/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3741400]

So; climate change.

I live in Australia, and I'm getting more and more irritated by how many people are falling for the denialist propaganda we're being bombarded with in our media (for those of you who don't know, our government is trying to institute a carbon tax, so CO2 producing industries are spending billions on "Global warming is a hoax!" type advertisements, leaflets, astroturfed protests and the like). Many of my co-workers and friends, people who are usually of a scientific bent, have become deniers, and daily try to convince me of it with all the fervor of the recently converted.

It's just depressing. Tell people "There's a conspiracy to make you believe X!" and otherwise smart people will start to doubt it, even if it has enormous amounts of evidence backing it up, and every reputable scientific body on earth accepts it as fact. Where did this distrust of science come from? Is it this bad in the rest of the world, or is my country filled with anti-intellectual morons?

[Anonymous No.3741404]

Go back to /jp/, Sudo

[Anonymous No.3741425]

most people have begun to understand that the only effective solution we have to the problem requires some percentage of the population to die. They don't want to die, so they ignore the problem and let the environment ultimately decide who lives and who doesn't.

it's actually a fairly elegant solution so long as we ignore collateral damage, and ultimately it's the only planned action humans are capable of as groups- last minute reaction.

[Anonymous No.3741429]

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE

The guy in the video pretty much says "The people who study it seem to think it's happening, and if it is, the consequences are apocalyptic, so surely even taking precautions against it is the logical route, even if you personally disagree with the science", and the comments are filled with retards saying "LOL, THAT'S PASCALS WAGER!!" and "BUT LOOK AT THIS YOOTOOB LINK THAT TOTALLY PROVES ITS A CONSPIRACY!!".

How the fuck did we get to a point where simply accepting the scientific consensus is objectionable?

[Anonymous No.3741440]

>>3741429
other than the fact that they're wrong, what's your complaint?

do you believe anything we do right now will have any effect on the outcome?

if you roll carbon emissions back to 1930's levels we're still adding co2 to the atmosphere, we're still fucked. Only difference is now we're much more uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.3741443]

>>3741400
I take it you wouldn't agree with respectable conservative columnists such as Andrew Bolt, who make valid points about the climate change tax not achieving anything?

[Anonymous No.3741445]

Hm... wasn't it like that it is easy to predict that "something" will happen, but it's hard to predict what exactly will happen?
Does anyone here have reliable resources for information on findings who also wants to share this with us here (So, disregarding the distorted media publications)?

[Anonymous No.3741460]

>>3741443
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NDfwkr8hig

watch this video. Be objective about it, don't just disagree cause hurr durr it's Andrew Bolt and he's so RiGhT WiNg

[Anonymous No.3741468]

>>3741443
sure, though I don't think climate is going to be much of a problem. We have much more pressing concerns atm.

[Anonymous No.3741471]

>>3741440 other than the fact that they're wrong, what's your complaint?

They're managing to swing public opinion against science. They're telling people "scientists are lying to you", and people are believing it. You don't see how that is worth complaining about?

>>3741443 I take it you wouldn't agree with respectable conservative columnists such as Andrew Bolt, who make valid points about the climate change tax not achieving anything?

No, he's pretty much 100% right - Australia's CO2 output is negligible compared to the amount put out by the rest of the world, so this tax itself will accomplish nothing. It's the tragedy of the commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Acting responsibly will gain us nothing, as other, shittier countries will continue to act irresponsibly.

[Anonymous No.3741474]

>>3741443
respectable conservative columnists such as Andrew Bolt

[Anonymous No.3741484]

>>3741471
Dropping into the discussion right now, I would agree with this. The major point is not if global warming is true or not, nor the taxes, nor Ausfailia's output, but the fact that corporations are using the media to make people believe that "just because it's science and most accomplished scientists agree with it and there is ample evidence, doesn't mean that it is true or even believable or even credible".
From this to intelligent design it's pretty much a stone's throw.

[Anonymous No.3741499]

>>3741471
Taking a step forward in putting a price on carbon and promoting industries that are less carbon intensive will encourage both private and public enterprise to take more steps in decreasing carbon emission.

If one country takes the step, many more will follow suit.

[Anonymous No.3741505]

The only thing that annoys me about the people who push for change is that they put so much stress on CO2 while there's many other ways in which we affect the climate.

Other than that, the denialists sound like a mix between creationists and flat earth society members, every time one says 'but we humans are much too small to affect the earth with anything we do!' with a straight face I'm all like notsureifsrs.jpg

[Anonymous No.3741530]

Good to see a post like OP's. I too am an aussie sciency-type very worried by the same things as OP. This whole thing is way beyong ridiculous. At least at the uni i go to they make an effort to properly educate us science students about this; how and why this denialism arises, the issue of public certainty about global warming decreasing while scientific certainty increases etc, why the various claims people try to make against it is wrong and just silly etc. Still have the lecture slides in pdf if anyone wants a nice overview of all this.

[Anonymous No.3741550]

>>3741499

In other words, there is nothing we can do in practical measures to halt climate change, it's far too late, so all we have left are symbolic measures.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3741561]

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

show them project steve.

[Anonymous No.3741567]

>Contribute less than 2% of total carbon emissions
>Ohshitletstaxeverythingfuck

[Anonymous No.3741592]

>I'm getting more and more irritated by how many people are falling for the denialist propaganda we're being bombarded with in our media
I was with you until I realized that you were on the opposite side.

Let me first bring up one minor point to consider.

Global warming turned from science into politics when it's name was turned into "climate change".

Think about the terms a bit. Climate has changed throughout earth's history and will continue to vary. "Climate change" indicates to a layman that the weather is changing.

"Global warming" indicates that the globe is slowly turning into a warmer place to be.

Where's the practical difference between the two terms? The original global warming theory stated that man-made CO2-emissions cause an increase in temperature. General increase can be attributed to global warming. "Climate change" just means that there's a some sort of change in climate, which can be attributed to man-made CO2-emissions. All sorts of weather changes can be attributed to "climate change" without proving any sort of causation between the two. There's a big theoretical difference between the two terms.

Now for my main point:
How does taxing people and redistributing the money globally (through organisations which are lobbying "awareness" of climate change) lower CO2-emissions? It's nothing but a scheme to take money from suckers who want to feel better about themselves.

[Jorgen von Strangle !!mgMKicKl27e No.3741627]

>climate change agreed to happen
>instead of looking for ways to stop it or lessen the effects, taxtaxtaxtax
>implying the money from the carbon tax will actually go toward climate-based projects
>implying this isn't just another excuse for a tax
>implying the government gives a shit

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3741634]

>>3741592
If the tax money was used for algae farms, we could reduce the atmospheric and oceanic co2 levels. For as little as 22 billion dollars, the entire human output could be offset.

[Anonymous No.3741636]

>>3741592 Global warming turned from science into politics when it's name was turned into "climate change".

The terms are referring to similar interrelated phenomenon. "Global Warming" refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, and "Climate Change" refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. Look at the graph. That's the usage of both terms in books published in the United States over the past 40 years (data from Google Books). Do you see any sign of one replacing the other?

This is the sort of denialist propaganda OP was bitching about. You don't even realize you've been taken in, yet you're confidently dismissing widely accepted scientific theories based on some bullshit talking point you heard on talk radio.

[Anonymous No.3741656]

>>3741636
> "Global Warming" refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, and "Climate Change" refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature.

wtf is the difference faggot

[Anonymous No.3741671]

>implying the earth getting hotter isn't the normal direction of climate change

>implying the earth wasn't shittons hotter than it is now during various periods in the past

>implying the climate doesn't fluctuate like crazy between ice age and global sauna.

>implying climate change/global warming isn't just a kneejerk reaction by people who think change of any kind is bad and earth should be the way it is now forever.

[Anonymous No.3741675]

>>3741592 "Climate change" just means that there's a some sort of change in climate, which can be attributed to man-made CO2-emissions

OP here. This guy OBVIOUSLY knows nothing about climate science (he's utterly ignorant of the meaning of the most basic terminology), yet he's confident enough in his position to dismiss the collective opinion of the world's climatologists.

It's crazy. Utterly pants-shittingly insane. And yet, I run into people like this every goddamn day. What the fuck is wrong with the world?

[Anonymous No.3741679]

>implying the earth getting hotter isn't normal

>implying the earth wasn't shittons hotter than it is now during various periods in the past

>implying the climate doesn't fluctuate like crazy between ice age and global sauna.

>implying climate change/global warming isn't just a kneejerk reaction by people who think change of any kind is bad and earth should be the way it is now forever.

[Anonymous No.3741683]

>>3741656 wtf is the difference faggot

One is referring to a phenomenon, the other to the effects of that phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.3741690]

>>3741636
nice try, but since the graph refers to academic books instead of media use, it's irrelevant to what i was talking about. the minor point was (and is) that "climate change" (unlike "global warming) can be used to a layman without making him wonder why there hasn't been a significant warm-up in the past 20 years, altough the "omg worlds gonna end in [10-20 years from now on] if we dont combat co2 emissions RIGHT NOW" hysteria started around the early 1990s. "global warming" is a term which, when used in the media, indicates constant change for one direction. "climate change" is a term which can be used in the media whenever the weather changes or there's a rare natural phenomena, e.g. a hurricane.

