[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 320x240, 131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4997749 No.4997749 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone explain to me why people think global warming is fake?

>> No.4997751

Who is people?

>> No.4997752

The implications are unpleasant.

>> No.4997765

>>4997749
I assume it's a backlash against the politicization of global warming.

Once a topic becomes the focus of a political entity, two groups usually arise: those who accede and those who diverge.

>> No.4997779

I"ll bite...

we have only been measuring hundreds of years. the earth is billions of years old. Tektonic plates and shifting regions. Weather cycles. I don't doubt that we've warmed the planet but the real question is to what degree?

>> No.4997784

I think you're confusing this shit.
Most people think that the global warming is a very recent phenomenon, caused by human waste, which (at least in my opinion) is not the case. I don't know if there are people, who actually deny the whole global warming thing as opposed to accepting it as a part of the 12-year (or something in that region) cycle which quite effectively controls the median temperatures of the entire globe with a few degrees this way and that way.

>> No.4997786

>>4997784
Point being that many people who think global warming is fake are just expressing their opinions on that the global warming we're experiencing is NOT manmade.

>> No.4997802

Because people think science is whoever argues their opinions best.

>>4997765
has it right, politics created a debate where it's unnecessary.

>> No.4997838

If global warming exists why don't we just use geothermal plants to suck up the heat from the Earth and convert it into energy, thus solving both energy and global warming problems

>> No.4997842

Part of it is the reason you get any conspiracy theory, people are paranoid and like to think others are "sheeple" to feel better about themselves.

However unlike the moon landing hoax or 9/11 conspiracy theories there is a well funded group of people determined to spread misinformation about climate change. This takes the form of making donations to politicians and news agencies in exchange for policy decisions and coverage favorable to their cause. They don't want voters pressuring their government to pass legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions or consumers to change their personal habits out of concern for climate change.

>> No.4997844

>>4997838
becasue the surface is getting warmer while the sub-surface is slowly but surely cooling down. Geothermal plants will become less and a less efficient as time goes by.

Eventually the earth will be so cold that even the core will freeze, it will lose all magnetic field, and we will all die.

>> No.4997851

>>4997838
I don't think you understand how thermal power generation works. You need a temperature differential, one place that is much hotter than another. The only way I can conceive of a thermal power plant that makes use of an increased ambient temperature of earth is if we had some massive thermally conductive structure rising above the atmosphere, or even better all the way to the moon since you can't dump heat into a vacuum effectively.

>> No.4997867

>>4997749
No hard evidence. All conjecture.

>> No.4997883

>>4997851
>>4997844
Think harder /sci/ geothermal plants work both ways. Geothermal just needs a temperature differential, the atmosphere can be hotter than the ground or vice versa.

Plus nuclear decay is one of the many processes that warms the deep Earth

>> No.4997925 [DELETED] 

Virtually all "proofs" use ridiculously small time slots.
When you get a reasonably decent time in geological scale, you see that earth passes through much higher temperature and sea level variations all the time.

Plus, many supporters of this theory admitted having fabricated data. Check "climate gate" for leaked emails about fake data

>> No.4997954

I think the reason was... first, they feel the Earth is simply too massive for us to noticeably change - I feel differently, peak oil and the ozone hole over Australia and other things - and second, 'green' items are noticeably more expensive (I think?), so the possibility of a corporate conspiracy is there:
"The world's gonna die if you don't stop using this and buy our that to use instead."

>> No.4997968

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Q9Wv10Ho

>> No.4997984

Jesus Christ, once again you let me down. Are there any real scientists that actually visit this board?

Nobody disagrees that global warming is happening. Let me say that again. Global warming is happening. It's a very widely observed phenomenon that is based on the average temperature of the earth to increase.

The controversy comes from the question of what's causing it. It really all boils down to this question: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, and are green house gases produced by mankind causing global warming?

As a scientist, I am skeptical that something mankind does is causing such a significant change in our global ecosystem, of which man is only a small part (despite our ever increasing attempts to fuck with it over the last 10k years). I do not think global warming is being caused by CO2 emissions because, yes, it is a greenhouse gas, but so is fucking water vapor, which is everywhere fluctuating all the time. More likely it's a gradual and normal shift in global temperature due to other factors like the earth's rotation around the sun and the position of the moon.
Also correlation doesn't prove causation, and the economic ramifications of cutting CO2 production would fuck with us in ways we honestly as a species are not ready for. I welcome it if it comes and I believe in renewable energy, but these things can't be forced.

