/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8401095]

Is Global Warming real?

How do we know the data isn't made up?

[Anonymous No.8401116]

Aren't we just like, all made of star dust and imagination man? Is anything real?

[Anonymous No.8401118]

>>8401095
GTFO

[Anonymous No.8401119]

>>8401116
really stimulates the synapses

[Anonymous No.8401121]

Complete hoax. Total nonsence.

[Anonymous No.8401133]

>>8401095
It is made up.
There have been multiple times where different research groups have been found falsifying data to show a greater warming than data suggests.

The joke is that even with their fake data, it still doesnt match the predictions modeled by the ipcc on emissions vs. Warming.

[Anonymous No.8401146]

>>8401095
>know the data isn't made up?

It very likely is made up, same thing applies to "smoking related" hazards, Gmos, or most other media scares these days.

[Anonymous No.8401250]

>>8401095
The only proof we have is modeling and behind every model is a paid science shill

The universe is so massive and we don't know anything about it. It's arrogant to think we could even begin to possibly understand the world in such a large scale

[Anonymous No.8401338]

>>8401095
>How do we know
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.8401349]

[Anonymous No.8401358]

>>8401349
>limited operating budgets

The only reason there's so much support of this bogus theory is because all the money being thrown at it.

[Anonymous No.8401392]

This thread will soon be taken over by our Climate Clown in Residence. He is easy to spot because his mental climate always betrays him.

[Anonymous No.8401402]

>>8401349
>limited operating budgets
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#4e3141b36f70
>According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes.

[Anonymous No.8401404]

>>8401349
>90% of the world's scientists are involved in climatology

wow really?

Whether or not climate change is real, you'd have to be blind to not realize the trojan horse of communism that is climate change legislation.

[Anonymous No.8401411]

>>8401404
Well this is the shittiest picture I've seen in ages. It suggests that a paper on how various droplet size distributions in altocumulus clouds change the apparent albedo of Earth (which would be a climate paper) is making a statement about climate change, which is doesn't.


What's next? Are you going to reduce that percentage even further by saying that publications on the plasma instabilities in heavy ion collisions aren't confirming climate change as well?

Why is this board full of shitty 17 year olds?

[Anonymous No.8401421]

>>8401404
It's a ponzi scheme

[Anonymous No.8401476]

>>8401402
>According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes.
$9B isn't an unreasonable amount of money, and that's being spread over an incredibly large number of different things.

>>8401404
>Whether or not climate change is real, you'd have to be blind to not realize the trojan horse of communism that is climate change legislation.
God Forbid a government actually try and regulate use of the commons.

[Anonymous No.8401510]

Why the fuck is pol clanging pots and pans in /sci/ again? Mods, delete.

[Anonymous No.8401516]

>>8401095
Global warming is real. Human impact on it is made up tho. The fact that we are technically still exiting ice age in combination with few % more transparent space between earth and sun will tell every normal human being that we are insignificant factor when it comes to climate change.

But on the other side, maybe my professors don't know as much as commie art students.

[Anonymous No.8401517]

>>8401404
>you'd have to be blind to not realize the trojan horse of communism that is climate change legislation.
>trojan horse of communism

PLEASE be bait

[Anonymous No.8401518]

>>8401510
You should just shut up and let the real men do the talking

[Anonymous No.8401535]

>>8401518

[Anonymous No.8401548]

>>8401095
>americans

[Anonymous No.8401549]

This thread reeks of /pol/

[Anonymous No.8401553]

I expect this level of ignorant bullshit from /pol/ but /sci/?

Holy shit. Humans are causing climate change. No contest.

See this equation? I win.

[Anonymous No.8401558]

>>8401549
>>8401553
Your posts stink of greedy oil jews trying to scam everyone.

[Anonymous No.8401561]

>>8401095
all science is made up bullshit that can't be repeated or confirmed/denied. both sides of this debate are making shit up

except chemistry of course, the only true science

the problem here is that most everyone in /sci/ is a mouthbreathing retard

[Anonymous No.8401570]

>These are the /sci/ posters
>A bunch of global warming hoaxers

What a terrible, terrible place. How do all of you feel about god, vaccines, and abortion? He's real, they cause autism, and they send you to hell?

[Anonymous No.8401581]

>>8401558

By the year 2330, we'll have migrated the population of earth to exoplanet Gliese 667Cc after atrophy of earth's life-supporting qualities from cataclysmic climate change, and you shit-eating faggots will still be touting 'oy vey, goyim! it's all just a libscum conspiracy against free-market capitalism!'

[Anonymous No.8401585]

>>8401095
>global warming
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8401590]

>>8401349
>I've never worked in research, the jpg

Look, I think climate change is real too but scientists totally falsify data all the time.

[Anonymous No.8401593]

>>8401581
>omg noes the end is nigh globule warning gunna kill us all D':
Take your meds you schizo freak.

[Anonymous No.8401602]

>>8401558
I think there's been a misunderstanding. /pol/ are the oil jews shilling for the oil industries, and /sci/ are the ones that are not scamming for the oil industries. I hope it's cleared up now.

[Anonymous No.8401609]

>>8401602
Oil companies have to pay the price for their damage to the environment. and since hillary and trump are in bed with greedy oil jews/saudis I don't think sides matter here.

[Anonymous No.8401677]

>>8401593
>having valid concerns about the future integrity of our planet due to excssive materialistic capatilism
>being finger-waggled by neo-conservative shill

Back to /pol/ you low iq monkey, we keep your kind in another board for a reason

[Anonymous No.8401683]

>>8401590
There's as pretty big difference between "some scientists falsify data" and "basically every scientist in an entire field, regardless of employer or country, is involved in a global conspiracy.".

[Anonymous No.8401687]

>>8401095
What global warming?

[Anonymous No.8401691]

>>8401683
>conspiracy

More like, involved in perpetuating a false theory due to publication bias, mixed with the occasional falsified report.

I mean, that's hypothetically what could happen (though I don't believe it's happening in this particular instance) since it has happened several times in the past.

[Anonymous No.8401708]

[Anonymous No.8401720]

>>8401687

[Anonymous No.8401729]

>>8401708
This diagram is missing the component of "useful idiots from /pol/ who genuinely believe that climate change is a myth and passionately argue this point to exhaustion" or something to that effect.

