According to this study, global warming is now so bad that it's actually changing the way the Earth wobbles on its polar axis. Is this something to worry about? http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501693

File: 238 KB, 760x590, AxialTiltObliquity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Apr 10 07:42:11 2016 No.7993496 [Reply] [Original]

According to this study, global warming is now so bad that it's actually changing the way the Earth wobbles on its polar axis.

Is this something to worry about?

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501693

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 07:45:42 2016 No.7993499 >>7993496 Nah she'll be right

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 07:49:18 2016 No.7993504 File: 55 KB, 468x291, CO2-fertilization.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] CO2 is food for plants! http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php less CO2 would bring us a famine with 1 billion poo-in-loo dying

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 07:50:38 2016 No.7993506 >>7993496 >Is this something to worry about? No. The effect is so tiny. The earth wobbles anyway, it just wobbles ever-so-slightly-differently now. But the change is incredibly miniscule anyway, so no need to worry.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 07:59:02 2016 No.7993514 >>7993496 the only thing to worry about is to adjust GPS devices (the military ones) a few centimetres, and then adjust them back after 2020 when the new little ice age will start

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 08:07:37 2016 No.7993518 >>7993514 >and then adjust them back after 2020 when the new little ice age will start wait what

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 08:10:23 2016 No.7993520 >>7993518 iceagenow.info

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 10:02:10 2016 No.7993652 >>7993504 5/8 b8

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:16:00 2016 No.7994287 >>7993520 ugh

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:20:00 2016 No.7994300 Of cource, global warming change the way Earth spins, not the other way around!! Remember that correlation means causation!!!!! t. global warming """"scientist"""""

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:23:58 2016 No.7994310 >>7993652 CO2 bad! Trees don't need CO2, they could also breathe like humans, but they are forced to use photosynthesis. If we cut CO2 emissions by 2020 trees start to breath again! #maketreesbreathagain2020

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 15:40:51 2016 No.7994356 File: 166 KB, 800x820, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7993496 If I wanted to read this brainwashing, conspiracy nonsense I'd be on MSNBC or CNN. Fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:08:16 2016 No.7994403 >>7994310 >>7993504 https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 10 16:18:36 2016 No.7994424 File: 56 KB, 600x1050, wiggle_and_wobble.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7993496 fast in northern summer slow in southern summer wobble all the time

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 04:58:53 2016 No.7996125 >>7994356 Why is it nonsense?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 12:56:24 2016 No.7996648 >>7996125 >>7994300

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 12:58:33 2016 No.7996653 >>7996648 are you saying that the world moved and that made the ice move? that doesn't make any sense, sorry

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 11 19:50:51 2016 No.7997703 >>7993496 Continental Drift is still a thing OP, and way more effective in making Earth wobbles

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 05:11:21 2016 No.7998500 >>7997703 ...and subsidence, erosion, dust storms, magma eruptions, movements inside the Earth's mantle (which, you know, it's not frozen)... how many things are they ignoring ON PURPOSE?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 06:48:08 2016 No.7998590 >>7997703 >>7998500 why do i get the feeling neither of you have even looked at the paper?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 10:09:57 2016 No.7998795 >>7998500 >ow many things are they ignoring ON PURPOSE? One less than you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 10:21:59 2016 No.7998821 Daily reminder anyone who believes Global Warming is no different from a flat-earther.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 10:27:53 2016 No.7998834 >>7998821 Meh, AGW, it's a live case study in how religions are manufactured, propagated and enforced.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 10:30:13 2016 No.7998838 >>7993504 many of our major crops are already C4 plants which get no benefit from increased CO2, and although C3 is inefficient enough to gain from more ambient CO2 that image isn't taking into account concomitant temperature increases

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 10:53:22 2016 No.7998867 >>7998821 Because the flat-earth model is well known for is wide adoption among geologists and physicists.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 13:30:14 2016 No.7999143

>>7994403
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
>skepticalscience.com
>skeptical
>science

That website ignores a big part of the data and uses a big chunk of false data.

>muh 99.999% consesnsus

Yeah, they're pretty bad. But hey, they do sell a lot of Icons. Erm, I mean merch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 13:41:46 2016 No.7999171 >>7999143 >That website ignores a big part of the data and uses a big chunk of false data. What false data?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 13:47:21 2016 No.7999186 >>7998867 It actually was. For a very long time. Denial of the opposite was considered blasphemy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 13:50:30 2016 No.7999192 >>7999186 >It actually was. No it wasn't. At what point in history did physicists exist and think the Earth was flat?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 13:54:50 2016 No.7999202 >>7999192 This right here. Physicists didn't even exist until 19th century. People knew absolutely NOTHING about science back in the day. How would a physicist, or even an EARTH SCIENTIST even know that the earth was flat?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 15:17:07 2016 No.7999388 >>7998795 >Only looking at one parameter >one less than you kekerino, duderino

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 16:35:43 2016 No.7999552 >>7999202 No you dumb fuck, he's (a little unclearly) rhetorically asking at what point you think any physicist, or historical equivalent, really thought the Earth was flat. The answer was never by the way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 16:49:07 2016 No.7999584 >>7999186 So then since round earth is the current consensus, isn't that more analogous to AGW? And that would make AGW deniers the flat earthers.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 16:50:27 2016 No.7999589
File: 43 KB, 810x583, Global Warmlulz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7999143
>I don't like what it says
>therefore it's fake
and here we have the denier in action...

>>7999186
>>7999192
100% this

>>7999552
dude, he was AGREEING with that guy

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 16:55:30 2016 No.7999608 >>7999552 Is that why ancient myths talk about sun being hoisted up in the morning, and falling below earth every night? Only the fringe was talking about earth being round, and even then, it was relatively recent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 16:58:38 2016 No.7999626 >>7999608 Yes, and today the flat earthers are the lunatic fringe, just like AGW deniers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 17:01:46 2016 No.7999634 >>7999626 More like AGW proponents of the future. Do you come to these threads only to antagonize and insult people, or actually offer some constructive debate?

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 17:01:51 2016 No.7999635

>>7999589
No, he was being facetious. Or possibly just misunderstanding.

Physicists, or scientists, or natural philosophers certainly didn't spring into existence in the 19th century and they knew plenty about science 'back in the day'. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth to an astonishing degree of accuracy in 240 BC, and the Earth was known to be round for many centuries before that.

>>7999608
No, it's the idea that 'most people used to think the Earth was flat' that's the recent invention, first coming to popularity in the 1870s.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 17:06:22 2016 No.7999645 >>7999634 You're the one who made the spurious comparison in order to denigrate AGW proponents, retard. It's really shocking how you have a complete lack of self awareness and spew invectives that apply just as much if not more to yourself than others.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 17:16:10 2016 No.7999677

>>7999635

The belief that Catholics burned people for believing the earth was round is an 1870s invention.

Tens of thousands of years ago, people had no reason to believe the earth was round. It looked flat.

Thousand years ago, people had no reason to believe metal can swim. They only had some small amount of information which showed metal always sinks.

Hundred years ago, atom was an indivisible particle, universe was constant and unchanging, space and time were constant, and not relative.

Consensus called opposition crazy. "100 scientists against Einstein".

Today, the only reason you would oppose the proven fact that CO2 is the sole culprit for world governments fucking us over, is if you were a religious lunatic who believes the earth is flat. Right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 17:24:27 2016 No.7999711 File: 20 KB, 306x306, 1444931083848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7999677 >Look at all these things modern scientists proved were wrong. This means modern scientists are wrong!

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 17:54:27 2016 No.7999818

>>7999677
'No'. Learn some history of science. Catholics most certainly didn't burn people for saying the Earth was round, in fact the canon (in its original religious meaning) was that Aristotle's model of the world was correct - i.e. an immobile sphere with the other planets orbiting it all encompassed in the celestial sphere, so in fact claiming that the Earth was flat would have been heresy!

The first definite recorded instances of knowledge that the Earth was round come from at least the 6th century BC, with the first declaration attributed variously to Pythagoras, Parmenides and Hesiod. As mentioned before, by 240 BC the circumference and diameter were known to a high degree of accuracy (as well as a rough estimate of the relative distances between the Earth, Moon and Sun).

That an empty metal container could float would have been obvious to any Greek that knew the least bit about density and buoyancy, so that's also been known for thousands of years.

A hundred years ago, the atom and the subatomic world were being probed and it was well known that it must be constructed of smaller constituents, and Einstein had already published his special relativity papers a decade earlier, and even that was based on the earlier work of Lorentz and various others - but even then, their work didn't completely replace what came before, it simply offered a more accurate, detailed, fundamental model.

In some ways, I blame popsci (don't we all) for creating this idea that science advances by proving wrong what came before because that's not true at all. Science advances by adding higher order terms. If General Relativity didn't approximate Newtonian (or Hamiltonian) mechanics in the limit of everyday masses and accelerations, it would be wrong. If quantum mechanics didn't tend to Newtonian mechanics at everyday energy scales, it would be wrong.

So when someone says 'Well all this that we think we know could just be wrong, because it's happened before!' I have to say 'No'.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 18:43:40 2016 No.7999987

>>7999711

The guy was trying to prove a point that scientists are fallible, and not gods. You are jumping to conclusions here again.

>>7999818
>Catholics most certainly didn't burn people for saying the Earth was round

That was literally the first thing he said.

The ideas were spread by masons - mostly jews and early protestants, who were anti-catholic

Your attempts at disproving other points are a bit off though.

Myths of flat earth predate Pythagoras, Parmenides, Hesiod and others. Calculations of earth's radius were roughly within the order of magnitude, distances to other celestial bodies far less so. Definitely not predictions to hedge your future on, it it was a start.

Floating metal containers wouldn't have been as frequent in ancient times, it would seem, or Archimedes wouldn't have been as famous for his 'Heureka'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heureka

Subatomic particles were starting to be probed, but earlier, even the fact that atom was divisible was a big news. And the fact that nucleus was divisible.

Einstein's work expanding the work of Maxwell and Lorentz was not widely accepted. It took several decades. And it is STILL not considered a closed and resolved case, but has several mathematically plausible, but less popular scientific interpretations.

You are right, popsci is to blame for how science is viewed in public. It has taken the beauty of science, which is the search for truth, regardless of what it might be, and turned it into religion.

Real science doesn't work on consensus, it doesn't need consensus. It greets opposition, not tries to shut it down. It isn't insecure about its findings, it isn't afraid to change opinions, as long as the findings are consistent.

So far, climatology has been very inconsistent with its findings.

