/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 81 KB, 1280x720, take_it_all.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

PREPARE YOUR ANUS Wed Dec 14 12:41:16 2016 No.8538984 [DELETED]

Donald Trump
>climate change is a chinese hoax

Scott Pruitt - future head of EPA
>"There's a tremendous dispute, [...] going on [...] about how much this global warming trend that the administration talks about, if it's true or not," Pruitt said

Rick Perry future secretary of energy
>Mr. Perry called the established science of human-caused climate change a “contrived, phony mess.”

Rex Tillerson future secretary of state.
fucking CEO of ExxonMobil

that is it, guys. Whatever the worst case scenarios for global warming were, it's going to be worse than that.
This is the literal apocalypse

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 12:42:12 2016 No.8538989 >another climate change alarmist thread please take your pseudoscience back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 12:47:06 2016 No.8538998 >>8538989 >pseudoscience back to /pol/, fucktard

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 12:58:39 2016 No.8539025 I live on a hill so I don't care if your basement will fill up with water in 2 centuries, alarmist. It's my energy and I need it nowwwww.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:02:04 2016 No.8539030

>>8539025
I have been convincingly Poe'd.

Has anyone noticed that /pol/ is still pretending to be the skeptical contrarian, when this election has shown that they are clearly the credulous majoritarian? How long are they going to cling to this "persecuted underdog" fantasy?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:05:10 2016 No.8539036

>>8538984
yeah. I give up there's no saving it now
I'm just going to pretend everything is fine and hopefully after a few years I'll stop thinking about it
this life is pretty much all there is left now, don't have to worry much about our future anymore

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:05:57 2016 No.8539037 >>8539030 That's how /pol is. Nazis are bitches.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:07:46 2016 No.8539040 >>8538989 Fuck off back to /pol/ you don't fool anyone

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:08:31 2016 No.8539042 >>8539030 polsters don't choose their positions because they get to be contrarian they choose them based on how wrong or offensive they are it just so happens that the majority position happens to coincide with the pol position on this issue

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:08:41 2016 No.8539043 We're well past the point of no return for at least 10 years now I see no issue with ignoring it entirely. It doesn't matter what we do so might as well focus on providing people with better standard of living for as long as we can.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:10:09 2016 No.8539044 >>8539043 this If there's anything years of 4chan has taught me, it's that humanity isn't worth preserving.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:12:54 2016 No.8539048 >>8539036 You should just find another religion, maybe earth worship just isn't for you. The prophecies are even that doomish, hordes of climate migrants from the depths of Mordor and some biblical flooding? Pffft.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:14:47 2016 No.8539055 >>8539048 go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:22:56 2016 No.8539063 your minority views are no longer accepted and society at large will no longer have to conform to ridiculous theories created by ignorant hateful yuppie liberals. its over, go back to mexico, go back to africa. we are making america great again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:23:17 2016 No.8539065 >>8539044 It was the furries that pushed you past the brink?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:24:19 2016 No.8539067 >>8539063 >minority views what, 98% of anyone working in anything climate/earth science related? Fuck, i took the bait

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:25:52 2016 No.8539070 >>8539065 Furfags made me want to nuke the planet from orbit /v/ has convinced me that it deserves a slow roasting instead

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:28:39 2016 No.8539073 >>8539070 Kek i like you. We share similar views. Not that I hang much on /v/ though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:28:57 2016 No.8539074 >>8539067 >what, 98% of anyone working in anything propaganda related? fix'd

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:32:10 2016 No.8539082

>>8539067

the majority of society has not accepted your arguments, you just dont get it. you say people cant see whats obvious but obviously you cant either. the us government is doubling down on what is important, just like the rest of the non-declining world, china.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:34:24 2016 No.8539087 >>8539030 Well I suppose they are contrarians with the rest of the world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:35:41 2016 No.8539089 >>8539082 China is heavily investing in alternative energies. They're expanding their solar, wind and nuclear capacities like mad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:36:33 2016 No.8539091 >>8539074 >>8539082 kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:37:48 2016 No.8539094 >>8539082 I've got to agree with this point even though the poster is a climate change denier democracy is a large impediment to solving this issue having to convince the science illiterate masses first makes the challenge so much greater

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:39:55 2016 No.8539099

65% of Americans agree global warming is occurring and is caused by human activities. Increasing amounts also agree it will pose serious consequences to their life.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

