/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4870412]

why is it that it's still ok to not teach climate change in public schools?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE

[Anonymous No.4870422]

Not subtle, but 6/10 because people will answer to you anyway.

[Anonymous No.4870428]

>>4870412
Paint everything white. Albedo change will lower temperatures. You fags obviously aren't doing enough to stop the sun from causing 99% of the heat problems on the Earth.

[Anonymous No.4870435]

If the US, it would be because most states are controlled by politicians that receive the majority of their campaign money from companies that would be targeted by legislation which took climate change as a serious outcome of human actions.

[420 biotch ss No.4870431]

Because the climate never changes, never will and never has in the 6000 years the earth has existed. Don't try to use science or geology or a math on me cuz those were all just made by the satan to deceive us, I'm right because god etc...


That's why.

[Anonymous No.4870434]

Because obamacare

[Anonymous No.4870440]

Climate change? We should admit our role.

Also: PUMBLENUTS

[Anonymous No.4870444]

>>4870440
>implying we have a role
>implying climate change isn't a natural cycle of earth
>implying dinosaurs and their, what i assume had to be, giant cars did not cause the first ice age.

[Anonymous No.4870455]

>>4870444
The Earth was a lot hotter during the dinosaurs. The difference is that the dinos didn't have houses and shit on the beach, so they didn't give two shits about the level of the ocean. So dinosaurs > humans in adaptability toward climate changes. Bring back Jurassic Park.

[Anonymous No.4870462]

It's not so much that we can't teach climate change, it's more that we need a large sample group to determine what's happening and whether it's a trend. It's very easy to say "Well, this year we had record highs!"

The problem is that the same thing was said the LAST time we had them as well, and was also said the last time we had record LOWS. Even a sustained period of highs, while a possible indicator, isn't necessarily correlation. Remember,. trends are built up over long periods of time.

[Anonymous No.4870475]

1936: Temperature in NYC reaches 106.
2012: Much cooler.

>panic about carbon
>ignore methane and water vapor
>???
>profit

[Anonymous No.4870478]

>>4870444
> implying that massive recent increases in average temperature resemble normal cycles in any way at all

[Anonymous No.4870481]

>>4870444

lol'ed

[Anonymous No.4870482]

>>4870478

>Implying you have a source showing "massive" increases in temperature.

[Anonymous No.4870488]

People's Rep. of China, 23.6% of global total
annual emissions
United States, 17.9% of global total
annual emissions
India, 5.5% of global total
annual emissions
Russian Federation, 5.3% of global total
annual emissions

>obviously the US must cut its industry in half
>while ignoring the rest of the world as it increases its industrial production
>problem solved

[Anonymous No.4870489]

>>4870478
>implying we have a good understanding of global temperature change cycles.

[Anonymous No.4870491]

/sci/ can't into 2012. Thread is a sham.

[Anonymous No.4870494]

>>4870488
>obviously the US must cut its industry in half
Yeah... About that, i have bad news.

[Anonymous No.4870496]

>>4870489
we have an idea. ie : Ice cores.

[Anonymous No.4870504]

>>4870475
that's just 1 Record high. We have had 10. Not only that but the warming atmosphere is going to make extremes hydrological cycle.

[Anonymous No.4870526]

>>4870462
> Remember,. trends are built up over long periods of time.

But you' won't accept that. Whatever timeframe is used, you'll just insist that a longer one is more apt. That gives you infinite coverage. We'll never have enough data to satisfy you, as long as you are ever threatened with environmental regulations that inhibit the performance of your stock portfolio.

[Anonymous No.4870529]

>>4870526
mean global temperatures from 1992-2012 compared to 1942-1962. GO

[Anonymous No.4870530]

>>4870496

Ice cores are bullshit.

It's been shown that glaciers do not only form "top down", but also form "bottom up" at the same time.

Therefor, they aren't the fucking "time capsules" everyone makes them out to be.

[Anonymous No.4870540]

>>4870530
not him, but ice cores are taken from inactive glaciers.

[Anonymous No.4870542]

>>4870540
thank you fellow /sci/entist .

[Anonymous No.4870547]

>>4870540

"inactive" by our current definition of inactive, which doesn't include the bottom up formation.