>> No.4998013

because it makes people mad
there is no science left just various forms of belief anyway
the only reason you faggots post here is because you want to be part of some sort of group that you think gives you status and makes you better than other people
but the problem is you're all idiots and retards so your life is a pointless waste of energy
kill yourselves

>> No.4998020
File: 132 KB, 448x1189, golbawowable.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4998020

>> No.4998982

Virtually all 'evidences' they point use a ridiculously small time slot. When you take a reasonably sized time slot in geological sense you see clearly that earth passed and passes trough much larger temperature and sea level variations all the time, even when compared with the most 'apocalyptic scenarios' they predict'.

Plus, many global warming theorists later admitted having fabricated data, see climate gate.

This is a political bluff to hold economies and spare resources other countries strive.

If you want to stop being a puppet on government's hands, STOP using heuristic reasoning. This is always where propaganda and psychological tricks rest upon, because its when you take something which is not really an evidence as being an evidence.

All the above posters are stating propaganda, either repeating someone elses or creating themselves. Mostly bandwagon and appeal to fear techniques

anonas, read this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
and beware.

There are ill intentioned people here

>> No.4999004
File: 261 KB, 2000x1500, 2000px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4999004

It's not fake. But to completely blame it on humans is ridiculous.
There was an ice age fairly recently.
Do you think the early humans blamed global cooling on themselves too?

>> No.4999008

There is 0 evidence that oil can make shit hot unless you burn it, and thats not because of "green house shit" thats because burning shit is hot

>> No.4999019

>>4998982
>Virtually all 'evidences' they point use a ridiculously small time slot
Why do people need evidence? Think about global warming in terms of logic.
P1: Gases with more than 2 atoms in the atmosphere essentially 'reradiate' heat back into Earth's surface
P2: Gases with more than 2 atoms are becoming more prevalent in our atmosphere
Conclusion: The Earth's climate is increasing when controlled for all other variables such as sun spots and natural weather cycles.

>> No.4999029
File: 49 KB, 294x294, 1341950776120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4999029

BECAUSE IT IS

>> No.4999047

>>4997842
This.

It is very very very very cost-effective to spread disinformation about climatology for the fossil fuel industry.
The alternative being to deal with it and move from that profitable business to a way less profitable business.

Capitalism ho!

>> No.4999054

Because some political figures who are proponents of global warming want to create a carbon tax as well as increase regulations on industries that produce a lot of CO2.

So the people who don't want to be taxed or raise taxes pay good money for think tanks that do research and come up with papers on why global warming is bunk. These ideas are distributed through various media channels to the public. The anti-tax/anti-regulation groups of the public accept that global warming isn't real because it provides a comfortable "fact" for their worldview.

Not that I agree with carbon taxes, I really don't. It's just the amount of people who shut off their brains on both sides of this is astounding. People turn into complete meme-spouting retards who regurgitate everything they've been handed by their respective authority.

>> No.4999075

well here is what the scientific community thinks about the matter
http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=&sp-q=global+warming&sp-p=all&sp-c=25&
amp;sp-m=0&sp-s=&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&am
p;sp-p-1=phrase&submit=go

>> No.4999116

every single one of you faggots that think that humans aren't the only ones to blame for recent warming haven't actually looked up any of the data.

******There's no other change in forcing causing the warming than the increase in CO2 levels. Period.****** If you think otherwise, please go away and don't vote in this next election. Humans are the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases. In CO2 alone, humans are 100 times higher than volcanoes, the number 2 Co2 producer.

>> No.4999125

>>4999116

troll/10

>> No.4999128

i'm wondering how long till crops die and the food war starts
OR
it would cause a shit load of storms and an other ice age
which in turn causes starvation and war

>> No.4999133

>>4997749
People want to believe in conspiracies. That really is all there is to it.

