/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4128422]

Hello /sci/,

I come from /pol/. A recent thread from my resident board brought this quote from Ron Paul to light:

>The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.

The Ron Paul supporters immediately began disproving Global Warming in support of Dr. Paul's quote.

My question is this: what is the /sci/entists view of global warming? Furthermore, what conclusions do you make about Ron Paul, taking into consideration the aforementioned quote?

[Anonymous No.4128425]

It's happening, it has been happening for millions of years. Humans are contributing to it, but not on the scale that many politicians claim.

Keep your SUVs.

[Anonymous No.4128426]

To get the ball rolling, here is the evidence given so far on this topic. These are direct quotes from Ron Paul supporters:

I know this because i understand reality, you don't need a degree to understand an absorption spectrum.

Liberals claim some illogical and magical feedback mechanism which turns CO2 into a relevant player, that is obviously bullshit because it completely ignores every other "greenhouse gas".

The whole concept of greenhouse effect is incorrect anyways.

-

I have no trouble believing man is in a small part responsible for the heating due to widespread paving and human activities.

What is OBVIOUSLY bullshit is the idea that CO2 is relevant to the global temperature, it is obviously an attempt to tax us for breathing the air and doing anything.

[Anonymous No.4128451]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

[Anonymous No.4128456]

>>4128426

> I don't want to live on this planet anymore.jpg

off topic, is this a meme that's popularized by sci?

[Anonymous No.4128458]

Just another way to get money from idiots

[Anonymous No.4128460]

Global warming is a natural phenomenon, we should fight it, but the ways they'd have us fight will never work.

We need to reduce the amount of radiation that penetrates the atmosphere. Earth had mean temperatures that reached and went beyond 20 °C in the past. This must not happen again.

[Anonymous No.4128471]

>>4128426
/pol/ is filled with libertardians suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, so I'm not surprised.

I'm lazy and not eloquent enough, so:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
http://www.realclimate.org/

They should rebuke the libertardian claims, but probably they will find these sources biased and ignore them.

[Anonymous No.4128473]

I wasn't so much looking for outside opinions - but of opinions of people who know science.

It looks like, though, that the clear drive of /sci/ is in support of Ron Paul.

Not what I expected.

[Anonymous No.4128481]

>>4128473
/sci/ is a troll board. nothing they say is the truth.

[Anonymous No.4128485]

>>4128473
also most of the intelligent members of /sci/ are preparing for finals. all you have left are high schoolers, uneducated people, and community college attendees.

[Anonymous No.4128491]

libertarians are naive.

[Anonymous No.4128492]

>global warming

[Anonymous No.4128494]

>>4128485
>finals
>in december

Oh, America...

[Anonymous No.4128498]

>>4128425
>Humans are contributing to it, but not on the scale that many politicians claim.

That explanation is called weaselling. basically you're scared to take a stance.

[Anonymous No.4128499]

Wow, can ANYBODY be so stupid as to believe that the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has been deceiving humanity for MORE THAN A CENTURY?

I mean come on, what's the point of discussing radiative physics with people like that?

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

[Anonymous No.4128502]

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. — Ron Paul

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron Paul

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul

Just what america needs. More christians.

[Anonymous No.4128516]

Climate change denial is mainly a conservative evangelical Christian thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH_wPUVlJ38

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

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/04/evangelists-say-environmentalism-is-satanic/

>"During the hearing, State Senator Sylvia Allen (R), the vice chairman of the committee, argued in favor of mining by saying that the earth “has been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn’t been done away with.”

[Anonymous No.4128522]

>>4128502

Yup, he's a Christian. But he's a tolerant, peace-loving Christian who encompasses the Christian philosophy of leading by example.

"It is up to the moral character of the people, not the government, to solve these problems." - Ron Paul, talking about heroin and prostitution.

[Anonymous No.4128528]

>>4128473

Nobody who frequents this board thinks that AGW is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.4128529]

>>4128522
But he's also a creationist...

[Anonymous No.4128533]

Funny how that works out. the ones most prone to heralding in the end times are also the ones who can't accept what may actually end our time.

[Anonymous No.4128535]

>>4128498

awww,, you must be upset.

actually, he's not weaseling, he just isn't arrogant enough to think humans have a drastic capacity to affect the overall state of global climate.

[Anonymous No.4128543]

>>4128535
his position wasn't a humble one. We may simply not know if humans have the capacity to significantly affect it but he's taking the stance that we *definitely* don't have that capacity.