Did you know water vapor is responsible for 90% of the greenhouse effect?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 18:47:00 2016 No.7999994 File: 51 KB, 422x512, attachment[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Wow all these autists taking each other seriously

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 18:49:58 2016 No.8000004 Global warming isn't real, all evidence says that it is not happening. If you take it seriously then you might as well believe in flat earth theories.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 18:58:10 2016 No.8000024 >>7999987 Everyone is fallible, so what is the point of using this as an argument against AGW proponents? You might be wrong, I might be wrong. Move on to a relevant point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 19:37:01 2016 No.8000100 >>7993496 I thought this was 4chan. Take your bullshit, scare-tactic, liberal conspiratorial, anti-God, anti-freedom bullshit and shove it sideways up your ignorant, MSNBC/CNN/Jon Stewart brain-washed ass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 19:47:52 2016 No.8000124 >>8000100 Take your meds.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 19:57:45 2016 No.8000159

>>8000024

even Wikipedia is wrong, but ooops, you can't fix the main article about Global warming, you can't write there the truth, they'll delete it immediately; no, at best you can scribble in the ghettoised secondary articles, but only if you give 50% of space to the mainstream point of view... sic

funny how it's still plenty of articles about pseudo-sciences where stating the truth is allowed right away

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 19:59:06 2016 No.8000171 >>8000024 Why is skepticism of AGW greeted with such emotional ridicule then? >>8000100 Fuck off with this bullshit.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 19:59:26 2016 No.8000172

>>7999987
I misread him, I thought he was >implying and thought Catholics actually burned people for that.

>roughly on the order of magnitude
Yes, within 66km (0.16%) of Earth's actual polar circumference is definitely on the same order of magnitude

>actually linking me the wikipedia page on 'heureka'
You patronising fuck, what exactly do you think I meant by 'any Greek that knew the least bit about density or buoyancy'? As you can apparently see, the Greeks knew how that shit worked and so 'metal that swims' would not have been voodoo magic when they lived
>thousands of years ago.

And furthermore, Einstein's work

Yes, the scientific method greets opposition, takes it apart, determines what the opposition is hypothesising, conducts experiments to attempt to falsify it and, if the new model does not contradict observation and is shown to have predictive power, it is assimilated into the corpus of 'science'. Peer-review is one of the cornerstones of this entire process, and any 'new science' has passed this hurdle only when the majority of people educated on the subject can look at it and say "Yes, this does not contradict any experiment I'm aware of and has proven its predictive power, it's a good model of [whatever it's a model of]" i.e. once consensus has been reached. This is necessarily a slow process because the scientific method is inherently rigorous and skeptical, hence why it would take a long time for any new idea to be accepted...

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:04:31 2016 No.8000188

>>8000171
>Why is skepticism of AGW greeted with such emotional ridicule then?
Because it's based on obvious misinformation and stupidity. Are you saying that fallibility implies AGW "skeptics" and proponents are on equal ground? Again, it was the "skeptic" who created the analogy of AGW proponents with flat earthers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:05:45 2016 No.8000190 >>8000159 Did you consider that you are the one peddling pseudoscience and try to remove the truth? Because you are.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:07:16 2016 No.8000195

>>8000172
...Ideas such as the fact that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases are trapping thermal energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which has a vast, vast body of evidence from a huge number of different sources covering a variety of affected systems across the entire planet, as well as well-defined mechanisms explaining the effects at every stage. To disagree with the overwhelming evidence - to deny the consensus that has been reached by a huge number of well-educated, intelligent people testing and re-testing and peer-reviewing and meta-analysing the literature - means you're either obviously lacking some key information on the subject or else have some kind of agenda to push, such as perhaps that you want to keep exporting and burning fossil fuels despite that being the cause of global warming, possibly because that industry makes lots and lots and lots of money.

>>8000171
Skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is greeted with emotional ridicule because it is ridiculous, and because this farce of a debate has managed to trundle on for decade after decade despite the science being absolutely clear and defined on it - and because those who still cling to the notion that it's all some kind of gigantic conspiracy have continually managed to block or weaken any attempt to actually solve the problem, a problem that will, over the next few centuries, make life much less pleasant for the vast majority of people on the planet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:07:53 2016 No.8000200 >>8000188 And your proof is where? Other people's opinion? >>8000190 >implying climatology is rigorous science

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:09:06 2016 No.8000204 >>8000200 >And your proof is where? Other people's opinion? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>8000200 >implying it's not You have no argument.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:13:43 2016 No.8000209

>>8000172
>and furthermore Einstein's work
showcases exactly this approach, in that people were initially skeptical, experiments were performed, Arthur Eddington took his photos showing the gravitational deflection of starlight by the Sun and, after much testing, the consensus became that General Relativity was correct. Then, after some interesting developments it was realised that actually there were some things that GR didn't cover, and so it couldn't be the final word on the matter and so now a new model is awaited to be tested, scrutinised and hopefully a consensus formed on its viability.

(Always proofread!)

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:17:44 2016 No.8000217

>>8000195
science on it is far from clear, and it's getting worse. It is closer to astrology than science.

>>8000172
>peer review

Is a flawed model. The most publicized case being psychology, where data is simply irreproducible, and climatology, where you can't get published, unless you speak what "the consensus" states.
There are plenty of people who had respectable careers before "muh consensus" that have been left bitter.
>>8000204
>ipcc
>known for great bias
>muh consensus
Until you read some actual papers, please don't post.
>>8000209
Great. Then how come we have the final answer for climate all of a sudden?

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:30:33 2016 No.8000241

>>8000217
>science on it is far from clear, and it's getting worse. It is closer to astrology than science
'No'

>peer review is a flawed model
Kek, what would you suggest then? Anyone just publishes anything and it's probably right?

>until you read some actual papers, please don't post
>>ipcc
>>known for great bias
Kek
I mean fine, just dismiss contrary evidence out of hand without reading it yourself and then implore others to read some 'actual' papers (presumably the ones that prove you right - sadly none exist)

>all of a sudden
Literally decades of research combined with vast, vast reams of data forming a consensus held by millions of scientists who have seen the data, seen it makes sense and agreed with the conclusion that human emission of greenhouse gases is warming the planet.
>muh consensus means what's 'real' doesn't get published
That would require literally every scientist who has seen the data to either be inept to the point of being unable to interpret it or part of an impossibly vast conspiracy that has never been revealed as such by any whistleblower. Occam's razor dictates that the scenario requiring a global multi-decade conspiracy for no real net gain is probably not the correct one.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:35:49 2016 No.8000249
File: 68 KB, 620x476, CMIP5-73-models-620px.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8000172
I like the way you dodge the claims

>So far, climatology has been very inconsistent with its findings.

>Did you know water vapor is responsible for 90% of the greenhouse effect?

personally, the figure I heard was 95%, of which humans contribute 0.001%, but that kind of stuff doesn't put gravy in the train, does it?

also, all of the IPCC models were proved wrong, yet you still believe their science is correct? delusional, many such cases, sad

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:36:48 2016 No.8000250 >>8000241 So, how do you explain the irreproducibility of data in psychology?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:37:44 2016 No.8000252 >>8000204 the same ar5 that acknowledged the 19 year "hiatus"? you know, the pause in warming, that none of them predicted

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:53:13 2016 No.8000274 >>8000249 Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience infamy attacked this graph. His pseudoscience was quickly destroyed. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:04:37 2016 No.8000296 >>7999994 wait I thought I was in another thread >>7998376 is the troll thread. I think it died anyways though. sorry about that, doesn't seem like OP here is trolling at all what so ever

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:10:59 2016 No.8000305

>>8000274
AGW is not unique as a religion regarding failed prophecies. Just look at the Abrahamic End of Days prophecy, It's repeated failure instead of raising doubt actually reinforces the belief it shall one day come about amongst its flock. Some psychology journal explained that phenomena as sunk cost bias.

We know climate changes, does it really deserve its own tax though? If fossil fuel consumption is the real issue then say it, it just raises suspicion otherwise. It may be a harder sell that way but truth is always the best policy or you get caught up in cascading lies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:15:12 2016 No.8000315 File: 18 KB, 720x540, strangelove-01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7993496 Only if you're a massive, lib-fag, cock-sucking, douche nozzle

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:38:20 2016 No.8000360 >>8000305 Global government. All conspiracies aside, there's a consistentpush for a global government in anything left wing. Even feminism. Next big thing is potential, nonexistent alien threat. that can only be solved by disolving countries.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:50:52 2016 No.8000474

>>7993504
Right but with more heat trapped in our atmosphere, the biggest thing to worry about is the effect that the heat will have on our oceans. A good portion of the CO2 taken up from organisms is cyanobacteria and if they die, the CO2 concentration will increase faster than it is now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:51:48 2016 No.8000478 >>8000249 Fake graph. Fake states. Bullshit post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 23:09:10 2016 No.8000515 File: 36 KB, 600x400, 6699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8000478 >Fake states what are you trying to say? grade e moran

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:12:12 2016 No.8000614 >>8000360 This happens every time: Any argument against AGW will inevitably boil down to the arguer's political fears. It's like the global climate is really just another useful political football to them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:04:22 2016 No.8000846 File: 35 KB, 295x338, NO.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8000249 >another graph showing overestimation of warming starting in the early '90s >every single thread, without fail PINATUBO INATUBO NATUBO ATUBO TUBO UBO BO O faggot

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 13:56:49 2016 No.8001812

>>8000614
Surely you mean arguments FOR AGW.
People stating that either CO2 isn't that bad, or that humans don't have much affect, if at all, offer alternative solutions, like CO2 scrubbers.

>>8000478
And you can prove that? Because proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 16:26:37 2016 No.8002206
File: 249 KB, 335x525, Who put you on the planet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8001812
>People stating that either CO2 isn't that bad, or that humans don't have much affect, if at all, offer alternative solutions, like CO2 scrubbers.
so you're saying that people who believe human CO2 emissions AREN'T a danger are the ones proposing geoengineering and other responses to the crisis? the ones who deny the problem exists are the ones suggesting fixes for it? really?
nah, mostly they're the ones pulling this bullshit >>7993504 and going on and on about MUH ELEMENT OF LIFE and MUH PLANT FOOD and MUH WORLD GOVERNMENT LIFE TAX

>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory? (no, shit politicians say doesn't count; we're talking about SCIENCE here.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 17:55:46 2016 No.8002446 File: 20 KB, 349x277, No Warming Except El Nino.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8000846 Volcanic cooling == Natural influence El Nino Warming == Climate Change Nice cherry picking buddy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 17:58:28 2016 No.8002456 >>7994356 I rreally can't tell if these posts are satire or not sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:07:50 2016 No.8002475 File: 169 KB, 1537x715, 100 Billion is all we want - IPCC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8002206 >MUH WORLD GOVERNMENT LIFE TAX >Thems just a CONSPIRITARD THEORY Only cuckservatives would believe they're after your money!