[Anonymous No.8401732]

>>8401729
>I keep inserting /pol/ out of nowhere coz I'm too retarded to shit an argument without derailing discussion.
This is why /sci/ makes fun of you global warming tinfoilers on a daily basis. Stay in >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8401734]

>>8401402
>lumping scientific research with foreign aid and technology which includes private subsidies for companies and others

One thing is for true though: most climate science deniaers are deep in partisan double think. Even Exxon Mobile, one of the largest oil corporations in the world, has come out and admitted climate change is real. Yet these self-illuminated hoaxers agenda-pushers are obviously the final authority on it. Pathetic.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8401737]

>>8401732
t. /pol/tard nervous for being called out for what he is

[Anonymous No.8401738]

>>8401734
>i-its a pol conspiracy
I'm bored of you flooding the same garbage on this board. Go away. >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8401740]

>>8401737
Whoops I guess you caught me for being the jesuit agenda pusher government conspiritor. Too bad thats the entire autism your "argument" desperately revolves around.

Your friends want you back now >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8401742]

>>8401738
>>8401732
>>8401593
Stop samefagging, everybody can tell you're from /pol/

[Anonymous No.8401744]

>>8401742
>pp-p-pol D:
Dumb mouthbreather /x/tards speak for /sci/ now? Aren't you tired of being constantly humiliated around here ?
Seriously, this is getting embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.8401745]

>>8401095
>How do we know the data isn't made up?
IT IS BEING ALL MADE UP!

www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.
>Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil refining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
>allegedly accepted $1.2 million over the past 14 years from energy companies

Here's a lesson from Mein Kampf. When ever someone has a valid excuse to defraud you, attempt to defraud them first and accuse them of lying first. Even if it's a baseless lie it'll create enough confusion and doubt that when it comes time to examine evidence which would defraud you, it'll be seen with the same confusion and doubt. This is the tactic they're using when they claim climate change is a hoax. I wish they'd teach propaganda resistance techniques and make Mein Kampf required reading for high school students so the general population wouldn't fall for this shit.

[Anonymous No.8401746]

>>8401744
Just stop, you get btfo all the time and the only thing you can spam is "SJWtard" and "global warming tinfoiler"

[Anonymous No.8401750]

>>8401746
>n-n-no you get btfo >:'O
sad...Your mental condition must be caused by global warming amirite? This is why you're the laughing stock for the entire population of /sci/

Now pick up your tinfoil fedora and get back to your hugbox >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8401752]

>>8401729
I think they would go into the echo chamber.

[Anonymous No.8401753]

>>8401095
What data is there in the first place? I've yet to see any consistent set of data from multiple independant sources.

[Anonymous No.8401755]

>>8401753
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.8401758]

>>8401755
Funny how the same amount of "scientists" and "data" showed up when they were playing a different political game and the gig was global cooling.

[Anonymous No.8401762]

You see this picture? This isn't fake or anything. This singlehandedly proves man-made global warming is real.

[Anonymous No.8401763]

>>8401758
Idiot. You know why north Atlantic is cooling?
Because all the fucking ice is melting off Greenland.

Also, how do you confuse north Atlantic with global?
OK I know it's the same when you think your asshole is a brain.

[Anonymous No.8401772]

>>8401750
>>8401744
>>8401740
>>8401732
Buddy, when you are samefagging this hard you know it's time to stop posting. Seek help.

[Anonymous No.8401773]

>>8401095
Is it real...?

>Al Gore fear-mongering video released
>Panic sets in
>Government places tax on CO2 emissions shortly after
>Government has new excuse to dump funding into "climate research"

Seems fishy to me. Not to mention the research groups that were caught falsifying data and the fact that none of the government predictive models have been accurate thus far.

[Anonymous No.8401774]

>>8401404
>>8401095
why do you brainlets think you're on to some giant conspiracy?

there are only two things to it: the chemical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and the human output of those gases. Both of these are easily verifiable to somebody that passed 7th grade

[Anonymous No.8401778]

>>8401772
>Everyone who sees the retard that I am is a samefagger.
just sad...

[Anonymous No.8401780]

>>8401774
Yep. Time to punish the oil companies.

[Anonymous No.8401781]

>>8401773
>and here we can see a desperate attempt at staying politically relevant after losing to George Bush

[Anonymous No.8401785]

>>8401781
>/pol/

You know he didn't loose to Bush. The election was stolen from him. There were congressmen who voted against the popular vote and he actually won in Florida but they couldn't finish the recount till after Bush was in office.

[Anonymous No.8401787]

>>8401553
No of course bud, of course.

[Anonymous No.8401797]

>>8401095
Invest in a better future!

[Anonymous No.8401802]

Lets re-examine history. Remember tobacco?

What if cigarettes didn't cause cancer but are the cure for cancer!! There's no real proof tobacco can cause cancer. The few studies that suggest tobacco is bad are done by political communist scientists who are just trying to profit off this anti-tobacco movement. The idea that tobacco causes cancer is a hoax motivated for political reasons and money.

I mean there's no reason the tobacco industry would purposely lie to people about their product killing people. That would be a lie that's too big and crazy to believe. It would be a huge conspiracy theory and CONSPIRACY THEORIES AREN'T REAL!

[Anonymous No.8401805]

>>8401802
aaaand there's this guy...

[Anonymous No.8401814]

>>8401802
>There's no real proof tobacco can cause cancer.
What about the statements of cancer patient's around the world? do you feel that they are making up bullshit. Stop your denial.

[Anonymous No.8401818]

>>8401814
This post makes me legitimately afraid for the future. How can anyone be this gullible?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=satire

[Anonymous No.8401835]

>>8401476
It's completely unreasonable. That money would be much more beneficial if spread out to other sciences.

[Anonymous No.8401845]

>>8401517
>>8401476

Name ONE "Green Party" that is both pro-Nuclear Power and pro-Capitalism

[Anonymous No.8401853]

>>8401818
Shouldn't you also be afraid of the past? technically I was still alive to post what I had said.

[Anonymous No.8401854]

>>8401762
This picture was taken from a cruise ship and used as propaganda. The polar bear community is only going down because they're violent and they have large clans killing each other.

[Anonymous No.8401855]

>>8401818
Masking your true thoughts in satire for a lack of argument. I bet you smoke 10000 cigs a day.