[Anonymous No.4128546]

>>4128533
It's only just if god kills us.

[Anonymous No.4128552]

>>.4128535

>he just isn't arrogant enough to think humans have a drastic capacity to affect the overall state of global climate.

I can't think of any a priori reason why we couldn't. This has nothing to do with arrogance.

[Anonymous No.4128560]

You guys are out-of-date. As of this year:

"Yeah, I think it's been around for a long time, and it's probably going to be here for a while longer. I don't think the - the ozone has settled on that yet. I don't think everybody knows everything about global warming, because you have reputable scientists on both sides of that argument." - Ron Paul

[Anonymous No.4128564]

>>4128552

>the earth is still here

[Anonymous No.4128573]

>>4128560
>because you have reputable scientists on both sides of that argument." - Ron Paul

see
>>4128451

[Anonymous No.4128575]

Since you only say gobal warming, not specifying if it is induced by humans, then yes. That is the scientific answer to whether there is global warming. (Note: this is not the polotical umbrella term of global warming, but you came to a science board)

[Anonymous No.4128578]

>>4128522
Heroin and prostitution should both be legal.

[Anonymous No.4128586]

>>4128485
At UChicago we're already on break.

Here at /sci/ we tend to follow the evidence. As geosci major, I can tell you that the evidence, while not comprehensively proving AGW, provides very very strong support for it. It's irresponsible folly to refuse to take any action based on the evidence.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.4128599]

In the 1980s they tried to scare us with predictions that a new Ice Age was going to freeze us to death

Now they're trying to say that Global Warming will melt the ice caps and drown us all

The science behind "climate change" stinks of shit. They can't predict the weather for even a few days in advance and now they expect to be able to predict it for decades and centuries? Suck my dick.

Also FYI water contributes about 95% of the misnamed Greenhouse Effect (it doesn't work like a greenhouse at all, yet another example of ignorance from the deluded hysterical GW mob), CO2 contributes less than 1%, and this might increase to 2% if CO2 concentration quadruples, which is unlikely to happen within 50 years.

tl;dr mass media attempts and succeeds in inducing yet another mass hysteria in an attempt to gain tax dollars for "carbon credits"

[Anonymous No.4128607]

>>4128564
I don't think anyone is arguing that the earth can be destroyed by global warming. the problem is that it affects humanity negatively

[Anonymous No.4128608]

>>4128586
There isn't general consensus on the issue widespread in the scientific community yet. Oh well. As soon as we are as certain of it as we are of gravity (which seems OPs standard of proof), it'll be too late and we will have to face the consequences of ignoring it while pissing around.
Just imagine - people have to face consequences from which they can't hide due to smugness similar to that os OP. I think humanity is fully deserving of such a slap on the face.

[Anonymous No.4128613]

It is absolutely indisputable that global warming is occurring. It is locked up tight-the world IS getting warmer. At this point, saying there's no global warming is like saying there's no moon. What's up for debate is to what extent humans are contributing to it. Some say it's entirely man caused, some say human activity is a drop in the bucket. But as the old joke goes, "what if we create a better world for nothing?" The ways of solving global warming most commonly kicked about are all things we need to do eventually anyway.

[Anonymous No.4128617]

Well, let me explain it with tanks and nukes.
Shooting a gun at a tank is the same damage humans do to the planet's ozone layer and general decay of everything.
We are contributing, but we are insignificant to the real contributing factors (nature itself).
Also, it has been going on for a long time, the planet has always been changing and it will keep changing for a while.

[Anonymous No.4128619]

/sci/ has been overrun by idiots because of all the race/religion troll threads. I doubt anyone here or anywhere else who actually works in science would doubt global warming is happening, and that humans are having some effect (though maybe not a huge effect)

[Anonymous No.4128623]

>>4128607

who cares? we;re all dead anyway..

[Anonymous No.4128624]

If he denies that the earth is statistically warming, he's a drooling moron who'd best be locked away.

Now, if it's about the role of human activity in global warming, things are a bit more complicated. I'm not going into the various arguments pro and contra AGW, but I'll state my personal opinion: Please play safe.

[Anonymous No.4128628]

>>4128623

If all you care about is your ultimate survival then I guess nothing much will matter to you. Some of us hope to leave the world a better place than we found it.

