Is Global Warming True?

[Anonymous No.6937339]

Why or why not?

[Anonymous No.6937343]

Dude, we can't even explain why the tides go in and out.
Global warming is waaay too advanced to be real science.

[No Dark Matter Guy No.6937347]

Who let Bill O'Reilly in here?

[Anonymous No.6937358]

The magnitude of the effect humans have on the environment is still unknown, yet due to stupid people on both sides of the argument you're either labelled a climatedenyer or a warmiest. At this point, any intelligent debate is lost in empty statements of certainty and everyone is worse for it.

[Anonymous No.6937364]

true? absolutely
the magnitude of its effects, and how fast they will advance, that's more murky

using it as a sledge hammer to push very left wing legislation, no.

>green lobbyists face when solar panels hit the critical power density point that oil companies start investing heavily, and the entire field ramps up to max R&D overnight as they begin mercilessly competing for the smallest, lightest, cheapest, best solar panels
>same with battery tech

use the private sector to fix everything, they have shitloads of money and will change their tune at the drop of the hat if they see competitors doing it and they're losing money for NOT doing it

[Anonymous No.6937365]

>>6937339
regardless of if its true or not. dumping carbon into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea.

[Anonymous No.6937394]

>>6937339
Of course global warming is true. We can directly measure that shit.

[Anonymous No.6937465]

>>6937343
apt summary of comment below yours

[Anonymous No.6937468]

>>6937394
Isn't that pic an appeal to authority?
Why post it?

[Anonymous No.6937474]

>>6937468
It's just dumb, if you talk to climate scientists off the record everyone knows the models aren't perfect and there are lots of issues to discuss still but you can't get on the record statements becaude it's a career killer, you get hounded out.

[Anonymous No.6937479]

>>6937394
>500 years ago
>100% of bible scholars agree that earth is flat and god created it in seven days!

not even a denier, but this pushing is ridiculous and annoying as hell
nothing we can really do about this shit anyway, all these campaigns do (and are intended to do) is manipulate public opinion into supporting leftist politics

>be german
>media bombards entire population with fearmongering against nuclear plants after fukushima
>government eventually caves in
>yay we're nuclear free now
>import energy from france because not producing enough on our own

also

>huge effort to reduce co2 output going on for decades now
>billions of tax money going to various 'green' organisations and industries
>yay we saev teh climate
>meanwhile in china
>dozens of new coal plants are built every year
>the amount of co2 output that germany is saving in a year is added in china within two weeks

so useful

[Anonymous No.6937487]

>>6937474
This isn't even remotely true. Climate scientists talk about uncertainties in their analysis, *in public*, ALL OF THE TIME. Without any risk to their careers.
Just read any part of the IPCC report. It's FULL of uncertainty analysis.
This is simply a fundamental part of the scientific process. You couldn't write a scientific paper without uncertainty analysis. That isn't science! It would never get published!
So please stop spreading this myth that uncertainties in climate science are somehow being hidden from the public. It's not true.

[Anonymous No.6937488]

>>6937479
And the biggest irony of them all is that China is becoming a dominant player in the renewable energy market because coal power stations are keeping their energy costs so low! kek

[Anonymous No.6937494]

>>6937487
Uncertainties in their analysis is not the same as uncertainties in their modelling assumptions. Again this is where things just come down to shouting matches so I'm out.

[Anonymous No.6937502]

daily reminder than dinosaur farts put out more CO2 than modern industry and transportation combined

[Anonymous No.6937503]

>>6937488
yeah. and germany's answer to that? subsidize local solar panel producers so they can compete with china. i'm not even making this shit up - energy costs in germany are absurdly high due to a kind of energy tax that's used to finance the 'transition to green energy', lol.

[Anonymous No.6937516]

>>6937494
>Uncertainties in their analysis is not the same as uncertainties in their modelling assumptions

What do you even mean by this? The models are mostly empirical models. So parameters are based on data. Uncertainties in these parameters are, of course, included in uncertainty analysis, which scientists try to make public. Models are motivated by Navier Stokes equations and basic thermodynamics. So I don't know what, exactly, you're referring to.