[Anonymous No.8401861]

>>8401720
No one can ever explain this to me why do the numbers only increase after "The Inconvenient Truth" we have been doing shitty things to the environment since the 1950's. Why does it only become noticeable in the last 20 years?

[Anonymous No.8401867]

>>8401861
Because the US had missle tracking devices in the arctic circle to make sure the ruskies weren't trying to nuke us.

These trackers also monitored temperature. After the cold war we got rid of them so we weren't factoring in sub zero temps to our numbers.

[Anonymous No.8401878]

>>8401358
you never went to university did you. if you did you'd know how little funding profs get

[Anonymous No.8401888]

one of the worst /sci/ threads of all time. is this a /pol/ raid or something?

[Anonymous No.8401896]

>>8401861
https://www.google.com/#q=why+co2+noticeable+in+the+last+20+years

[Anonymous No.8401898]

>>8401888
The only raid I see is you shitposter spamming the same meme 500 times in every thread. Aren't you tired of getting BTFO every time ?
People who relentlessly spam the word /pol/ to derail threads and spread their cancerous shitposting should be perma-banned.

[Anonymous No.8401901]

>>8401095
the cartoon doesn't make sense
it displays the scientist as a greedy person but the money goes to the research itself not the persons running it, they don't have anything to gain by funding illegitimate studies, actually it could hurt their reputation

[Anonymous No.8401904]

>>8401898
This isn't even a fucking debate. There's like 2 sources in this entire 80 post thread. This isn't science, this is politics. Plus with the amount of SJW and jew being thrown around, it's pretty obvcious who is posting in this thread.

Also what memes are you talking about? Who is getting blown out?

[Anonymous No.8401908]

>>8401904
>doesn't count the word /pol/ being spammed by retards
>omg they use SJW and jew its a pol raid
If you don't like raids, stop raiding this thread with your spams and SJW-tier shitposting.
Nobody wants you here.

[Anonymous No.8401911]

>>8401901
Scientist are merely puppets of corporations. All you filthy scum would do anything for money.

[Anonymous No.8401916]

>>8401908
>>omg they use SJW and jew its a pol raid
I know you have no reference since you spend all day posting angrily shitposting on 4chan, but most people don't use SJW and JEW in lieu of real arguments.

So you admit it's a raid?

I'm not raiding this thread. I'm a somewhat regular /sci/ poster who is actually a grad student and knows a thing or two about academia and research science. I was hoping to have a real discussion about the falsification of research data but instead it's becoming a shit-flinging festival

How am I raiding, I've been trying to have a real discussion about

[Anonymous No.8401917]

>>8401911
All you scientist are prostitutes wondering around hoping someone will pay you for "research".. GET A REAL JOB YOU SLACKERS!

[Anonymous No.8401919]

>>8401911
>Scientist are merely puppets
>All you filthy scum
k, now please go /pol/ and never come back.

[Anonymous No.8401925]

>>8401916
You had zero scientific input since all thread. You've drooling over your keyboard and posting the word pol over and over again like the shitposting SJWtard that you are. Nobody in /sci/ does something so wierd, childish and stupid.

Sorry but I don't see anyone convinced nor lining up to pay any carbon tax so greedy oil jews(or insert any capitalist cancer here) can buy another private jet. Now we would all be happy if you can kill yourself quietly and go away for good. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.8401928]

>>8401867
i've never heard this explanation before. anything to back it up?

[Anonymous No.8401939]

>>8401745
Thanks for this. Forgot about this Soon guy. It pisses me off, but I also kinda find it funny how well this 'no YOU guys are accepting money to fake research' tactic works.

Some more quotes I liked from the article :

>Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming.

>Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

>Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it. “The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.

[Anonymous No.8401943]

>>8401911
I'm a scientist. I want my corporate bucks. Please corporations, pay for my pulsar research. You could use the emission beam as a weapon or something. Please message me.

[Anonymous No.8401951]

>>8401925

[Anonymous No.8401960]

>>8401951
thats what I thought ;)

[Anonymous No.8401962]

>>8401745
I don't know why you would, but do you know about any of the sourcing that went into this article?

In particular i'm interested in the quote that leads the article to say:
>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.

[Anonymous No.8402060]

>>8401962
>>8401745
>>8401939
If you want a more in-depth look at his scientific career and his finances.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/dr-willie-soon-a-career-fueled-by-big-oil-and-coal/

[Anonymous No.8402164]

The aims of the group are to assess scientific information relevant to:

1. Human-induced climate change
2. The impacts of human-induced climate change
3. Options for adaptation and mitigation

The study of natural climate cycles is seen as counter-productive and not part of the agenda.

There are nonetheless more and more studies that predict a cooling phase beginning with the next solar cycle (25) and leading to a situation that resembles another Little Ice Age. Since defunding comes too late the authors of such studies need to be discredited.

Personalize and emotionalize. If you can't attack the data, attack the person. It's much easier and no one will notice anyway. You can safely assume that the vast majority of your readers belong to the authoritarian follower personality type and one out of four is a functional psychopath. Build on this knowledge to activate them.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Anonymous No.8402173]

>>8402164
Can you provide a source for studies predicting a cooling phase

>You can safely assume that the vast majority of your readers belong to the authoritarian follower personality type and one out of four is a functional psychopath. Build on this knowledge to activate them.
based on what

[Anonymous No.8402492]

>>8401095
GLOBAL HOAXING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

[Anonymous No.8402820]

>>8402492
>>8402492
Full disclosure, i'm a climate change believer. But i am not closed-minded so let's watch it, and i'll post my thoughts along the way.

>bachelors in geology
>masters in electrical engineering
Oh boy here we go. Outsiders looking in often have different opinions because of the fact that they don't actually know the subtleties of the field. This is why everyone in academia hates physicists because they constantly look at other fields and think they can figure it out.

>The hottest days on record are in the past
This is irrelevant, it's more about average global temperatures not peaks. Also not a single one of his graphs has had a chi-square. He isn't quoting his fits yet, so i won't get angry, but fits are meaningless without a chi-square.
Ok i've started skipping through these graphs of HEAT WAVES, he keeps belaboring this point 1936 was hot, lets fucking move on

>NOAA changed its data to show a 2 degree increase from 1895-1987
the 1987 article says 'no significant change'. why did he assume they altered their data? It's more likely that they thought the 2 degree increase was too small to matter or within error thus not important.