[Anonymous No.4128634]

>>4128628

'i' care about my ultimate survival? sounds more like 'you' do. the earth doesnt need our help to self-correct. it'll simply shake us off like a surface flea.

[Anonymous No.4128646]

>>4128634
>implying he wasn't talking about humanity

[Anonymous No.4128643]

>>4128599

>In the 1980s they tried to scare us with predictions that a new Ice Age was going to freeze us to death

Wrong. In the eighties majority of scientist was already predicting warming:

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

>The science behind "climate change" stinks of shit. They can't predict the weather for even a few days in advance and now they expect to be able to predict it for decades and centuries?

Wrong. Nobody is claiming to be able to predict weather centuries in the future. There is a difference between weather prediction and climate prediction.

>Also FYI water contributes about 95% of the misnamed Greenhouse Effect (it doesn't work like a greenhouse at all, yet another example of ignorance from the deluded hysterical GW mob), CO2 contributes less than 1%, and this might increase to 2% if CO2 concentration quadruples, which is unlikely to happen within 50 years.

Your numbers are wrong. Also, the CO2 contribution will not increase, instead the total greenhouse effect will increase.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

[Anonymous No.4128644]

Hey, question. If the temperature increased to melt the ice caps. Would the temp of the water increase enough to melt the ice that is submerged to counter act the amount of water being made.

[Anonymous No.4128659]

>>4128634
we're part of the system. so yes the earth can go into imbalance through itself (through us) since we're part of it. !!!

[Anonymous No.4128661]

>>4128644

Could you please re-phrase the question? I find it hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.4128665]

Personally I think the fact that the climate may be changing or global warming existing is less important.

Developing alternatives makes sense from an economic perspective to me.

The recent push saying that the climate is changing drastically has a lot more to do with the data collection techniques getting better than anything else in my opinion.

Much like how science told us that controlling our iodine levels was the key to a healthy life, which has no been disproved but still effected public policy because the government can never accept being wrong.

I think that scientists need to understand that while they can accept being proven wrong if new data comes to light(by in large) with public policy of governments it's a much harder sell. Governments completely exist out of faith, and as a faith based institution it's non-scientific.

[Anonymous No.4128672]

>>4128665

It'd be nice if we had no dependence on foreign oil. Then we could tell Saudi Arabia and Israel to go fuck themselves.

[Anonymous No.4128677]

>>4128599
I hate you so much.

[Anonymous No.4128680]

>>4128665
>The recent push saying that the climate is changing drastically has a lot more to do with the data collection techniques getting better than anything else in my opinion.

But most of the temperature measurements are continuous. Better thermometers don't make a difference.

[Anonymous No.4128685]

>>4128665
You have iodine in your system or you would be dead.
Hypocrite

Leave science to those that can think, not just regurgitate conspiracy shit with zero evidence

[Anonymous No.4128699]

>>4128564
Something like 90% of anerobic life went extinct as a result of atmospheric oxygenation.
>>4128617
>>4128599
Small perturbations can have drastic effects in a system as complex as the Earth's climate. Let me explain how unstable the equilibrium is:
Warming leads to gases being less soluble in the oceans and accelerates decomposition of organic material, causing release of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere, increasing the strength of the greenhouse effect, ultimately causing even more warming.
Cooling leads to increased gas solubility and greater sea ice coverage, weakening the greenhouse effect and increasing the Earth's albedo, ultimately causing more cooling.
Either direction, you get a positive feedback loop. Global climate is driven by two opposing runaway train effects. If you look at the geological isotopic record, the Earth stays in either a hothouse or an icehouse state, with very rapid transitions between the two. (We are currently in an icehouse state.)

[Anonymous No.4128702]

>>4128661
Melt ice above water surface to get more water and flood earth. Melting ice below water surface would decrease volume due to ice is expanded right?

[Anonymous No.4128708]

>>4128702

No, because ice floating in water has already displaced its volume. See: Archimedes. The ice caps melting will flood the world because many of those caps are currently over land (Antarctica, Greenland), not floating in the water. The floating ones are irrelevant, they can melt or freeze all they like without affecting water levels one iota.

[Anonymous No.4128712]

Read physics for future presidents it has a section on global warming that will explain it pretty damn well and is written by a Berkeley physics professor

[Anonymous No.4128718]

>>4128672
Which is exactly why Ron Paul is the greenest candidate in 2012 election.

He will push the profitability of alternatives through scarcity allowing the market to show that they are actually profitable.
>>4128680
How about the collection of carbon on ice caps that they've been doing? Isn't that one of the ways they've recently pushed forward showing things are getting worse?

