourself are so ignorant about CC, here's where to start:

CH4 + 2O2 -> 2H2O + CO2

Any hydrocarbon burning can be modelled with this and with grade 10 stoiciometry you can predict how much CO2 is released for every mass of hydrocarbon (Octane, Methane, Ethane, Propane etc) burned.

Basic car has a 50L tank, assuming 30% efficiency of internal combustion engine...

Any electrical power has an ever lower efficiency which on the average burned coal just to be generated...

Stop waving your arms around and do some fucking math. /sci/ - Science and Math.

>> No.2439279

>>2439261
Switch quotes

>> No.2439287

>>2439261
I hope you've got a good airconditioner around, because when it's summer the temperature will increase by > 10 degrees C!!!
Don't step outside or you might go extinct

>> No.2439334

>>2439287

Do you not know that people die in the summer heat all the time? Oh of course you do, you're just an arrogant fuck. Maybe you can try to think about other species and how their extinction might affect us. Please stop pretending to be smart.

>> No.2439338

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but what if there hasn't been anything serious done about global warming on purpose? Global warming would actually benefit (with available land, agriculture, access to oil, etc.) the upper north (US, Canada, Europe, Russia), it would reinforce the power structure it has right now over the rest of the world. It seems like most of the climate-caused disasters are happening south of that "region", in developing and third-world countries.

>> No.2439347

My family doesn't believe in AGW op, so I'm safe.

>>2439067
>implying an increase of half a degree celsius will do it

>>2439269
That's the definition of it genius, it's even outlined in the UN charter.

>> No.2439350

>>2439338

And yet it's the developing and third world countries which cause most of the damage and are projected to cause even more.

Are we supposed to stop them from shooting themselves in the foot?

>> No.2439353

oh look, a selfish faggot who can't compartmentalize his participation in a system that severely impacts the biome of the planet with basic decency, you NEVER see that on the internet, by golly!

>> No.2439357

>>2439334
I live in a city that gets upwards of 45 degrees C in the summer.
I can tell you straight that only morons die because of heat. And animals are generally unaffected.

>> No.2439361

You're on /sci/ arguing against Climate Change. What do you think the scientists are playing a joke on the rest of the world or something?

>> No.2439368

climate change is a serious problem, but it's not going to severely affect the industrialized world.
it's just the poors and browns that'll probably starve to death from loss of farmland and nitrogen-enriched fertilizers. (but they're not white so capital doesn't care about that)

>> No.2439373

>>2439347
There is practically nobody in the whole entire world who would not be killed or locked up if they did not do what they were told.

This isn't tyranny, it is civilization.

>> No.2439391

>>2439361
Yeah because all scientists agree on global warming.

>> No.2439399

>>2439391
Yes, pretty much, what's your point?

>> No.2439400

>>2439350
I couldn't care less if they were shooting themselves in the foot. But they are not, they are shooting themselves and everyone around them in the knees.

>> No.2439403

>>2439368

That's the problem, the conservafags haven't yet realized that the darkies will come for them when the food runs low in low and middle income countries. Take heed conservafags, for the brown people cometh.

>> No.2439407

>>2439373
The proposed method of dealing with "carbon" is to institute a carbon tax. What exactly happens when I refuse to pay this tax?

>> No.2439412

>>2439407
you'll rightfully go to prison and people will have fun with you there.

>> No.2439414

>>2439391

No only the credible ones

>> No.2439417

>>2439350

No, they don't cause the most damage at the moment, but you're right to say that they could in the future.

It's a "do as I say, not as I do" thing. Developing countries see first-world countries using carbon fuels (or having used oil at some point) to bring prosperity, and they think "They used carbon fuels, why can't we? Why can't we be prosperous too?" They're just adding to the problem, of course, but from their perspective they are simply doing what others have done. It's hard to convince someone to not do an act that you yourself are doing, even though you know that the act is harmful.

>> No.2439419

Keep /new/ out of /sci/

>> No.2439420
File: 6 KB, 246x251, 1254779938618.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2439420

>>2439399
>Yes, pretty much

>> No.2439422

>>2439403
The food is already low in Africa to the point that much of their population is starving.
So.... where are those marauding Africans come to steal my food?
Hmmm, I guess it's just taking them a while to swim here

>> No.2439424

>>2439407

You get Wesley Sniped

>> No.2439429

Nice try.

>> No.2439435

>>2439422
no they're too busy being slaughtered and raped by mercenaries hired by corporations mining for coltan.
you'll get yours soon enough, though. there are enough non-whites in the US and Europe to take care of you.

>> No.2439437

ITT:
>media is the only credible source i need!

>> No.2439438

>>2439407

Cap and trade is not a carbon tax by any means, though I do think that a carbon tax would be more effective. That and eliminating all subsidies given to producers of carbon fuels.

>> No.2439440

>>2439422

Sarcasm is lost on you.

>> No.2439446

>>2439419
>/new/ doesn't exist

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT

>> No.2439447

>>2439420
Yeah, pretty much...