[Anonymous No.4870574]

>>4870547
>"inactive" by our current definition of inactive
when did inactive mean anything different
>which doesn't include the bottom up formation
i don't know whether it does or doesn't, but it hardly matters. do you not know how deep these things are? it's not even like we have to go back hundreds of millions of years to establish a simple understanding of global temperature cycles. at smaller time periods i really don't see bottom-up formation mattering. can i see a source anyway? all i found with a google search was bottom-up formation in certain ice sheets

[Anonymous No.4870591]

>teaching leftist propaganda in schools

[Anonymous No.4870924]

>>4870444
Listen here, mister. You need to stop inferring implying and turn off your radio.

[Anonymous No.4870930]

>>4870475
I heard that the temperature was really hot 13.5 billion years ago, so I got you beat.

[Anonymous No.4870964]

>mfw /sci/ turns out to be as stupid as /pol/ when it comes to global warming and refuses to listen to actual climate scientists and physicists

[Anonymous No.4870968]

>>4870964

A 40 year old science that has been trying to scream look at me look at me the whole time? Once we can actually forecast the weather and the suns weather and have an accurate forecast i'll listen to them. Until then they need to continue to collect legit data.

[Anonymous No.4870970]

THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IF AVERAGE EARTH TEMPERATURE RAISES BY ONE MORE 0.001 DEGREES

[Anonymous No.4870991]

>>4870968
spending half a day trying to model the weather and not being 100% of the time (although being right most of the time) is a very different endevour than modelling the climate over the course of 40 or 50 years. Much more serious modelling and research can be done.

[Anonymous No.4871003]

>>4870475
The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change.

>>4870968
Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time — generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus predicting the height of tomorrow’s high tide. The former is a challenge — to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness — but the latter is routine and reliable.

This is not to say it’s easy to predict climate changes. But seizing on meteorologists’ failures to cast doubt on a climate model’s 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4871004]

>>4870968
>thinks climatology has anything to do with meteorology
>doesn't know the greenhouse effect has been understood since the late 19th century
More greenhouse gases means warmer Earth, simple physics.

[Anonymous No.4871008]

Because it would inevitably come with leftist propaganda about how we're causing it and have to buy Priuses and throw our ACs away to stop it when it fact temperature changes are an entirely natural phenomenon and everything could be back to what we understand as normal in as little as a few decades.

[Anonymous No.4871010]

>>4871008
While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural — or even mostly natural — have two challenges.

First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community’s model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today’s changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.

So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing.

tl;dr: No.

[Anonymous No.4871014]

>mfw all the arguments against ACC posted ITT are the same ones that have been posted literally hundreds of times before
>mfw all the arguments have been scientifically dismantled as many times
>mfw idiots who can't understand the evidence are still posting the same stale arguments over and over again
It's getting to the point that if someone posts another thread about how ACC isn't true, I'm going to direct them to >>>/x/.

[Anonymous No.4871015]

>>4871010
I could criticize the opposing camp in a similar fashion. Where is the hard evidence that the human influence on the atmospheric gases definitely causes a rise in temperature? Why have you no problem with most of your models assuming the construct of correlation implying causation? Et cetera, et cetera. There's no clear enough data to support either side of the argument.

[your 'argument' is not new and has also been destroyed before No.4871019]

>>4871015
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
-NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
-CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

[Anonymous No.4871022]

>>4871019
I am not denying a climate change. Where is the hard evidence for the human causation though?

[your 'argument' is not new and has also been destroyed before No.4871021]

>>4871019
>cont'd
We emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and, lo and behold, there is more CO2 in the air. Surely it is not so difficult to believe that the CO2 rise is our fault. But if simple common sense is not enough, there is more to the case. (It is worth noting that investigation of this issue by the climate science community is a good indication that they are not taking things for granted or making any assumptions — not even the reasonable ones!)

It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.

By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years.

There is still more to the case. By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human “fingerprint.” What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as “old” carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with “young” oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating — just as common sense tells us.

Of all the pillars holding up the theory of anthropogenic global warming, this is one of the most unassailable.

[your 'argument' is not new and has also been destroyed before No.4871027]

>>4871022
If the previous wasn't enough for you, we are indeed well outside the realm of natural global variability, as seen over the last 2,000 years and even over the last 12,000 years. We can go back several hundreds of thousands of years and we still see that the temperature swings of the glacial/interglacial cycles were an order of magnitude slower than the warming rate we are now experiencing.