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:09:03 2016 No.8002480
File: 134 KB, 783x607, 102b.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Making up temperature histories

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:10:06 2016 No.8002486
File: 89 KB, 960x535, 180 Years of Atomosphere CO2 Analysis2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002480
>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Making up the historical record of CO2

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:11:09 2016 No.8002494
File: 74 KB, 553x392, Fictional Sea Level Rise.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002486
>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Making up the sea level rise.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:12:55 2016 No.8002498
File: 531 KB, 968x774, Phase relationship detail.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002494
>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Making up CO2 drives temperatures.

>nb4 hurr durr ENSO
Yeah, exactly. A strong driver of global temperature.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:13:59 2016 No.8002500
File: 19 KB, 420x320, hide the decline added back.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002498
>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Hiding the decline.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:16:34 2016 No.8002510
File: 32 KB, 890x561, pH Levels.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002500
>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Misrepresenting ocean Ph levels.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:19:00 2016 No.8002512
File: 240 KB, 513x460, Consensus on Global Cooling.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002500
>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Pretending there wasn't a consensus that the globe had cooled

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:34:05 2016 No.8002546 File: 6 KB, 640x480, uah.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8002446 Drawing pretty lines and speech bubbles on a graph doesn't tell us much. In this case, it tells us a lie.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:40:00 2016 No.8002557

>>8002480
This graph is a good example of disingenuous propaganda through manipulated statistics. It's improperly baselined on a single cherrypicked data point explicitly in order to exaggerate the disagreement. What a great way to show the extreme hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness inherent to the AGW denier movement.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:41:09 2016 No.8002559 >>8002546 > Warming only at 2008 and 2015 El Nino > telling us a lie Damn you're funny.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:41:29 2016 No.8002561 >>8002486 >>8002494 >I don't like the facts so they're made up

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:42:58 2016 No.8002563 >>8002559 So if you draw a straight trendline that has nothing to do with the data it shows no warming, but if you have a positive trendline... it shows no warming. OK, good to know you are delusional.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:45:05 2016 No.8002568

>>8002498
We've already had this discussion and you failed time and time again to respond to the fatal flaw in your argument. Your graph removes the long term trend and isolates the noise, so it tells us nothing about the long term trend from steadily increasing CO2.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:49:31 2016 No.8002573 >>8002500 This has nothing to do with making up data, it's simply not using inaccurate data from tree rings. This another great example of deniers using innuendo to trick people. More irony.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:50:32 2016 No.8002575 >>8002510 How did they misrepresent ocean pH levels?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:53:06 2016 No.8002578 >>8002512 More innuendo and disingenuous wording. This is trying to conflate observed cooling during a certain period with the myth that a consensus of climatologists predicted global cooling.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:54:19 2016 No.8002581 File: 28 KB, 475x356, parking lot weather.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8002206 Did they stopped measuring temps over parking lots asphalt? I'm just curious.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 18:59:20 2016 No.8002588

>>8002581
The poor sites that Watt's whines about actually have a cooling bias thanks to homogenization. But he'll still argue that these stations are making the record warm because he's an ideologue who doesn't care about the facts.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:33:27 2016 No.8002628

>>8002494
This graph is practically comical. It insinuates that glacial isostatic adjustment is an adjustment to the data when it is in fact an empirical phenomenon, the movement of land as it adjusts to the change in weight from melting glaciers. So one has to ask, did the person who made this graph simply not look up what the terms they are talking about mean? Or did they know what the term meant but went ahead and did this anyway in order to trick people? Is he stupid or is he a liar?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:39:15 2016 No.8002635 so am i right the argument goes like this >green energy is part of a conspiracy to make us all stop using oil because thousands of scientists were paid to tell a lie by tiny green startups with no resources seems legit

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:43:49 2016 No.8002643 >>8002635 did you make that up? there's an elaborate picture that explains just that

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:45:02 2016 No.8002648
File: 73 KB, 640x473, Inconvenient Truth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002563
Only warming comes from the 1998 and 2015 El Nino. It is exacerbated by you warmists complaining about Mt. Pinatubo.

Ignoring these natural influences then: No warming.

You Are Delusional

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:46:02 2016 No.8002650

>>8002635
No it's that politicians are profiting off of AGW by spending billions on climate research and green projects. But just ignore that you aren't profiting off of the money if you've spent it on research and infrastructure. That's an irrelevant detail. And climatologists support this because everyone knows scientists make lots of money by making shit up.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:47:55 2016 No.8002653

>>8002648
>Only warming comes from the 1998 and 2015 El Nino.
Remove those years from the data and you still get the same trendline. Again, you seem to be ignoring the long term trend and talking about little pieces. But AGW is a long term trend. Why do you always do this in almost every argument you make?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:52:03 2016 No.8002657 >>8002650 we should stop using oil anyway for a number of obvious pertinent reasons but i agree that we could be getting there more effectively, china seem well aware that buying huge chunks of the sahara is a good idea

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 19:54:01 2016 No.8002662 File: 199 KB, 900x1200, U1R92Xs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ye i found it

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:03:19 2016 No.8002679
File: 192 KB, 1403x813, ENSO Drives Climate3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002568
> My imaginary pointing out of a "fatal flaw."
> I call El Nino and the ENSO noise, therefore its noise.
Nice circular argument there.

A non-answer. CO2 change increases after the temperature difference increases. Show a graph of CO2 change happening before temperature difference change. You can't.

The long term trend says nothing about the direction of causality. Silly warmist with your imaginary counter-arguments. Pic related. ENSO temperature changes driving global temperature changes.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:06:22 2016 No.8002682

>>8002573
>I don't understand the scientific method.
If tree ring data doesn't fit the instrumental record, then it can't be trusted to by a temperature proxy before the instrumental record.

That fact that you defend this incredibly dishonest "science" speaks volumes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:09:20 2016 No.8002683 File: 199 KB, 696x666, Cherry Picked pH levels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8002575 The paper where the ocean Ph scare comes from cuts of the dates of that graph at about 1960, showing only Ph's becoming more acidic. Pic related.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:11:33 2016 No.8002688
File: 94 KB, 1600x508, Hansen NASA GISS temp rewrite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002578
Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, I didn't say anything about global warming. NASA erased most of the period of Global Cooling. Pic related. That erasure had to be done because there was a huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 during that time; which, of course, falsifies the theory.

As usual, when the data doesn't fit the theory, so much the worse for the data.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:14:25 2016 No.8002691
File: 140 KB, 1161x1024, Industrial Revolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002578
A huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 began at about 1945. During a period of global cooling. This falsifies climate change theory, so NASA tampered the data.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:18:04 2016 No.8002699 >>8002662 oh wow nice, saved yeah i did just make that up, damn haha

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:18:39 2016 No.8002700
File: 712 KB, 1171x899, Clean data vs tampered data.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002588
>The poor sites that Watt's whines about actually have a cooling bias thanks to homogenization.
Damn you'te funny! Homogenization mixes in Urban Heat Island data with rural data.

>nb4 NOAA scientist says NOAA tampering is good.
The supplementary data to that paper show that rural stations are cherry-picked to conform to urban data. Thus the "homogenizing with just rural data" argument is nothing but a strawman argument.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:21:10 2016 No.8002704
File: 10 KB, 640x480, wood.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002679
It's literally noise, you fucking dense retard. When you remove the long term trend it's called isolating the noise. And you aren't even responding to the point, you are just complaining about the word noise. Again, the graph removes the long term trend, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

>CO2 change increases after the temperature difference increases.
Not in the current trend. See pic.

>The long term trend says nothing about the direction of causality.
The long term trend is what's being CAUSED retard. The direction of causality of WHAT?

Once again you've proven yourself to not understand the fundamental concepts you are trying to fool people into believing you understand.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:21:47 2016 No.8002705 >>8002662 >doesn't consider climate scientists who have been trying for years to be relevant found a way to easily write proposals by fear-mongering

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:22:59 2016 No.8002706
File: 7 KB, 294x172, tidal guages.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002628
>glacial isostatic adjustment is an adjustment to the data when it is in fact an empirical phenomenon,

We added 1 mm because "hurr durr, ocean basins getting lower!" Therefore we're all going to drown.

Yeah, exactly how does a sinking ocean basin cause sea shore flooding. Silly warmist. And why do tidal gages only show about 1mm ocean rise rate. The same as before. The isostatic adjustment, true or false, makes no difference to the risk of flooding.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:24:38 2016 No.8002710 File: 415 KB, 907x587, IPCC for Socialism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8002635 It not about the money. The U.N. doesn't want $Billions or even $Trillions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:27:31 2016 No.8002714 >>8002705 Why is that a bad thing? Are climate scientists somehow not scientific and making lies?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:28:04 2016 No.8002715 >>8002683 What paper? Without knowing the source data of the graph how do you know it's been cut?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:28:04 2016 No.8002716

>>8002653
>I'm in denial.
No, ignore 1998, 2015 El Nino, and volcanic activity then no warming. >>8002446

Unfortunately for you the largest cause of warming is perfectly natural.
>>8002498
>>8002679

Show me a graph of temperature difference going up AFTER CO2 concentration difference goes up. You can't.

Sorry, but the direction of causality is not in your favor.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:32:30 2016 No.8002722

>>8002704
>The long term trend is what's being CAUSED retard. The direction of causality of WHAT?
Once again, you get the circular argument of the year award. "If i assume that temperature increase happens after CO2 increase, Climate Change is true!"

That graph certainly doesn't show CO2 going up before temperature goes up. And the period of global cooling which NASA had to (partially) erase, shows the opposite of that effect.
>>8002688
>>8002691
Sorry, the period of global cooling falsifies your theory. Then again, I'm not sorry. Certainly not to a PAID SHILL.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:34:10 2016 No.8002725 File: 131 KB, 600x800, 1458858238389.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Reminder that arguing with /pol/ is pointless because their entire ideology is based upon shutting out information they don't like.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:36:16 2016 No.8002729 >>8002725 what the fuck does /pol/ have to do with anything

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:41:24 2016 No.8002741 >>8002714 If you're blowing the importance of your research out of proportion and people buy it, it takes out money from reach that is actually more important like medicine. It's also lying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:43:32 2016 No.8002742 >>8002741 *research

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 20:52:51 2016 No.8002756

>>8002741
How is it lying? If the research is valid it's not lying

and ensuring the safety of humanity is kind of more important than ensuring the safety of individuals. As long as some humans live it's okay but if the planet isn't inhabitable anymore then we are kind of fucked.