I know there are other methods I always see pop up showing that the climate is changing drastically.
>>4128685
I forget the name of the method, but there was a method developed that allowed for more accurate readings of iodine in the body.

This spurred tons of research and government policy into saying that if we regulated it that people would be healthier.

It's since been proven to have a lot lesser effect that they said, but the government not wanted to be shown up stayed steadfast exasperating the problem.

All my point was, scientists need to realize that if what you tell governments today is wrong and they make policy around your wrong science, that the publics trust will be lost on the science.

That's not something I think anybody wants, which is why government policy towards science should always be conservative. No I don't mean conservative in means of money spent but conservative in means that it should be fought for tooth and nail and only accepted because it's passed most strenuous testing.

[Anonymous No.4128723]

>>4128718
>politicians
>worthy of being elected
I mean sure, having a corrupt government is better than fuck all anarchy, but there just isn't anybody who actually gives a shit.

[Anonymous No.4128726]

Lolololol americans

[Anonymous No.4128729]

>>4128699
>Either direction, you get a positive feedback loop.
If our climate really is such a ball-on-hill ultra unstable system then we're going to roll one way or another from natural forces either way.

More likely there's several negative-feedback mechanisms in both direction.

But of course painting a disastrous alarmist picture is more amusing than observing reality and thinking a bit.

[Anonymous No.4128730]

Global warming is a null issue anyway. All the fossil fuels are going to be burned up until they are too expensive as an energy source. If it's not Europe or America, it's going to be practical minded African, Indian and Chinese people who don't give a shit about the greenhouse effect because they're too hungry or impoverished.

We should be working to develop more self-sufficient energy sources for the economic benefit and independence attained from them. Slapping carbon taxes on things and buying "green" consumer products is just pointless and inane posturing.

[Anonymous No.4128735]

>>4128708
So wheres the greatest threat (if it melts we die) I doubt Antarctica is going to raise 30 degrees or so and the north pole is floating... So is it greenland... we should move greenland.

[Anonymous No.4128736]

>>4128718
>How about the collection of carbon on ice caps that they've been doing?

I'm not sure what you mean. You can't collect carbon from ice caps. What you can do is drill ice cores to study the composition of the atmosphere in the past (see pic). But that doesn't tell us how much the climate is changing.

[Anonymous No.4128737]

Ron Paul also doesn't "believe" in evolution. Nuff said.

[Anonymous No.4128740]

What's the deal with fossil fuels anyways? Isn't there a substitute for everything fossil fuels except for production?
I mean, I'm amazed how everybody uses fossil fuels for burning when you actually get more valuable materials out of them like plastic and stuff, so why don't we burn other things and keep what's rest of fossil fuels for what really matters?

[Anonymous No.4128748]

>>4128736
Well it's an indicator of how carbon is today vs the past so yeah it does tell you how much the climate is changing.

[Anonymous No.4128747]

>>4128726

That picture is propaganda. I wonder why do people keep posting it here...

[Anonymous No.4128751]

>>4128730
Yay nuclear power and solar power

[Anonymous No.4128752]

>>4128729
Not that guy, but...
Sure, the environment is changing all the time.

But the rate of change effected by human activity is a whopping 200 times faster than anything natural, barring the ones caused by the catastrophes that triggered the great extinctions.

Even the eocene temperature maximum was attained over 20,000 years, while we're now looking at a similar rise in temperatures in only one hundred years.

[Anonymous No.4128754]

>>4128735

Peninsular Antarctica looks like the most likely region to watch out for. And it wouldn't take 30 degrees, one or two could be enough to push us over the tipping point.

[Anonymous No.4128755]

>>4128752
Nigger.

[Anonymous No.4128756]

>>4128735

You don't need temperatures above zero for glaciers to lose mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Antarctica

[Anonymous No.4128767]

>>4128748

But there wasn't any new measurement method introduced recently, at least as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.4128815]

/pol/ is the worst board on 4chan. Please stop posting there for your own good.

[Anonymous No.4128843]

>>4128815

I enjoy it.

It looks like /sci/ has more trolls, actually, judging from this thread.

[Anonymous No.4128852]

>>4128843

It's the same group of people posting the same shit all over again.

[Anonymous No.4128857]

>>4128852
Sounds like every board.

