Climate Change

[Anonymous No.8357655]

I generally think anthropogenic climate change exists, and that it represents a real danger to the earth. But I've seen a lot of research on it that basically says that the CO2 emissions from human activity are not significant and that many current studies and a lot of current data is either invalid, exaggerated, or wrong.

Another argument that I've used in the past, but I am now less sure of, is that there is a complete global consensus that anthropogenic climate change exists. I know there is a consensus, sure, but that in and of itself doesn't mean much if there is conflict within fields, and times do change. 50 years ago or so there was a scientific consensus that dietary cholesterol and saturated fats directly caused or were directly correlated with heart disease and obesity, conclusions that are now challenged as, if not outright wrong, at the very least highly flawed.

So, /sci/, present your arguments. I'm open-minded and want to know what you guys have to say.

This article was posted yesterday and really made me think. Specific refutations/support for the article would be nice.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski%20CO2%20EIR%202007.pdf

[Anonymous No.8357779]

>>8357655
Humans are conservative beasts, but in what ways they are conservative is usually very muddled. For instance, political conservatives seek internal change as a way to manage external change, which is a given. Political liberals induce internal change in an attempt to eliminate external change, which is a given. So both are "conservative" it is just a question of what is being conserved (our traditions versus our surroundings). Of course other kinds of conservation is possible, this is just broad strokes.

If you understand this aspect, then you understand the climate change "debate." One group has internalized the fact that the world is always changing and has its own coping mechanism; another group is terrified that the world might change and will move heaven and earth to keep the scale balanced as their coping mechanism. Since these two coping mechanisms are at odds, the magnitude of human effect and the consequences will be judged verrrrry differently by these two groups.

I don't think the truth is "somewhere in the middle" or something wishy-washy like this, by the way.

Anyway, you seem to be in the latter camp, that it is a "real danger". There is unlikely to be anything that can dissuade you, since (as far as I can tell) existence is a real danger, and this is just one of a million trillion dangers that we'll have to find a way to deal with, and I think struggling against it is a symptom of a pathology.

I also believe in AGW btw.

[Anonymous No.8357782]

>>8357655
Trump said it was fake, and I believe him. Its the solar cycle not the CO2.

[Anonymous No.8357838]

>>8357655
Our children and our childrens children are going to hate us

[Anonymous No.8357853]

I'm skeptical of all of the sky is falling predictions and I find it hard to believe human activity is the prime mover behind climate change but I'll freely admit I'm wholly uneducated on the subject and more or less a dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.8357873]

>>8357853
What you want to do is create a natural and simple understanding of what is happening.

There is carbon inside the earth's crust that is stuck there right now.
We dig it up and release it into the atmosphere.
It becomes part of the normal ecosystem afterwards.

Some of it becomes plant life or is sunk in some other way. For instance an average Tree bark is 50% carbon. The rest just increases the natural amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

The carbon got stuck inside the earth naturally through sequestration. AKA some plant life died a long time ago and the carbon got stuck inside the earth.

The natural momentum of Earth is a reduction in carbon in the atmosphere. So essentially even added carbon to the air, we are "going back in time" to a time when less carbon was captured. The earth still supported life at this point and did not create a runaway boiling off of oceans or anything.

That is basically it.

So basically, it's really nothing

[Anonymous No.8358248]

>>8357655
If you actually take time to look up what factors effect climate change the most, CO2 is behind like 100 other factors. The slight correlation between CO2 and recent percieved climate changes is nothing compared to the amount of effect that the tides or the sun have.

[Anonymous No.8358307]

>>8358248
>behind like 100 other factors
Here's one of them.

[Anonymous No.8358327]

>>8357655
There is no conflict within fields. Anthropogenic climate change is a fact.
Where there is conflict is between climatology and heavy industry which fears it will have to bear the cost of reducing CO2 output. The supposed research supposedly challenging anthropogenic climatology is merely heavy industry trying to muddy the waters. And a lot of stupid people who like to believe that they know better than proven scientific fact.

[Anonymous No.8358329]

>>8357655
Every
single
fucking
day

>This article was posted yesterday and really made me think
Those are the most entry level arguments ever. If it made you think you have never read a single controversy on the topic.

[Anonymous No.8358338]

>>8357782
>Its the solar cycle
Still in the archive:
>>8349346
>>8348174

[Anonymous No.8358390]

>>8357655
>http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski%20CO2%20EIR%202007.pdf
It's garbage.
Zbigniew Jaworowski was an unqualified crank at best, and quite likely an outright shill for oil companies.

>>8357873
>The earth still supported life at this point and did not create a runaway boiling off of oceans or anything.
>So basically, it's really nothing
Are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous No.8358395]

>>8357655

[Anonymous No.8359273]

>>8357853
>I find it hard to believe
>therefore it can't be true
fgt pls

[Anonymous No.8359546]

>>8358327
>anthropogenic climatology
man-made study of climate
absurd shillspeak

[Anonymous No.8359910]

>>8358395