When did you realize that anthropogenic climate change is the biggest scientific hoax in history?(2)

[Anonymous No.7976653]

Paid shills are at it again. Do you believe them?

[Anonymous No.7976661]

>>7975305
>>>7974945
>it's almost as if volcanism can have more than one kind of effect on climatology...
Its almost as if cooling caused by volcanism doesn't count except when you draw a line through and upward to an El Nino
>>>7974954
>>>7974956
>oh look, more graphs showing models overestimating warming starting around 1991
>what's with all these deniers (more like honest observers) who's never heard of Pinatubo?

But what's with all these warmists (one mouthy paid shill, honestly) who never heard of El Nino, and then draws a line from Mt. Pinatubo eruption to the El Nino and says CLIMATE CHANGE!!

>>>7974959
>>I showed an accurate graph,
Didn't say that. I said the graph fulfilled the falsifiability criterion.
> I see a graph that falsifies my falsifiability criterion. So I dogmatically deny it.
> Look I gave a graph of massively tampered data, so climate change is true!

Posted is a graph showing that NASA has attempted to erase most of the cooling. Fraud in action. And see here >>7972793
As always, a stated falsifiability criterion has no more worth than the time it takes to meet that criterion. At that point, the warmist immediately moves the goalposts; or posts tampered data.

[Anonymous No.7976664]

>>7976661
>>7975305
>>>7974945
>>IPCC mentions hotspot as a predicted side-effect of climate change
>>therefore if it's not there it means all of climatology is a lie
>you're the only one attaching special importance to this
Your intense butt hurt at this failed prediction is to be expected. The hot-spot is the signature of positive feedback. Didn't happen, so now you pretend it's irrelevant. Science denier.

Hot-spot prediction happens => Positive feedback, so Climate Change is true!
Hot-sport prediction fails => hurr durr, noise, whatever, so Climate Change is true!

Ladies and Gentlemen, unfalsifiability in action.

[Anonymous No.7976665]

Rapid replacement thread.
Let the Mockingbirds fly in.

[Anonymous No.7976668]

>>7976664
>>>7974962
>>They said, the lapse rate can decrease and yet no "hot spot." This, of course, is physically impossible.
>it's almost as though your simplistic thermodynamic approach doesn't account for all the factors involved in the movement of air masses in the atmosphere. (BTW, point 5 isn't necessarily true. it varies from case to case depending on saturation and pressure, among other things.)
>it's easy to think you know it all, apparently, when you're so unaware of just how complex these systems are.

>Gosh, if I talk in a condescending tone then I can trick people into believing a violation of basic atmospheric physics.

So let's look at point 5, which you cast doubt on:
"5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense."
A quick check with Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate, is all about cooling off until condensation. So what are you really trying to say? It is, of course, one of the theories that is so ad hoc, so ridiculous that it can't be said to the public. Which is why you're skirting around it. So I'm going to say it for you. "Gosh, maybe, just maybe, there's a heat effect which perfectly cancels the cooling, preventing condensation." Yup, you really shouldn't put forth that theory because it's as moronic as it sounds. So instead, you had to go with the pompous "it's so complex!" Yeah, air getting so cold that the water vapor condenses. Real complex there.

[Anonymous No.7976672]

>>7976668
>>>7974964
>>Specifically, Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models.
>No, you retard, that is not what he claimed. What that paper says is that 17 years is the minimum interval to accurately assess trends. In fact,
>he explicitly said that the warming trend observed is greater than what might statistically be expected from random variation:
>Hurr, durr, I'll pretend the evil denier didn't point to a flatlined temperature trend and then construct my strawman argument about warming.

No you idiot, 17 years was the time needed for flat or negative trends. Which is exactly what happened.

>>"On timescales longer than 17 years, the average trends in RSS and UAH near‐global TLT data consistently exceed 95% of the unforced trends in the CMIP‐3 control runs (Figure 6d), clearly indicating that the observed multi‐decadal warming of the lower troposphere is too large to be explained by model estimates of natural internal variability."
>can't you even read these papers before posting them?