>yet you're confidently dismissing widely accepted scientific theories based on some bullshit talking point you heard on talk radio
ad hominem based on a caricature you've formed in your head

thx to pascal for a good suggestion, i'm sure that there are plenty of other similar methods chemistry or biology majors can think of. this would be a sane, rational use of money collected through CO2-taxes.

i'd like to see if someone wants to adress the major point. how does redistributing money globally from rich countries to poor countries reduce CO2-emissions?

[Anonymous No.3741691]

>>3741679
>>3741671

Read this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

The current warming is not part of a natural cycle.

[Anonymous No.3741696]

>>3741656

Glabal warming was an erroneous assumption that excess gh gases would result in elevated global temperatures, while climate change accounts for fluctuations in weather patterns accross different regions.

Basically scientists don't have a fucking clue what's happening.

[Anonymous No.3741704]

ITT: faggots frightened of temp increase cling to science to rationalize something they cannot understand.

[Anonymous No.3741707]

>>3741690 nice try, but since the graph refers to academic books instead of media use, it's irrelevant to what i was talking about

Ooh, goalpost-moving, what a surprise. You said that there was some sort of conspiracy to switch from "global warming" to "climate change", despite the terms having both existed for decades and despite them referring to different things.

>>3741690 i'd like to see if someone wants to adress the major point. how does redistributing money globally from rich countries to poor countries reduce CO2-emissions?

This is a goddamn textbook example of a loaded question. Obviously nobody thinks it would.

[Anonymous No.3741714]

>>3741690 nice try, but since the graph refers to academic books instead of media use, it's irrelevant to what i was talking about

Ooh, goalpost-moving, what a surprise. You said that there was some sort of conspiracy to switch from "global warming" to "climate change", despite the terms having both existed for decades and despite them referring to different things.

>>3741690 i'd like to see if someone wants to adress the major point. how does redistributing money globally from rich countries to poor countries reduce CO2-emissions?

This is a goddamn textbook example of a loaded question. Obviously nobody thinks it would.

[Anonymous No.3741728]

>>3741400
Is climate change your religion? I don't see why you fail to accept opposition to anthropogenic climate change as a valid point of view, other than for religious purposes. Consider, for example (and this is one in a million points to go against anthropogenic climate change) the unquestionably considerable advances in technology developed in the past 100 years; consider in particular the advances in the production in energy, with a focus on the potential prospects of the nearing nuclear fusion. Now please consider what could be done with this vast source of energy. Is counteracting the negative side effects of anthropogenic climate change not among them? Please remember that we are generating more energy at this point than the sun provides us. Now why is your climate change a problem? What about it is in any sense problematic to our new high energy society? Please note at this point that society has continually advanced its energy generation in exactly this way since the beginning of humankind - if you suggest that this won't happen you are the 'denier' and you must provide reasoning why human advancement should suddenly come to a halt.Now please note that the slowing of scientific and economic processes forced upon us by the consideration of anthropogenic climate change will slow and possibly entirely halt this process.

Why should I care about climate change?

Please not that I am entirely open minded here, I'm not a denier and I'm not an alarmist, I'm a mathematician and none of these things really mean a lot to me I have no family to take care of and I have no obligations to life, if you provide evidence against my point that I can't refute I will at the drop of a hat change my view - I am in no way emotionally invested and I want no more to be proven right than wrong.

[Anonymous No.3741731]

Global warming is fucking nonsense, its global cooling we should all be shitting ourselves about. Just sayin...

[Anonymous No.3741738]

Why cant people get it through their thick skulls that the tax will ruin our major industries and then in turn fuck us all up economicly. The amounts of co2 australia prodruces is infintismall compared to that of china, india and china.

This tax would only potentially work if it was global.

[Anonymous No.3741740]

>>3741443

>respectable
>Andrew Bolt

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3741758]

>>3741738

>Why cant people get it through their thick skulls that the tax will ruin our major industries and then in turn fuck us all up economicly.

Talk about alarmism! Where is your evidence of *that*?

>The amounts of co2 australia prodruces is infintismall compared to that of china, india and china.

Not per capita. I'm sure all those poor people must be delighted when someone who generates way more pollution than they do tells them to clean up their act first.

With your attitude, nothing would ever get done, because there's always "someone else" who can be blamed for not doing enough.

[Anonymous No.3741759]

>>3741728 I want no more to be proven right than wrong

OP here, I would fucking love to be proven wrong. Most of our cooler technology only exists because of fossil fuels, and it's a goddamn shame that using fossil fuels is damaging our environment. I'd certainly be happier if we could pollute without consequence.

>>3741728 Is climate change your religion?...Please not that I am entirely open minded here

Yeah, you really, really sound open minded. Do you think people who accept evolution as a scientific fact have evolution as their religion?

[Anonymous No.3741760]

>>3741728
Well Mr Mathematician, I fear that you might have missed the point entirely.
The argument here is that climatologists have warned us that we, through our inconsiderate release of certain gasses into the atmosphere the biosphere may become difficult to live in for the future generations. That is all, preservation of human species for all time to come.

[Anonymous No.3741773]

>>3741759
No, I just think people who outline their ideas like "...more and more irritated by how many people are falling for the denialist propaganda" are probably religiously invested in their view point... Please ignore the internet insult though, I didn't actually mean that your religion suggested that, I just meant that you were arguing with the passion of a religious.

[Anonymous No.3741791]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/31/308528/scientist-the-murdoch-media-empire-has-cost-humanity
-perhaps-one-or-two-decades-of-time-in-the-battle-against-climate-change/

[Anonymous No.3741792]

>>3741728

>Please remember that we are generating more energy at this point than the sun provides us.

You're joking, right? Do you have any idea how much energy from the Sun Earth receives every second?

>Now why is your climate change a problem? What about it is in any sense problematic to our new high energy society?

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that our society passed some kind of a threshold where things like drought and floods don't matter anymore?

[Anonymous No.3741796]

>>3741592

>Global warming turned from science into politics when it's name was turned into "climate change".

In 1956, Gilbert Plass published his famous paper, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of <span class="math">Climatic~Change[/spoiler]."

In 1975, Wally Broecker publishes "<span class="math">Climatic Change[/spoiler]: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced <span class="math">Global Warming[/spoiler]?"

In 1977, the journal Climate Change was established. Eleven years later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created.

In 2002, political strategist Frank Luntz advised the Bush administration to use the words "climate change" in all official communications because it sounds less threatening than "global warming."

Who is doing the politicizing here?

>How does taxing people and redistributing the money globally (through organisations which are lobbying "awareness" of climate change) lower CO2-emissions? It's nothing but a scheme to take money from suckers who want to feel better about themselves.

Increase in tax on carbon-emitting fuels and energy sources = greater market incentive to develop and switch to alternatives

Hurf durf how do i shot ECO100

[Anonymous No.3741804]

>>3741592

>Global warming turned from science into politics when it's name was turned into "climate change".

In 1956, Gilbert Plass published his famous paper, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of <span class="math">Climatic~Change.[/spoiler]"

In 1975, Wally Broecker publishes "<span class="math">Climatic~Change[/spoiler]: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced GlobalWarming?"

In 1977, the journal Climate Change was established. Eleven years later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created.

In 2002, political strategist Frank Luntz advised the Bush administration to use the words "climate change" in all official communications because it sounds less threatening than "global warming."

Who is doing the politicizing here?

>How does taxing people and redistributing the money globally (through organisations which are lobbying "awareness" of climate change) lower CO2-emissions? It's nothing but a scheme to take money from suckers who want to feel better about themselves.

Increase in tax on carbon-emitting fuels and energy sources = greater market incentive to develop and switch to alternatives

Hurf durf how do i shot ECO100

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3741809]

Climate change is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.3741811]

I think most of the resistance is about politics. People hate Al Gore's political shenanigans, and attacking climate science is just part of the backlash.

[Anonymous No.3741829]

>>3741811

>hate Al Gore

Al Gore is like the ultimate strawman

He is incredibly evil, extremely devious, and a corrupt lawbreaker. The evidence of all this? Fuck evidence, blind hatred is where the shit's at

Therefore global warming is a hoax, Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.3741858]

>>3741829

You might think this is funny, but there are people who actually believe this.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3741864]

>>3741759

Iys not really the fossil fuels fault. We are just putting more into thw air than we are taking out. We just need to start sequestering carbon.

[Anonymous No.3741878]

>>3741858

Oh, I know that already. Republicans absolutely hate war vets. Look what happened to poor John McCain.

[Anonymous No.3741899]

Oh OP, im an ausfag too and i feel your pain

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3741910]

>>3741899
You mean butthurt?

[Anonymous No.3741936]

>>3741728

>Is climate change your religion?

Do you torture and kill small animals?

>nuclear fusion.

Wake me up when it's 50 years away from commercial viability.

>Please remember that we are generating more energy at this point than the sun provides us.

Total energy consumption by human beings: 16 TW

Total energy reaching Earth from the Sun: 173,000 TW

>Please note at this point that society has continually advanced its energy generation in exactly this way since the beginning of humankind

Inexorably towards fusion? That doesn't follow. The primary source of today's energy is still fossil fuels in spite of all the supposed benefits of other sources.