Whether humans are the cause of global warming or not, it is definitely happening and it's gonna fuck us all up.

(btw we kind of are the cause, at least considering the causes that are controllable or not. If nature is contributing then maybe we can look into research into controlling nature... but making "holes" in the atmosphere (so to speak) seems to do with all the man made chemicals. The guy that invented Chlorofluorocarbon is probably the biggest factor in fucking up the ozone later but it doesn't really matter, what matters is reversing the effects somehow)

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 21:17:38 2016 No.8002804

>>8002756
The spin around the research is lying part. Sure AGW is real but how big of a deal is it really? Because I can tell you I'm more concerned about the fact that I won't live long enough for it to be a problem in the first place.

>and ensuring the safety of humanity is kind of more important than ensuring the safety of individuals.
Not really. If I could survive alone (and I could given enough automation) the rest of humanity become irrelevant to me. And we all get to decide what matters to us, the key being we as individual need to survive for the rest of our matters to matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 21:24:15 2016 No.8002813 >>8002804 ????????? I want to have children, but why would I if they won't survive the coming apocalypse?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 21:29:31 2016 No.8002822 >>8002813 Ok and I want to live my life to the fullest, unrestrained by people who feel the need to virtue signal about their concern about future generations that may or may not be than themselves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 21:41:37 2016 No.8002848 >>8002682 Tree ring data only diverges from everything else at a certain point. And it's not used in isolation so your point is moot. >>8002683

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 21:56:44 2016 No.8002882

>>8002688
There is no erasure though. Climatologists acknowledge there was cooling in this period caused by a large increase in aerosols. The adjustments which decreased the cooling trend are from changes in the way sea temperatures were recorded during 1945. But of course you will ignore what climatologists actually say and the reasons they give and just say they changed the data on a whim.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 21:59:25 2016 No.8002887

>>8002700
>Damn you'te funny! Homogenization mixes in Urban Heat Island data with rural data.
That makes no sense, since homogenization removes outliers, and urban heat island is by definition an outlier. You are just spouting words without any reason or logic. And it doesn't even respond to the point I'm making, which is that if you remove the sites Watt's doesn't like the warming trend actually increases.

>The supplementary data to that paper show that rural stations are cherry-picked to conform to urban data.
How does it show that?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:02:06 2016 No.8002897

>>8002706
>We added 1 mm
And instead of responding to the fallacy in the graph you just repeat it! Amazing, it's like you can't read. Again, the glacial isostatic adjustment is not "added" to the data, it is part of what causes the rise in sea level. It is the land adjusting to changes in glacier mass.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:05:30 2016 No.8002905

>>8002716
As I already showed, that graph does not represent the data, it's simply a trendline drawn onto the graph. The actual trendline is positive. Make one yourself.

>Unfortunately for you the largest cause of warming is perfectly natural.
The graph you posted removes almost all of the warming from the data, so how does it show the largest cause of the warming? Is it possible for you to respond coherently to a single argument or are you just going to repeat the same mistakes over and over again? This is what happens when you just parrot what you read on some blog without understanding anything about climatology.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:10:03 2016 No.8002911

>>8002722
>Once again, you get the circular argument of the year award. "If i assume that temperature increase happens after CO2 increase, Climate Change is true!"
Again you fail to respond at all to what you are quoting. Saying that the long term trend is irrelevant towards what causes the long term trend is absolute nonsense. Fuck off if you can't even form a coherent thought about what's being discussed.

>That graph certainly doesn't show CO2 going up before temperature goes up.
Yes it does. You are denying what's in front of your eyes.

>Sorry, the period of global cooling falsifies your theory.
No it doesn't. I already explained this.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:13:21 2016 No.8002918

>>8002822
>unrestrained by people who feel the need to virtue signal about their concern about future generations that may or may not be than themselves.
how is that restraining lol. you aren't directly restrained by anything, especially if you are living in a first world nation. whatever you want to do, do it. what does shit other people do have anything to do with you?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:26:42 2016 No.8002941
File: 77 KB, 680x674, dongald.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8002446
>>8002480
>>8002486
>>8002500
>>8002691
>>8002706
so many unlabeled/uncited graphs...

>>8002494
>>8002706
like >>8002628 said, glacial isostatic adjustment is not an adjustment to data but rather the rebound of the earth itself as it slowly springs back from compression by glacial ice which has since melted. (it's got nothing to do with subsidence of oceanic crust, you retard.)
as the land in certain areas (e.g. Hudson Bay) rises, LOCAL sea level falls as a result, but GLOBAL (eustatic) sea level continues to rise. it's nobody's problem but your own if you're too stupid to understand this.

>>8002710
nice pic. but even WUWT admits he's talking about industrialized countries rather than the IPCC.
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:39:31 2016 No.8002959

>>8002480 >>8002486 >>8002494
>>8002498 >>8002500 >>8002510
>>8002512
>I don't want to believe X, so the evidence for it is lies.
Wow.

>>8002581
You could actually read any of the papers that talk about those effects and how their dealt with.
Or you could just mindlessly devour Watt's pretty pictures.
Pretty pictures are a lot easier than reading, aren't they?

>>8002650
>No it's that politicians are profiting off of AGW by spending billions on climate research and green projects.
The same politicians that have done everything possible to delay and minimize any action on climate change? Driving up fuel and electricity costs hasn't exactly been a winning promise in many elections.

>But just ignore that you aren't profiting off of the money if you've spent it on research and infrastructure.
So it's okay when governments sponsor oil or gas or coal, projects, but the moment they try to do something that WON'T fuck the country they're supposed to be representing over, it's proof that they're only in it for the money?
What?

>And climatologists support this because everyone knows scientists make lots of money by making shit up.
????????

>>8002691
You've posted all these shitty graphs so many times it's not funny any more, but this one deserves special mention:
What the FUCK is going on there?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:40:33 2016 No.8002963

>>8002700
>Damn you'te funny! Homogenization mixes in Urban Heat Island data with rural data.
Sort of. That's not really a good description of it.

>The supplementary data to that paper show that rural stations are cherry-picked to conform to urban data. Thus the "homogenizing with just rural data" argument is nothing but a strawman argument.
What? No.

>>8002710
>The U.N. doesn't want $Billions or even $Trillions.
That's good, since no-one is paying them that.

>>8002722
>"If i assume that temperature increase happens after CO2 increase, Climate Change is true!"
That's not an assumption. We can actually demonstrate that, and provide the supporting theory.
You just don't want to acknowledge it.

>>8002729
>what the fuck does /pol/ have to do with anything
I don't know, Have you read ANY of the posts in this thread?

>>8002804
>The spin around the research is lying part. Sure AGW is real but how big of a deal is it really?
Well gee, it's a real shame that no-one ever thought to study that.
OH WAIT, IT'S AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE IPCC REPORTS

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:40:54 2016 No.8002967 >>8002959 LOL dude calm down. At least one of the posts you responded to is pure sarcasm. See if you can figure out which.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:44:02 2016 No.8002976 How exactly is global warming a bad thing? Wasn't the earth extremely lush in the past when it was warmer?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:46:20 2016 No.8002980 >>8002976 It also had completely different species of life thriving when it was warmer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:49:07 2016 No.8002988 >>8002976 It's bad for humans. Nothing is bad for earth, unless we set off enough nukes or enough asteroids crash to break the atmosphere then earth will turn into mars

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 22:51:27 2016 No.8002991

>>8002980

Fair point but that doesn't necessarily mean that the a subset of the current set of species (humans included) couldn't thrive. Some would certainly die off but we've been doing that on a large scale already.

>>8002988

Yeah I understand that. But is it actually completely clear that a warmer earth will be bad for humans?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 23:10:43 2016 No.8003012

>>8002918
>what is taxation and redistribution of hard earned dollar?

>>8002963
>OH WAIT, IT'S AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE IPCC REPORTS
Spinning the urgency out of proportion? I know that's why I take it with a grain of salt. Until I see a bigger push for life extension technology your worries about humanity surviving go straight into my trash pile.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 23:58:45 2016 No.8003087 >>8003012 >MUH TAXES gtfo and become a business of one person and get contracted. my dad earns over 80K but on paper earns like 20K. also git gud and earn more money. crying about climate change isn't going to get you more mooney lmfao

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:07:38 2016 No.8003107 >>8003087 >work even harder than you'd have to because climate policy won't stop stealing your money thanks for proving my point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:10:49 2016 No.8003115 >>8003012 >My objections to AGW are scientific and not at all founded on my political fears. >By the way, all taxes are theft! Hahahaha. Go fuck yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:12:24 2016 No.8003120 >>8003115 >My objections to AGW are scientific and not at all founded on my political fears. I don't object to AGW happening, I object to it being a priority when my lifespan is expected to be 80 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:17:08 2016 No.8003129 >>8003120 So you object to any efforts to help people if they don't directly benefit yourself? That's real classy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:20:00 2016 No.8003134 >>8003129 I'm honest about it, unlike you I don't use "humanity" as a crutch for my arguments.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:22:11 2016 No.8003140

>>8003107
It's not theft when it's benefiting the entire society

You're beef has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with liberal politics. (fyi political ideology is on a left-right wing spectrum, left is more taxes and right is less taxes. you are obviously right wing) Move to a country that doesn't have tax, or go to /pol/ and argue about why taxing is bad there. You're argument is inherently political and not at all scientific

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:23:13 2016 No.8003142 >>8003134 >I'm honest about it And what, you want a cookie for admitting you're a terrible person? >unlike you I don't use "humanity" as a crutch for my arguments. It's a goal, not a crutch.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:25:23 2016 No.8003147

>>8003140
>It's not theft when it's benefiting the entire society
LOL, so it's ok when a group of thieves steals. I hope you realize how retarded the logic is with this.

>with liberal politics.
I wouldn't call these politics liberal if anything they are quite authoritarian.

>You're argument is inherently political and not at all scientific
So is your concern for the future of humanity.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:26:58 2016 No.8003154

>>8003142
No it's a crutch, you people use the meek, humanity, anything you can get your hands on as a shield for your arguments so that whenever someone comes along and points out your bullshit you spin it as though we're attacking humanity or the poor and oppressed. This is a age old tactic, it's which Christinsanity became popular.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:27:25 2016 No.8003157 >>8003140 >>8003147 (You)

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:36:35 2016 No.8003168

>>8003154
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of bringing politics up as a defense.