In fact, outside of catastrophic geological events like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum there are no known precedents for warming this fast on a global scale. I’d say the case for “it’s all natural” is the one that needs explaining.

Oh, and by the way, we do in fact have compelling evidence: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

[Anonymous No.4871024]

>>4870964
This, simply this. I don't get it. /sci/; You know about laymen, you know the errors they make and you understand why they shouldn't opine and how stupid they seem when they do.

Yet you become the exact same "mount stupid" kinda person whenever you too are a layman. The only difference about you and people thinking the government covers up cold fusion is that they are stupid about 100% of science while you're stupid about 95% of it.

[Anonymous No.4871032]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

[Anonymous No.4871033]

It's simple /sci/.
THe current scientific consensus on climate change, anthropogenic or not, is the IPCC. If you have not read any of their reports, or actually studied climatology at uni you are a layman. If you are a layman and still spout your ill informed opinions based on youtube videos and politicians you are /pol/.

too all of you using argument from ignorance shouting "where is the data"; here is the data. The results are not black and white, "yes" or "no" so you actually have to read up. you know, like you do in SCIENCE.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml

[Anonymous No.4871038]

>>4870412
That picture is retarded.
First of all, if that is the case, it does not imply anything.
Second of all, who says that the average is 1 high record per low record in a standard situation? I can trivially come up with a static distribution of numbers that has the property that if samples are drawn, we expect more samles to be the highest yet, and less to be the lowest. Any distribution with a long tail for high numbers, and a short tail for low numbers (such as an exponential distribution) will do.

Not climate denier, I trust the validity of most work even though I can't properly understand it, not being a climatologist and all. Just pointing out that if you're on the right side of the argument, doesn't mean you're invulnarable from making fallacies.

[Anonymous No.4871182]

was it the 70s or the 80s where some tards proposed we cover greenland or some other place with fuck tons of snow with coal soot or some other black shit to increase the temp because people thought another ice age was just years away?

[Anonymous No.4871323]

>>4871182
There were a small handful of scientists that thought it might be possible we were going into an ice age. but at the time the majority consensus was warming with no change in temperature a close second.

[Anonymous No.4871353]

>>4871038
It was just a weather headline I took from the video. it really just shows how bad it was this year compared to the average since the USA has been keeping records.

[Anonymous No.4871429]

>>4870412
Roman warmth period, we know it existed because the presence of agricultural crops not fit for current northern climates were grown further north than today, also, insects that demand certain warmth were also found further north.

Also, far prehistoric have been through pretty much all forms of climate fluctuation, through supervolcanic winter to hyperoxygenation to anaerobic. Nothing bad happened.

Also, we will, assuming energy usage growth following the current trend for another hundred year, generate notable excess energy simply through waste heat. We simply have to adapt to the conditions we create instead of going on some full retard crusade shouting "GLOWBALL WARMING IS TERRORIST!!11" and expect everyone to give up their way of life for some arbitrary bullshit projection your faulty computer models chruned out.

[Anonymous No.4871433]

>>4871429
I didn't see anybody posting your accusations in this thread so I don't know where you are coming from with that.

[Anonymous No.4871516]

>>4871429
Ignorance has never done any good for humanity. If tempature rises, we have more wind/rain, water rises etc etc.., so we can't just continue our "normal" life if the human emission turns out to have an effect. Even if they don't, a natural change is climate is not out of reach.

[Anonymous No.4871519]

>>4871516
that picture speaks so much truth.

[Anonymous No.4871546]

>>4871032
wow, that's fucking cool.

There's definately a coreleation between temp and CO2, but it seems there's one between dust and the other two, aswell.

Whenever dust spikes, the temp and CO2 drop

[Anonymous No.4871578]

>>4871516
fixed

[Anonymous No.4871591]

>>4871546
yes, which is why correlation does not imply causation. Thats not really the issue though. we already know C02 is a greenhouse gas. what's debatable is if human emissions are large enough to cause a significant impact.

[Anonymous No.4871598]

>>4871578
so edgy xD

[Anonymous No.4871603]

Remember the impending ice age?

Oh wait...

[Anonymous No.4871608]

>>4871603
No, we don't.

[Anonymous No.4871625]

B-B-B-UT... MUH CONSENSUS!!!

[Anonymous No.4871626]

>>4871608
Gotta love seeing an idiot smart-ass getting told like that.