Your argument seems to be "energy production has increased continuously, therefore energy production will always increase continuously." This is logically fallacious. Nor does it deal with, you know, the whole issue with the enhanced greenhouse effect due to fossil fuel emissions.

>I am in no way emotionally invested and I want no more to be proven right than wrong.

As a mathematician, you sure do suck at logic. Not emotionally invested? Is that why you use non sequitur arguments and loaded questions? Why haven't you done any real research on the subject before shitposting on the internet?

[Anonymous No.3742070]

>>3741691

Bull fucking shit.

We are still very much on the upswing from the last ice age. I would bet money that even if humans weren't here, the globe would still be getting warmer. Maybe humans are making it raise faster. But the arguement that humans are the only thing making it warmer is complete and utter shit.

Fuck this is the kind of thing that drives me nuts as a geologist. Everyone wants to argue for black and white answers to why things happen the way they do, or why things we find in the rocks are they way they are. When if you stand back and look, both sides make logical points on how something works, and that you can very likely have both working to give the final result.

But yes, the question at hand. Is the climate changing? 100% sure without a doubt. The climate is in a constant change of flux. Is it following a warming trend? That seems to be what the data says. Are humans the root singular cause? Of course not. Are humans increasing the rate of change? Possibly.

The earth has been in a very distinct warming cycle for the past 10000 years. We still have quite a ways to go before we get as warm as the last interglacial maximum. We have an even longer ways to go to reach the maximum temperatures that existed during the mesozoic.

[Anonymous No.3742073]

>>3741400

There was a psych study that came out a few years ago that showed that people have a built-in resistance to changing their opinion, even when an expert offers their position.

For example, James Hansen (NASA) gets arrested for protesting GW/Co2/KeystoneXL, says straight into camera, we must stop CO2 now.

Even though hes an expert with an imeccable pedigree and is touting the expert opinion of thousands of scientists and researchers, the average person will not say, "yes, you know more than me therefore I accept your conclusion and will act accordingly."

The average person tends to believe they know more than experts.

IF you were to go on national TV and explain how fucking oppressive it is to live through the Australian drought, the idiot on the other side of the TV box will take the information in, and, instead of seeing you as the expert and himself as student, he will tend to believe that he is the expert, and you are not, and likely feel a desire to lecture you on what kind of air-conditioner to buy, or other tips straight from his ego.

[Anonymous No.3742086]

>>3742070 Case in point: 'Geologist' believes he is the expert; gives us his pithy advice.

[Anonymous No.3742111]

>>3742070

>But the arguement that humans are the only thing making it warmer is complete and utter shit.

Then it's a good thing that nobody within the scientific community is actually making this argument.

[Anonymous No.3742132]

>>3742070

Alright mister Geologist, now please calculate the trend of temperature change from Glacial Maximum to Minimum and compare it with the trend in the recent decades.

[Anonymous No.3742160]

>>3742086

To be fair here, I do thing we should cut down on CO2. It couldn't hurt. I also think that we (in the US) should move more towards running our cars off natural gas because it burns cleaner and we have an amazing amount of it available. I also think we should move more towards nuclear power and away from oil/gas/coal for electricity.

I am, however, skeptical of someone who claims the only reason the climate is getting warmer is because of the actions humans have taken. The earth has been very warm in the past. The earth has been very cold in the past. Sea levels have gone much higher in the past. Sea levels have been much lower in the past. The earth has never gone into a heating or cooling trend that it has never come back out of. There are many things that can change such as the positions of the continents, the ocean currents, the position of the earth's orbit in its procession around the sun, etc. All of these can have a very huge impact on climate. Which also has an effect on how rocks are deposited, and what kind of rocks are deposited. When someone gives a very focused answer on the climate change, and it happens to be one that has the possibility of involving alot of money, I become skeptical.

Also, its not nice to talk down to people because of their specialty, asshat. I am published, and I teach at a university, so I am not some dumbass spouting facts he saw on TV. Anyway, I probably wont give another response for a while, as I have to go teach now.

[Anonymous No.3742167]

>>3742160
>I am, however, skeptical of someone who claims the only reason the climate is getting warmer is because of the actions humans have taken.
Nobody is claiming that, you ignorant fuck.

[Anonymous No.3742239]

>>3742073
I don't consider myself an expert on climate change and I don't think I have any credentials to say whether it is real or not.

Here's my problem with Al Gore's movement, however. The IPCC is hardly an unbiased organization, yet it has a very large influence over the scientific field. This rarely produces a healthy scientific environment. In schools in my country, they would show kids The Day After Tomorrow, in "science" class, when discussing global warming. Obviously, this isn't what any climate scientist would want, but it is due to a political climate where global warming is held to be practically tautological. Is it? Well, maybe so, but even some of the best ideas in science have been shown to be wrong in the past, due to mistakes, insufficient rigor, or by simply not reflecting reality.

It is also a quite slippery slope to tell people to listen to experts. Who is an expert exactly? I think we can all agree that we should have respect for knowledge, but authority is a whole different story. No scientific advances have ever been made by someone just following the experts. Now, the average viewer is obviously not a scientist, most ideas they have are probably wrong, but IF global warming is not mainly due to human activities, then we won't find out by not considering it. After all, the most important experiments are the ones that falsify the theory, not the ones that verify it.

Then there's of course the issue of politics. Global warming probably is true, but even assuming we know it is, what can we do about it? Carbon taxes? Meat taxes? Where do we take the money and where does the money go? The only way of making sure that less CO2 and methane were released into the atmosphere would be if the entire planet cooperated to force the population to use less of them. I doubt the politicians' cars and private jets would be the first to go.

I'd like to think I'm not an anti-intellectual moron, but maybe holding this view makes me one in your eyes.

[Anonymous No.3742302]

>>3742239

>IPCC
>Al Gore's movement

You've lost a lot of credibility right there.

[Anonymous No.3742319]

>>3742160
Not to sound demeaning or patronizing, but do you know what "clean burning" means? Simply, it does not have as many impurities as the common fuel (e.g. coal contains sulfur, nitrogen, arsenic, selenium, copper, and other metals you would not want your child getting into).

Now, since the topic is on greenhouse gasses, focusing on carbon dioxide, what does any organic compound give off when burned? Water and carbon dioxide. Now the question is "what is the energy density of natural gas compared to our current gasoline fuel for, as you give an example as, our cars?"

tr;dl: clean burning means few impurities, burning (organic) fuel means releasing carbon dioxide

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3742326]

>>3742160
Its warmer than ever. we are suppposed to be entering a cold cycle. Sunspot activity is at a record low. Thoigh that last one only has a few hundred years of records.

[Anonymous No.3742348]

>>3742302
I didn't say IPCC was Al Gore's movement. Certainly IPCC has far more scientific credibility than Al Gore. I don't believe it is unfair to make a connection between them, however, seeing as they shared the Nobel Prize.

[Anonymous No.3742362]

I believe that the IPCC reports represent the best estimate we have of the present and future trends in climate change. The planet is getting warmer, and it's likely due mostly to anthropogenic CO2.

I don't agree with the politicized "solutions" being pushed by Al Gore et al. I hardly even see discussions of the effects predicted by the IPCC. It's just "oh noes, any change is obviously the end of the world, vote for my 'solution'".

[Anonymous No.3742384]

>and it's likely due mostly to anthropogenic CO2.

Yes because natural climate variability and instrument and man-made-instrumental-noise(urban heat island effect) are just myths!

CO2 have increased as depicted in attached picture, no one disagree with that.
All the conclusions drawn from it, lets just say that they range from highly speculative to pure bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3742385]

>>3742326

The same groups that are now saying the globe is warming are the same groups that said we were about to enter another ice age in the 60s and 70s. I remember in grade school we watched documetaries about it, and how the teacher pointed out that the trend among climate scientists is quite the opposite now.

Also, no, it has been much warmer on the earth in the past. During the cretaceous, climates similar to those found much closer to the equator extended much further north.

Unless you mean warmer than ever according to directly recorded data, then yes. Yes it is warmer than has been recorded directly before.

[Anonymous No.3742394]

>>3741740
>Andrew Bolt
>Usain Bolt

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3742397]

>>3742348

Well you said it's your problem with "Al Gore's movement". How else are they connected, besides the prize?

[Anonymous No.3742407]

>>3742070
>We are still very much on the upswing from the last ice age.

We're in an ice age though...

[Anonymous No.3742414]

>>3742384

The greenhouse effect is century-old science, you clown.

[Anonymous No.3742421]

>>3742384
Hey look someone posted an out of context image to try and back up his point, Nice going though not bothering to tell people that CO2 contributes the majority of the warming effect and that concentrations have risen by a lot since industrialisation.

[Anonymous No.3742429]

>>3742384
>CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere
>Therefore it clearly doesn't matter
Surely this ironclad logic is a sound refutation of all climate science.

[Anonymous No.3742437]

>>3742385

>The same groups that are now saying the globe is warming are the same groups that said we were about to enter another ice age in the 60s and 70s. I remember in grade school we watched documetaries about it, and how the teacher pointed out that the trend among climate scientists is quite the opposite now.