>James Hansen says there isn't much evidence that the climate is headed towards drought
Ok that doesn't mean he thought it wasn't warming. He just said that a lot of the extreme statements about warming are outlandish.

>James Hansen mentions that there was cooling in some parts of the country and the host says "What happened to this cooling?"
What does that even mean? Part of the country cooled, but more of it warmed, thus leading to an overall increase between 1895-1987

>Hansen claimed 1-2 degrees warming but there's barely any
fair enough. this hansen guy seems like an idiot

>Artic is full of ice
really? how about we look at a series of photos instead of just refuting the obviously sensationalist predicitons about the icecaps melting.

[Anonymous No.8402823]

>>8402820

>More making fun of predictions
yes science is hard to predict and people obviously sensationalized their results to get media traction for issues htey thought were important

[Anonymous No.8402840]

>>8401095
Of course it's real, it's the way that the NWO is going to kill off everyone but them. Think about it, how do you fight a famine?

[Anonymous No.8402855]

>>8402823
oops didn't mean to post that yet

also a thought about the 1900-2000 NOAA data
maybe his looks different because they have corrected some errors in their data? Happens all the time in astronomy. Old data looks one way. Then somebody finds a flaw in their equipment, and has to go back and change all the old data. but the papers based on the old/bad data are still around. but this is all conjecture. i'm 20 mins in and that's the only intriguing point so far

wow a minute later and he brings up how the NOAA adjusts their data. haters will say it's fake. Anyways, why doesn't he ask NOAA what they do to the raw data to make it the final data instead of conjecturing it's part of the conspiracy. as mentioned above, raw data is literally straight from sensors onto hardrives and collected. often you have to account for several things before yo uturn it into your final data.

>they don't use all the stations data
this is interesting.
looked into this. all i could find was one fox news article :http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html . apparenlty NOAA closed down 600 of 9000 weather stations a couple years back becuase NOAA claimed they were problematic. the article then quotes someone saying that they kept some problematic stations (like the one at yosemite). ok so they closed some but not all problematic stations? i don't follow their logic? They are complaining about closing of stations because it distorts data but then complain that places liek yosemite are problematic (even though NOAA claims they can statistically account for the problems at Yosemite)

>NOAA uses models to predict temperatures
welcome to science in the 2000's. Experiements are expensive so often you run models instead.

hahah ok now he's on a graph that's clearly from excel

[Anonymous No.8402859]

>>8402855

>so this warming trend is based on them making up station data that doesn't exist
Alright i think im done. He doesn't get that adjusting data and using models are legitimate scientific tools.

I'm not saying what he says is wrong, but he just isn't doing a good job of refuting NOAA's data.

Hopefully some other anon makes it all the way through and can comment on the rest of the talk.

[Anonymous No.8402862]

>>8401404
97% of that 33%....
not 97% of everything.... and only because the 66% don't state a position

[Anonymous No.8402863]

>>8401802
tobacco is not a significant cancer risk

[Anonymous No.8402882]

>>8402840
lol

[Anonymous No.8402910]

>>8401960
>I'm gonna shit all over the floor and when the normies leave I'll be the victorious one

Retards gonna 'tard.

[Anonymous No.8403912]

>>8401095
>How do we know the data isn't made up?
Peer review.

[Anonymous No.8403916]

>>8402910
omg he called me a retard. I'm so convinced that I'll surrender all my money to rich faggots now :)

[Anonymous No.8404872]

>>8401392
>that pic
looks pretty comfy desu

[Anonymous No.8404900]

>this entire thread
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8404930]

>>8401095
>HAARP

[Anonymous No.8404938]

Nuclear Power could have made the entire Western(including Japan and Skorea) world greatly reduced in emissions.

[Anonymous No.8405581]

>>8404938
yh but the waste tho

also you'd probably have old designs that'd have to be renewed soon. but it's costly so that gets postponed for ages. and the likelihood of a disaster would increase greatly

[Anonymous No.8405587]

>>8401095
>>8401121
>>8401133
>>8401146
>>8401250
Samefagging

[Anonymous No.8405602]

>>8402862
I suppose the point is that around 30% state there is human made climate change and since 70% do not, this would mean that they do not believe there is enough evidence. This is a big difference from claiming that there is "consensus" regarding human made climate change.

Another issue altogether is where is the burden of proof.

[Anonymous No.8405607]

>>8401854
Why aren't they protesting Bear on Bear violence???

[Anonymous No.8405614]

>>8405602
Or it could mean that 66% of climate papers have absolutely no relation to the question whether climate change is man-made.

[Anonymous No.8405644]

>>8405614
This is the paper in question:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

And this is the abstract:

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

[Anonymous No.8405822]

>>8405602
>>8405644
The argument that climate change isn't real because 66% of papers express no position on it is pretty weak when the remaining 33% is 97% endorsing it.

I wonder what these 66% were like though. Did they not express a position because their study could not come to one or because they had no reason to? Is providing a position on matters something they try to do or try to avoid?

[Anonymous No.8406342]

>>8405822
If the scientific consensus is that AGW is real there's not really any point in discussing if it's real anymore. There is a lot more to discuss about climate change after you get past your denial based on political beliefs. The scientific community won't wait for America to play remedial catch up to basic science. Keep up or be left behind.

[Anonymous No.8407272]

Yes, the IPCC is paid by various governmetns and it's scientists are forced ot alter their opinions or not be published.

see the NIPCC.

[Anonymous No.8407298]

>>8405581
the answer to both is Thorium.

build thorium reactors at the site of old uranium plants. old fuel goes in, energy comes out, and high grade waste mass is reduced by 90%.

then you bury everything else in Utah, because Mormon.

[Anonymous No.8407336]

>>8401411
I'm 17 years old, I only read on this site.

[Anonymous No.8407596]

>>8407336
calling the hammer....

[Anonymous No.8407630]

>>8401095
Science doesn't get done without funding, and the competition for funding is fierce -- even among people with the same political views. Publishing bullshit that isn't supported by the evidence is a surefire way to make sure your career in science ends and you never get funded again. That's how you know the data isn't made up. If it were, a crap load of other scientists would be like flies on shit all over it, calling it out so they could get a bigger slice of the funding pie.