[Anonymous No.6937522]

>>6937502
kek

[Anonymous No.6937524]

>>6937468
It's an appeal to expertise, which is perfectly valid in science.

[Anonymous No.6937545]

>>6937339
it's happening, carbon pollution in the air. Next?

[Anonymous No.6937580]

>>6937339
Global warming == 100% True
Man made == I'd say yes

[Anonymous No.6937617]

>>6937580
Why would you use this as evidence of warming? For that time period we actually have temperature readings. They don't keep up with predictions/models, or indicate disaster, or surpass the upward trend from mid-1800's....oh.

[Anonymous No.6937622]

>>6937617
if you don't accept and want to change your mind, watch potholer54's videos on global warming, he debunks most of the myths, otherwise keep arguing with random internet people.

[Anonymous No.6937626]

>>6937617
Here's the pic you asked for
Not the pic you wanted :^)

[Anonymous No.6937627]

>>6937339
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO MAKE THIS FUCKING THREAD YOU DUMBASS BITCH?

fucking hell /sci/, you guys asked how to make this board better? get rid of this shit and don't just post commends with jokes and contempt, let him know he's a FUCKING RETARD and that we fucking look down on this shit here

[Anonymous No.6937636]

>>6937627
>innocent question
>met with absolutely scathing derision and shitflinging on all sides

It's funny how you talk about making /sci/ better yet your attitude is why /sci/ is one of the most hated boards here. At least /pol/ and the fifty video game boards this place must have by now can be entertaining. /sci/ is just the imageboard equivalent of that cynical and self-righteous asshole in every circle of friends that all the other friends secretly (and openly) hate.

[Anonymous No.6937645]

>>6937626
Nice data cherry-picking.
For the past minute I've been measuring the hardness of my cock. It was found to be constantly hard, so I can safely assume it always was and always will be.
CO2 emissions are a problem, but a really long term problem.
SOx, NOx, radiactive isotopes, ozon depletion, topsoil erosion, overfishing, antibiotic resistance etc are actually real problems, quantified and not subjected to weird unpredictable cosmic oscillations.

Also CO2 emissions taxation worked pretty well.
It's not like forcing countries to outsource or putting a tax on development.

>we have natural gas deposits
>gas was going to escape anyway xD
>it's environmentally friendly, don't count CO2.

[Anonymous No.6937653]

>>6937636
>BAWWWW YOU DON'T LET ME HAVE FUN

fuck off, we don't want you and you better fucking hate us.

[Anonymous No.6937654]

>>6937636
>It was just an innocent question laughingtricksterfacepng.jpg
:^)

Also
>why /sci/ is one of the most hated boards here
:^)

You seem to be irrationally angry and delusional

[Anonymous No.6937655]

>>6937653
>we
>us

there is no we
there is no us
you are utterly alone in your imbecility

[Anonymous No.6937657]

>>6937653
1. I'm not OP.
2. I've been here for years. /sci/ is just a very angry, haughty board, even by 4chan standards.

[Anonymous No.6937660]

>>6937655
>BAWWWWW DONT SAY EVERYONE HATES ME IT MUST BE ONLY YOU

[Anonymous No.6937664]

>>6937645
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic.

[Anonymous No.6937674]

>>6937645
>radiactive isotopes
>a real problem

[Anonymous No.6937677]

>>6937664
I'm not.
To say this more clearly, CO2 emissions aren't an urgent problem.
Burn the goddamn coal and use the profits to fund fusion.
Photovoltaics and other renewables might eventually replace current energy production technologies, but at the cost of reducing quality of life and extremely slow technological development.

[Anonymous No.6937679]

>>6937674
Dilution is not a solution.
It is a very real problem alongside heavy metals, growth hormones etc.