/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4640614]

Man made global warming, what are your guys thoughts.

[None !!w5CHYddUvhS No.4640639]

I think it's pretty sad that, for a few years, from about 2006 to 2010, most people were willing to accept it as a premise: and then all of a sudden the right wing took over in America; and now everyone's unwarrantedly skeptical.

[Anonymous No.4640642]

[Anonymous No.4640645]

>>4640639

Hey man, if my senator said it, it must be true!

[Anonymous No.4640648]

I feel we should be more worried about other chemicals being sent into the atmosphere than CO2

[Anonymous No.4640650]

>>4640639
Skepticism is always warranted in matters of science

[Anonymous No.4640662]

>>4640650
You are hopelessly naive if you think that the climate change denial from right-wingers is in any way founded on reason and observation.

[Anonymous No.4640673]

>>4640650
>Skepticism is always warranted in matters of science

Are you skeptical about a spherical earth?
Are you skeptical about the heliocentric model?
Are you skeptical about universal gravitation?
Are you skeptical about big bang cosmology?
How about particle-wave duality?
Speciation by natural selection?
Germ theory?

[Anonymous No.4640680]

>>4640673
Science was skeptical about those things at first but they became accept over time after enough data and observations were made. The question is has man made global reached this state yet. I don't believe so.

[Anonymous No.4640693]

>>4640673
Not that other guy but this is a massively stupid series of questions. Nothing was said about being absolutely skeptical all the time. The point is to be skeptical until there is sufficient evidence to verify/prove an explanation, or show that it can't not be true.

[None !!w5CHYddUvhS No.4640696]

>>4640680
>The question is has man made global reached this state yet. I don't believe so.

Well you're pretty much just wrong, then.

An excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even a small excess, will create large temperature variation. Normally the amount of carbon dioxide varies from year to year with natural cycles, thus preventing any significant long-term change from occurring; but because of the amount of carbon dioxide that we've been pumping into the atmosphere, there has been a consistent net excess of the gas for a number of decades. This does add up; and it does cause small-scale global temperature change, that increases ice melting (and thus ocean levels) and can cause widespread crop failure.

Furthermore, there has been observed widespread regression of the arctic ice limit since the 1960s, that has been modeled by united states navy submarines since it was first noticed, even before the implications or causes were understood.

Anthropogenic climate change, much like speciation by natural selection, can be confirmed both deductively and inductively.

[Anonymous No.4640701]

>>4640696
How can you say for certainty that the melting ice caps were from C02 and not a million of different variables there are such as solar output?

[Anonymous No.4640718]

>>4640639
I think it's pretty sad that, for a few years, from about 1960 to 2009, most people were willing to accept it as a premise: and then all of a sudden vast amounts of communications between researchers showed massive efforts to falsify results and suppress research that did not support AGW orthodoxy; and now everyone's skeptical once they realized it was all trumped up alarmism.
>fixed

[Anonymous No.4640731]

>>4640718
>climategate

[Anonymous No.4640736]

>>4640718
>Vast amounts

Well, relative to the actual number of climate scientists who said (and are still saying), "Guys, this is happening", it's really just a fraction of a percent. A fraction of a fraction, to be honest, and for every study where you can give a sideways glance and accuse the Global Warming 'alarmists' of tampering or outright falsification, there are dozens more that pass academic, theoretical, methodological, and whatever-else-ical snuff.

You're just cherry picking your examples because you have a conclusion all figured out, and want the evidence to point at it. Don't feel too bad about it, it's a perfectly human response, but it's well past time you got over yourself.

[Anonymous No.4640781]

>>4640736
You clearly don't understand how scientific publishing works. In any field with an entrenched research establishment it is impossible for dissenting views to get published. Look up the case of Luca Turin when he was trying to publish in Nature. The same thing happens in climate science. Too may people have built their careers on shoddy work. But now that they are in power they will squash anything that would threaten their reputation or funding. The evidence is at best inconclusive but 'ho humm, we don't know' doesn't earn you funding or news clippings so these researches must scream as loud as possible that everything is going to shit. But I have a little lesson for you. When you look at a car commercial do you know the easiest way to tell the quality of the product? Listen to the voice over. The worse the car the louder the salesman. It works here too.

[Anonymous No.4640786]

>>4640701
Because we measure solar output and it did not correlate

[Anonymous No.4640791]

If Adolf Hitler were alive today, he would be urge German to reduce global warming, if not eliminate it altogether. I mean, the dude even protest against smoking.

Argumentum ad Hitlerum
If Hitler likes it, we have to hate it, or else we're friends with Hitler!!!!!

[Anonymous No.4640794]

>>4640786
I see, but still all you have is a correlation between CO2 and global temperature and not causation.

[Anonymous No.4640810]

>>4640781
No one's claiming that individual scientists make mistakes, or deliberately deny contrary views, but these errors in judgment are occasional, they are outliers, not the norm.

Man, if you honestly believe what you're saying, you'd have to construct a world in which 99 percent of the qualified researchers are actively and deliberately denying or fabricating evidence to propagate a faulty theory. We're talking about some of the pickiest, prickliest, most contentious people in the world, and you expect me to believe that as we speak, they're all just sitting down and shutting up?

You'd have to be delusional on the scale of a 9/11 truther to by into that.

[Anonymous No.4640827]

I think that some Internet chucklefuck’s opinion does not outweigh scientific consensus. That’s all I’m willing to say.

[Anonymous No.4640865]

>>4640827
Scientific consensus used to be that the world the center of the universe and that all planets and the sun orbited the earth. At least we don't kill the people who disagree with the consensus these days. We just blackball them and cut them off from funding.
>>4640810
It doesn't take a majority or even a significant number of scientists to suppress opposing research. You only need the editors, lit referees, and the funding panel reviewers. Often these are the same small group of people.

[Anonymous No.4641034]

>>4640794
>hurrr durrr correlation =/= causation

You realize there is a very well understood physical process which indicates an increase in CO2 should cause an increase in temperature

[Anonymous No.4641038]

Way overblown.
Hippies want to halt growth and science because of it, yet those are the things that will end up saving them.

[Anonymous No.4641050]

>>4641034
You do realize there are numerous less understood physical processes that result in negative feedback and likely eliminate most of the warming caused by CO2

[Anonymous No.4641052]

[Anonymous No.4641065]

the problem is that so many are skeptical for the wrong reasons - they mindlessly accept what fox news says, and that so many aren't skeptical for the wrong reasons - they mindless accept what al gore says

[Anonymous No.4641073]

>>4641052

>no sources cited
>lolcanoes

Never mind that the data are completely wrong; the fact that volcanoes are even included in that infographic is pretty much a dead giveaway that it’s retarded.

[Anonymous No.4641084]

>>4641052
>implying the Hebrew exodus from Egypt was a historical, dateable event
>implying the Vikings didn't get to North America until 1300
lol

[Anonymous No.4641086]

>>4641073
the fact that you don't think volcanoes can affect and effect global climate patterns is pretty much a dead give away that you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.4641098]

>>4641052
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-hell-is-long-range-weather.html
lol

[sage No.4641301]

>>4640614
>politifake.org

data?

[None !!w5CHYddUvhS No.4642223]

>>4641065
>the problem is that so many are skeptical for the wrong reasons - they mindlessly accept what fox news says, and that so many aren't skeptical for the wrong reasons - they mindless accept what al gore says

Sorry for resurrecting the thread, but when 99 percent of the population are not climate scientists, and have no clue how climate science works, do they really have any choice? It basicly comes down to "which experts I trust the most".