[Anonymous No.4871633]

because conservatives hold power

[Anonymous No.4871643]

>>4871608
>>4871603
How many times are you deniers gonna trot out this "argument" only to get shot down?

[Anonymous No.4871654]

>>4871643

How much grey lit does the IPCC have to use before you admit they need to rely on magazine clippings, newspaper headlines and ngo reports because the science (arrived upon honestly) actually doesn't support their side?

Right now they're at 1/3 non-peer reviewed sources. Do you need half? 2/3? All of it?

They know they can't just report the truth and win. That's why they rely on thoroughly discredited figures like Mann's hockey stick.

[Anonymous No.4871667]

>>4871654
>Right now they're at 1/3 non-peer reviewed sources.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.4871681]

>>4871654
Have you got a citation for that? Especially since you incorrectly assert that Mann's hockey stick has been discredited?

[Anonymous No.4871723]

You know if you were really concerned about "the data" you could just go google the record highs and lows for every year since industrialization.

Instead both sides will just keep regurgitating shit they heard from their in-groups and laugh at the other side for being mindless sheep.

And no, I'm not going to do it for you

[Anonymous No.4871742]

>People denying the scientific consensus on climate change, based on facts that have been explained and refuted multiple times.
>Using the same arguments that politicians and corporations use.
>A science board.

[Joe Haldeman, the Author of The Forever War No.4871757]

>>4871516
>What if it's a big hoax and we spend shit loads of money on inefficient systems that produce less, and ruin our economy, give up even more jobs to third world countries that don't give a shit, and have even worse unemployment rates for nothing?

Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.4871761]

>>4871757
Look over there son, it's a paranoiac.

[Anonymous No.4871783]

It's kind of ironic. All the hippies claiming were killing the environment. Where do you think the power is coming to turn on your PC how do you think they made the plastic pieces in your computer. Get the fuck off the internet and go change the world and let us C02 mongering assholes be....

[Anonymous No.4871813]

>>4871003
>Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time — generally around 30 years

So we're looking at 3 maybe 4 data points since we've kept data. Let's politicize this issue and call everyone who isn't on our team a big dummy.

[Anonymous No.4871844]

Alabama 112 44 Sept. 5, 1925 Centerville 345
Alaska 100 38 June 27, 1915 Fort Yukon est. 420
Arizona 128 53 June 29, 1994 Lake Havasu City 505
Arkansas 120 49 Aug. 10, 1936 Ozark 396
California 134 57 July 10, 1913 Greenland Ranch -178
Colorado 118 48 July 11, 1888 Bennett 5,484
Connecticut 106 41 July 15, 1995 Danbury 450
Delaware 110 43 July 21, 1930 Millsboro 20
D.C . 106 41 July 20, 1930 Washington 410
Florida 109 43 June 29, 1931 Monticello 207
Georgia 112 44 Aug. 20, 1983 Greenville 860
Hawaii 100 38 Apr. 27, 1931 Pahala 850
Idaho 118 48 July 28, 1934 Orofino 1,027
Illinois 117 47 July 14, 1954 E. St. Louis 410
Indiana 116 47 July 14, 1936 Collegeville 672
Iowa 118 48 July 20, 1934 Keokuk 614
Kansas 121 49 July 24, 19361 Alton (near) 1,651
Kentucky 114 46 July 28, 1930 Greensburg 581
Louisiana 114 46 Aug. 10, 19361 Plain Dealing 268
Maine 105 41 July 10, 19111 North Bridgton 450
Maryland 109 43 July 10, 19361 Cumberland & Frederick 623; 325
Massach. 107 42 Aug. 2, 1975 New Bedford & Chester 120; 640
Michigan 112 44 July 13, 1936 Mio 963
Minnesota 114 46 July 6, 19361 Moorhead 904
Mississi. 115 46 July 29, 1930 Holly Springs 600

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

[Anonymous No.4871846]