Lies. It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, it still doesn't make it true.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[Anonymous No.3742442]

>>3741400
>I live in Australia
gday my fellow ausfailian

>I live in Australia
yes. so do i and its a shit hole.

how 0.0000000000000001% of the world population can dictate this CO2 bullshit is just amazing.

Dear America, China and India, Please tell my country to fuck itself and you refuse to business with us if this tax is introduced.

>julia gillard
>CO2 tax
>whooops, i accidentally the whole australian economy

[Anonymous No.3742444]

>>3742319

Yes, clean burning means it only really puts out CO2 and water, and less other nasties into the atmosphere. The big reason I support use of natural gas over oil for the US is that we have a lot of it here at home. Like saudi arabia has oil. Though the rest of the world might start looking into their equivalents to the Marcellus, Barnett, and other such gas shales, and find that the entire world has ridiculous amounts of natural gas that we only just recently figured out how to get out of the ground. It also is cleaner to process and get to the consumer.

>>3742407

Every text book and professor/speaker I have ever read or listened to seems to agree that the last major period of glaciation, or 'ice age' ended 12-10k years ago.

[Anonymous No.3742454]

>>3742414
Oh look I can extrapolate graphs too!

Also, recently CERN figured out that cosmic rays are clearly significant for cloud formation. Cosmic ray incidence is greatly varying depending on solar activity.

Models that say CO2 will result in global BBQ sets clouds as a fixed factor and uses the almost static solar irradiance as the only variance from the sun. Obviously the old model have to go out the window now, but given the sect-like FAITH in CO2 I can assure you the old defunct model will still be cited in ten years time.

[Anonymous No.3742456]

>>3742444
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

[Anonymous No.3742458]

>>3742397
Look, I did not say that IPCC IS Al Gore's movement. I said
>The IPCC is hardly an unbiased organization, yet it has a very large influence over the scientific field.
Obviously a lot of money goes into organizations such as the IPCC due to Al Gore, as he popularized global warming. Virtually all governments listen to the IPCC, and decisions on who gets research money depends on the IPCC. This is a political question and not a scientific one. Do you disagree? Please tell me why. Otherwise, stop putting words in my mouth.

[Anonymous No.3742462]

>>3742454
The paper you are referring to does not actually support your arguments, and has also been largely refuted for making simplistic errors that have been corrected before in the literature.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742466]

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742472]

>>3742462
Are you actually questioning the CLOUD project ? :D

[Anonymous No.3742474]

>itt
>/extrapolation/
what happened to you /sci/

[Anonymous No.3742476]

>>3742456

Ok. You have me on a slight misuse in terms. What I should have said is "We are in an interglacial period. The last major period of glaciation is agreed among most to have ended around 10-12k years ago."

[Anonymous No.3742484]

>>3742462
(cont)
Apologies, I think I mistook what paper/publication you were referencing.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742485]

>>3742472
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

For reference this is the paper. There have been no retractions or errata as of now.

[Anonymous No.3742489]

>>3742472
Of course he is, anything else would be against his FAITH.

Also, notice how he uses a copy pasted line that can be used as a reply against all dissenting publications with no factual statements to back it up.

[Anonymous No.3742490]

>>3742472
see
>>3742484

[Anonymous No.3742501]

>>3742489
Get the fuck off of your high horse.
>>3742484

[Anonymous No.3742502]

>>3742458

>Obviously a lot of money goes into organizations such as the IPCC due to Al Gore

The whole IPCC budget is a few millions/year. Do you really think they need Al Gore to get that?

>decisions on who gets research money depends on the IPCC.

No, it depends on universities and grant foundations like NSF.

Have you done ANY research on this at all?

[Anonymous No.3742511]

>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

>Also, recently CERN figured out that cosmic rays are clearly significant for cloud formation

Where does the paper say that?

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742517]

Look guys. The original data for the hockey stick model is GONE. Whenever I make this factoid presentation I am bombarded with the links to IPCC webiste where the data is.

THAT DATA IS CURATED DATA MEANING THAT IT HAS BEEN TREATED STATISTICALLY TO REMOVE THE EXREMUMS. THE ORIGINAL DATA WAS "DISCARDED" FOR THE LACK OF SPACE (??!!! :D) BY EAST ANGLIA UNI. (YES, THE SAME ONE FROM THE CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL).

Let me be very veery clear with you. Nobody in even in their non-right mind would "discard" that data, especially for a lame reason like lack of space. They are clearly lying. Its like an 10 year old's excuse of not doing his homework.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742526]

>>3742511
I doubt you read the paper. So read it and then comment.

[Anonymous No.3742536]

>>3742526

Where does the paper say that GCR's are significant for cloud formation? You must have read it, right? So give me a quote.

[Anonymous No.3742546]

>>3742517
So to you, the fact that NASA erased the original footage of the moon landings is proof we never landed on the moon, yes?

[Anonymous No.3742549]

>>3742517

You are completely clueless. There is no "hockey stick model" (what does that even mean?).

[Anonymous No.3742550]

>>3742517
>CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL
Oh boy. Watch less Fox News.

[Anonymous No.3742556]

>>3742546
An analogy to your analogy would be
>So because Hitler erased the original jews there's no proof the holocaust ever happened.
Do you see a flaw in this argument?

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742560]

The paper compares the effective cloud formation by extand models by conc. of atmospheric nucleators like Ammonia and finds that the experimental evidence contradicts previous models which suggest that such gases are resonsible.

That should be the last part of the abstract itself. And The only other nucleator is ions formed out of cosmic rays. So they suggest that Cosmic rays contribute majorly to cloud formation.

Faggot.

[Anonymous No.3742564]

>>3742517
> They are clearly lying.
Credibility lost. The IPCC is not a single group of scientists, and they aren't the source(s) of the data analyzed for the IPCC reports anyway.

[Anonymous No.3742569]

>>3742550
Read the source material instead of 'hurr durr can only absorb things from news/3rd parties.'

[Anonymous No.3742570]

>>3742560

>So they suggest that Cosmic rays contribute majorly to cloud formation.

WHERE DOES THE FUCKING PAPER SAY THAT.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742577]

>>3742570

:D Retards should not be allowed to do science.

[Anonymous No.3742578]

Even the authors of the recent CERN paper have said that the conclusions the climate change deniers are drawing from it are inaccurate and nonsense.

Then again, what else do the deniers have? All they can do is jump on the occasional study and twist the point/conclusions to fit their own means.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742583]

>>3742578

Really? I would like to see that claim. :)

[Anonymous No.3742595]

>>3742577

Quote where does the paper say that GCR's are significant for cloud formation.

[Anonymous No.3742596]

>>3742570
It doesn't, stop responding to trolls.

[Anonymous No.3742602]

>>3742578
>Even the authors of the recent CERN paper have said that the conclusions the climate change deniers are drawing from it are inaccurate and nonsense.

[Citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3742607]

Carbon tax is a fantastic thing. You Australians should be backing it.
It means corporations have to pay more which (theoretically) reduces the taxpayer subsidies.

[Anonymous No.3742610]

>>3742569
Not that guy, but the source material does not indicate fraud, and an investigation found no basis for allegations of fraud. It just sounds funny taken out of context. And that's the most "damaging" stuff they could find out of thousands of emails.

[Anonymous No.3742616]

>>3742569
The funny part is that if you actually followed your own advice, you would have understood why scientists laugh at the whole Climategate 'scandal' the media brewed up.

[Anonymous No.3742619]

>>3742610

There's no use, dude. You can't talk a tinfoilhat out of a conspiracy. Every investigation is just a cover up.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742629]

From: Tim Osborn <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail],[e-mail]
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@uea,p.jones@uea

Dear Mike and Ian

Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.

The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.

A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
other reconstructions. We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
density network. In preparation.
Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
completion.
(cont)

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742634]

>>3742629

I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
eruptions. Overlain on this, you will see a green curve. This is the new
series with a 40-yr filter through it. This is just so that you can see
what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).

With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves
things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.

If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
me and/or Keith.

Best regards

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742636]

From: Phil Jones <[e-mail]>
To: ray bradley <[e-mail]>,[e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [e-mail],[e-mail]


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone [phone]
School of Environmental Sciences Fax [phone]
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [e-mail]
NR4 7TJ
UK

[Anonymous No.3742637]

Both sides are retarded.
On the one hand, you have republicans denying all the evidence, and I do mean all of it. Not really to support oil barons, but because its poilitcally favorable for them

On the other hand, democrats are using the science like a religious moral system to push their bullshit pet projects or get extra votes because they're 'saving the planet

The truly ironic thing is that the actual climate papers are very mellow. The general consensus is "there is a corolation, but we really don't know enough yet to draw meaningful conclusions"
Then the tabloids blow their data out of proportion to get eyeballs on Friday night


It's a hot mess

[Anonymous No.3742642]

>but the source material does not indicate fraud
It may not indicate direct fraud but several instances of underhanded methodology, lies, deciet, manipulation and generally unscientific conduct.

>an investigation found no basis for allegations of fraud
Made by the university.On material selected by the accused.
How about we do murder trials the same way, invite the friends of the accused and have him "oh please don't investigate the bloody hammer and my firearm, look at my new shoes instead"

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742643]

From: Tom Wigley <[e-mail]>
To: Phil Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <[e-mail]>

<x-flowed>
Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

(cont)

[Anonymous No.3742641]

>>3742636
>>3742634
>>3742629
>i have never worked with raw data in my life, and probably do not know how science work
What was your major, bro?