>> No.4999139

>>4999125
I'm not trolling. These are facts. The recent warming in the last 200 years is not caused by transient planet bullshit. The speed of this warming is much, much faster than any of the natural ice-age or warm-age bullshit.

>> No.4999142

>>4999125
yeah!

we have 200 years worth of verified data out of the last 4.5 billion years, so back off yo!

we know what we are talking about here!

>> No.4999144

>>4999142
If I watch a pendulum swing for 10 years and only record data for an experiment for one hour, would you make the equivalent argument?

>> No.4999155

>>4999144
but there are lots of ways to see what the temperature was hundreds and millions of years ago
and this climate change is still happening too fast
i suggest you first take a look at the data before voicing your opinion

>> No.4999164
File: 65 KB, 554x439, 1327435909347.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4999164

Several reasons

A) they are stupid and haven't looked at the data themselves
B)Centrain groups will gain enormous power by controlling resources, some people see this as discreditation of climate change politicalizing
C)Scientists have already been caught fudging data and trying to snub out opposing argument (part of the bias of the science)
D) some people believe because we have been measuring the climate for such a small ammount of time in term,s of the age of the Earth, any small change would look drastic.
E)The methods proposed to ''solve'' the problem are inefficient and very expensive.
F)Scaremongering is rife.

basically it is not as ''clear cut'' as scientists make out, prompting doubt to grow.

However, one thing is certain, the groups who wish to control resources are coveing up the fact that all that needs changing is we need to stop cutting down trees and we need to replenish the forest.

Tree coverage to C02 levels is inverse.

>> No.4999179

>>4999164
>C)Scientists have already been caught fudging data and trying to snub out opposing argument (part of the bias of the science)

Get out.

>> No.4999180
File: 12 KB, 612x418, hide_the_decline.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4999180

The supposed 'consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

'We're now well into the second decade of the pause,' said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. 'If we don't see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.'

>> No.4999182

you idiots still think that oil companies are against all this global warming stuff because ''it will hurt their business?''

you morons need to get some perspective. OPil production has been constantly falling, while consumption is constantly rising. The only way for the oil companies to stay in business is to amically make their fuel very expensive while selling less of it. By enforcing strict environmental rules they can easily jack up the prices of their goods aswell as making as much as they do now, while selling less of their produce.

Selling your product cheaply to everyone is bad business practice when you are dealing with a finite resource, but being able to sell the resource at a massively higher price to very few people not only makes you mroe money, but allows you to keep selling it for LONGER before it runs out.

you guys are idiots.

>> No.4999187

>>4999179
>I don't like the fact that some scientists HAVE been bought and actively tip the data in favour of warming, then attempt to cover it up.
no, you get out christfag.

>> No.4999190

>>4999187
Who has attempted to tip the data?

So help me, if you say climate gate, i'm going to fucking strangle you through my monitor.

>> No.4999197

>>4999180

>1000's of emails
>one sentence from one email is the smoking gun of the conspiracy
>the "trick" is just a better way of incorporating the temps

Morongate 2012. /pol/ has arrived gents.

>> No.4999208

>>4999190
climategate

get mad hippie

>> No.4999210

>>4999197
>>4999190
Nice IP ameteur

>> No.4999214

>>4999182
Hey, fellow barons! This guy is right! Having the entire world's infrastructure depend on our product is bad for business. We'd profit much more if we supplied a niche market at high prices! Alternate fuels are really all gravy for us!

You have a real flair for economics.

>> No.4999219

>>4999210
>Implying we're the same person.

>>4999208
:|

>> No.4999226
File: 20 KB, 240x230, 1329841785658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4999226

>>4999214

>he thinks he knows anything about business

you just confirmed you know nothing yourself.
If you have life-saving medecine, you don't sell it to a thousand people for 10 dollars a pop, you sell it to the people who ''really'' need it for 10,000 dollars a pop.
The supply over price model only works if you have a product that you can keep making, since then more exposure is better since you can make up small margins through quantity.
However, if you have a finite resource, you don't sell it to everyone on the cheap, eeking out a small margin, because it will be gone too quickly. You sell it to those who really need it for a premium price, making each unit of that resource more profitable.

>> No.4999247

>>4999226
So the world infrastructure changes to rely on another fuel, much cheaper than your niche product pricing. I'm sure you'll have a lot of demand.