Are you stupid or just acting that way? At the time the paper was published, the statement was correct, there had not been 17 years of flat lined temperatures. Since then, there has been a 17 year interval of flat temperatures. The criterion has been reached.

The intellectual dishonesty of people who supposedly represent scientific truth is one of the most powerful signs that Climate Change is a pseudo-science.

[Anonym No.7976673]

>>7976653
Governments resorted to climate change propaganda in 2008-ish so they could increase taxes on gas and borrow more from the central banks.
The oligarchs in the late roman empire probably would have taxed horse feed if they knew about the greenhouse affect it's all that ludicrous.

[Anonymous No.7976676]

>>7976672
>>7975319
>>>7974968
>>‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
>If only you and the rest of the denier crowd had bothered to read the next sentence...
>>We're really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.
>>>7974973
>>give some very specific numbers!
>>makes vague references to sloppy error bars, no actual numbers in sight

It's your pet theory, that makes it your job to post the numbers. If I posted them and demonstrated that AGW was falsified, you would immediately deny them.

>>cooling for a long time (roughly 1945 to 1965)
>actually a slight warming trend from '45 to '65, you imbecile.

Warmist moron posts heavily tampered data, [ tampering noted >>7972793 ], denies the historical fact of global cooling from about 1945 to 1970.

Pic related. Hubert Lamb, the father of modern climatology believed in Global Cooling.

[Anonymous No.7976677]

>>7976676
>>7975337
>That quote was translated by a Realist thinktank by the name of GWPF. Why should we trust them on anything at all?
>>In 2014, when the Charity Commission ...
>Truth is decided by Ad Hominem!
> Warmists never take loads of money from hedge fundies, certainly not from George Soros.

Sorry paid shill. Ad hominem doesn't change reality. What does Google Translated say?
"Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227&prev=search

Check nzz dot ch

[Anonymous No.7977179]

>>7976653
You really need to get a life.

[Anonymous No.7977200]

>>7977179
The debate is over because the fraud is already happening. There is huge money riding on this, nothing in it for deniers really.

Create greenhouse gases and then capture or destroy them, for no reason other than to generate carbon credits.

For example, a French chemical company manufacturing adipic acid used in the making of nylon, found a way several years ago to make hundreds of millions of dollars from carbon credits.

It did this not by lowering its emissions, but by destroying a byproduct of the manufacturing process -- nitrous oxide (laughing gas) -- a potent greenhouse gas.

In fact, destroying nitrous oxide at two outdated plants in South Korea and Brazil became the company’s most profitable international business, generating revenues far beyond what it earned for producing adipic acid for nylon.

While the carbon credits thus generated represented no actual reduction in emissions, this scheme, incredibly, was legal under international carbon trading rules.

[Anonymous No.7977211]

>>7976653
>Have you ever been so buttblasted in a thread that you HAD to make another after the old one had 404'd just to get the last word in.

Hahahahaha! Holy fuck, OP bringing the autism.

[Anonymous No.7977303]

damn son, you're sure getting rectum ravaged over this. would it have killed you to use a different picture after what happened regarding it in the last thread?

>>7976661
pinatubo matters because it knocked down temperatures by half a degree C for several years, causing models established previously to overestimate warming (as they had no way of accounting for the eruption). it's dishonest in the extreme to pretend that that is evidence of the models' unreliability.
I don't give two shits about a 7-year trendline drawn from 1991 to 1998; I shall leave such cherry-picking of intervals to you and the rest of the window-licking brigade. I'll continue to look at the overall trend on the decade- to century-scale. You know, what's ACTUALLY going on.

>Posted is a graph showing that NASA has attempted to erase most of the cooling.
It must bother you terribly that both of the semi-labeled graphs you post show a warming trend, huh? I'd love to know where the red line comes from, honestly, as the current data from GISTEMP suggests that you've messed up the scaling pretty badly. Also, neither series is of global surface temperature, but rather of surface temperature ANOMALY, which means you've committed the mortal sin of forgetting about +C.
This is what happens when you don't label and cite your graphs, jackass!