[Anonymous No.3742646]

>>3742642
>fitting data, eliminating systematic bias
>unscientific
Holy shit. Please leave /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3742647]

>The general consensus is "there is a corolation, but we really don't know enough yet to draw meaningful conclusions"

Wat.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742650]

>>3742643
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.

So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

[Anonymous No.3742652]

>>3742629
>>3742634
>>3742636

Snore. Come back when you actually have something interesting to post rather than stuff that has been explained and debunked over and over. Can't teach a denier.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3742656]

From: Michael Mann <[e-mail]>
To: Phil Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: [e-mail]

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: [e-mail]

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone [phone]
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax [phone]
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email [e-mail]
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: [phone]
503 Walker Building FAX: [phone]
The Pennsylvania State University email: [e-mail]
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

[Anonymous No.3742658]

>>3742650
I suggest you read the papers they mentioned, so you'll know what's being discussed. You're just making an ass out of yourself now.

[Anonymous No.3742659]

>>3742652

Yep. That's how I know it's a denier, not a troll. Only a denier who reads all the conspiracy websites would think that this is all evidence of fraud, instead of normal scientific conversation.

[Anonymous No.3742660]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI

A video which debunks the conclusions that the deniers have been drawing from the recent CERN paper.

[Anonymous No.3742662]

>>3742647
Yes, its happening, but the ACUAL PAPERS say "we cannot be certain how bad the effects are going to be, when they might begin, if we're already experiencing them, we need to do moreresearch"

I dislike those panels as they tend to oversimplify a complex system. Some meaning is lost in translation

[Anonymous No.3742663]

>>3742656
>>3742650
>>3742643
>>3742636
>>3742634
>>3742629
see
>>3742610

You're assuming you understand the context and meaning, and you don't.
Try watching this. It summarizes the shit you don't want to investigate for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

[Anonymous No.3742669]

>>3742662

>ACUAL PAPERS say "we cannot be certain how bad the effects are going to be, when they might begin, if we're already experiencing them, we need to do moreresearch"

Which papers? The reports reference the attribution papers quite extensively, actually.

[Anonymous No.3742670]

>>3742669
>implying denialists have read any of the literature
Good one.

[Anonymous No.3742681]

>>3742659

A trend I've observed with regards to deniers and "climategate" is that they'll rarely actually describe what was wrong in the emails apart from some sweeping description like "they're hiding data". They always just post the emails – or cherry picked excerpts from the emails - and say something like "just read it, it totally sounds malicious!"

For once, I'd actually like to see a denier describe *in detail* what studies/data/analysis techniques, etc, the emails are describing and what *specifically* is being maliciously done. For example, I’ve never once heard a denier actually describe what “Mike’s nature trick” is, or what they’re specifically referring to by “hide the decline”. But I guess that’s because if they had to explain it, their entire argument of fraud would fall apart.

[Anonymous No.3742684]

[Anonymous No.3742685]

>>3742669
Reading the conclusions section of all the papers I have come across.
Good example; remember that mid Atlantic conveyor shutdown thing in the day after tommorow? It was based off a small study in 2001, who's conclusions did a little bit of specultion, but ended with "might be bad but we don't know yet"

And then the day after tommorow happened
And then they did a follow up experiment in 2009. Whops! Turns out it was bullshit, as the freshwater concentration actually went down over that time period.

I'm not faulting the papers or observations of overall theory, I'm faulting the dumb shits running around with their pants on fire

[Anonymous No.3742689]

hop off the al gore bandwagon. it's over.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3742690]

>>3742385

Expanding earth theory explains those temperature discrepancies, by stating that when the earth expanded the continemts shifted, so what is now polar was once equator.

[Anonymous No.3742694]

>>3742681
They're not looking for truth. They're looking for excuses to justify their foregone conclusion. They don't even read over the emails themselves and ask "What does this really show?" They NEVER ask "Is this true?" They only ask "Does give me an excuse to believe what I want?"

[Anonymous No.3742701]

>>3742685

Really? That's it? A fucking Hollywood movie? I thought we were discussing summary reports.

[Anonymous No.3742702]

>>3742694
bullshit. it confirms the hypothesis that some "scientists" manipulate the numbers and character assassinate those who do not worship at the alter of al gore.

[Anonymous No.3742703]

Hai guise. Why don't you just wait it out? Certainly if the IPCC and company are right we'll be able to look back at their 2000 report in 2020 and get a picture of accuracy.

[Anonymous No.3742706]

>>3742690
Please leave, you're making us legitimate, uh "deniers" look bad.
And no there are not very ligitimate ones

[Anonymous No.3742708]

>>3742689
>one scientist resigned, its a hoax

Is this what you are lowering yourself to.

[Anonymous No.3742711]

>>3742701
What part of example did you not understand

I,m not denying anthropogenic climate change, I'm denying alarmism surrounding it.

[Anonymous No.3742712]

>>3742708
Nobel Prize winning scientist quits in disgust

is not nothing


1000 dissenting scientists write in opposition

is not nothing

the question "how can we take the average temperature of the whole world for a whole year?"

is not nothing

al gore. is nothing.

[Anonymous No.3742718]

>>3742689
Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

[Anonymous No.3742724]

>>3742708
you're chicken little. you know the story? that's you. chicken little.

the sky is not falling.

[Anonymous No.3742725]

>>3742703

>wait it out?

We've been "waiting out" for decades. No use wasting more just for people to see that IPCC got it right... again.

[Anonymous No.3742727]

>>3742712
Who mentioned Al gore. By your logic if 1000 biologists wrote a dissenting letter proclaiming creationism correct it would therefore mean evolution is false.

[Anonymous No.3742728]

>>3742689
>it's over
>one renowned scientist becomes dogmatic about denying scientific facts that are outside of his field
OK. You know that his field has nothing to do with climate science, right?

Never ask yourself "Must I believe this, even though I don't want to", or "Can I get away with believing this, because I want to". Only ask "Should I believe this? Is it likely to be true?"

Picking up one scientist's position as proof that all the others are wrong is clearly seeking to justify a predetermined conclusion. It is irrational.

Also, you're trolling, but I wanted to talk about it anyway.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3742730]

>>3742712
Climate is not his area of expeetise. Aa for the thousand scientist, how many were named steve?

[Anonymous No.3742733]

>>3742727
any evidence claiming abiogenesis via evolution is false

is true

[Anonymous No.3742736]

>>3742702
> it confirms the hypothesis that some "scientists" manipulate the numbers and character assassinate those who do not worship at the alter of al gore.
No, it actually doesn't.
>>3742663

[Anonymous No.3742737]

>>3741400
The climate has only risen by 0.05 *C in the last 20 years. Ofcourse carbon dioxide can contain heat (like practically every other particle) it's the lack of effect that it is having which is why I'm not concerned. All of the predictions I have seen about global warming have been wrong.

[Anonymous No.3742746]

>>3742725
>10 year timescale
Why do you keep doing that? It's a process on a much larger timescale, ten years is a blip

[Anonymous No.3742741]

>>3742689

Nice try at an argument from authority. He's a solid state physicist, not a climatologist. And he describes anthropogenic global warming as "a new religion" ... a totally logical, rational description. :S

Sounds to me like the American Physical Society is better off without him.

[Anonymous No.3742742]

>>3742711

How the hell are scientists responsible for the crap that Hollywood makes? Do you also deny biology because of Godzilla?

[Anonymous No.3742744]

>>3742728
not at all. he quit in disgust because the science he grew up with, in whatever field he won his Nobel in, no longer exists. it has become a religion with "known" tenants that cannot be argued against.

he's proof science now is not as science used to be, regardless of how you attempt to minimize him.

and fuck al gore. fuck him thousand percent.

[Anonymous No.3742748]

I accept the IPCC report as our best assessment of the current and future trends in climate change.

I reject Al Gore and his politicized bullshit about what we should do about it.

[Anonymous No.3742750]

>>3742737
>Ofcourse carbon dioxide can contain heat (like practically every other particle)
Full retard.

[Anonymous No.3742751]

>>3742736
yes, it actually does. when viewed objectively

something you cannot manage

[Anonymous No.3742753]

>>3742725
If you plug the 30% emisssion reduction CO2 levels into the IPCCs own formula you get a change in temperature that is lower than instrumental noise(meaning we wouldn't know if it helped), all that for the cheap price of destroying the global economy.

Any suggestion other than waiting? Invent a time machine maybe?

[Anonymous No.3742757]

>>3742741
better off without dissent?

how stalin of you

[Anonymous No.3742763]

I bet the deniers ITT can't even summarize what the IPCC report projects for temperature and sea level rise over the next century. They're too far removed from all the annoying "facts" to actually read the executive summary from the report.

[Anonymous No.3742764]

>>3742748
nice dodge on not accepting the summary they added to the report AFTER all the scientists had signed off on it

or were you ignorant of that too?

[Anonymous No.3742768]

>>3742753
>30% emisssion reduction
>destroying the global economy
Watch less Fox News.
I bet you think discontinuing the Bush tax cuts will destroy America too, huh?