[Anonymous No.4128865]

>>4128857

No, what I mean is that there is a small group of people (most likely /pol/fags) who post crap exclusively in threads like this one.

[Anonymous No.4128871]

>>4128865

No evidence of this.

The entire first half of the thread, before /pol/ became aware of the threads, are people who are discrediting global warming.

It's hard to defend /sci/ and attack /pol/ using this thread.

[Anonymous No.4128874]

>>4128843

/sci/ has trolls and it has people who know about science. They rarely post in the same type of threads.

[Anonymous No.4128880]

I think global warming is definately real. I don't think it's caused by humans, we're kinda at the end of an ice age after all. Whether it's sped up by humans or if we could do anything about it if we tried is unclear. But I don't think it's worth the effort, frankly. I'd much rather spend money on fighting local pollution such as smog than global pollution.

[Anonymous No.4128885]

>>4128874

Conjecture. This thread had hard science people in it. It also had a number of people discrediting it.

You're nitpicking. Stop it.

[Anonymous No.4128886]

>>4128871

The same trolls post on both boards, because /sci/ was the go-to board for race "realism" and philosophy/religion trolling after /new/ got shit-canned.

[Anonymous No.4128887]

>>4128871

>before /pol/ became aware of the threads

Oh, I'm not talking about people coming in right now, they've been here for a long time, I suspect they migrated here when /new/ got shut down.

How do I know they're /pol/fags? Well, who else would consider jabbering about liberals a good argument in a scientific discussion?

[Anonymous No.4128897]

>>4128886
>>4128887

Ah, this makes sense. I just stayed on /lit/ and /trv/ once /new/ fell apart.

Sounds plausible.

[Anonymous No.4128901]

AGW is a MYTH. Atmospheric carbon has a negligible effect on temperature.

[Anonymous No.4128904]

>>4128880

>we're kinda at the end of an ice age after all.

Actually, we are headed towards an ice age right now.

>But I don't think it's worth the effort, frankly. I'd much rather spend money on fighting local pollution such as smog than global pollution.

They often have the same source - fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.4128908]

>>4128619
you fail to realize that most of /sci/ is actually engineers and high schoolers, not real scientists

[Anonymous No.4128911]

>>4128901

>AGW is a MYTH. Atmospheric carbon has a negligible effect on temperature.

Really? How do you explain Venus, then?

[Anonymous No.4128914]

>>4128901

That's cool, what research have you done on the subject?

[Anonymous No.4128922]

>>4128908

It's fair to say most denizens are science fans rather than scientists, but so what? It's not "/sci/ - Scientists & Mathematicians Only" after all. This is a board for people interested in science, not an academic institution.

[Anonymous No.4128923]

>>4128914

http://conservapedia.com/Global_warming

[Anonymous No.4128924]

>>4128911
Venus is closer to the fucking sun and there is a LOT more atmospheric carbon. Orders of magnitude more.

Anyone who says the Earth could EVER be like Venus is fucking deluded. There isn't enough Carbon on the entire planet.

Next!

[Anonymous No.4128926]

>>4128914
More than you.
>>4128923
>KKKONSERVATARDS XD

Go back to Reddit you race denialist anti-nuclear FAGGOT KIKE.

[Anonymous No.4128931]

>>4128924

There are easily enough volatiles on Earth to turn us into Venus 2.0

[Anonymous No.4128932]

>>4128922
Fuck that picture. I've got a degree in arts and I was an A student in math and physics and love science all the way.

I'm fucking mad.

[Anonymous No.4128937]

You know

[Anonymous No.4128941]

>>4128931
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.4128944]

>Conservapedia
>all scientists are stupid liberals who follow liberal logic
>except this list of scientists who are awesome because they say things we agree with

[Anonymous No.4128949]

>>4128422
There is no doubt or question in the scientific community that global warming is real and man made. No respectable university or research center has published one single study that disproves global warming.

To say hundreds of years is to scream ignorance. We only started getting suspicious about it in the last 60 years or so.

Furthermore, he presents absolutely no evidence to his claim. This isn't actually surprising since there is none.

This leads me to think even further that he is a complete functional ignorant, ignores science and technology almost completely, has no problem with making claims about serious issues with zero evidence and does not care for a factual base for his opinions.

Trusting a person with this with anything more than taking care of a goldfish is insanely careless, negligent and somewhat sadistic.

[Anonymous No.4128953]

>>4128901

>AGW is a MYTH. Atmospheric carbon has a negligible effect on temperature.