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

> Anderegg W.R.L., Prall J.W., Harold J., Schneider S.H. (2010-06-21). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMID 20566872. PMC 2901439.
> a b c Kintisch E. (June 21, 2010). "Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper". Science Insider. AAAS.

>> No.2439461

>>2439403
>white countries turn brown countries into shitholes
>whites get pissed off when the browns move into their countries

every time

>> No.2439462

This is what happens when /new/ is elliminated and instead comes to sci. All the bad ideas come over here.
We are a civilisation powerful enough to destroy its self. Nukes are the extreme example. Climate change is a less violent way, but if we try hard enough, I know we can fuck ourselves over. We just have to push harder.
There are mountains of scientific evidence saying that the environment is going to be fucked soon, and even more evidence that thats going to fuck US over soon. I don't know any sereous scientist who thinks that climate change is a lie. Especially not a scientist in a relevant field.
There are also ways to be more reasonable without living like animals. And with tech, consumer liability and governament action, we'll stave off the impending environmental clusterfuck.
pretty straitforward

>> No.2439466

>>2439447
Back in the day 99% of scientists believed the world was flat.
ORLY? YRLY!

>> No.2439471

>>2439466

Are you even trying?

>> No.2439473

>>2439422
>he STILL thinks there is a food shortage, and not simply a bunch of warlords starving people to keep themselves in power

seriously, this is why you shouldn't donate money to starving children. you're only funding the fucking warlords.
america, stop fucking around in the middle east. go fix africa instead.

>> No.2439476

>>2439447
and the only ones that disagree are assholes like Edward Teller (who finally died, that fucking lich) and "scientists" who's degrees are in economics or physics.

>> No.2439479

I can't wait for the new janitors to get to /sci/.

Faggot OP's thread would be deleted.

>> No.2439483

>>2439466
I do not actually know of a single person who could be considered a scientist in the modern sense who believed the world was flat. Even the ancient Greeks knew better.

What does this have to do with global warming again?

>> No.2439489

I am very pleased by the people that came out of the woodwork to refute this OP asshole. Thank you so much, you give me faith in humanity.

>> No.2439494

>>2439483
That popularity of a belief does not mean it is correct.

>> No.2439499

>>2439466

You're an idiot, even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round, and Christopher Columbus believed it enough to risk falling over the edge of the world. News flash Medieval Bishops forcing church doctrine on a whole continent at the tip of a sword does not mean 99% of scientists believed it was flat.

>> No.2439504

>>2439466
>There is a dragon in my garage
> I don't see it
> It's invisible
> Ok, lets put some flour on the ground to see its foot prints
> It floats in the air
> Hmm, lets spray paint it
> Its permiable to paint

You cannot first imply there is no consensus, then confronted with evidence for such consensus claim that it doesn't matter anyway.

>> No.2439509

>>2439489

/sci/ has a lot of quality posters who actually know what they are talking about, compared to most other boards (especially /new/). They get trolled easy but they aren't retarded.

>> No.2439511

>>2439504
There's more than one person in this thread you know

>> No.2439515

>>2439447
That has already been debunked, they excluded all the dissenting voices with stat tricks.

>> No.2439518
File: 116 KB, 576x459, flat-earth1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2439518

>implying earth isn't flat

>> No.2439523

>>2439509
Well thank you anyway. I hope you are happy and good things happen to you.

>> No.2439526
File: 33 KB, 400x296, 759-al-gore-fire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2439526

GTFO my internet!

>> No.2439529

>>2439494

You're right, it's about evidence, and all the evidence is on global warming's side.

>> No.2439535

>>2439466
>implying scientists ever thought the world was flat
scientists always knew the world was round. That was figured out pre-scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

>> No.2439537

>>2439529
No sorry, you're wrong.

>> No.2439539

>>2439515

Source?

>> No.2439543

>>2439526
Which one of your 12 jets should I take?

>>2439529
Big difference between global warming, and MAN MADE global warming
The globe has been warming since the holocene optimum dumbass

>> No.2439545

>>2439511

So? The citation was given to prove there is a consensus. It is obvious the reply was meant as a last gasp of somebody who didn't believe there was a consensus. It was retarded no matter who made it.

That specific reply was retarded on so many levels... I probably pointed out the least of its problems.

>> No.2439547

>>2439537
pretty sure evidence is on the side of global warming. Maybe i listen to too many "silly ol' science people" with their "big elitist secrecy", but all reliable evidence i have overseen says climate change is legit happening.

>> No.2439558

>>2439537
pretty sure its about evidence. Unless you mean to say that there's no evidence. Except im pretty sure evidence has been shown already in this thread. Show evidence AGAINST climate change then.

>> No.2439559

Even if scientists did think the world was flat, that is a pretty good first hypothesis. What made them scientists was the ability to change their mind as soon as they were confronted with evidence.

Such as why there is a horizon.