Too bad the DNC put forth the most unlikeable cunt in political history. She couldn't even beat a reality TV show host who got fewer votes than Romney.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:41:35 2016 No.8539105 DOE is scrambling to save as much climate data as they can before it gets tampered with AND told the Trump administration to fuck off in regards to giving him a hit list. God bless the DOE.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:42:51 2016 No.8539107 >>8539099 well she did manage to get over 2.8 million more votes than trump got so, if they had been playing anything other than the game of American politics she'd have won convincingly

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:44:02 2016 No.8539111

>>8539105
they want to wait out the storm so they can get back to doing what they're doing as soon as Trump is out

it's a smart move but it's why the office of president is such a shitty useless position; you have less job security than the bureaucrats that you employ

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:44:38 2016 No.8539113 >>8539107 the same game that allows millions of illegals to vote

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:44:55 2016 No.8539114 >yfw you realise the 20th century will be an anomaly in history

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:47:54 2016 No.8539119 >>8539114 >Anomally We fall for the same bullshit as a species every century

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:50:13 2016 No.8539124 >>8539113 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:55:56 2016 No.8539136 File: 280 KB, 668x675, mmga.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Donald Trump is anti sci-

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:58:38 2016 No.8539144 >>8539099 Polls dont matter in science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:59:15 2016 No.8539145 >>8539136 Kek, this is gonna piss /sci/ of to an insane amount. Aaaand the Musketeers will be fucking unbearable

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 13:59:34 2016 No.8539146 >>8539136 >Trump might allow Elon Musk to be in the same room as him on a few occasions, perhaps Wow! This is sure to sway all those anti-trump millennials!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:01:04 2016 No.8539148 >>8539146 He's going to go all-in on SpaceX just to piss off Jeff Bezos The funny thing is Musk was like "Yeah I like Hillary" but Bezos went full "FASCIST DRUMPF GET OUT REEEEEEEEEE"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:04:30 2016 No.8539156 >>8539145 >>8539146 >>8539148 Can you imagine Musk having to sit in on a meeting with Alex Jones? >We want to go back to the Moon and then to Mars >pfff...:"back"...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:05:48 2016 No.8539158 >>8539148 he wouldn't be allowed to do that because supporting musk is supporting alternative energy

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:06:29 2016 No.8539161 >>8539156 The correct reply to shut Alex up is >implying the pharaohs of Atlantis didn't build pyramids on the moon 10,000 years ago

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:08:35 2016 No.8539165 >>8538989 This

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:10:18 2016 No.8539170

>Trump staff calls on Department of Energy to name all their staff that believe in Global Warming so that they can be purged

>Scientists urgently coming all their climate data and uploading it to other servers because they believe Trump will destroy it

Dark times.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:15:50 2016 No.8539182 >>8538989 >>>/pol/ Fucking christians

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:17:59 2016 No.8539188 >>8539082 see >>8539099

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:20:16 2016 No.8539198 >>8538984 Lel nope, turns out the US is irrelevant: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/trump-carbon-and-the-paris-agreement/#more-19725 Trump is gonna fuck over science in the US though, the effects of that will be felt for years

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:20:17 2016 No.8539199 >>8539144 Science doesn't matter in polls either, judging by all the denial that's still around.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:24:30 2016 No.8539208

>>8538984
>Rex Tillerson future secretary of state.
>fucking CEO of ExxonMobil

Nice cherry picking there. Showing the quotes of everyone who doesn't believe in climate change but deciding NOT to show quotes of the one guy who believe in climate change.

Still, you are right. You are just being intellectually dishonest. Hopefully it doesn't get too terrible,

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:26:04 2016 No.8539212
File: 39 KB, 752x630, reality.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539089
Yes, Chinas exports of inefficient 'alternatives' have never been better thanks to enormous tax payer financed subsidies from the first world. They build these trinkets and baubles that placate the ignorant AGW cultist in the first world with a lot of fossil fuel energy while actually adding more toxic compounds, plastics, battery waste and who knows what into the environment. It's a bit of Jevon's Paradox.

>>8539170
>Dark times
Keep begging global draconian energy police state bureaucracies to take your energy away without a reasonable alternative strategy and they certainly will be.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:28:54 2016 No.8539219

>Start with the assumption that man is destroying the earth
>Latch onto an unproven scientific theory that fits this preconception
>Extrapolate wildly from half-formed theories and short-term trends to predict a future apocalypse
>Get the media to broadcast it with even less nuance and get a bunch of Hollywood celebrities to adopt it as their pet cause
>Quietly drop the whole thing when it doesn’t pan out—and move on with undiminished enthusiasm to the next environmental doomsday scenario.