>>4871844
Missouri 118 48 July 14, 19541 Warsaw & Union 705; 560
Montana 117 47 July 5, 1937 Medicine Lake 1,950
Nebraska 118 48 July 24, 19361 Minden 2,169
Nevada 125 52 June 29, 19941 Laughlin 605
New Ham. 106 41 July 4, 1911 Nashua 125
New Jer. 110 43 July 10, 1936 Runyon 18
New Mex. 122 50 June 27, 1994 Waste Isolat. Pilot Pit 3,418
New York 108 42 July 22, 1926 Troy 35
North Car. 110 43 Aug. 21, 1983 Fayetteville 213
North Da. 121 49 July 6, 1936 Steele 1,857
Ohio 113 45 July 21, 19341 Gallipolis (near) 673
Oklahoma 120 49 June 27, 19941 Tipton 1,350
Oregon 119 48 Aug. 10, 18981 Pendleton 1,074
Pennsyl, 111 44 July 10, 19361 Phoenixville 100
Rhode Is. 104 40 Aug. 2, 1975 Providence 51
South Ca. 111 44 June 28, 19541 Camden 170
South Da. 120 49 July 5, 1936 Gannvalley 1,750
Tennessee 113 45 Aug. 9, 19301 Perryville 377
Texas 120 49 June 28, 19941 Monahans 2,660
Utah 117 47 July 5, 1895 Saint George 2,880
Vermont 105 41 July 4, 1911 Vernon 310
Virginia 110 43 July 15, 1954 Balcony Falls 725
Washin. 118 48 Aug. 5, 19611 Ice Harbor Dam 475
West Vir. 112 44 July 10, 19361 Martinsburg 435
Wisconsin 114 46 July 13, 1936 Wisconsin Dells 900
Wyoming 115 46 Aug. 8, 1983 Basin 3,500

people in OP's video - "HURR DURR BREAKING RECORDS"

Not actually though.

[Anonymous No.4871849]

>>4871844
>>4871846

Folks, thats °F then °C btw.

[Anonymous No.4871861]

>>4871813
>Because 30 year averages means you only take an average every 30 years.
No, and the averages can be done over any time period. And averaged as often as you like. The data is usually done over years and 5 year periods.

[Anonymous No.4871862]

People that still deny global climate change are on the same level as people who deny evolution.

[Anonymous No.4871877]

>>4871862

untrue. You should go kill yourself for saying such a thing. Evolution is an extremely well explained phenomena with mountains of supporting evidence from more than just the field of Biology. Even though climate change might have some merit, its theoretical value is no where near that of Evolution

[Anonymous No.4871883]

>>4871877
>Misinterprets what I mean
>Gets angry about it

[Anonymous No.4871887]

>>4871883
I am so mad I can't even type.

[Anonymous No.4871918]

Am I correct in noticing a direct correlation between the amount of ignorant climate deniers and the amount of "women are stupid"-threads?

Makes me feel a little bit better about this board since the stupid seems to be concentrated in a the same group of ignorant individuals.

[Anonymous No.4871947]

This shit is too steeped in politics. It's an issue that I remain ignorant on because I hear nothing but bullshit and misinformation from both sides. I honestly wish I just had one completely unbiased and informative source to teach me exactly what climate change is as well as what our impact on it is and how we should prevent it if necessary.

[Anonymous No.4871958]

>>4871947
Is IPCC too political for you? Or these:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

If they are, how about the businesses in the picture?

[Anonymous No.4871961]

>>4871958
There's also a few other outfits that agree that ACC is real and a big fucking problem, among them are:
Or these?
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Or these?
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

If that's not enough for you, then by all means, believe your favorite political pundit instead.

[Anonymous No.4871962]

>>4870428
of course my queen. let the paint begin.

[Anonymous No.4871972]

>>4871958
This is good, I'll read these.

[Anonymous No.4871980]

>>4871961
Also, my point was that I'm avoiding political pundits. Thanks anyway.

[Anonymous No.4871996]

>>4871980
Sorry for that, but most people who say that the issue is too politicized let themselves be swayed by political pundits into believing that scientists say what they say because of politics.

[Anonymous No.4872185]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissen
ts-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming

clearly anyone who doesn't think we have enough evidence of global warming is a raging idiot that doesn't understand science...

[Anonymous No.4872241]

because its a natural process?

[Anonymous No.4872242]

>>4872185
They are indeed raging idiots that don't understand how climate science works. And known a lot about tunnelling phenomena does not change that.

[Anonymous No.4872257]

>>4871008
Why do you have to link mitigation with "leftist"? What sort of writings or spoken media do you immerse yourself in that you would even use political tags like that? Is NASA leftist? Are laws of physics leftist?