[Anonymous No.8407639]

>>8401845

communist thinking is an unintended, sad result of uneducated liberal thinking. they think it's necessary because they're stupid, and completely unaware of it.

the same way pyramids being built around the world aint evidence for extraterrestrials
it's a natural result of human nature and physics

to imply they're building a trojan horse is giving them way too much credit
to imply that they must be fought for the reason that environmentalism NECESSITATES communism is just as idiotic a fallacy, and shows you've fallen for the same trap as the liberal masses.

the truth is, market competition brought us technological advances like electric cars and continues to encourage the honing of our alternative resource...usage...abilities...i'm blanking on a better word. you get my point.

environmentalism is something to strive for. we are at risk. we just have to be smart about how we tackle it.
surely you admit that anthropogenic or not, we have an existential responsibility to combat the deterioration of our planet?

[Anonymous No.8407664]

>>8407630

In lala-land, maybe.

In real world, funding is obtained by publishing what politics want, and what they want is more taxes.

Going against that is sure-fire way to get a door and never walk-in again.

[Anonymous No.8407666]

>>8401095
>How do we know the data isn't made up?
How do you know any data isn't made up?
How are you sure anything you know isn't made up?

[Anonymous No.8407687]

>>8407664
>and what they want is more taxes.
But it's not?
Politicians get voted in based on public opinion, and they get paid by sucking industry and business dicks. Neither of those groups are terribly fond of carbon taxes. What incentive is there for politicians to pretend global warming is an issue?

Look at things like the Paris summit, on the US congress talks, or the Aus gov trying to defund CRISO. They're sure as fuck not rushing out to combat global warming - they're doing as little as humanly possible.

[Anonymous No.8407712]

>>8407630
>bullshit that isn't supported by the evidence
a single model came close to observation
guess what INM stands for

[Anonymous No.8407776]

>>8401349
A handful of faggots on /sci/

|
|
V

are spending all of their time

|
|
V

shitposting on a mongolian barbecue imageboard

|
|
V

to compensate for the fact that they'll never get laid or even find a job.

[Anonymous No.8407779]

>>8401553
>question status quo
>WOW IT'S POL AGAIN!!!
holy shit.

[Anonymous No.8407784]

>>8401593
>/pol/ calling someone a schizo

TOP KEK

[Anonymous No.8407806]

>>8407712
>believing everything you read from the internet
>believing anything that comes from blogs written by conspiracy theorists.

The model is wrong according to who exactly? Where did you get this image from?

[Anonymous No.8407812]

>>8407776
hits close

[Anonymous No.8407906]

>Look mom, I posted it again!

[Anonymous No.8408644]

hurr durr global warming is a scam

t. Oil shill

[Anonymous No.8408649]

>>8407784
>treehugging hippie calling people by a board name
Get a job at mcdonalds and stop shitting up the place all day you stinking disgusting filth

[Anonymous No.8408670]

Research shows that global average temperatures is actually decreasing. Global warming theory is based on faulty research involving only looking at specific areas rather than the whole earth.

[Anonymous No.8408671]

>>8408670
Which research is that?

[Anonymous No.8408672]

>>8401095
Why can't global memers can't contain themselves in >>>/x/. There's enough nutjobs to go around there.

[Anonymous No.8408687]

Natural selection: you get what you pay for.

[Anonymous No.8408698]

>>8407712
>>8408687

[Anonymous No.8408709]

>>8408649
>treehuggin' hippie >:(

I don't know what board you think you're on, anon. /sci/, with respect to its audience and user base, remains largely unpopulated by intellectually-vacant, bottom-of-the-barrel scrapings - with exception to regular cycles of pol spillover, usually following suit of: 'Oy vey, Goldwasser is corrupting the data!' or something you might find on /x/.

Most of us would have to do partake in prelonged alcohol abuse to reach such meme-tier rationalization.

[Anonymous No.8408736]

>>8408709
>b-b-but I used the word p-pol and I don't win??
0/10
You thinly veiled SJWtards make it so obvious. Next time make sure your thread derailing shitposts don't contradict each other and maybe I'll bother replying.

[Anonymous No.8408750]

>>8408736
>he's using the stutter downplay
>spongebob face.jpg
>ES JAY DOUBLE YOU

[Anonymous No.8408752]

>>8408750
ssshhh...no tears now.

[Anonymous No.8408757]

>>8408709
>I'll try to demonize anyone who doesn't wanna pay carbon tax so oil richbitches can earn even more profits
>this reaction image will do the trick
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.8408812]

>>8408757
>I'll try to demonize anyone who doesn't wanna pay carbon tax so oil richbitches can earn even more profits

Where was this even inferred?

[Anonymous No.8408867]

>>8402863
Fire is not a significant health risk. Unless you're in it of course.

[Anonymous No.8408884]

"I'm the last thing standing between you and the apocalypse."
- HDRC PSA, per the NYT, 11 Oct 2016

No one denies climate change exists, but we're getting a little tired of hearing politicians bang on about how it only started @200yrs ago, so the end must be nigh. Besides, Obama already promised to heal the comfy planet and cause the scary oceans to recede, so any possible crisis is already sorted ...

[Anonymous No.8408889]

this webcomic does a good job explaining whats going on:
http://xkcd.com/1732/

[Anonymous No.8408892]

>>8408884
If I may ask, where do you live? You seem to be under the impression that this won't affect you at all.

[Anonymous No.8408896]

>>8408892
not him, but multiple solutions to "global warming" have already been created. if shit gets really bad we can seed the atmosphere with sulphur for the low, low price of a ~4 billion dollars.

the real problem is excess carbon screwing with biospheres, and even that is just an engineering problem.

this climate change shit is 99% political fuckery and scare mongering.

[Anonymous No.8408898]

>>8408896
>sulphur
One step closer to becoming Venus wew.

[Anonymous No.8408919]

>>8408896
Agreed somewhat, but there is a huge issue with denying funding towards technology and denying the problem exists in the first place. The end of this video describes the real issue perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&index=31&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

[Anonymous No.8408923]

>>8408896
>if shit gets really bad we can seed the atmosphere with sulphur

When shit gets really bad what's really going to happen is food shortages. The tropics will be too hot to grow food, they're already having trouble. Most farm belts will experience droughts. West coast North America is the first casualty to this. When food gets scarce people will start raiding neighboring countries.
The big power nations with nukes will have a simpler option, to end the wars once and for all. A few nukes will destroy the enemy, protect the homeland, and create a dust cloud big enough to reverse global warming.

tl;dr I ask you what comes first? Nuclear winter, or sulfur seeding?