Are you an expert? No? Well okay then.

[Anonymous No.4128957]

>>4128949
>There is no doubt or question in the scientific community that global warming is real and man made. No respectable university or research center has published one single study that disproves global warming.


Wrong kike! Reported for shit posting.

[Anonymous No.4128962]

Z

[Anonymous No.4128963]

>>4128953
Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.4128972]

>>4128957
You said the word kike, but you're telling someone else that he's a shit poster? Why not argue instead of shouting racist epithets?

[Anonymous No.4128976]

>>4128924

>Venus is closer to the fucking sun

Irrelevant. Venus doesn't get more sunlight than Earth because of its thick clouds.

>and there is a LOT more atmospheric carbon

Yes, and it is a lot warmer, too. So what basis is there to claim that atmospheric carbon has negligible effect on temperatures?

[Anonymous No.4128979]

>>4128972

Shut up, you fucking jew. I won't let you fuckers try to control me like you do everything else.

[Anonymous No.4128980]

>>4128949

Paul is quite strongly anti-intellectual and anti-science, it is for this reason he is at home in the GOP. For some reason *cough*stoners*cough* he has gained a kind of cult-like following online among the very people who should be horrified by his opinions on science but who can't see past their "enlightened self interest" (ie, desire for weed to be legalized) to realize what a terrible human being Paul really is.

In b4 BUT HE IS DOCTUR, DOKTUR IZ SCIEENZ!

[Anonymous No.4128986]

>>4128957
So here is some evidence:
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

Furthermore I challenge you to produce a study by a respectable body of research that discredits global warming.
Simple contradiction won't do.

[Anonymous No.4128990]

>>4128980
>leftards
>deny race exists
>think sociology is a valid science
>anti-nuclear

LOL.

If Ron Paul doesn't become president there will be a violent uprising.

[Anonymous No.4128992]

>>4128979
Sounds like you're letting your rage at Jews control you already :3

[Anonymous No.4128993]

>>4128986
>hurrrrr durrrr MUH GLOBAL WARMING

There is no evidence for AGW. None. The debate is over. AGW is a myth.

All respected scientists deny AGW. Climatology is not a science.

[Anonymous No.4128997]

>>4128990
>>4128993

You never know with these people.

[Anonymous No.4129007]

Honestly, this thread is filled with more trolling than any /pol/ thread.

/sci/ - officially worse than /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4129013]

The carbon tax is also a red herring that insinuates that pure economic strategies will work. They will not. Capitalism has completely stolen the script from governments.

I'm afraid what it will take is a totalitarian government mobilizing a high tech mobile weaponry to unilaterally enforce limits on carbon pollution.

In other words, one country has to stand up and say, "We aren't going to let you monkeys destroy the world" and send cruise missiles to destroy coal-fired power plants.

The best candidate for this task WAS the USA, but the capitalists got there first, and distributed the power and technology. The other major miscalculation was the UN. The multinational corporations control the world economy now and they don't give a shit about the future. The people at the top and all their shareholders care about is themselves.

The result is there is nothing to check progression of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. Look at how easily disrupted the multi-national climate conference talks are by large economic interests. Its a joke. We're going to blow right past point-of-no-return feedback events and then face armageddon, with a chaotic array of disastrous attempts at geo-engineering.

We're so fucked it isn't even funny. Fuck Ron Paul, chirstian fundamentalist Republican ass-hat. The man is an idiot, why is he running for candidacy for the 4th time in a row for a party that makes fun of him behind his back?

[Anonymous No.4129018]

>>4129007

What makes you think that there's any trolling in here?

[Anonymous No.4129021]

>>4128990

I don't much like leftards of the type you describe either. Ideologues of all sorts are only too quick to try to fit reality to their ideology,their efforts are sometimes quite ingenious but ultimately all such nonsense is harmful to science.

I'm not sure wh6y you think there will be revolution when people once again utterly reject Paul's ideas, unless you mean that yourself and the three other idiots who make 99% of the pro-Paul posts online are going to attempt a coup, in which case I wish you godspeed and look forward to reading of your inevitable failure.

[Anonymous No.4129024]

Take heed.

[Anonymous No.4129030]

>>4128993
Although low level trolls such as this can be spotted by anyone capable of doing other things while breathing, the sheer possibility that you just might be serious not only concerns me regarding humanity, but that people like this breed, vote and on a democracy have just as much voice as anyone else.