From where I'm standing it looks like YOU were to one to drag politics into this. You got your ass handed to you on the science, so you tried to accuse everyone else of being dishonest and using AGW as a smokescreen or to make themselves look better.

Own your own damn words.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:39:53 2016 No.8003178

>>8003168
>You got your ass handed to you on the science
Where exactly? I never denied AGW.

>so you tried to accuse everyone else of being dishonest and using AGW as a smokescreen or to make themselves look better.
Denying this doesn't change the fact that your consideration for humanity is just a means of getting popular.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:39:55 2016 No.8003179

>>8003147
>LOL, so it's ok when a group of thieves steals. I hope you realize how retarded the logic is with this.
You're putting words in my mouth (that's called the strawman fallacy). I never said it's okay when a group takes your money. Even if a single person takes your money, if he's going to use it for the greater good then it's okay (robin hood).

>I wouldn't call these politics liberal if anything they are quite authoritarian.
Yes. Learn some politics and realize that at the extreme left wing spectrum is communism where they tax 100%
In Canada the taxes are much higher but that's why there is free health care

>So is your concern for the future of humanity.
Yea but I'm not the one talking about MUH TAXES. The thread is about global warming and that is inherently scientific. The reason to care about global warming is not in the thread and it's you who is crying about money going to places that could be spend better, an arguement that is derailing the thread into something that has nothing to do with science

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:43:34 2016 No.8003186 >>8003179 >I never said it's okay when a group takes your money. >Even if a single person takes your money, if he's going to use it for the greater good then it's okay (robin hood). Hahahaa, and you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:45:23 2016 No.8003191

>>8003178
>Where exactly? I never denied AGW.
They why are you here?
Just to inform everyone that you personally don't care about AGW, because not caring is financially beneficial to you?

Because everyone else has already figured that out.

>Denying this doesn't change the fact that your consideration for humanity is just a means of getting popular.
Please tell me more about your favorite author.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:47:01 2016 No.8003194

>>8003186
Are you trying to say I'm contradicting myself? Where? No idea what you're trying to say here.

And people take me incredibly seriously, I got friends that won't stop bugging me to meet up since they are so interested in my ideas. Anyways (falsely) attacking my character is an Ad Hominem fallacy

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:47:21 2016 No.8003195 >>8003191 >because not caring is financially beneficial to you? Nor them in most cases.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:48:26 2016 No.8003199

>>8003194
>Are you trying to say I'm contradicting myself?
In the same paragraph. Hahaha

>I never said it's okay when a group takes your money.
>Even if a single person takes your money, if he's going to use it for the greater good then it's okay (robin hood).

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:49:12 2016 No.8003200 >>8003195 >Nor them in most cases. Who is "them"? >>8003194 >And people take me incredibly seriously, I got friends that won't stop bugging me to meet up since they are so interested in my ideas. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! okay.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:51:00 2016 No.8003203 >>8003200 Posters in here who have their money stolen to pay for climate policy that may or may not be actually helping future generations that may or may not actually come to exist.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:55:23 2016 No.8003212

>>8003199
How is that a contradiction? I'm clarifying that I never said anything about one person or a group of people. All I said was that it's not theft when it's helping humanity
This was in response to your post where you misrepersent my arguement and then attack it (strawman fallacy)
>>It's not theft when it's benefiting the entire society
>LOL, so it's ok when a group of thieves steals. I hope you realize how retarded the logic is with this.
How is this logic retarded? Group of thieves or not, it's not theft when it's helping humanity

Anyway's all of that is besides the point and your continued insistence on talking about this is just derailing the thread. Probably because you are completely wrong on the topics that are actually relevant to the thread
>>8003200
>??!?!?!?!?!?!
what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:58:09 2016 No.8003216 >>8003212 >All I said was that it's not theft when it's helping humanity > I never said anything about one person or a group of people >humanity >not a group of people pick one

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 00:59:48 2016 No.8003220 >>8003203 >>8003212 You really AREN'T keen to pick a position, are you? First this was about politic, then taxes, now AGW "may or may not" matter. Seriously though, fuck off. Your antics are getting boring.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:00:19 2016 No.8003222 I came to /sci/ expecting some fucking science. Instead, you can't even agree on climate change, like this is fucking /pol/... no, it IS /pol/ -- at least this thread is. I've gotta say, I'm really disappointed. Is the entire board like this or what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:01:33 2016 No.8003225 >>8003220 I'm keen on keeping my money where it belongs my wallet. You'd be wise to do the same.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:01:35 2016 No.8003226

>>8003216
Group of people is like jews or bankers or ISIS or some shit
Humanity is ALL HUMANS. That's not a group. Fucking stop typing until you gain some comprehension skills

>>8003220
Are you retarded? Only one of those posts is me. The other guy is actually arguing the science, I have no idea what's going on lol just pointing out faults in logic

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:03:45 2016 No.8003231 >>8003222 It's 4chan what did you expect? Nice trips btw.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:04:12 2016 No.8003233

>>8003226
>Humanity is ALL HUMANS
Which are a group/set/bundle/etc. whathaveyou

> I never said anything about one person or a group of people
You guys keep on accusing me of this, where? I only dispute the urgency of AGW or the efficacy in stopping it at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:08:34 2016 No.8003236 >>8003233 A species is not a group of people. Stop arguing semantics and derailing thread. Arguably it is a group but it would completely nonsensical to call all humans a group of people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:10:10 2016 No.8003242 >>8003236 A species is a group of organisms, in this case we also classify these organisms as people. Also don't be mad when your bullshit is throw back in your face.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 01:28:51 2016 No.8003275 >>7993496 I leave for a few months, and the place becomes infested with global warming deniers and Trump supporters? WTF /sci/?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 01:31:40 2016 No.8003282

>>7999186
Actually, no, not really. Ex: Christopher Columbus was not fighting against a flat-earth view. This is a story that they sell to kids in elementary school. Christopher Columbus and his opponents all agreed to a round Earth. The problem was that Christopher Columbus fucked up his unit conversion or dropped a "0" or something, and got an answer that was wildly off the correct answer, and that's why he thought the Earth was smaller than it was, which is why he thought the trip around the world would be survivable with the supplies that he brought. Lucky for him he found another continent before starving / dying of thirst at sea.

Also, anyone with half a brain knew that the Earth was round since the ancient Greeks. They even had a good estimate for the size of the Earth, accurate to about 10%.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 01:34:17 2016 No.8003286

>>8000171
>Why is skepticism of AGW greeted with such emotional ridicule then?
Because ridicule is the proper response to someone advocating that a vast majority, a consensus, of practicing scientists are in on a conspiracy. That's what's required.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 01:48:30 2016 No.8003312

>>8003147
>LOL, so it's ok when a group of thieves steals. I hope you realize how retarded the logic is with this.
Mature people realize that you cannot describe morality in terms of simple absolutes like "do not steal", "do not kill", etc. Instead, there are always exceptions. Real morality is more complicated than blindly following a particular stupid set of absolute principles.

PS:
I'm a Marxist. Property /is/ theft. What gives you the right to use violence to claim monopoly use and possession on a piece of land or on a physical object? You don't have a metaphysical connection to it. Property is a fiction. Property is a cultural construct.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:51:50 2016 No.8003315 File: 90 KB, 1440x1080, iWKad22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8003312 >Mature people realize that you cannot describe morality in terms of simple absolutes like "do not steal", "do not kill", etc. >I'm a Marxist. Property /is/ theft.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 01:53:41 2016 No.8003317 >>8003315 Did I say that property is always wrong? No. Do I believe that property is always wrong? No.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:55:33 2016 No.8003318

>>8003317
>I'm a Marxist. Property /is/ theft. What gives you the right to use violence to claim monopoly use and possession on a piece of land or on a physical object? You don't have a metaphysical connection to it. Property is a fiction. Property is a cultural construct.
Dude I'm generally agreeing with you and not sameanon, but that sounds like a pretty giant absolute to me, and that you are saying it's wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:56:24 2016 No.8003320 File: 35 KB, 600x395, LeninFacepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8003317 But you did say it's always theft. That's an absolutist statement, dingaling.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 01:56:27 2016 No.8003321 >>8003318 My apologies then. I misspoke.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 01:57:35 2016 No.8003322 >>8003320 That requires the assumption that theft is always wrong. I do not subscribe to that position. Sometimes theft is morally permissible, and even morally obligatory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:57:48 2016 No.8003323 >>8003318 >>8003320 It was pretty clear from the context that it wasn't intended as an absolute. There's a wide gulf between claiming that something is a general principle and claiming something is an absolute truth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 01:58:58 2016 No.8003327 >>8003322 >That requires the assumption that theft is always wrong. You're as dumb as you're incessant. No it doesn't. You saying x is y is an absolute statement, morality doesn't even need to be factored into it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:00:11 2016 No.8003329 >>8003323 Ok then grant me the same permission.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:01:41 2016 No.8003333 >>8003329 Sure, whatever. Now get out of this thread.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:02:12 2016 No.8003334

>>8003327
I misspoke. I will stand by the assertion that the practice of property inherently involves violence.

Also, my earlier complaint was about simplistic moral principles, like "theft is always wrong". Whereas, I am saying that "property always requires violence", which is itself not really a moral claim, and it's definitely not a simplistic moral commandment, which means I do not run afoul of my earlier critique.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:03:13 2016 No.8003338 >>8003334 Specifically, >simplistic absolute moral commandments. Theft is sometimes wrong. Theft is sometimes morally permissible, and sometimes morally obligatory.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:04:38 2016 No.8003340

>>8003321
Laame, you could have said something like that has less to do with morality and more to do with .. like facts or something.

You gotta correct yourself if you did misspoke, I would agree that morality is a subjective concept and that it can't be described in absolutes and instead depends on the context.

But objectively speaking land is not a creation of someone nor can it be controlled. Property is indeed a social construct, though I'm not sure what that means in this context.

Is applying social concepts to physical things theft? Maybe not in the traditional sense but maybe it is theft of something more abstract. It's counter productive to society maybe.

>>8003327
He said using absolute statements regarding morality is wrong to do, he never said all absolute statements are wrong. that would just be retarded and for you to even consider it okay for someone to believe that... just get out of /sci/

>>8003334
There you go :p

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:05:41 2016 No.8003344 >>8003334 There again with the immature absolutes according to you. Funny how even children can understand property but you can't seem to wrap your brainlet head around it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027711001545

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:07:00 2016 No.8003350

>>8003344
1- Learn to read.
2- Learn to read.

Let me know when you're ready to not do obvious strawmans of my positions.