>> No.2439577
File: 533 KB, 1207x897, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2439577

>>2439466
"I know those numbers to be true, I pulled them out directly from my ass!"

>> No.2439578

>>2439543

The difference between cyclical warmings and man-made global warming is the trend. The warming is happening far too fast for it to be just part of the natural cycle. There is no factor other than the advent of carbon fuels that can explain it. It's not the sun, it's not cosmic rays, it's humans.

>> No.2439587

>>2439466
lol wtf?
Greeks measured the circumference of the earth with a stick

>> No.2439591

>>2439515
>>2439539

Seriously dude, I want a source, come back.

>> No.2439597

>>2439578
Not to mention that we have evidence for human action affecting the climate change. Test have shown Carbon to help keep our atmosphere hot, along with other chemicals that are definitely released by human action. Assuming you believe those mainstreamers who say burning shit produces carbon dioxide and monoxide.

>> No.2439601

>>2439558
for anyone who isn't just asserting their own bias, here is a ton of information and links.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

>> No.2439606

>>2439578
We don't have enough datapoints to declare that, and even if we did you could at best prove correlation without causation. And no, you can't assume without grounds that humans or even carbon is to blame.

You sure it isn't the sun (of which we don't have a good record)? Or maybe the huge ozone hole heating the coldest places on earth way more than is normal?

Making statements and believing in things without solid data already has a name, it's called religion.

>> No.2439618

>>2439606
>We don't have enough datapoints to declare that, and even if we did you could at best prove correlation without causation.

And you base this statement on?...

>> No.2439620

>>2439591
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Expert+credibility+in+climate+change%22+debunked

>> No.2439623

>>2439618
What... I'm not supposed to prove a negative, you're supposed to prove the positive.

>> No.2439625

>>2439606
Protip: probability can never provide a causal mechanism

The only way to establish cause is to do experiments. But guess what, we don't have multiple Earths with human civilizations to do experiments with.

But not accepting that stats only provides correlation but never causation leads to funny conclusions like: Cancer causes people to smoke.

Captcha: SOCRATES: fortedwi

>> No.2439637

The field of science isn't as objective as most people think it is. It is certainly not a holy cow.

Science with money behind it fares even worse.

>> No.2439639

>97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
>the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

So it's been shown that researchers who deny the consensus don't get as mush research funds from politicized grant boards, while those who do toe the line get plenty of grants ,and therefore gain more prestige and time spent researching climate change, just for the implicit expectation that they produce "research" that convinces governments that they need to spend more on said research creating more grants that funds more research that tells the government that climate change is a threat and therefore needs more funding ad infinitum? Not to mention the vast power needed to "mitigate" climate change would entail would be right up these authoritarians alley.

What's your point?

>> No.2439641

>>2439606
>Making statements and believing in things without solid data

Since when the data aren't solid?

>> No.2439642

>>2439620
So, somebody makes a assertion that two scientific studies into the consensus behind AGW have been debunked, meaning that there should be an equivalent scientific paper that debunked it, which they should have readily available to cite... but it is up to us to find it on the Internet amongst all the bullshit about global warming?

No thanks. That just goes to show that no actual debunking ever happened.

>> No.2439643

>>2439620

nothing peer reviewed?

lol science deniers are cute.

>> No.2439651

>>2439623
You are not suppose to dismiss all the exiting data by simply stating they don't exist.

>> No.2439689

>>2439606
>We don't have enough datapoints to declare that

Yes we do, there's plenty of climate data of the last century, and the historical data shows that the warming trends have never been as drastic as the one we are currently experiencing.

>And no, you can't assume without grounds that humans or even carbon is to blame.

See >>2439597, the greenhouse effect is well-known and we also know that human actions (such as burning carbon fuels) produce greenhouse gases.

>You sure it isn't the sun (of which we don't have a good record)?

The sun's energy output hasn't been increasing at a fast enough rate to explain the trend. Is it contributing in some way? Maybe, but not enough.

>Or maybe the huge ozone hole heating the coldest places on earth way more than is normal?

It's interesting that you say that, because that would still mean the warming was human-caused, but no, it doesn't add up. Again, it could have a partial influence.

>Making statements and believing in things without solid data already has a name, it's called religion.

Climate "skepticism" is far more faith-based than climate science.

>> No.2439691

>>2439625
>>2439625
Experiments have already been done which shows the warming effect of greenhouse gases and they were done a long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

>> No.2439718
File: 87 KB, 600x400, up6yu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2439718

>99 posts
>nobody has posted this image

>> No.2439742

Hurp durp humans are too insignificant to cause any real change to climate

>Apparently, whether he knew it or not, Genghis Khan's invasions of the 13th and 14th centuries were so sweeping, it "may have been the first instance in history of a single culture causing man-made climate change," marvels enviro-journalist Bryan Nelson.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255473#ixzz1CTWjdK6r

>> No.2439780

>>2439742

Showing once again how much of a badass Genghis Khan was.