[Anonymous No.3742772]

>>3742742
I already said I'm nit denying it you dinglebery.
I said the actual science has been overwritten by political and pop science bullshit.
In fact I think you're agreeing with me

[Anonymous No.3742774]

>>3742764
0/10
That's more stupid bullshit you got, there. I'm not talking about niggling semantic issues. I'm talking about the numbers in the projections. I don't give a fuck what adjectives are used in the summary.

[Anonymous No.3742775]

>>3742763
can they predict the weather next week with 100 accuracy?

no?

then why do you believe their 100 year timeline is accurate?

inb4 weather is not climate

it's certainly climate related, and shows the dangers of MODELITIS

[Anonymous No.3742782]

>>3742775
>point out the serious flaw in your own argument
>dismiss it as unimportant
0/10

[Anonymous No.3742783]

>>3742737

>The climate has only risen by 0.05 *C in the last 20 years

Wrong.

>Ofcourse carbon dioxide can contain heat (like practically every other particle)

You don't understand the greenhouse effect.

>All of the predictions I have seen about global warming have been wrong.

see
>>3742725

[Anonymous No.3742779]

>>3742774
the summary says agw is a known fact

the numbers say it might be warming up

big difference

or are you too blind to see?

[Anonymous No.3742784]

>>3742750
What part of that is full retard?

[Anonymous No.3742785]

>>3742757

Please show me where I suggested that?

[Anonymous No.3742786]

>>3742768
Considering our oil dependance, yes.
And before you say solar or wind, how much of your monthly income are you willing to sacrifice? Ten percent? Fourty?
Or should someone else be footing the bill? It's easy to say what needs to be done when you don't have to foot the bill

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3742792]

>>3742757
long live lenin kill the tsar
We salute the sickle and star

Long live stalin he loves you
Sing these words or you know what he'll do

[Anonymous No.3742796]

>>3742784
CO2 'containing heat' is not why it's a contributing factor to the greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.3742799]

>>3742782
it's not a serious flaw; it's a demonstration of MODELITIS. people claim to know exactly how warm the average spot on earth will be 100 years from now (lol) don't have a grasp on whether or not it will rain next week.

inb4 law of large numbers

[Anonymous No.3742802]

>>3742775

If you do not understand the difference between weather and climate than there is not much left to talk about.

[Anonymous No.3742803]

>>3742786
Build more nuclear plants. Construct huge solar arrays out in the desert. Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.3742805]

>>3742783
neither do you. heat bleeds out of the atmosphere at a much higher rate than in the MODEL.

the truth. cure for MODELITIS.

[Anonymous No.3742810]

>>3742785
kick out the one dissenting, and the group will be better off?

stalin: if you have a problem with a man, kill the man. no more problem.

[Anonymous No.3742811]

>>3742779
Stop being so fucking retarded.
>the summary says agw is a known fact
It most certainly does NOT.
>the numbers say it might be warming up
No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
>"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
>"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

I hope you're trolling.

For anyone who's NOT being this stupid, here's the chapter that talks about projections for global climate.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10.html

[Anonymous No.3742815]

>>3742792
UP THE RA! UP THE RA! UP THE RA!

[Anonymous No.3742817]

>>3742810
No one kicked him out. Stop it.

[Anonymous No.3742819]

>>3742802
if you do not understand the similarities between weather and climate there is nothing to talk about.

[Anonymous No.3742820]

>>3742805
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3742823]

>>3742817
their foolish religion excluded his sense of propriety and he left honorably

and the group is less than without him

[Anonymous No.3742824]

ANCIENT ALIENS DID THE CLIMATE

[Anonymous No.3742830]

>>3742811
you just said "no, yes"

reread your quote

[Anonymous No.3742831]

>>3742819
Predicting whether rain will fall on tuesday or wednesday a month from now is harder than predicting the average annual rainfall next year within a few percent.

[Anonymous No.3742833]

>>3742799

>people claim to know exactly how warm the average spot on earth will be 100 years from now

Except that people DO NOT CLAIM THAT. Have not seen the predictions at all?

[Anonymous No.3742834]

>>3742820
why? you'd just kill the messenger (Roy Spencer)

kill dissent. that's modern science for ya

[Anonymous No.3742835]

>>3742803
>using nuclear power
Oh wow, you're like, the .01% of green tech supporters that actually knows what they're talking abo-
>giant solar arrays in deserts
nevermind

[Anonymous No.3742839]

>>3742830
You're expecting me to be dogmatic and extremist in my view. I am being ACCURATE. Your characterization of what the report says is wrong.

[Anonymous No.3742841]

>>3742831
within a few percent

what's a few percent of 288K? 6ish?

they got a 6K swing there? cool down, warm up, 6K degrees?

and the sky is falling?


lol

[Anonymous No.3742846]

>>3742824

ALIENS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE WITH COSMIC RAYS, I HEARD IT FROM ALEX JONES, TRUFAX!

[Anonymous No.3742847]

ITT: Further proof that climate change deniers don't actually bother to read the IPCC report, not even the summaries.

[Anonymous No.3742848]

>>3742833
ZOMG IN A HUNDRED YEARS THE COASTLINES WILL BE FLOODED

yeah, i've seen 'em. and fuck al gore right in his lying ass.

[Anonymous No.3742850]

>>3742835
Meh, solar can't hurt, and it's just gonna get more efficient. Until then, nuclear plants.
Also,
>supports scientific consensus about acg
>green
lol no
greens are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.3742851]

>>3742848
Agreed. But fuck the anti-intellectual deniers in the eye.

[Anonymous No.3742855]

>>3742847
how can you sit by while the scientists who signed off on the report get stabbed in the back by the politicians who write the summary after the report is signed?

and the summary is NOT supported by the report?

how can that be okay in a "search for truth"?

[Anonymous No.3742858]

>>3742848
You know that there are island nations that are already literally sinking into the sea because of rising sea levels, right?

[Anonymous No.3742859]

>>3742841
>288K
>impying 288,000 degrees
what?

[Anonymous No.3742863]

>>3742851
taking agw on faith based belief is anti-intellectual

Nobel Prize winners sounding the alarm that the political arm of global warming is using them as fodder should be regarded as fairly significant.

[Anonymous No.3742868]

>>3742859
kelvin numb nuts

[Anonymous No.3742871]

>>3742855
Stop arguing about a report you've obviously never read. It's really awkward for us who have.

[Anonymous No.3742872]

>>3742841

>6K swing there

6k swing here and there and you're in an ice age (or hot house)

[Anonymous No.3742874]

>>3742855
> the summary is NOT supported by the report?
You're wrong.

The summaries say that
>"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
>"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
The report does not refute these statements.

Stop assuming that what Al Gore says is what the summary says. Note that it doesn't say "the sky is falling and you should all buy carbon credits today".

[Anonymous No.3742881]

>>3742858
i know no such thing, and would not be surprised if it had something to do with plate tectonics and NOT "global warming" oops "climate change"

you guys do remember they used to run around yelling global warming, right?

[Anonymous No.3742886]

>>3742850
Greens are something like 97% of your peers, bro.

Then again I'm an APG sorta kinda denier, at least I deny the really drastic shit, and 97% of my peers watch fox news

Bad shit all around

[Anonymous No.3742889]

>>3742868
Ah, sorry, I didn't think you were that smart.

But no, the percentages for error are in the prediction of temperature shift, not in the absolute number. Retard.

[Anonymous No.3742895]

>>3742872
isn't that my point, genius?

and yet, over the past 150 years, only a 0.8K rise?

very stable. quite impressive. not alarming at all.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3742896]

>>3742858
I will run for dutch office. My platform to build a giant wall and become an island after global climate warming chance.

[Anonymous No.3742898]

>>3742881
>i know no such thing
Shocking.

[Anonymous No.3742900]

>>3742863
I already replied to your bullshit.
>>3742728

[Anonymous No.3742902]

>>3742874
you're wrong

see how that works?

[Anonymous No.3742905]

Here is a part of the tech summary of the IPCC report.

TS.6.1 Changes in Human and Natural Drivers of Climate.

Robust Findings:
Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4, and their associated positive radiative forcing, far exceed those determined from ice core measurements spanning the last 650,000 years. {6.4}

Fossil fuel use, agriculture and land use have been the dominant cause of increases in greenhouse gases over the last 250 years. {2.3, 7.3, 7.4}

[Anonymous No.3742907]

>>3742810

Again, show me where I ever said I have a problem with dissent. I only argued that the group was better off without said non-expert spouting nonsense rhetoric. They’re not the same thing.

And I never said they kicked him out. But nice job at trying to misconstrue my statement.

[Anonymous No.3742910]

>>3742905
miracle how they do that, when the planet is only about 6000 years old

didn't you get the memo?

[Anonymous No.3742912]

>>3742896
You've got my vote.

[Anonymous No.3742919]

>>3742902
You're the one claiming that the summary is not indicative of the content of the report. I've actually looked at the report. Have you?
>>3742811

And in case you've missed it, the summary says that
>"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
>"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
None of the bullshit characterizations from Fox News and Friends of the "dogmatism", "settled science", "it's 100% us no doubt" are actually there.