[Anonymous No.8408929]

>>8408919
>but there is a huge issue with denying funding towards technology

of course there is. if you build climate/carbon control infrastructure, what you effectively have is a weather machine. how do the disjointed nations of the world suss out who gets to man the controls of the planets atmosphere when they can't even figure out how to get along?

[Anonymous No.8408970]

>>8401095
>>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8409012]

>>8408889
no it doesn't

[Shadowhawk4 No.8409576]

>>8401095 Actually this has been settled a while back. Human interaction does very little . The real issue with global warming is the upcoming pole shift due to the core rotational flip. We are in the final 500 to 1000 years before the flip happens, so we are seeing the result of a slower core rotation and a loss of part of our magnetic shield. While humans can increase the effect of climate change our ability to alter it is minimal at best. One single volcanic eruption can dump green house gasses at a rate we can't even match and that is a natural process. No matter how much conservation is done we can't stop the earths core from slowing down. What we should be doing is working on tech for survivability of our species. When the core gets slower say 300 years from now the entire sky will look like the Arora Borealis at night due to a mixture or cosmic rays an radiation. It will be hot ..hot enough to wipe out a huge amount of plants and animals. For us to survive we will need to ability to grow food in a controlled environment out of the natural weather that will exist right before the core flip completes. Any action at conservation is nothing more than a cheap band aid.

[Anonymous No.8409670]

> tfw scientists have to deal with """enlightened""" brainlets questioning their work

Thank Allah I chose mathematics. Only nutcase we have is Wildberger, but he's based, so there's that.

[Anonymous No.8409713]

>>8407687

Everybody needs to eat.

You're pointing out some don't eat pork, others beef and there are even some goddamn vegans.

Even worse so - many around here need to lose weight !

Did you invalidate my basic premise ?

[Anonymous No.8409716]

>>8409576
>One single volcanic eruption can
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.8409717]

>>8401095
The problem with this is that if we follow this argument without any significant evidence to think that research has been paid off, you could question literally everything and that gets you nowhere. Yes, it COULD be fake, but 95% is a huge number and it's incredibly unlikely that so many people were paid off

[Anonymous No.8409721]

>>8408884
>No one denies climate change exists
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=740&q=trump+climate+change&oq=trump+clima&gs_l=img.1.0.0l2.3973.11795.0.13404.11.10.0.1.1.0.849.2735.2-6j5-1j1.8.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.9.2735.k-cpCKEJAvY

[Anonymous No.8409895]

>so many people were paid off
What will they tell us when the CO2 hoax collapses and the cold kills and the food riots begin?

[Anonymous No.8409913]

>>8401402
9 billion is the profits of like, 2 oil corporations a year you idiot.

[Anonymous No.8409965]

>>8401095
The question is not wether global warming is real or not, every scientist agrees it is real. Its about wether it's cause by humans or not

[Anonymous No.8409983]

>>8409965
There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that humans contribute somewhere between 80-120% of the current warming.

[Anonymous No.8409986]

>>8401349
Whoa those oil companies have a lot of those money bags I'm sold on the hockey stick theory now

[Anonymous No.8410001]

>>8405602
>>8405822
It's like you faggot have literally no understanding of research.
When you write a paper you write it on something specific. If that something wasn't about evaluating the impact of man on AGW, there is literally no reason to talk abou tit.

[Anonymous No.8410029]

>>8410001
what if you wrote it about if climate change is real in the first place?

u know, first prove your point and make sure it's right, then start pointing fingers

[Anonymous No.8410030]

>>8401878
it adds up. and it's reasonable to assume they would want more if they feel they aren't getting enough. manufacturing hysteria isn't beyond them.

[Anonymous No.8410033]

>>8409986
They're using the same spin doctors and tactics as the tobacco manufacturers a few decades ago.

[Anonymous No.8410040]

>>8409895
>food riots
that parts right, world food production collapses 10% per each 1C rise in global average temperature.

[Anonymous No.8410045]

>>8410029
Everyone admits climate change is real. Just that some people don't think it's caused by man.

[Anonymous No.8410048]

>>8410001
>When you write a paper you write it on something specific. If that something wasn't about evaluating the impact of man on AGW, there is literally no reason to talk abou tit.
What?

>>8409986
>Whoa those oil companies have a lot of those money bags I'm sold on the hockey stick theory now
God forbid you take an hour away from masturbating and actually read anything about climatology.

>>8410030
>it's reasonable to assume they would want more if they feel they aren't getting enough. manufacturing hysteria isn't beyond them.
Except all the recognition and money is in going AGAINST the consensus.

>>8410045
>Everyone admits climate change is real.
No they don't. If you look at places like the USA, it's (IIRC) barely above a third.

[Anonymous No.8410058]

>>8410048
About 75% of Americans think climate change is occuring. About 60% of Americans think it is mainly caused by man.

Americans are on the fringes when it comes to opinions on climate change.

[Anonymous No.8410127]

>>8401476
>$106.7
Equal to the 2015 revenue of Gazprom. The 18th largest company by revenue last year. And this is for one year only!
Just to put some perspective on your ''big number''

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue

[Anonymous No.8410132]

>>8410127
Meant for >>8401402

[Anonymous No.8410203]

Q: Does climate change include global cooling?
A: <blank stare>

[Anonymous No.8410283]

>>8410203
The warming outweighs the cooling

[Anonymous No.8410423]

>>8410203
>[shitposting loudly]

[Anonymous No.8410425]

>>8410203
>comic sans in paint
Holy shit, how can one stand against this calibre of evidence?

[Anonymous No.8410460]

>>8410283
Maybe somewhere in the tropics, not here in the North.

[Anonymous No.8410502]

>is global warming real?
Maybe. Something is up as seen by the melting of the ice caps.

>is it man made?
Good question. The evidence is really all over the place so it's hard to really say. It's what happens when you introduce politics into science because a LOT of unscientific conclusions have been reached and forged. Normies like to point at "MUH RESEARCH" but the reality is that there are a lot of people doing the research and often times have an ulterior motive.