Examples include: Global cooling, global warming, running out of room for landfills, acid rain, deforestation, destructive effects of DDT, holes in the ozone layer, mass extinction, resource depletion or "peak oil", mass starvation, and perhaps the most destructive myth of all, overpopulation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:29:57 2016 No.8539221 >>8539105 I think they're being just a tad hysterical

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:35:42 2016 No.8539231

>>8539219
>Global cooling
Never had much traction in scientific journals, stop reading pop sci.
>acid rain
There was acid rain and successful policy aimed at stopping it
>global warming
>deforestation
>destructive effects of DDT
>holes in the ozone layer
All true. A couple where policy was successful at stopping it.
>mass extinction
You mean the mass extinctions that have happened in geological scale? All true.
You mean the one that will happen because of global warming? there's still not the same consensus as in global warming and the time scale would be much longer. stop reading pop sci.
>mass starvation, and perhaps the most destructive myth of all, overpopulation.
Not scientific theories.

Now fuck off.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:39:24 2016 No.8539239

>>8539030
/pol/ isnt going to change. You cant reason with them or have an intelligent conversation about politics. They are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. They'll just shower you in memes and call you a cuck. Best to leave the mongoloids to their containment board and try to forget about them

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:41:14 2016 No.8539242

>>8539231
>You mean the mass extinctions that have happened in geological scale? All true.

By "geological scale" do you mean the isolated pacific islands where most extinctions take place?

>The island conservationist Josh Donlan estimates that islands, which are just 3 per cent of the Earth’s surface, have been the site of 95 per cent of all bird extinctions since 1600, 90 per cent of reptile extinctions, and 60 per cent of mammal extinctions. Those are horrifying numbers, but the losses are extremely local. They have no effect on the biodiversity and ecological health of the continents and oceans that make up 97 per cent of the Earth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:42:57 2016 No.8539247 >>8539242 No >since 1600 That's not geological scale >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:46:18 2016 No.8539254

There is no consensus that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that requires "urgent" action. One of the most common talking points used by global warming alarmists is that 97 percent of scientists agree that it's man-made and unless action is taken, armageddon will ensue. This is patently false, as Joseph Bast and Dr. Roy Spencer explain in The Wall Street Journal, this number comes from three sources and they're all riddled with errors

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

>In 2009, a University of Illinois student conducted a two-question survey for her master's thesis that asked respondents if "global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor." Skeptics and proponents typically answer yes to both questions, so unsurprisingly 97 percent said yes. Additionally, only 79 scientists responded to the survey.

>A student at Stanford found in 2010 that 97 percent or 98 percent of "the most prolific climate change writers" believed that "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." No mention on how serious the problem was, and he only found the views of 200 researchers when the number of climate change researchers are in the "thousands."

>Blogger John Cook determined in 2013 that 97 percent of "abstracts of peer-reviewed papers" believed that "human activity is responsible for some warming," but a more exhaustive study of Cook's work determined that only 0.3 percent of the 11,944 papers reviewed by Cook concluded that "human activity is causing most of the current warming."

The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from the 97 consensus that leftists like to spout.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:49:42 2016 No.8539259 >>8539254 > and unless action is taken, armageddon will ensue False. Quote the climatologist who said that. Go read the stern review.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:51:28 2016 No.8539266 >>8539239 But the containment is leaking. Constantly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:51:37 2016 No.8539267 >>8539259 >One of the most common talking points used by global warming alarmists Do you know what this means?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:52:33 2016 No.8539272 >>8539254 Gooooo Baaaaaack Tooooooo /pooooooool/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:53:23 2016 No.8539274 >>8539267 If that's what "climate alarmist" say, then they're wrong. Stick to the science please. Global warming doesn't have to bring the armageddon to justify measures against it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:54:46 2016 No.8539278 >>8539274 Perhaps you should learn to read so you don't get so easily triggered

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:56:31 2016 No.8539280 >>8539278 Perhaps, you should see why having people in charge of government policy who refuse to accept the science of climatology with amateurish speculation might put me on edge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:57:34 2016 No.8539281 >>8538984 >global warming we've been through this >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 14:59:03 2016 No.8539286 >>8539136 That's pretty good. If he has the chance, maybe musk can properly tell him about global warming.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:01:11 2016 No.8539291