[Anonymous No.3742921]

>>3742907
bullshit. know when you've been served.

you've been served.

admit it and go on

[Anonymous No.3742924]

>>3742895

>not alarming at all.

Well gee, I wonder what will happen as the trend continues - you know that in recent decades we're already warming at 0,15-0,2 degC/decade, right?

[Anonymous No.3742928]

>>3742921
Different anon here.

Declaring victory usually means you don't have anything more convincing to say.

[Anonymous No.3742932]

>>3742919
and yet, a Nobel Prize winning scientist (not a 4chanfag) quit over just such a statement

ponderous

[Anonymous No.3742935]

>>3742921

Snore. Why can't /sci/ ever get any *good* trolls?

[Anonymous No.3742940]

>>3742928
make your own judgment then. my judgment that the group is better off eliminating dissent is stalinesque. i like dissent. dissent is good. dissent works.

otherwise you just have idiots thinking that we have to shut down industry or hawaii will cease to exist

[Anonymous No.3742941]

this thred schows us again that superficial knowledge is our demise

[Anonymous No.3742942]

>>3742935
>like your panties aren't in a twist

[Anonymous No.3742943]

>>3742932
I've already given my reply twice, and you just keep repeating your statement like it'll be convincing, instead of answering mine.
>>3742728

[Anonymous No.3742947]

>>3742932
He was not a climate scientist though. Would you find it important if a Nobel Prize winning biologist had objections to anthropogenic climate change?

[Anonymous No.3742955]

>>3742728
i've answered you already. the scientist in question quit over the deification of global warming as a taboo topic with which to dissent.

science should not have any religious tenets.

apparently you disagree

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3742961]

>>3742912
we will then grow larger qith flood immigrants and land reclaimed from our former neighbors.

[Anonymous No.3742965]

>>3742947
what's it going to take for you idiots to understand what's going on?

do you know that al gore is predicting a $12Trillion with a T carbon trading board in chicago, on which he will have a permanent chair?

al gore is the high priest of global warming, and he's in it for the money

wtf are you in it for?

[Anonymous No.3742967]

>>3742955
How can you believe in global warming if its only a theory (a geuss)?

[Anonymous No.3742969]

>>3742947
But all climate scientists are morons or liars because they don't tell me what I want to hear.

/trolling

Really, though, I don't think climate change deniers think for a moment about what they're doing. They don't like the political implications proposed by Al Gore and company, and instead of fighting what they don't like (We could genuinely argue over what policy decisions are a good idea), they try to deny the science that Al Gore is attempting to use as justification.

It's like people denying evolution in order to reject proponents of enforced negative eugenics.

[Anonymous No.3742975]

>>3742940

Except that - again - nobody argued that, did they? But that's only a minor detail, right?

[Anonymous No.3742978]

>>3742965
see
>>3742969

You can call bullshit on Al Gore without denying reality.

[Anonymous No.3742980]

>>3742965
>Al Gore
This is not /AlGore/, this is /sci/. We care about science, not Al Gore. Go take your Gore obsession elsewhere.
Climate change science predates Al Gore's bullshit some decades.

[Anonymous No.3742982]

>>3742969
i don't need to be told anything by climate scientists. they can't tell me the weather next week. they are useless.

and very fucking expensive

and as a taxpayer and lifelong al gore hater, i say fuck them, fuck them very much, get a real fucking job and produce something other than irrational fear

[Anonymous No.3742986]

>>3742955
You're still dogmatically accepting this one scientist's view as Truth.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Anonymous No.3742987]

>>3742955

>taboo topic with which to dissent.

Yes, that's what he says. But where is the evidence that it's true? In fact, I know there are still some dissenting scientists left, even though most of them were convinced by the evidence in the recent decades.

[Anonymous No.3742988]

>>3742982
Stop conflating Al Gore and climate scientists.

[Anonymous No.3742990]

Global warming or global cooling, which is it? Or do we just use climate change now? If you want people to believe your bullshit, stick with one fucking story please!

[Anonymous No.3742991]

>>3742982
Al Gore invented climate change.
Al Gore probably believes in evolution too, are you a creationist now?

[Anonymous No.3742992]

>>3742975
you have a very high opinion of your egalitarianism to still be arguing this point.

the group would be better off without him--your position

if you have a problem with a man, kill the man; no problem - stalin's position

see the similarities?

[Anonymous No.3742995]

>>3742982

Yesyesyesyesyes, we know how much you hate Al Gore, could you now please go hate him to a more appropriate place?

[Anonymous No.3742996]

>>3742992
>the group would be better off without him--your position
Please refer to the post where this was said.
Not implied, explicitly stated.
We'll wait.

[Anonymous No.3742997]

>>3742978
i call bullshit on al gore's reality

that's what i'm doing here

fuck al gore, fuck his reality, fuck his manufactured crisis, fuck him thousand times, until camels can walk through his anus

[Anonymous No.3742998]

>>3742982

I guess it's pointless at this stage to repeat that WEATHER is not CLIMATE. Sigh.

[Anonymous No.3743000]

>>3742991
>Al Gore invented climate change.
He most fucking certainly did not. I'm not even the guy you're replying to.

He spearheaded a bullshit politicization of an emerging science.

[Anonymous No.3743004]

>>3742986
the scientist that quit, the Nobel Prize winning scientist, did at no time say he disagreed with the science involved

he disagreed with the position that it could not be questioned; could not be dissented to; could not be argued on both sides

that's why he quit. he didn't want to join al gore's religion.

[Anonymous No.3743005]

>>3743000
Look up sarcasm.
Jesus Christ, you people are autists.

[Anonymous No.3743006]

>>3742998

Yeah, I'm afraid we are reaching the point where the difference between denial and trolling becomes imperceptible.

[Anonymous No.3743007]

>>3742987
the group he was in said it was incontravertible. he said nothing in science is incontravertible. and he quit.

he's a real scientist, guys. he's what you wish you were.

[Anonymous No.3743008]

>>3743004
So then the science is sound?
Good.

[Anonymous No.3743010]

>>3742997
Good for you.

But that isn't a reason to reject the IPCC report. I think you just assume that the IPCC report says what Al Gore says. It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.3743012]

>>3742988
stop pretending they have nothing to do with one another

protip: follow the money

[Anonymous No.3743015]

>>3742992

I stoped "arguing" the point several posts ago. Because I never said what you're claiming.

Yes, yes, I know you're trolling. But it's so fun to watch you keep twisting and twisting. :)

[Anonymous No.3743016]

>>3743012
Climate change science predates Al Gore's hypefest some 50 years.

[Anonymous No.3743018]

>>3742991
i've always been a creationist, and will remain one, even if al gore is one too, fuck him until he is purple, and maggots crawl out of his eyes, and explode out his forehead.

[Anonymous No.3743019]

>>3743007
>he's a real scientist, guys. he's what you wish you were.
0/10

The law of gravity is pretty incontrovertible. So is the fact that the sun shines.

And the Earth is getting warmer. That's incontrovertible fact. It's not a theory, it's not a model - it's just what we see. The Earth is getting warmer.

[Anonymous No.3743022]

>>3743006

This. Gotta love Poe's Law!

[Anonymous No.3743025]

>>3743018
>i've always been a creationist, and will remain one
Well, I guess we're done here. Wrap it up folks.

[Anonymous No.3743029]

>>3743012
>protip: follow the money
I guess the NSF is a lackey of Al Gore, huh?

This is getting sad.

[Anonymous No.3743030]

>>3742996
can you read? i ask this in all seriousness:

Nice try at an argument from authority. He's a solid state physicist, not a climatologist. And he describes anthropogenic global warming as "a new religion" ... a totally logical, rational description. :S

Sounds to me like the American Physical Society is better off without him.

[Anonymous No.3743034]

>>3742998
yes, they're as different as apples and slightly redder apples

[Anonymous No.3743035]

>>3743000
which is my point.

thank you very much.

you have my permission to hate on al gore to your heart's content.

[Anonymous No.3743037]

>>3743029
Though I should add that the IPCC itself gets funding from international sources, not the NSF. A lot of the climate science is NSF-funded though.

[Anonymous No.3743040]

>>3743008
whether it is sound or not is still up for debate

which is the point

science should always be up for debate, because we're always learning new things

unless we start "believing" in "settled science"

[Anonymous No.3743044]

>>3743034

And this is why we don't take you people seriously.

[Anonymous No.3743046]

>>3743010
despite what the alter boys here say, i actually did read the report, and the summary, and the dissent, and the news articles, and the resignation letter this week of a Nobel Prize winning solid state physisist stating that we cannot and should not call any science 'incontravertible'

i agree with him. science makes for a poor religion

[Anonymous No.3743049]

>>3743044
slightly greener apples? you a grannie smith fan?

[Anonymous No.3743051]

>>3743034
No, they're more different than that.

One is a short-term prediction of specific weather events (like which day it will rain).

The other is a long-term prediction of large-scale averages in space and time, like annual rainfall in a country or continent over the next decade. Because of the averaging over increased scales, we're talking about quite different numbers.

I don't know whether it's going to rain a month from now or a month and a day from now, but I know it's going to rain about X inches over that month. That sort of thing, but taken even further in scale.