>Why pay $10 for 100km of alternative fuel when I can
>spend $1000 for a comparable amount of niche petrol?

>> No.4999272

>>4998982
You have to get your info from scientists not from the media or Al Gore. Their exaggeration and apocalyptic and catastrophic scenarios is just as unscientific as denying GW.

>> No.4999275
File: 174 KB, 696x688, temp_stations_fudge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4999275

>fudging data

Thanks to Climategate this is now among the best documented cases of the political corruption of science. One method to forge temperature data was to close down measuring stations far from 'heat islands' like cities or airports - to save funds. Very effective, see diagram. Another way was the deliberate falsification of statistical results, see code snip.

For students of the modern history of science the climategate mail server (which is still available) is a treasure trove.

"We are in the situation of a judge being paid per conviction." - [anon climate researcher]

>> No.4999277

Because the earth is 6000 years old OP

>> No.4999280

>>4999275
0/10 for shit trolling. If you're going to troll, you need to at least include /some/ facts.

>> No.4999279

>>4997765
This is probably the biggest reason, it became a movement with people only caring about having things done their way, whether they were using actual facts or even if their actions would be actually beneficial to anyone, and in ignorance of terrible consequences.
And so it's easy for the corrupt to ride and push forward that backlash as well.

>> No.4999292

>>4999279
Tha majority of both sides are pushed by ideology. The environmentalists claim they defend science but ask an average greenie what he thinks about nuclear power. The things I've heard said by those people show that the majority are ignorant to the science behind GW and only hear what they want to hear.

>> No.4999306

>>4999247
how precious. He doesn't realize you cannot crack ''organic'' fuel. Biofuel is both expensive to produce and an only really be used in simple combustion engines. For aviation fuel and other special fuels you need to crack crude oil.

>the idiot thought I meant supply cars with fuel.

>> No.4999314

>>4999275
>Uncited figure.

>Climategate
No evidence of any wrongdoing.

>> No.4999348

>>4999306
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-01/airlines-win-approval-to-use-plant-based-biofuels-on-commer
cial-flights.html

>> No.4999476

>>4997968
Oh great: it's that fat, ugly, magician cunt from America; surely he must be able to shed some insight on global warming...

>> No.4999498

>>4997984
>As a scientist
But not as a climatologist, so your OPINION is invalid.

>> No.4999537

Global warming is real,
the idea that human beings were key in it occurring is an absolute fantasy though.

>> No.4999548

It's impossible to prove global warming fake because the people who believe in it keep moving the goalposts

>Do you believe in global warming?
Well yes, evidence suggests the world is getting warmer
>So you agree that driving cars and herding cattle and being white heterosexual males is destroying the earth?
Well no, the earth goes through cycles. There's been more than one "ice age" and geological sore samples show that
>pfffft geology is bullshit all the scientists say the world is getting warmer why do you disagree with all the scientists?
No, I just said I agree that it's getting warmer. That's provable. But to jump to the suggestion that people and their cars are the cause, especially when every answer from every politician who you support that's into global warming is "give me money, buy the offsets that I sell, let me tax you for carbon". When people identify a problem in order to sell you a solution, that's a sales pitch, not science.
>But there was a consensus among scientists! A CONSENSUS!!
You're just saying that because Al Gore drilled 'consensus' into your head
>But Jon Stewart said..
we're done here

>> No.4999543

>>4999004

This, basically.

>> No.4999555

Everything is causing global warming.

Humans are only one component of it.
Although nobody can deny that we have:
cut down ungodly numbers of trees and bushes
covered the land in dark, heat absorbing materials
killed off millions of animals

Where this puts us in terms of how much we have affected the climate overall is another question.
The lower number of animals means less methane and CO2.
Less trees means less CO2 scrubbing.
Tars and various other dark landscapes are also trapping heat longer.

Of course these are just a few things, there are far more things we have done that varies the climate from day to day and probably stacks up.

Regardless, climate warming is happening and will continue to happen until there is too much freshwater that it damages ocean currents in the north and south areas so much that they fail entirely.
The temperature for that to happen will also be hot enough to produce really high clouds from evaporation, which will then travel further north / south, causing far worse weather.