[Anonymous No.4872265]

>>4872257

Yes. Sadly, Yes. Anything that has anything to do with science, reason, or evidence destroying belief, is leftist. Not because it is liberal in nature, no... but because the Right is a mindless rabble of theistic power hungry idiots who have no vision spanning longer than the next 10 years of their own respective lives.

[Anonymous No.4872287]

>>4871182
debunked. It was Newsweek and other pop magazines fucking up at the time, not a scienfific consensus. "Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed peer-reviewed scientific articles 1965-1979 --only seven supported global cooling; 44 predicted warming, 20 others were neutral."

[Anonymous No.4872289]

The biggest disservice to the idea of AGW was allowing politicians to champion it and explain it to the public.

If any of you become the top of a field, speak for yourselves. Don't let a lawyer play expert.

[Anonymous No.4872302]

>>4872241
No, see >>4871021

[Anonymous No.4872304]

>>4871603
Hey shithead, I recalled that same idea. You know what I did? I looked it up on the internet and found out that it was bullshit so I wouldn't be a foolish idiot repeating bullshit about "we were supposed to be entering an ice age in the 1970s". That's what real skeptics do. They look shit up instead of repeating shit they heard on Glenn Beck.

[Anonymous No.4872307]

>>4872304
Yes dude. We addressed that 4 hours ago.

[Anonymous No.4872310]

>>4872241
. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before — that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

[Anonymous No.4872312]

>>4871846
Those are all different years, you bafflegabberer. It's more significant if a lot of records are broken for an extended period in the same summer, jackass.

[Anonymous No.4872317]

>>4872307
Oh? Maybe you'd like another go:
Hey shithead, I recalled that same idea. You know what I did? I looked it up on the internet and found out that it was bullshit so I wouldn't be a foolish idiot repeating bullshit about "we were supposed to be entering an ice age in the 1970s". That's what real skeptics do. They look shit up instead of repeating shit they heard on Glenn Beck.

[Anonymous No.4872321]

>>4872317
Suit yourself. You're preaching to the choir.

[Anonymous No.4872524]

>>4871182
1970's. I grew up during that time, and we had a couple of bad blizzards. Power was out for a week or more, snow was piling up, and it was mentioned that we were overdue for an ice age.

Ernest Shackleton tried to cross Antarctica in 1914. Winter came early, and trapped his ship in the ice. To his dismay, there was no spring thaw. Look out, mini ice age.

[Anonymous No.4874080]

>>4871958
>>4871958
>>4871958
>>4871958

[Anonymous No.4874106]

This is absurd. I'm a huge environmentalist, and a big advocate of teaching climate change.
But essentially, OP and all the other fearmongers have been saying "We never need new record temperatures"
Which is obviously fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.4874131]

Evolution skeptics will be met with relatively warm arms. They get easily understood evidence about fossils, and the family trees implied by DNA.

Somebody asking how we know what think we know about AGW will get a sort of strange hostility. A religious hostility it seems. They run to the IPCC, which is not a research organization. They use ad hominem, they beg the question. They insist on talking about carbon dioxide, and do not seem interested in water vapor.

This is dangerous because it distracts from the real problem of AGC, which includes more violent than usual storms.

Evolution denial takes the form of holocaust denial. The evidence is simply everywhere and does most of the arguing for us.

AGW is more like peak oil or heat death panic. Alarmist organizations do most of the talking, and too few climatologists call them out on their insufficient evidence.

[Anonymous No.4874164]

[Anonymous No.4874643]

>>4874131
Bafflegabbery. You must be aware of the loads of bullshit artists out there that don't merely ask questions to get more understanding, but are belligerent louts towards climate science sources and keep inserting political bullshit into the mix. Then you have the oil men who fund bullshit campaigns, even hiring the same PR firms involved with tobacco denial of cancer links earlier.

[Anonymous No.4874646]

>>4874164
Right, like I said, pop magazines in the 1970s made people think that scientists said this was happening, when they actually weren't. Even then, more papers were reporting the warming trend. What was your intent in posting this bullshit?

[Anonymous No.4876460]

>>4874131
>holocaust
>The evidence is simply everywhere and does most of the arguing for us.

[Anonymous No.4876475]

>>4874164

There was no issue of Time for Apr 8 of that year. It's a shoop mocking the supposed consensus of the day when in reality there was none.

In other words, some smartass thought a magazine proved global warming wrong and ran with it, which is a great example of how climate skeptics put together support for their claims.