[Anonymous No.8410536]

>>8410425
Neither Paint nor Comic Sans but your fake comics are funny.

[Anonymous No.8410640]

>>8410058
What climate change are we currently seeing?

[Anonymous No.8410719]

>>8401095
It's actually pretty easy to prove, just people are morons and don't wanna believe because it means big changes. no real help coming from big oil which still needs to cash in on all the fossil fuels they be sucking up. You can test CO2 concentrations in atmospheric air by screwing with it's equilibrium using baking soda. You can, then, test the way it absorbs solar photons using a spectrophotometer and realize that it absorbs quite a bit of radiation. Monitor a room with high concentrations of CO2 and exposure to solar radiation and you'll notice, not only is it warm as fuck, it's hotter than the surrounding environment. At this point, you're thinking, "yeah yeah." this is just a small room, we're talking a big world out there." WRONG! Mars' surface temperature is mainly influenced by high CO2 concentrations. I'd find the proof but it's not worth it.

[Anonymous No.8410723]

>>8410640
All my icecreams are melting. That should mean something right?

[Anonymous No.8410730]

>>8410502
Wow this guy is W O K E as fuck.

[Anonymous No.8410740]

>>8410719
lol and people wonder why your average joe doesn't believe in climate change. because they are too dumb to figure it out, and every uppity person with knowledge never really takes the time to lay it out. Tell me something I won't see in Bill Nye's explanation

[Anonymous No.8410742]

>>8410425
2016: 406 ppm

[Anonymous No.8410743]

>>8410740
>lol im s0 smart erryone is dum
ahahahahahhaha sure you are ;)

[Anonymous No.8411249]

>>8409576
>The real issue with global warming is the upcoming pole shift due to the core rotational flip. We are in the final 500 to 1000 years before the flip happens, so we are seeing the result of a slower core rotation and a loss of part of our magnetic shield.
>One single volcanic eruption can dump green house gasses at a rate we can't even match and that is a natural process
>When the core gets slower say 300 years from now the entire sky will look like the Arora Borealis at night due to a mixture or cosmic rays an radiation
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8411552]

>>8410640
Last 20 years: 6..7 millikelvin per year (satellite data rss and uah6). More impressive when you start at the little ice age but that may get you in conflict with the CO2 meme.

[Anonymous No.8411624]

>>8401349
>(((regional environmental groups and community activists)))
>limited budgets

[Anonymous No.8411641]

>>8411624
chicken feed compared to big oil + halliburton et al.

[Anonymous No.8411663]

>>8409716
although the post you quoted is more pseudoscience than actual fact, he is right with respect to volcanic eruptions been able to change the weather:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
I don't know how much CO2 such eruption emits, so I restrain to make any comment on that.

[Anonymous No.8411668]

>>8411552

>HOW MUCH HAS THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISEN SINCE 1880?
>Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the 2013 summary report). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years, according to the IPCC.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

Man, for only 1 degree there is so much fuss?

[Anonymous No.8411685]

Why the fuck is this thread in /sci/?

Denial of science isn't science. And your beliefs are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.8411740]

>>8411663
>I don't know how much CO2 such eruption emits, so I restrain to make any comment on that.
Quite a lot per event, but still not that much on a yearly basis.

>>8411668
>Man, for only 1 degree there is so much fuss?
It doesn't take many extra degrees to break a lot of things. Also, the Earth's climate is very big and has a lot of inertia, so even after we start ficing things it's going to keep getting worse for many years.

>>8411685
>Why the fuck is this thread in /sci/?
/pol/tards desperate for attention.

[Anonymous No.8411841]

>>8411740
>It doesn't take many extra degrees to break a lot of things. Also, the Earth's climate is very big and has a lot of inertia, so even after we start ficing things it's going to keep getting worse for many years.

1815 eruption changed the weather for two years. No mass destruction came from it. I know that some ecosystems are really frail, but really, 1 fucking degree? I think people overestimates things.

[Anonymous No.8411859]

>>8410502
>the evidence is all over the place
Well, not really

It's pretty absolutely conclusive that human emission of greenhouse gases is the cause

[Anonymous No.8411865]

>>8411841
You realise how much energy it takes to raise the average surface temperature of the ENTIRE FUCKING EARTH by a whole degree? In just a little over a hundred years? And at the moment we're well on track for that to be two or three degrees by the end of this century.

Nor is the heating evenly distributed, the poles are warming twice as fast (or more) than the rest of the land surface, a runaway process because less white ice = lower reflectivity = more energy absorbed, and also the sea has been absorbing huge amounts of both CO2 and heat, keeping the temperature down, but as it heats more it will absorb less and in the mean time it's becoming more acidic and literally expanding as it becomes less dense. One to two degrees across the planet is the difference between today's sea level and a sea level rise that displaces, in the best possible conceivable case, 130 million people.

[Anonymous No.8411918]

>>8411865
>You realise how much energy it takes to raise the average surface temperature of the ENTIRE FUCKING EARTH by a whole degree? In just a little over a hundred years? And at the moment we're well on track for that to be two or three degrees by the end of this century.

do you realize that the River Thames used to be frozen? Yeah, 1 degree is a lot of energy, but, that has happened before. It is really natural. Actually, do you know that Pangea used to be in the south pole and that it had a tropical climate? Weather changes a lot!

[Anonymous No.8411926]

>>8411918
yeah and did you know such changes in climate leads to mass extinctions? really makes you think
pangaea life would not survive today

[Anonymous No.8411949]

>>8411926
That's the course of nature. Amazing, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.8411955]

>>8411949
You might be right. It's possible humanity has no way of preventing what's coming. I don't care very much for humanity, but I suspect I'm not in the majority.

[Anonymous No.8412442]

All you can do is adapt.

[Anonymous No.8412455]

>>8411859
it's literally not conclusive at all.

the models linking co2 emissions to temperature don't work at all. it's so bad, they stopped publishing them and focusing on weather pattern changes, trying to justify that without data either.

[Anonymous No.8412552]

>>8412455
Source on literally anything in that shitpost.

[Anonymous No.8412564]

>>8411668
If you knew anything about science you'd know that 1 degree is all it takes for a substance to hit boiling point and change from liquid phase to gas phase, or the melting point and go from solid phase to liquid phase. The Poles being above 0C for a longer period of time means much more melting occurs. This triggers a positive feedback loop as the Earth's albedo lowers due to loss of area of reflective white ice/snow and increase in area of darker ocean water.