>> No.4999600

>>4999537
Clown.

>> No.4999605

>>4999548
Clown.

>> No.4999621

>>4999292
There are no "both sides". Not everyone wants to participate in bullshit "environmentalists versus US Republicans" nonsense. People in the US are too attuned to what loudmouth assholes have to say and come up with retarded conspiracies that scientists, NASA, and so on are supposed to be in on. It's like listening to people who think the moon landing never happened.

>> No.4999635

>>4997765
The backlash IS the politicization. Just like how largely the same people are these fucking young-earth creationist politicians. It shouldn't even be an argument, but because people are pricks, it is.

>> No.4999643

>>4997779
Pretty sure scientists have that covered by now, chief.

>> No.4999650

>>4997784
That's a myth. You seriously think scientists forgot about other factors?

>> No.4999672

>>4997867
lol no. It's pretty basic physics actually for the main hypothesis based on how we know atmospheric molecules of various types work. The details are the highly complicated part.

>> No.4999679

>>4997984
The scientists have accounted for the water vapour versus CO2 idea that you have. Really, this stuff is easy to look up.

>> No.4999696

>>4998020
That cartoon makes no sense. The deniers would have been the ones that had the ideas that aren't a natural conclusion of understanding the observations at hand, not the ones with the abundance of evidence. The footdraggers are the deniers in each case.

>> No.4999707

>>4998982
There is no "climate gate" as you understand it. You have not educated yourself properly on this topic at all.

>> No.4999721

>>4999004
Pretty sure the scientists factored that kind of thing in, chief.

>> No.4999736

>>4999125
Clown.

>> No.4999745

>>4999180
Accounted for, please research serious sources.

>> No.4999776

>>4999182
You are seriously misinformed. The former head of Exxon is widely known to have been a denier and funded obfuscation campaigns. The current head of Exxon is known to not buy into this denier bullshit now. If the current head of Exxon, and the Bush administration in its later years, can recognize the science, why the hell are you dragging your ignorant feet even now?

>> No.4999834

>>4999208
The climate gate is that some numbnuts swiped private emails and fished out the word "trick" when it was merely used in the same way that people say, for example, this lubricant will do the trick, i.e. do the job, not do the deception.

>> No.4999864

>>4999275
You are being misleading to the point of being a liar. Anyone who cares to look into it knows that so-called climategate is Breitbart-style horseshit.

>> No.4999883

>>4999292
Again, there's no reason to care about professional environmentalists on the matter. Sometimes I think the only people that spend hours on their material are the people that hate them the most. Stick to science reports.

>> No.5000492
File: 381 KB, 940x3963, global-warming-skeptics-vs-scientists_50290a5b2c01a.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5000492

>> No.5000528

>>4997844
As true as that statement is you're talking hundreds of millions of years from now. I don't think we should concern ourselves over it.

>> No.5000543

Every global warming thread till forever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&index=1&feature=plpp_
video

>> No.5000564

>>5000492
>massive deforestation with absolutely zero restoration in the early 1900s the likes of which the world had never seen
>it's difficult to tell what caused the warming of the Arctic in the 1930s

>> No.5000587

>>5000543
I don't understand why somebody would make a "science" video channel and claim to be a "scientist" while trying to stay anonymous.

Science is based on peer-review. If you're anonymous, peer-review doesn't work.

>> No.5000607

>>5000587

>Science is based on peer-review. If you're anonymous, peer-review doesn't work.

What the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.5000621

>>5000607
I don't see the point of labeling yourself a "scientist" if you do not want to display your name, name which shall be associated to diplomas, papers, quotes, honors maybe...

>> No.5000637

>>5000621

that has nothing to do with peer review

>> No.5000655

>>5000587
You can peer-review an anonymous paper just as well as a non-anonymous one. There are plenty of anonymous and pseudonymous scientists in history who've contributed major discoveries. The thing about science is it's not based on who you are, it's based on what the facts are— so anonymity doesn't really hurt.

>> No.5000682

Basically, the real science of global warming is too complex and nuanced for an ordinary person, or even a highly educated non-expert, to understand.