[Anonymous No.4129033]

>>4129013
This is what it's all about!

You totalitarian pieces of shit use this made up crises to control everyone.

If any carbon tax is instituted me and my friends are going to start killing politicians and tax collectors and shitbag professors too.

[Anonymous No.4129034]

>>4129018

It isn't trolling on /pol/ either, mostly.

That's the funniest part.

[Anonymous No.4129036]

scientists get funding when they produce evidence of global warming. science is biased in favor of global warming, and yet they still have to change its name (climate disruption, climate change) every time new evidence showing that its fake just happens to pop up by a miracle (because science itself cannot be trusted to produce these on their own)

[Anonymous No.4129041]

>>4129030
You need a bullet in your skull.

[Anonymous No.4129044]

>>4129034

Again, what trolling? There are millions of people who believe in more ridiculous stuff than what has been posted here.

[Anonymous No.4129046]

>>4129013
>WE NEED GUBMINT 2 COME AND TAKE CONTROL

Holy shit you need to be shot.

FUCK OFF AND DIE.

[Anonymous No.4129052]

>>4129044
>It isn't trolling on /pol/ either, mostly.
>isn't trolling
>"again, what trolling?"
did you pass 5th grade son?

[Anonymous No.4129055]

>>4129036

That makes no sense. Why would they need to change the name (they didn't, by the way - global warming and climate change are somewhat different things) when they can just manufacture the evidence?

[Anonymous No.4129056]

>>4129036

Simply nonsense, and prof that you have no experience of science or scientists at all. Anyone working in any field would LOVE their research to contradict the established concepts, this is how you make your name in science and how science advances over time.

[Anonymous No.4129059]

>>4128426
>answer given here
>>4128425
>to get the ball rolling

Confirmed for troll.

[Anonymous No.4129061]

>>4129013
>I'm afraid what it will take is a totalitarian government mobilizing a high tech mobile weaponry to unilaterally enforce limits on carbon pollution.
>In other words, one country has to stand up and say, "We aren't going to let you monkeys destroy the world" and send cruise missiles to destroy coal-fired power plants.


You people are seriously mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.4129063]

He's a POLITICIAN, and one of the few honest ones out there at that. His scientific views are ultimately unimportant.

But yes, AGW is real and evolution is real and he's wrong on both counts. Wouldn't be the first time an elected official was wrong about something, though.

[Anonymous No.4129064]

>>4129044

Yes but this is 4chan. I'm sure there are genuine retards among the trolls, but most are just trolls.

[Anonymous No.4129065]

>I'm afraid what it will take is a totalitarian government mobilizing a high tech mobile weaponry to unilaterally enforce limits on carbon pollution.

>In other words, one country has to stand up and say, "We aren't going to let you monkeys destroy the world" and send cruise missiles to destroy coal-fired power plants.

[Anonymous No.4129068]

>>4129059

I'm still here. Not a troll.

This is a conversation I'm starting on /pol/ also about Ron Paul. I was going to use this thread to make Paul supporters look incredibly stupid.

This thread, contrarily, ended up making /sci/ look just as stupid.

[Anonymous No.4129069]

>>4129056
learn to read, so called "scientist"

its not about love, its about where the money goes

[Anonymous No.4129072]

>>4129061

>You people are seriously mentally ill.

Woah there. You live in a glass house:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU

Maybe you shouldn't throw stones when your side believes stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.4129077]

>>4129068
>wants the government to take over and start bombing power plants

YOU are the fucking idiot here.

You're worse than just an idiot though, you're dangerous, because there are others that think like you.


If ANY carbon tax is passed in the USA, there's going to be violence.

[Anonymous No.4129082]

Good, good.

Fight amongst yourselves. Stand at odds with each other.

This is most desirable.

[Anonymous No.4129095]

>>4129072
My side? My side is me.

Anyone that advocates taking more money from me at gunpoint is my enemy.

Anyone that advocates attacking and killing millions of people over flimsy evidence is my enemy.

You are my enemy and I would slit your throat if I had the chance.

[Anonymous No.4129096]

>>4129077

You think I'll actually deign to enter into dialogue with you?

This isn't /pol/.

Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.4129100]

>>4128498
Support this with evidence.
Anon's stance appears to yes it matters no we don't have to make a huge deal of it.

You seem to want this to be a battle of absolutes. This is known as trolling.