Protip: I explicitly said several times that I endorse some amount of legal violence to enable and foster some amount of property rights. Here, I just said it again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:07:07 2016 No.8003351 >>8003344 >how even children can understand property Of course they can. They are obedient indoctrinated slaves to the capitalistic self-propagating culture of modern society! lrn2marxism

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:08:01 2016 No.8003355 >>8003340 Since we agree morality isn't absolute I can dismiss your concerns about the future of humanity.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:09:02 2016 No.8003358 >>8003355 Equivocation fallacies ahoy!

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:09:21 2016 No.8003359 >>8003286 >a consensus, of practicing scientists but there isn't a consensus! http://canadafreepress.com/article/deep-sixing-another-useful-climate-myth

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:09:31 2016 No.8003362

>>8003344
Also that study may have been misconstrued since maybe children care less about property theft and more about shit being thrown around for no reason. That's disrespect to the things being thrown around and disrespect to the person who was using it. Even in communism shit shouldn't be thrown around but shared equally or something

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:10:03 2016 No.8003363 >>8003350 >sometimes property is ok sometimes it's not, depends how i feel that day what's it like having no principles at all?

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:10:47 2016 No.8003365 >>8003363 Again, let me know if you want a serious conversation. I don't see the need to respond in detail to obvious strawmans.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:11:41 2016 No.8003366 >>8003358 Except it's not, dingus. Morality not being absolute means we get to pick and choose what is moral liek you have been demonstrating this whole time with property.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:12:43 2016 No.8003368 >>8003365 Says the guy throwing accusations of fallacies in a childish tantrum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:13:57 2016 No.8003373 >>8003359 >If a crappy newspaper claims something doesn't exist, then it obviously doesn't exist. Okay.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:14:45 2016 No.8003377

>>8003366
Protip: I dissed childishly-simplistic absolute moral commandments, like "Thou shall not steal". That's fundamentally different from the claim "everyone's morality is just as good", which is what you are saying. These are fundamentally different propositions.

>>8003368
No, there's just nothing that I can say to someone like you who is lying, or refuses to read for comprehension. Again, let me know when you're ready to talk about my actual position, rather than the ludicrous one that you falsely ascribed to me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:16:39 2016 No.8003383 >>8003377 Just stop. This isn't the place for it, and you're not going to convince them.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:18:14 2016 No.8003387

>>8003359
Also, in the real world, contrary to your article, appeal to authority is not always fallacious.

Obviously, if the consensus is that X is true, but I have otherwise strong direct evidence that X is false, then my strong direct evidence carries the day. However, we all rely on expert consensus, and more generally trust, every moment of our lives. No one has the time, effort, or skill to verify everything that they learn about in school, or that they find in reference books, etc. It's taken on verified trust (and trust is not the same thing as faith).

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:21:05 2016 No.8003392

>>8003377
>These are fundamentally different propositions.
Which have everything to do with one another. If morality isn't objective (which it isn't) how do we scale other people's morals? We can't have an objective measure of it so everyone's morals are just as good.

>about my actual position
Which is? That you're willing to cuck yourself for the collective? I know, I'm just ridiculing you over it.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:21:39 2016 No.8003393

>>8003368
They aren't accusations. Being aware of the definitions of the fallacies mentioned makes it very apparent if there are any fallacies.

As another anon it's obvious that
>>8003363
you are misrepresenting what he said and then arguing against something that he never actually said

>>8003366
You are saying that being concerned about the future of humanity is a moral absolute. But that's not an absolute, that's a pretty specific concern. Absolutes are like killing is bad, or letting people die is bad... In the context that humanity seems to be the cause of it's own destruction then it would not be an absolute to say one should try to stop and reverse this process. Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil

Damn that was hard to think about

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:22:04 2016 No.8003394 >>8003392 How about you go somewhere else to discuss that?

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:23:55 2016 No.8003396

>>8003393
Hey pot meet kettle.

>You are saying that being concerned about the future of humanity is a moral absolute.
No, I'm saying that you're treating it like it is.

>Absolutes are like killing is bad
or "the survival of humanity is good" which this whole argument is about.

>Damn that was hard to think about
And you still got it wrong.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:24:57 2016 No.8003402

>>8003392
This is epistemology 101.

For starters, I suggest that you refresh yourself with the regress argument, aka the Münchhausen trilemma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Once you're ready to accept foundationalism and/or foundherentism as the proper basis for epistemology, then please move on.

Next is Hume's is-ought distinction. Given that proper epistemology is foundationalist, that means that any proper moral epistemology is going to involve a moral axiom (or axioms). Morality is not objective, and cannot be objective, in this sense.

However, if you expect me to behave as though someone else's morality is as good as my own, tough shit. All I can do is that I promise that I will work to achieve my goals, and one of those goals is to transform the world into a better place for everyone, e.g. humanism. Can I justify this goal, in the sense of somehow making a moral claim outside of some moral axiomatic framework? No. No one can do that.

For further reading, I also suggest this article by Richard Carrier.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/epistemological-end-game.html

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:26:56 2016 No.8003404

>>8003383
It's fun to practice arguing with dummies when you have nothing better to do though. As people who are interested in helping dumb people become less dumb, this is actually constructive ONLY WHEN THERE IS NOTHING BETTER TO DO. I got shit to do tho so you are totally right

>>8003396
holy fuck you're hopeless. you literally cannot read
I literally already agreed with how you said
>>Absolutes are like killing is bad
>or "the survival of humanity is good"
when I said
>>Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute.
Holy shit!!! Yea I actually said that already. I also said
>And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil
>In the context that humanity seems to be the cause of it's own destruction then it would not be an absolute to say one should try to stop and reverse this process.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:27:42 2016 No.8003407 >>8003402 >Can I justify this goal, in the sense of somehow making a moral claim outside of some moral axiomatic framework? No. No one can do that. You could've just started and end with this.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:28:29 2016 No.8003410

>>8003402
I would also add that science is a philosophy. Science is a value framework. One of the values of science is "I should conform by beliefs to the evidence". Objective scientific facts do not exist outside of the moral framework of science.

As Richard Carrier properly argues, all epistemologies are fundamentally normative, including science. At the most basic essence, epistemologies are sets of commandments of the form "if X, then I should believe Y". It is in that sense that the strict fact-value dichotomy is a lie.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:29:30 2016 No.8003413 >>7993504 >less CO2 would bring us a famine ... as it did a hundred years ago? GTFO fgt pls

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:30:31 2016 No.8003414 >>7993506 >the change is incredibly miniscule Lrn2minuscule fgt pls

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:32:40 2016 No.8003420

>>8003404
>In the context that humanity seems to be the cause of it's own destruction then it would not be an absolute to say one should try to stop and reverse this process.
Look throwing in more words to cloud the absolute statement you're making that one should save humanity isn't gonna help you. The reason you're upset is that I'm reading through your bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:33:52 2016 No.8003422 >>8003410 >As Richard Carrier back2dumblr

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:35:28 2016 No.8003425 >>8003422 Oh, look, someone's white male cis-straight privilege is probably being threatened. Grow up already.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:35:53 2016 No.8003428 >>7999202 Lrn2archimedes fgt pls

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:36:47 2016 No.8003429 >>8003425 You're likely whiter than me, fgt.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:37:09 2016 No.8003430 >>7999608 >ancient myths fgt pls

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:37:26 2016 No.8003434
File: 29 KB, 432x495, Recline.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>someone starts global warming thread
>200 posts in, it turns into philosophy/ethics thread
well, I wasn't expecting this thread to be GOOD, but I sure as shit didn't see this coming either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:38:16 2016 No.8003437 File: 15 KB, 250x220, no-U-deanheller.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7999645 >You're the one no U

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:39:48 2016 No.8003440

>>8003420
>throwing in more words to cloud the absolute statement
>more words
>absolute
It's like you don't know what absolute means.
It's not an absolute statement when there is context. A statement that considers a specific situation and context is literally the opposite of being absolute.

I would be happy to be shown that I am speaking bullshit. I like learning from my mistakes. But you aren't showing me anything, just flinging unsubstantiated shit at me

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:40:56 2016 No.8003445 >>8003429 Yes, and? Got a point? I assume that's why you're hating on Richard Carrier. Or could it be that you're hating on him because you're a Christian? Do Christians even go on 4chan!?

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:43:30 2016 No.8003449

>>8003445
Richard Cuckriar and the bunch are trying to revive Christard morality in atheism, dinglaling. That's what "atheism"+ is. Instead of original sin you're born with original privilege. Also all this concern of the meek (oppressed), typical christard tactics. It's hilarious.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:44:56 2016 No.8003452 >>8003449 Wait... is your position that we shouldn't be trying to help out people less fortunate than us? We shouldn't be trying to make the world into a better place for everyone? Are you a humanist or not?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:45:18 2016 No.8003453 >>8003440 So then you agree there is a context where we shouldn't save humanity?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:46:10 2016 No.8003454 File: 53 KB, 400x640, giordano-bruno-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7999677 >The belief that Catholics burned people for >believing the earth was round is an 1870s invention. Tell it to Giordano Bruno fgt pls

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:46:54 2016 No.8003455 >>8003452 I have only one life, I'm not going to waste it on others, poor or rich. I'm gonna make sure the world is a better place for me.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:47:12 2016 No.8003456

>>8003453
Obvi. The obvious example from Sam Harris comes to mind: Imagine a world where every human suffers as badly as it is possible to suffer, for as long as it is possible to keep them in this state. This is the worst of all possible worlds. In that kind of world, it's quite arguable that destroying humanity would be an improvement, and if that is the only way to stop the suffering, then I would say it's morally obligatory to do so.

#assisted-suicide

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:48:31 2016 No.8003458

>>8003455
As someone else said, it's rather rare to see a psychopath openly admit to their complete lack of empathy. It's hard to tell if you're serious, or just trolling. Regardless, I suppose that's the end of the conversation. There is nothing more to be said except that I will fight you, politically at first, but I am not a pacifist, and I do believe in some scenarios of justified self defense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:50:09 2016 No.8003463 >>8003454 Please tell me you're joking. >>8003455 That's nice. You can fuck off now.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:51:24 2016 No.8003467

>>8003453
holy shit. the third time I have to say the exact same fucking thing
>Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil

let me say it 5 more time
Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil
Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil
Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil
Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil
Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil

one more time

Saying we should always try to be concerned for humanity is a moral absolute. And it would be wrong to say that in the situation where humanity was pure evil

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:54:29 2016 No.8003473

>>8003456
Isn't Sam Harris an Islamophobic bigot? Why are you quoting someone so triggering, shitlord?