People can parrot talking points from whichever side they prefer, but neither actually have a real understanding of the issue. Examples are feedback/forcing models are consistently misrepresented by pro-global warming "educators" -- the models they use do not in any way resemble a ball at the top of a hill, as these models are often represented. Similarly a deep understanding of statistics is required to interpret empirical data about warming. I have close to PhD in econometrics (which is a kind of statistics) but I couldn't tell you if the hockey stick diagram was valid without a lot of research/study.

>> No.5000681

>>5000655
How could you identify frauds like this guy
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data if publications were anonymous?
How could you know the data wasn't made up or plagiarized if anyone can publish anonymously?

>There are plenty of anonymous and pseudonymous scientists in history who've contributed major discoveries.
Name some.
Inb4 they're anonymous/pseudonymous

>> No.5000716

>>5000682
That's true enough of lots of science that no one cares to argue about on political talk radio. Heck, most people have no knowledge of statistical significance. There's no special difficulty though in understanding the basic physics of greenhouse gases, and the chemistry of what happens when you burn a carbon fuel.

>> No.5000764

>>5000716
All the basic physics leads to is the possibility that there might be an effect of GHG on climate. The most naive estimate possible is (AFAIK) tiny, and so a lot more complex understanding of climate is needed to get a large effect.

So, if you already believe in AGW, then it is easy to follow a story explaining it. But to go from a plausible story to a valid basis for belief requires knowing a lot of science, or trusting the experts.

>> No.5000769

>>5000764
>All the basic physics leads to is the possibility that there might be an effect of GHG on climate.

Actually, it is physically impossible for GHGs not to have an effect on climate.

>> No.5000784

>>5000769
Ok thanks for the correction, now move onto the second sentence.

>> No.5000794

>>5000764
Scientists got your concerns covered, chief. The basic stuff like that is the easy part.

>> No.5000795

>>5000784

Define tiny

>> No.5000810

>>5000794
That was actually my point. A basic understanding of science is insufficient to believe in global warming, you need to believe the scientists who operate on a deeper understanding using more complex models.

>> No.5000820

>>5000795
From wikipedia "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed." Maybe tiny was an exaggeration.

>> No.5000833

>>5000810
I don't "believe" anything, I merely have some level of confidence that people more versed in the subject than I am know what they are talking about. This science is no different than others in that respect. That's just science and philosophy of knowledge in general.

>> No.5000834

>>5000820

So there you have it, global warming with basic physics.

>> No.5000873

>>5000833
Personally, I agree that the scientific consensus or even majority is the best basis for making decisions. However some people have reasons they believe that people promoting AGW have a political bias, and so they distrust them. On the point that a person cannot use basic reasoning and knowledge of basic science to confirm for themselves the science of AGW, you seem to agree with me

>> No.5000881

>>5000834
Except if positive feedback can make this into a much bigger warming, then negative feedback could turn it into zero warming. So basic physics tells us pretty much nothing.

>> No.5000899

>>5000881

>then negative feedback could turn it into zero warming. So basic physics tells us pretty much nothing.

No, it tells you nothing because you don't understand it. Zero sensitivity is impossible because then there'd be no climate change at all.

>> No.5000922

>>5000833

> Implying belief is anything other than assigning confidence above a certain amount

>> No.5000920

>>5000899
Ok but it is still possible for the effect to be arbitrarily close to 0.

>> No.5000930

>>5000920

Yep. But that's a different argument.

>> No.5000949

>>5000930
not really since the reason people are interested in AGW is because of its practical effect, and if the actual effect is close to 0 then there's no reason to do anything.

>> No.5000965

>>5000949

It is a different argument because you started with the notion that global warming is a completely inaccessible subject unless you have relevant expertise. Now you're saying that people can understand some things about global warming, but not the specifics.

>> No.5000966

>>5000922
Don't green text bullshit you clown.

>> No.5000974

>>5000965
Who cares, jeeze.

>> No.5002900

>>4999226
>You sell it to those who really need it for a premium price, making each unit of that resource more profitable.
Until somebody else starts selling that shit to thus forcing you to compete price-wise until the resource finally settles on the price that it is actually worth.
Of course none of that will happen in "free market" with patents safely defending the monopolies.