[Anonymous No.8412617]

>>8412455
t. Donald Trump

[Anonymous No.8412628]

>>8401095
The way I see it is that science in every other field is correct and thus we have reaped the boons of it (technology, food, not dying to diseases, etc.). So why would people automatically start to deny it when the environmental scientists notice something wrong?

[Anonymous No.8412695]

>>8412628
Denial isn't an issue with science, it's a political issue. Fossil fuel companies have spread the message to the American public that using oil and having a massive carbon footprint is your basic right as an American. They tell them that if you use those evil competitors like nuclear, solar, or wind, you are literally a communist. Tribal group think is dangerously effective in creating a common enemy that doesn't exist. They appeal to the emotional side of the public and so no amount of logic or reason will ever reach them as they'll always perceive it as somebody lying to them to hurt them. Never mind the fact that hastening climate change will increase all forms of government intervention. We're already seeing this for example in refugees from floods and hurricanes and firefighters dealing with an increase in wildfire breakouts.

[Anonymous No.8412711]

>>8402863
Exactly

>>8401802
This would be funny satire if there wasn't genuine and solid evidence that smoking doesn't cause disease and is merely a scapegoat.

[Anonymous No.8413064]

>>8412564

No one expect from fart-skull to know anything about phase-change energy requirement.

As for ice-caps albedo - if one told you those are parallel to sun - rays ?

[Anonymous No.8413096]

>>8413064
4chan is an English website. If I deciphered this correctly from your mystic script, what you're saying is the sun's rays come at the Earth in an angle that prevents reflection? Then no, the Earth's tilt means that sun is reflected from both of the poles during different times of the year.

[Anonymous No.8413256]

>>8401095
The funny thing about these cartoons is that there are major corporations which have MUCH more interest in bribing scientists than the government does.

[Anonymous No.8413261]

>>8401854
>This picture was taken from a cruise ship
How does that make it illegitimate?

[Anonymous No.8413268]

>>8408736
>thinks being called out for being a /pol/ shill is ad hom
>thinks calling people he disagrees with "sjwtards" constitutes a valid argument

[Anonymous No.8413272]

>>8413261
How does a polar bear on an ice block legitimate climate change is the real question you should be asking. It doesn't, what does legitimate it is the fact the ablation is occurring more rapidly than accumulation. Whether polar bear populations are doing well or not is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is one issue with alarmists that I have, they go for emotional appeal with weak or flawed arguments trying to speak on behalf of scientists. These arguments are then easily pulled apart and reflect poorly on the scientific community as if they were the ones behind it all along.

[Anonymous No.8413360]

>>8413272
>This is one issue with alarmists that I have, they go for emotional appeal
What ARE are they supposed to be appealing to?
We've basically reached to point where deniers are about as willing to listen to evidence as the fucking moon landing hoaxers. If sad polar bears sell AGW, than that's better then nothing.

[Anonymous No.8413386]

>>8413360
Those are value judgments for the public and politicians to make, I couldn't care less what they decide to do with the information. If they think sacrificing future generations for short term gain is worth it then so be it. I can understand having that point of view even if I don't personally hold it. The problem is that forcing people to get emotional interferes with their logic and reasoning and forces them to make poor decisions. I'd rather just present the cold hard evidence of how climate change works and the side effects it would have. Those are usually scary enough when you consider how they'll affect you personally. You don't need to be bringing uncertain information into the mix like how polar bears will be affected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw
This is well worth a watch to get things into perspective.

[Anonymous No.8413420]

>>8413386
>If a few people want to harm lots of other people for profit, that's okay.
>You can't post pictures of polar bears, that's unethical.
What the crap?

[Anonymous No.8413433]

>>8413420
If they're using the evidence at hand to make a judgment call and taking responsibility for it what's the problem? Acting as if a polar bear on a slab of ice is evidence for climate change is fabricating evidence to make people act in a way you want them to act. Instead of pushing an agenda and using falsified data you should be distributing the hard evidence already available so people make well informed decisions. Fossil fuel companies and other people spreading misinformation are just as unethical too. But just because one person is shitting in the sandbox doesn't give you the right to do it as well.

[Anonymous No.8413447]

>>8413433
>If they're using the evidence at hand to make a judgment call and taking responsibility for it what's the problem?
It's not just their call.
The people who disproportionately share the most in the benefits but the least in the consequences are those with the most power about how we react to AGW. That basically GUARANTEES that there isn't going to be "fair" decision making with people "taking responsibility".

>Instead of pushing an agenda and using falsified data
Seriously? Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.8413459]

>>8413447
>It's not just their call.
The scientific data is more than ever accessible to the general public. So then why aren't those who have the most to lose not doing anything about it? Where are the lawsuits, the riots, the wars? Why are the people in charge who are the least affected by it making decisions on behalf of the rest of the planet? It's because the general public are complacent and happy consuming as much as they want, doing as much damage as they want, and simply don't care what the evidence has to say. Again, things are so bad that you don't need to be lying and making it look like there's a conspiracy afoot so why do it?

>Seriously? Fuck off.
Claiming polar bears on ice is evidence for climate change is propaganda no matter how you spin it. Study the science behind climate change then use that in your arguments instead.

[Anonymous No.8413469]

can pol tell me what the jews gain by pushin climate change "hoax" ? seems like it's a loss for them

[Anonymous No.8413471]

>>8413469
I've actually wondered the same thing before and did my own research on it. Apparently /pol/ believes that the Zionist Jews are trying to make a new world order and globalism is their best method of doing so. They think the world working together to combat climate change means there will be a union of all countries and at the top of that union will be the sole ruling class of the Zionist Jews. Crazy I know, but this is /pol/ we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.8413514]

The climate change industry is worth about $1.5 trillion per annum (2015), not much of which goes into anything useful. It is a form of state-sanctioned organized crime.

[Anonymous No.8413517]

>>8413514
Do you have any evidence to back your claim? Sorry but I'm a bit more skeptical than to take some anon on the internet for his word.

[Anonymous No.8413638]

>Yeah you may have a lot of good evidence but some people may benefit from alternative energy sources so haha nice try better luck next time
/pol/ needs to leave

[Anonymous No.8413692]

>>8412455