So killing humanity is sometimes ok. Then what is so wrong in not caring about the rest of humanity then? Do we really need to be concerned with the suffering of others?

>>8003458
Empathy is a weakness. It can cripple you like it seems to be doing. Btw I have no desire to harm humanity, I just don't think sacrificing my life for it is sensible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:55:48 2016 No.8003476 >>8003467 One more time?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:56:29 2016 No.8003478 >>8003473 >Empathy is a weakness. I'm out. Have fun.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 02:57:29 2016 No.8003480 >>8003478 Think about how much more individually resilient you would be if people couldn't emotionally manipulate you.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 14 02:58:25 2016 No.8003482

>>8003473
>Isn't Sam Harris an Islamophobic bigot?
He is.

>Why are you quoting someone so triggering, shitlord?
Because that's what immediately came to mind, and because I still like and appreciate his earlier work. And because I don't care about triggering anyone on 4chan. I doubt that you were actually significantly emotionally harmed. Were you? Do you think that anyone was actually harmed by mentioning Sam Harris? Presumably no. In particular, at no point did I endorse any of the horrible things that Sam Harris has said.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 07:23:42 2016 No.8003851

>>8002822
so basically you just got backed into a corner and changed from
>the research is fake, there is no problem, it's all bl,wn out of proportion by greedy scientists
to
>so what if there's a problem, idgaf, fuck all y'all, nihilism is teh best, woooo

haha

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 07:31:01 2016 No.8003869

>>8003473

TROLOLOLOL

>Isn't Sam Harris an Islamophobic bigot?
Islam, like most religions, demands violence and domination.
You can never be a bigot for criticizing anti-reason. That's not what bigotry is.

>Empathy is a weakness
It is better to make friends than enemies, and only delusional narcissists believe they're the biggest, most intellectually accurate, worthwhile fish.
Immoral slavery is a weakness, but game theory has confirmed socio-environmental ethics in every single possible circumstance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 15:28:30 2016 No.8004623 >>8003482 >the horrible things that Sam Harris has said. What the fuck is horrible about his reasonable views?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 15:33:28 2016 No.8004637 File: 7 KB, 180x210, 1444551301889.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8003425

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:11:01 2016 No.8004775
File: 25 KB, 462x350, Climate Jihadi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

> blah, blah ,blah
> only EVIL conspiritards deny the manifest truth of Climate Change!
> how dare you deny the gospel of Gore?!!?
> LOOK WE GOT OUR PAID SHILL GANG TOGETHER!
> WE'S THE SIMPLETON SCIENCE
Oh nos!!!! Its the Climate Puritans' "Rapid Response Team"
>>8002848
>>8002882
>>8002887
>>8002897
>>8002905
>>8002911
>>8002918
>>8002941
>>8002959
>>8002963

Hey PAID SHILL, how did you manage to get so many Soros-Sponsored socialist shills spewing pseudo-science together? Oh yeah, there's big money behind this Climastrology.

I've got to admit that you've taken a chapter from the book of Creationist Science:
The "Gish Gallop," AKA babble specious arguments quickly to drown out substantive arguments.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:14:48 2016 No.8004788
File: 255 KB, 1205x1625, the-idiocene.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004775

Hey PAID SHILL are you part of the Crusher Crew? Perhaps, part of the "Rapid Response Team?" Which neo-Brown Shirt crew are you working for?

BELOW: Your paid shill brethren discuss their Brown Shirt like tactics.

"I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences." - Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

"I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the "team of crushers" then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I've been advocating the need to create a "crusher crew" for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife's chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website [...] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?" - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

>>8002848
>>8002882
>>8002887
>>8002897
>>8002905
>>8002911
>>8002918
>>8002941
>>8002959
>>8002963

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:28:12 2016 No.8004817
File: 733 KB, 632x1158, unemployed dog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004775
>accusing climatologists of Gish Gallop
what do you call this, then?
>>8002446
>>8002475
>>8002480
>>8002486
>>8002494
>>8002498
>>8002500
>>8002510
>>8002683
>>8002688
>>8002691
>>8002706
>>8002710
you post a bunch of poorly sourced and poorly labeled graphs, make a bunch of wild claims without providing any supporting evidence, and then ignore all refutation and simply move on to the next misleading/outright false talking point and demand that anyone who disagrees prove you wrong.
that's textbook Gish Gallop right there. projecting much?

and of course, when people with a decent (or even rudimentary) understanding of climatology weigh in, the sheer number of voices (and the amount of supporting evidence and reasoning brought to bear) against your claims isn't a sign that you might be wrong, to hear you tell it, but rather evidence that we must all be on the payroll of the shadowy and indeed fictitious cabal that you insist is faking everything. (as for myself? I do it for free, pic related. do you really think the illuminati would really care what people think on a vietnamese technical drafting imageboard?)

here's a good question: what evidence would it take to convince you that the planet is indeed warming as a result (in significant part) of human CO2 emissions? after all, your response to any evidence thus far has been "it must be faked, look at all these paid shills"; wouldn't that mean that no amount of evidence could ever convince you that you have erred? keep on clinging to your sad little denialist religion.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:35:16 2016 No.8004832
File: 170 KB, 462x464, Groosesome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004788
>I keep getting BTFO by people on the internet, and it's not fair!
>no-good bunch of librul nazis explaining why my arguments are wrong, who do they think they are?
nobody's censoring you, threatening you (as if you're worth the trouble), oppressing you, checking your privilege, or otherwise giving you a legitimate reason to be butthurt.
don't want people going around refuting your arguments with facts and evidence and well-reasoned arguments? it's your own damn fault for making such ludicrous claims entirely unsupported by the evidence.

I knew deniers were a salty and paranoid bunch, but I didn't think they'd get this level of pissbaby upset just from people going around countering their arguments...

>MUH SIMPLETONSCIENCE
>MUH NOAA
>MUH UNLABELED GRAPHS

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:43:35 2016 No.8004844
File: 199 KB, 450x1256, IPCC Answers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004817
>Wah, wah, wah. NASA graphs don't have a source.
> Wah, wah, look at that CO2 graph straight from a peer reviewed paper

I call it evidence based, logical argument.
Did you see any "muh consensus?" appeals to popularity?
Did you see any appeals to authority like, "muh IPCC says...?"
And my favorite, The Circular Argument. "The ENSO is noise because I say its noise." Which is hilarious because its you warmists who are looking at the 2015 El Nino and screaming muh "Global Warming!" And yet its just noise.

No, you saw data that contradicted "We're all going to die unless we give $Billions to the United Nations."

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:50:48 2016 No.8004855
File: 824 KB, 478x1600, flintstones.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004844
>NASA graphs don't have a source.
>look at that CO2 graph straight from a peer reviewed paper
okay tough guy, please tell me where in any of these graphs the sourcing for the data series is?
>>8002446
>>8002480
>>8002494
>>8002500
>>8002691
>>8002706

>it's sourced because I say it is!
>look at my graphs! my graphs mean I'm right!

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:53:32 2016 No.8004860
File: 64 KB, 1608x905, Climate Science Defender.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004817
>>8004832

Don't you "Rapid Responders get tired of sitting in Mommy's basement checking /sci ever 2 minutes? Texting other paid shills if anything really bad happens?

I hope the Soros-sponsored non-profit (heh) is paying you well!

Pic related. Go back to dumblr or leddit if you want to do your SJW posting. Or how about our home board for pseudo-science
>>/x/

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:58:49 2016 No.8004868

>>8004817
>what evidence would it take to convince you that the planet is indeed warming as a result (in significant part) of human CO2 emissions?
That "evidence" can only be simulated on computers, computer simulations are evidence of nothing except as monkeys, we can and do make computer simulations of anything and everything, reality is the first thing we bend or break in these simulations, get real.
In hindsight we know an ice age just occurred in geological time, it is safe to assume climate is warming but another ice age is just as likely.
Personally, some warming would be a good thing, so many failed premises with this AGW meme.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:03:30 2016 No.8004875
File: 79 KB, 650x650, DAMAGE CONTROL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004844
>appeals to popularity
note that it's not "97% of climatologists think climate change is real", but rather "97% of published papers that take a stance on the issue suggest that climate change is real". Basically, you're saying that having more evidence to back our claims up is the same thing as a popularity contest. Do you really believe that?

>appeals to authority
similarly, it's not "climate change is real because the IPCC says so", but rather "these data are reliable because they were collected by NOAA researchers".
The only one bringing up the reputation of the IPCC here is YOU, friendo. >>8000217

>Circular Argument
You completely ignored what >>8002568 alluded to. Your graph is looking at monthly CO2 rate-of-change fluctuations and yearly temperature rate-of-change fluctuations. You're completely ignoring the long term trend of how T(t) and pCO2(t) interrelate in order to look at short-term variation in T'(t) and pCO2'(t). (Not to mention, the data in your graph aren't filtered, so you're dealing with seasonal effects also.)
So whenever someone explains to you why your argument is specious, apparently that explanation must be circular. Because of course, nobody else could possibly be right and you be wrong! Surely you know everything about climatology, statistics, and geochemistry!

pic related is you at this point, frantically accusing everyone else of every logical fallacy that pops into your head in order to distract from how your claims aren't supported by the evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:03:41 2016 No.8004876 File: 451 KB, 1760x513, 1452305237343-pol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7996125 Well anon..

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:04:44 2016 No.8004882 File: 23 KB, 526x359, 1452304829394-pol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You see, some people make a pretty penny off of green science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:06:01 2016 No.8004883 File: 59 KB, 800x485, 1452304414073-pol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] And most global warming theory is a lie. Unfortunately

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:07:27 2016 No.8004887 File: 26 KB, 574x379, 1452305094354-pol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8004883 But that just means I must be an ignorant hillbilly, I guess.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:12:47 2016 No.8004899
File: 65 KB, 512x512, Buttery goodness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004860
to be quite desu, I just got back from my day job, and before I jump into my thesis research (morphometrics, because of reasons), I thought I might drop by /sci/ and see if there was anything interesting. and well, someone was shitposting about geoscience, and I figured I'd take a little break before doing real work. (your complete and total misunderstanding of what glacial isostatic adjustment is was worth a few keks, by the way.)
believe it or not, there are a few actual scientists here on this bulgarian genomics imageboard. sorry to spoil your little fantasy world.

>>8004868
>That "evidence" can only be simulated on computers, computer simulations are evidence of nothing
so, are you saying that no evidence could ever make you change your stance on climate change?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:14:47 2016 No.8004903 >>8004887 >But that just means I must be an ignorant hillbilly, I guess. You seem desperate to prove that with every post.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:21:31 2016 No.8004908
File: 67 KB, 600x800, It's my ice cream now.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004882
>>8004883
>>8004887
>temperature, land ice mass, and sea level changed during tens of millions of years of glacial advance and retreat
>therefore climate change is a hoax perpetrated by people trying to make money
I'm honestly a little curious as to how you got to the second from the first. Do you read these figures before you post them?