>>8539280

>who refuse to accept the science of climatology

It's very telling that you get more angry at them than you do the scientists that have been busted manipulating data in order to support their preconceived conclusions on climate change. If the science is established and widely accepted then why does NASA need to lie?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:04:12 2016 No.8539299 >>8539286 Musk should never tell him about global warming. Musk should just tell him "The Chinese are robbing us blind with their solar panels and batteries, we need to get Americans to work building better solar panels and batteries than them"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:06:13 2016 No.8539303 >>8539299 I can't wait until environmentalists figure out exactly what goes into those solar panels and what it takes to maintain them. They're going to be so disappointed.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:06:34 2016 No.8539305

>>8539291
> that have been busted manipulating data
I don't know what you're referring to.
If you're thinking of the email "scandal" the independent commission tasked with investigating it found nothing. Am I supposed to not be angry at such smear tactics?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:07:00 2016 No.8539306

>>8539219
The ultimate real Red Pill
>Algebraic proof
>Alg((h))ebraic
>hebraic

Have you swallowed the hardest red pill yet? So called ((science)) and ((mathematics)) are a jewish creation, an instrument to subjugate and destroy the white man.
>create ((science))
>build a whole structure around it to make it look logical and reasonable
>attribute every invention the white man achieved through his intuition to ((science))
>foster ((science)) to religious status and use it to subvert centuries long traditions and supplant Christianity
>use ((science)) to push sexual perversion and loathing of the white man
>use ((((scientific consensus))) to create the global warming hoax
>use ((global warming)) to create the perfect tool of white genocide: carbon tax

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:07:10 2016 No.8539307 >>8539219 I can't even tell when /pol/ is baiting on science anymore

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:11:02 2016 No.8539315

>>8539305

There are multiple examples of it, here's a couple:

>The Washington Times reported in 2009: "Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler."

>Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted "that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit," reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.

>NASA declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that "2014 was the warmest year on record" and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it's clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:18:04 2016 No.8539326

>>8539315
Show me the reports. Fraud is an extremely serious accusation in the scientific community, I expect a full ethics investigation was conducted on these claims, including article retractions.
Your washerwoman gossip leaves me wholly unimpressed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:23:08 2016 No.8539336 >>8539326 Do you need help Googling the 2014 NASA press release? It's completely unchanged. You're just looking for a reason to dismiss what I'm saying. Did I rock your world?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:26:43 2016 No.8539343 >>8539305 >If you're thinking of the email "scandal" the independent commission tasked with investigating it found nothing. The police investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:30:55 2016 No.8539350

>>8539336
>Did I rock your world?
Are you stupid?
Flinging extremely serious accusations towards well respected scientists from which no scientific paper retraction followed is supposed to rock my world?
I can play that too, did you know that Trump has raped and murdered 73 children over a span of 20 years. Clearly the lunatic is not fit for office.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:33:00 2016 No.8539355 >>8539350 Note the ever increasing amount of evidence that it would take to convince you that NASA scientists aren't infallible.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:34:16 2016 No.8539359

>>8539315
I think focusing on 'hottest years on record' is a meme in itself. The northern hemisphere was smothered in ice only 20k years ago, like the blink of an eye in geological time, any warming could and very well would be natural, relates to muh shrinking glaciers! This infantile 'climate science' rife with bias from the get go has only one driver behind it, global taxation of fossil fuels yet offers no plausible alternatives and in fact starts subsiding questionable alternatives with wealth is pilfers through its relentless fear mongering campaigns. It just wants to affix itself to the fossil fuel industry like a global fascist parasite. I think resistance to such parasites is a natural and healthy response from any population of free thinking people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:35:07 2016 No.8539362 >>8539355 One scientific paper retraction is not a mount of evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:35:34 2016 No.8539364 Why can't pol stay in their contamant board. They keep getting worse every year.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:37:05 2016 No.8539368 >>8539307 >implying they haven't been baiting so hard they drink their own coolaid

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:39:14 2016 No.8539373 >>8539362 You shouldn't need a scientific paper to recognize that in a 2014 press release which is still available, NASA claimed it was the hottest year in modern record despite not knowing if it was true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:39:24 2016 No.8539374 >>8539343 >notanargument.jpg