[Anonymous No.4129103]

>>4129069

Firstly, I never claimed to be a scientist of any type. Secondly. you really think the OIL INDUSTRY doesn't have money? There is a lot more cash to be made by anti-AGW than pro.

[Anonymous No.4129120]

>>4129110

>Claiming a thread on global warming isn't a science thread

Are you reverse trolling, or are you just that stupid?

[Anonymous No.4129107]

>>4129068

>using a thread on 4chan to make people on 4chan look stupid

Easy there bro, don't strain yourself too much!

[Anonymous No.4129108]

The president has no control over environmental regulations. Not any more than any single person or corporation.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to protect personal freedoms.

[Anonymous No.4129110]

Sure is trolling in full force on /sci/ today...

not a single serious science or math thread on /sci/

keep up the good work, feggets

[Anonymous No.4129114]

>>4129103
>HURRRRR BIG BAD OIL INDUSTRY
>WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE POWER SO THEY CAN SAVE US!

Enjoy dying in the next civil war, shithead.

[Anonymous No.4129121]

>>4129114

Both a strawman and an ad hom. Enjoy your ignorance.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4129127]

>>4129121

Good to see /sci/ doesn't know what logical fallacies actually are, or how to apply them.

I'm beginning to believe that /pol/ and /sci/ are actually the same board.

[Anonymous No.4129130]

>>4129121
I'm smarter than you.

[Anonymous No.4129136]

>>4129130
>>4129127

When you make a post of any substance I will consider replying

[Anonymous No.4129137]

>>4129121
This is you.

[Anonymous No.4129138]

Because Global Warming is clearly the most important issue right now.

Not the 15 trillion dollar deficit.

Not the endless international wars waged by the US.

Not the impending collapse (total collapse) of the US dollar.

Not the slow fight against personal freedoms by bought politicians.

[Anonymous No.4129140]

>>4129136
Go back to Reddit subhuman.

[Anonymous No.4129142]

>>4129120

>implying this hasn't been discussed every day on /sci/ and doesn't go anywhere

[Anonymous No.4129158]

>>4129142

If that's true, why doesn't /sci/ have a sticky?

[Anonymous No.4129166]

>>4129158
Because that would be fucking stupid. Now get the fuck out and don't return. Do you think this is Reddit?

[Anonymous No.4129168]

>>4129158

Wow, that actually isn't a bad idea. But what kind of sticky?

[Anonymous No.4129171]

>>4129166

>A sticky would solve problems of repeat threads that become troll threads
>THIS IS NOT REDDIT
>ARE YOU GAY?
>YOU MUST BE GAY
>GO FUCK YOUR MOTHER

Wait. What?

[Anonymous No.4129181]

>>4129158
a sticky about global warming?

because it would be as shitty as any other thread on global warming only it would be over 9000 posts long.

Whenever people discuss global warming on this board it's just a shitfest. No one cares about the others person argument, they only care about circlejerking their own ideas.

[Anonymous No.4129184]

>>4128723
You should really re-think that one. A graceful upgrade to autonomy at the individual level may actually be preferable to being ruled by the guys with the most money/biggest guns.
The proponents of voluntarism has advanced quite a few decent arguments for a society without a heavy central government.

[Anonymous No.4129190]

>>4129181

A sticky about threads, which are science, that are posted every day and become troll threads.

Then, ban the people who post those threads.

This isn't that difficult. You have a resident janitor on /sci/ I take it.

[Anonymous No.4129195]

>>4129168

I think we should just put a bunch of science links up there, letting people post would ruin it.

[Anonymous No.4129202]

>>4128737
That said he also doesn't believe in having the national gov't tell you what to teach your kids.

[Anonymous No.4129204]

>>4129202

Right. He believes the states have that right.

[ass blistering sage No.4129217]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6rOGqoB0b0&feature=related

[Anonymous No.4129272]

If you're thinking about Obama, think about this.

Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act, a direct violation of the Bill of Rights

Obama voted to keep the clause in NDAA which allows the military to detain US citizens without a trial, a direct violation of the Bill of Rights

Obama has accepted over a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for the 2012 election. Ron Paul's biggest donation group other than individual people is the Air Force. Followed by the Army. Followed by the Navy. He's gotten more campaign contributions from armed service members than any other candidate, and more than the entire GOP lot, combined.

[Anonymous No.4129418]

So is it safe to assume that besides one or two anons most of the people posting here are from /pol/?

[Anonymous No.4129685]

INTERNET FIGHT!