>>7976664
>The hot-spot is the signature of positive feedback.
literally a lie, and apparently you don't know what positive feedback is.
>Ladies and Gentlemen, unfalsifiability in action.
except the hotspot isn't anywhere near the only evidence that would support climate change! it's like saying that evolution is a hoax because you found one kind of 9-inch flower but nobody's ever seen a moth with a 9-inch tongue in the area. it's like saying that the Standard Model is a lie because we haven't confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson yet.

[Anonymous No.7977330]

>>7976668
>violation of basic atmospheric physics
I know that physics is all spherical cows in a vacuum, but please try to understand that the system in which the hotspot is predicted is not a simple, perfectly controlled one. there is more at work than the simple rise of water vapor; the atmosphere convects in vigorous and complex ways.
>"Gosh, maybe, just maybe, there's a heat effect which perfectly cancels the cooling, preventing condensation."
We know that the tropics have been warming; we know this from direct measurement. We also know that the effect you've been banging on about suggests that there should be some warming forcing. But we also know that that forcing hasn't dominated the part of the system we care about.
The sensible response, the scientific response, is to say "our model must be insufficient. there must be some other effect that we haven't accounted for." Your response, and apparently that of deniers everywhere, is to say "THE MEASUREMENTS MUST BE FAKE, NO WAY COULD THIS WORK" and to put more faith in your own (pathetically limited) understanding of atmospheric science than in the actual evidence. What is this delusion other than a faith in one's opinions over empiricism? There's a quasi-religious bent to your loud proclamations of having The One Truth, certainly; perhaps this is why you so frequently accuse climatologists of following a rival church?

[Anonymous No.7977372]

>>7976672
>No you idiot, 17 years was the time needed for flat or negative trends. Which is exactly what happened.
>At the time the paper was published, the statement was correct, there had not been 17 years of flat lined temperatures.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just haven't read the paper rather than draw the conclusion that you are incapable of reading technical documents. Santer et al. were not statistically testing the validity of the theory of global warming, but rather the hypothesis that the earth had NOT warmed over time. That is:
>H0 = no warming
>Ha = warming
As we all know (well, those of us who have taken stats do), a failure to reject the null is not necesarily a rejection of the alternative. Please know what the paper was testing if you're going to talk about their results.

>>7976676
>It's your pet theory, that makes it your job to post the numbers. If I posted them and demonstrated that AGW was falsified, you would immediately deny them.
Um no, it's YOUR claim that the error bars on predictions are so large as to make the models meaningless. You go ahead and post the evidence. I'm not going to do your homework for you m88. See, I don't NEED to deny evidence, because I'm on the side actually supported by the overwhelming bulk of the evidence.
>Warmist moron posts heavily tampered data
ah yes, the old canard of
>if it shows a warming trend it must be a fraud! here, look at these unlabeled graphs with different axis scaling!
do you have any evidence of this data tampering you think is so universal? and no, the mere fact that data are adjusted to remove sampling biases isn't evidence of tampering. if the data aren't adjusted, you start whining about potential heat island issues and demand that it be corrected for. can't have it both ways, right?

And no, Dr. Lamb actually recognized the issues with CO2 causing warming. Your newspaper clipping doesn't support your claim.

[Anonymous No.7977389]

>>7976677
if you actually read the translation (you know, not the deceptively edited excerpts) you'll see that the "we" refers to industrialized nations, not the IPCC. Heck, even ANTHONY FUCKING WATTS admitted that much!
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/
CHECKMATE, DENIERS: YOUR FAVORITE DENIER BLOG EXPLICITLY CONFIRMS THAT YOU'RE LYING. SENPAI WILL NEVER NOTICE YOU

Well /sci/, I've finally done it. I used a denier blog to directly refute a dumbshit claim made by a denier. Do I get any internets for this?
(and if you're posting here, please continue to sage as I have done. the pooper peeved OP doesn't deserve the bumps.)

[Anonymous No.7977800]

Amazing. Project Mockingbird now hires children. Isn't that illegal?