>But that just means I must be an ignorant hillbilly, I guess.
Apparently so, if you actually believe the tripe you've been posting. Ignorant yes, hillbilly maybe.
You may return to whence you derived your pictures: >>>/pol/

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:25:27 2016 No.8004911

>>8004844
>And my favorite, The Circular Argument. "The ENSO is noise because I say its noise."
And again you fail to respond to the point by throwing a pointless tantrum over the word 'noise'. I will explain it yet again:

Your argument: 'The long term temperature trend can't be caused by CO2 because look at this graph in which the long term trend is removed'

The reason you are avoiding defending this argument is because even you know it makes no sense. If you don't you must be a grade A idiot. ENSO creates large short term variability in temperature and small short term variability in CO2. That is all your graph shows. But ENSO cannot explain the long term trend of warming, because ENSO has no long term trend, it's just stochastic fluctuation around 0.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:35:47 2016 No.8004931 >>8004911 >ENSO has no long term trend Please elaborate

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:39:27 2016 No.8004941 File: 131 KB, 900x506, Jade Helm 15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8004931 what does the O in ENSO stand for?

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:40:42 2016 No.8004942

>>8004855
>>>8004844
>>NASA graphs don't have a source.
>>look at that CO2 graph straight from a peer reviewed paper
>okay tough guy, please tell me where in any of these graphs the sourcing for the data series is?
> If Its not IPCC certified its an evil LIE !
> The IPCC told me so!

Like you care.
Prediction: you will dismiss all sources as not being Climate Alarmist Certified. So here I go wasting my time for a "Heads I win, tails you lose," pseudo-argument.

>>8002446 Look closely, that's UAH and RSS satellite temp data; its right on the image. You can look at the data all you'd like at woodfortrees.org

>>8002480 That's a plot of NOAA USHCN data raw (blue) and "corrected" (red). Look at it all you want at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/

>>8002494 Fig. 12 from Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>>>8002500 The infamous "hide the decline" data in red. The black lined data is here ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt, the "hidden data" (red) data is at this ftp site, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt . You can save yourself time and effort by using a retrieval script from an evil denier site, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:41:46 2016 No.8004946

>>8004942
Continued

>>>8002691 This graph was created by the evil denier Jo Nova. The temperature data are standard Hadley CRU which can be obtained at woodfortrees.org. The anthropogenic CO2 is easily obtained. For example, your buddies have a graph, http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

>>>8002706 Evidence for the pre-tampered data is buried here https://web.archive.org/web/20150910050658/http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm, specific graphed data is from CSIRO, http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/ . The satellite data is from NASA.

Old honest NASA data is here: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1982/1982_Gornitz_etal_1.pdf

>>it's sourced because I say it is!
>>look at my graphs! my graphs mean I'm right!

Now will you say GOSH Climate Change is crap? No, because its a religion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:43:39 2016 No.8004950 File: 161 KB, 1000x650, 1000px-Soi.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8004931

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:45:44 2016 No.8004959 >>8004950 Sinusoidal trend? Oscillation of what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:49:29 2016 No.8004969 >>8004959 It's essentially random fluctuation of irregular wind and ocean currents caused by changes in the pressure gradient of the atmosphere near the equator.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:53:00 2016 No.8004976 >>8004969 No, i mean, what do those numbers in the graph stand for. How is that index calculated?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:55:40 2016 No.8004982 >>8004976 The index is the difference in surface air pressures in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:05:55 2016 No.8004999 >>8004982 Difference from average, difference from a fixed value, or difference from previous recording/measurement?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:15:17 2016 No.8005096 >>7999589 >>I don't like what it says >>therefore it's fake >and here we have the denier in action... Please educate yourself before forming an opinion. There are alarmists with some legit points. SkS features none of them. Complete shit show.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:20:51 2016 No.8005107 >>8004999 Pacific Ocean air pressure - Indian Ocean air pressure. I think the air pressures are measured in Hawaii and Australia.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:25:18 2016 No.8005115

>>8005107
>Difference from average, difference from a fixed value, or difference from previous recording/measurement?

Difference in pressure would require at least 2 measured points. One would be a "current measurement", one would be "past measurement", and the difference would be the index, right?
What exactly is that "past measure"

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:26:25 2016 No.8005117

>>8004899
The simple fact is its a theory for which evidence can no be found, simulations of every carbon molecule on earth and their relation to climate is laughable, projecting it all out 1 year is asinine and 100 years insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Like I've said before, it bares all the marks of a new age religion. Prophecies of doom that are unprovable yet garner occult traction. A hunt for deniers, a classic inquisition. All backed by mountains of mumbo jumbo being churned out a rate unfathomable and indigestible by a person, let alone an entire planet of people.

It is an obvious power grab, literally, they are taking control of hydrocarbons through global taxation and soon to come, draconian regulation. i don't blame anyone here for aspiring to be a new age climate priest, but make sure you start getting paid before pulling the plug on your own future energy source which in this day and age, is fossil fuels, for better or worse.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:32:42 2016 No.8005132

>>8005115
Are you illiterate? I never said anything about "past measure". It's the current difference between *air pressure over the Pacific Ocean* and *air pressure over the Indian Ocean*. This tells us how extreme the pressure gradient force is going to be.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:37:51 2016 No.8005150
File: 60 KB, 960x539, Fear and Loathing in Monstropolis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8004942
>Look closely, that's UAH and RSS satellite temp data; its right on the image
Nothing in that image is legible. Maybe you meant to post a larger version of the image, but it's just a blurry line on some unintelligible axes as posted.
>That's a plot of NOAA USHCN data raw (blue) and "corrected" (red)
But nothing in the images gives any indication as to which is which or where either of those data series came from, other than that the NOAA was involved.
> >>8002494 Fig. 12 from Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.
It literally isn't. You're thinking of this graph: >>8002486 (not that it was sourced in your post either)
Nice evasion. HURR DURR MAYBE IF I GIVE THE SOURCE FOR A DIFFERENT GRAPH HE WON'T NOTICE.
>The infamous "hide the decline" data in red.
Ah yes, because saying "hide the decline" is source enough for anyone.
>The temperature data are standard Hadley CRU which can be obtained at woodfortrees.org. The anthropogenic CO2 is easily obtained.
In other words, "I don't need to give sources for my graph, YOU go find the data"
>Evidence for the pre-tampered data
Two graphs of two different things being measured, neither of them labeled, and all of it shrunk down to blurriness.

So instead of providing a link to the actual data in most cases, you point me towards a website or agency and say "it's in there, go find it". That's not how science (or debate for that matter) works; it's not MY job to go find supporting evidence for YOUR whackadoodle claims.
More importantly, I didn't ask for the source; I asked you to show me where on those graphs they were sourced. (They're not!) For a figure to be sourced, it doesn't just mean that the data actually came from somewhere; it means that the figure itself (or the caption/text accompanying it) tells you where to find the data. Without that crucial sourcing, it's impossible to tell if a figure is legitimate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:39:25 2016 No.8005157 >>8005132 And you say you can't use that to predict a trend?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:44:04 2016 No.8005165 >>8005157 Predict which trend? Use your words like a big boy.

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:44:31 2016 No.8005167
File: 72 KB, 490x660, Mona Diesel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8005117
>U CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN
>IT'S UNPROVABLE BECAUSE I SAY IT IS
thanks for confirming that no evidence will ever convince you to change your stance, thus demonstrating the religious nature of your position.

protip: you don't need to simulate every carbon atom in order to see large-scale effects. by your logic, because we can't simulate any atom in the human body, we have no way of knowing if cyanide is bad for you or not. I encourage you to find that out for yourself!

(the best part is that the guy alleging a massive yet invisible worldwide conspiracy is the one accusing others of a cultish faith in something that can never be proven.)

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:47:43 2016 No.8005175 why do these threads always turn so nasty?

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 20:00:27 2016 No.8005201

>>8005175
Because there's a few shitters from /pol/ who spam the same poorly-attributed graphs, vague conspiracy theories and dumb rhetoric in every thread.

The first and second time you run into them you explain everything carefully.
The second and third time you point out where they're wrong.
The four and fifth time you call them out on posting the same old bullshit.
The sixth and beyond times you just call them a fuckface until they leave or the thread dies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 15 02:57:15 2016 No.8005929 File: 132 KB, 593x872, SHIGGYD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >b-but climates has been changin 'by itself' >since a long (long) time ago >(long time ago)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 15 03:53:31 2016 No.8006026 >>8005175 why "religions of peace" turn so nasty all the time?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 15 03:59:12 2016 No.8006029 >>8005117 well said

Anonymous Fri Apr 15 04:05:15 2016 No.8006033

>>8005201
> i-its /pol/ guise
> its got nothing to do with our complete lack of evidence and ad-hominems
you church of AGWtards are the laughing stock of the public. Literally nobody buys your shit. And I can't blame people for making fun of you all the time

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 15 04:07:46 2016 No.8006038 File: 31 KB, 250x251, 1390673832673[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8005929 > climate doesn't change itself at all > ice age ended and all the ice have dissapeared because of the inexistant industrial revolution comedy at its best

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 15 08:22:53 2016 No.8006259 >>8006033 Like I said: Fuckfaces slithering over from /pol/.

Anonymous Fri Apr 15 11:41:23 2016 No.8006519
File: 52 KB, 600x509, 0 out of 10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8006033
you do realize that you (or whichever fuckface) actually (probably unintentionally) labeled his images as coming from /pol/, right?
>>8004876
>>8004882
>>8004883
>>8004887
(check dem filenames)

>you church of AGWtards are the laughing stock of the public. Literally nobody buys your shit.
Oops: http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx
>64% of Americans /worried/
>only 10% think there won't be any effects
>65% think humans are to blame
you're doing that thing again where you confuse your opinions with the facts

>>8006038
>climate changed in the past for natural reasons
>therefore it can't be changing for man-made reasons now
top zozzle. hey, your body temperature changes around a bit on its own, right? then you won't mind if I set you on fire, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 15 13:24:13 2016 No.8006681 >>8003402 >links to munchhausen >doesn't see the irony Ok then

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 15 13:36:18 2016 No.8006709 File: 104 KB, 703x804, spoopyalienproof-sci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8006519 >spoopyalienfrom_x_.jpg Not that hard, now is it?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math