[Anonymous No.3743055]

>>3743046

>science makes for a poor religion

Look, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that. Climate science is not religion. The evidence is there. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3743056]

>>3743030

This was my quote (I’m not the same person from >>3742996), and I still stand by it. Just to clarify – I don’t think they’re better off without him because he was dissenting. I think they’re betting off without him because he was a non-expert spouting nonsense rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.3743058]

>>3743029
money has more than one stream

but following it will lead you to the truth

al gore is a money pig. he doesn't give a shit about the environment, or global warming, or climate change, or hockey stick graphs; he just wants to be the fattest cat on the block. and since he was in on google's ground floor, he's already fucking rich.

but he wants to be super duper rich and control the flow of carbon credits worldwide. he wants to rule you.

fuck him, right in his fat arkansas fat cat ass, fuck him thousand times

[Anonymous No.3743059]

>global warming

I hope so

[Anonymous No.3743060]

>>3743040
The only people talking about "settled science" are the deniers. No, seriously. It's in things like claiming that scientists are all dogmatic and refuse to see facts (lol irony).

The only things which are "settled" are direct observations. Theories, models, and predictions (all basically the same thing) are never "settled".

[Anonymous No.3743063]

>>3743058
I agree about Al Gore, stop it already.

But there's no grand conspiracy in climate science.

[Anonymous No.3743064]

>>3743051
what is harder to find out? the weather next week, or the temperature 100 years from now?

and if they can't figure out the weather next week, why should i believe they can do the harder thing?

it really is harder telling the future 100 years out than it is one week out.

really

[Anonymous No.3743067]

>>3743059

O Hai, I'm a cherry picked graph, how are you doing?

See
>>3742783

[Anonymous No.3743070]

>>3743055
i have dealt with it. i've yawned and gone on with my life. a "maybe" .5C increase or decrease over the next 20 years makes me yawn.

if you want to run around yelling that the sky is falling, fine. i just don't understand your motivation, other than you're scared shitless by a shit named al gore, may he rot in hell

[Anonymous No.3743073]

>>3743067
why look at the discredited hockey stick graph #18 when another graph has not been discredited?

unless you have an agenda?

[Anonymous No.3743075]

>>3743064
That depends on what level of accuracy you're looking for.
Weather is very localized, and inherently hard to predict due to the great number of parameters.
Climate is a large scale system, so a lot of these difficulties with small scale systems get smoothed out.

[Anonymous No.3743076]

>>3743064
This exact sentiment was answered by the very post you are responding to.

Did you even fucking read it? You can't make an apples-to-apples comparison because we aren't talking about predicting the same things.

[Anonymous No.3743079]

>>3743073
God DAMN the bald-faced hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.3743082]

>>3743075
you are starting to develop a case of modelitis. computers, as wonderful as they are, cannot account for all the real world variables of a changing eco system. they just can't, unless they're programmed by God Himself.

they can't do the simple thing. don't trust them to do the harder thing.

[Anonymous No.3743083]

>>3743070

Do you have any idea how much energy you need to change the surface temperature of Earth just by 1 degree? Several degrees in a century is a gigantic change. The people of 21st century deserve something better then your "yawn".

[Anonymous No.3743087]

>>3743082
Climate is simpler than weather.
Just sayin'.

[Anonymous No.3743088]

>>3743076
sun. clouds. rainfall. volcano eruptions. wind. smoke cover. snow. ice. hail. tornados. hurricanes.

which am i talking about? elements of weather, or elements of climate?

[Anonymous No.3743095]

>>3743082

>they can't do the simple thing. don't trust them to do the harder thing.

Predicting weather is *not* easier then predicting climate. You don't even need computers for basic climate predictions.

[Anonymous No.3743099]

>>3743082
Stop throwing that word around. All you're saying is "you can't trust models at all, nope, the future is totally inscrutable".

There is a reason that the IPCC report includes many models, and does not ignore the differences between their predictions.

[Anonymous No.3743104]

>>3743088

This post is just more indication that you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. You should read some more about it before posting.

[Anonymous No.3743109]

>>3743088
You're talking factors. The difference is in what you're asking me to predict. THAT is the difference between climate and weather. What you are asking me to predict.

Predicting whether it will rain on January 3, 2012 in Washington D.C. is hopeless. Predicting whether it will rain on January 3, 2062 in Washington D.C. even more so.

But average annual rainfall in the US in 2060-2065 is much easier to predict than whether it will rain on January 3, 2062 in Washington D.C.

[Anonymous No.3743116]

>>3743083
*yawn*

that's all you get too

[Anonymous No.3743117]

>>3743095
>you can just pull stuff out of your ass

agreed

[Anonymous No.3743119]

>>3743116
Different anon here. You shouldn't minimize what a degree or two rise in global temperature will do, just because Al Gore exaggerates it. Try looking at the actual predictions.
>>3742811

[Anonymous No.3743120]

>>3743104
hahaha you can't tell, can you

KILL THE MESSENGER! THE EMPORER'S CLOTHES ARE FANTASTIC!

that's you

[Anonymous No.3743126]

>>3743109
i know you believe that

it is wrong

[Anonymous No.3743129]

>>3743119
sure i can. watch me.

*yawn*

[Anonymous No.3743130]

>>3743117

I can make a sample climate prediction right here, if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.3743137]

>>3743130
shoot. is it going to be cold in Nome, Alaska in 100 years?

[Anonymous No.3743138]

>>3743120
>i'm a creationist
That's you.
>>3743018

[Anonymous No.3743140]

>>3743126
That's not a counterargument. At all.

[Anonymous No.3743142]

>>3743138
yes

that's me

and it's God's world, not yours. He created it, not you. and He will destroy it, and soon, and there's nothing you can do about it.

and fuck al gore hundred thousand percent

[Anonymous No.3743145]

>>3743137
Not that guy, but I'd venture a guess that the answer is "yes", by most definitions of "cold".

[Anonymous No.3743149]

>>3743140
correct.

it's a statement of fact.

[Anonymous No.3743156]

>>3743145
bet they'd like to warm up a few degrees, eh?

[Anonymous No.3743159]

>>3743142
what

Even if you go by the Bible, it clearly gave mankind dominion over the Earth, and the order to subdue it. And now you say we have no influence?

[Anonymous No.3743165]

>>3743149
I gave you a statement of fact and reasoning to back it up.

Please make a counterargument, I genuinely want to change my mind if I am wrong in this regard.

No, seriously.

[Anonymous No.3743169]

>>3743159
no, i'm saying we lost it to satan at the fall of mankind, and it can only be redeemed by the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the earth

we failed. earth 1.0 over, and soon. earth 2.0 coming soon to a universe near you.

hopefully al gore will repent and make it. otherwise, fuck him in his lake of fire burning ass until lava shoots out his dick and hits him in the eye, one thousand times a day for ever

[Anonymous No.3743174]

>>3743165
oh, okay. easy peasy.

there will be no united states of america in 2065, and therefore, you will not be able to tell me how hot it will be there at that time.

but thanks for playing!

[Anonymous No.3743179]

>>3743055

Woah man woah.

>Look, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that. Climate science is not religion. The evidence is there. Deal with it.

I accidentally read:

>Look, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that climate science is not religion. The evidence is there. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3743180]

>>3743169
>fuck him in his lake of fire burning ass until lava shoots out his dick and hits him in the eye, one thousand times a day for ever
That's not very Christian of you.

[Anonymous No.3743189]

>>3743180
but it makes for a good mental image

[Anonymous No.3743192]

>>3743179
lol

and i of course agree with your misreading

he who lies creatively is closer to the truth than he thinks

[Anonymous No.3743455]

We must tax your breathing its for the GREATER GOOD.

[Anonymous No.3743465]

>>3743455

We must troll threads for Kay-oss.

[Anonymous No.3743485]

>mfw we put up too many wind farms and fuck up the climate
>mfw we become carbon negative and sink into an ice age
>mfw we will all die
>mfw the tragedy of the commons is an argument for privatization not of government involvement.

[Anonymous No.3743498]

>>3743485

>yfw you're full of crap

[Anonymous No.3743508]

>>3743498
>implying taking energy from the wind won't effect the effect that wind has on climate
>implying a reduction in CO2 won't effect the climate
>implying privatizing the commons won't prevent overgrazing because no one would be dumb enough to overgraze their own patch.

[Anonymous No.3743585]

>>3743508

>implying you know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.3744870]

Holy Jesus fuck I leave this thread for work and then it turns into this clusterfuck

Where do we even begin?

>>3743059

Gee I wonder what happens when we zoom out a little bit. Also great trick there, lopping off 2010. Hottest year on the instrumental record would make you look a bit silly wouldn't it?

It's also extremely strange for you to accuse scientists of making shit up, committing fraud, manipulating data, etc., but then say "oh look, some at this data which some scientists are showing us in good faith"

[Anonymous No.3744898]

>>3743012

Who has the most money?

Al Gore plus environmentalists and shit

or

All the world's fossil fuel industries and exporting nations combined

Also look at whose science is more robust. Pic related. This kind of shit seems to only happen to "skeptic" papers. But you probably think this is a conspiracy of evil jerks. Plagiarism is a liberal myth, folks