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:41:52 2016 No.8539384 >>8539364 they made it to the white house

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:42:36 2016 No.8539386 >>8539373 >You shouldn't need a scientific paper Anything outside scientific papers is not science. Pop science and press releases get things wrong all the fucking time, often written by nonscientists, you scientifically illiterate nigger.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:44:52 2016 No.8539389 >>8539384 >this /pol/ delusion

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:45:59 2016 No.8539393 File: 194 KB, 1067x930, pepi4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8538998 >>8539037 >>8539040 >>8539055 >>8539182 >>8539239 everyone i don't like is /pol/: the emotional child's guide to /sci/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:46:02 2016 No.8539394

>>8539386

This brings us back to my original point. If climate science is established and well accepted then why does NASA need to mislead the public or in this specific case, lie by omission? They still haven't edited that press release and included the fact that they're only 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year on modern record and that the data they have is well within the margin of error.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:47:27 2016 No.8539397 File: 1.00 MB, 2000x2000, 1452541730242.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8539393 nobody likes untermensch

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:49:31 2016 No.8539404 >>8539394 They don't need to be precise and so are sloppy. The scientific panel advising the government on policy is another matter. I swear to god Trump's election encouraged ignorant armchair climatologists to spout their cranckery everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:50:24 2016 No.8539407 File: 100 KB, 871x579, warming.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8539254 Did you even read that survey?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:51:38 2016 No.8539412 File: 193 KB, 888x767, pepi5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8539397 why are you posting fake IQ graphs on a science board?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:52:37 2016 No.8539416 >>8539407 Thanks. Did the paper specify the specialty of the scientists answering?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:53:22 2016 No.8539420 Can't the mods specifically ban climate change threads? Even if it's scientific, people sure don't discuss it scientifically.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:54:24 2016 No.8539426 >>8539412 it's not fake it was on infowars and molymeme's channel

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:54:44 2016 No.8539428 >>8539420 >>8539420 >>8539420 >>8539420 >>8539420

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:55:25 2016 No.8539432
File: 90 KB, 1059x393, lain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539420
The marxists will continue shoving climate change hoaxes down everyone throats for as long as live, it's too easy for them to weaponize compassion for the environment through such scare tactics

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:56:52 2016 No.8539435 [DELETED]

File: 110 KB, 845x696, publications.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539416
Yes.
>More than 1800 international
scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including e.g. climate physics, climate
impacts and mitigation, responded
to the questionnaire.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:57:05 2016 No.8539436 >>8539432 Since when are right wing capitalists considered marxists?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:57:47 2016 No.8539441 File: 1.03 MB, 857x914, mr australia 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8539436 you seem confused

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 15:59:44 2016 No.8539445 >>8539070 that's where this election left me. its a good planet, maybe even the best, but we don't fucking deserve to continue living here. hopefully we don't kill off all the orcas so they can inherit our dead wolrd

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:01:39 2016 No.8539452
File: 110 KB, 845x696, publications.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539416
>More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including e.g. climate physics, climate impacts and mitigation, responded to the questionnaire.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:02:59 2016 No.8539457

>>8539432
On the contrary, the threat of global warming is subtle, it requires statistics literacy to comprehend and sophisticated tests to even detect, and so its hard to rally people around it (compare it to something more popular like black lives matter). The current form of government, where the various countries are locked in the commons tragedy, and massive grassroots movements are impossible, may be wholly inadequate to face the issue.
Global warming is inevitable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:04:41 2016 No.8539462 >>8539113 there is absolutely no evidence of that claim. I'm legitimately curious why you believed that claim. it was immediately scrutinized and found to be completely false

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:11:28 2016 No.8539478

>>8539441
No, I'm not confused at all. European leaders also accept the "climate change hoax". Not to mention Rex Tillerson. All of them have two things in common, they are right-wing capitalists and they believe in climate change. I know it goes against your worldview, but it ain't just the marxists that "shove climate change hoaxes". Actually, in the political scene, they're the minority compared to the capitalists that believe in climate change.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:12:48 2016 No.8539483

>>8539219
tell me which seems more likely
>all the scientists in the world have made a conspiracy telling us to use less unreusable resources and find ways to reduce our waste because.... no seriously who could be gaining from that scenario?
or
>power companies are some of the wealthiest and most powerful organizations in the world and have billions of dollars to spend on making sure their industry remains secure and profitable
who's the cuck now?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:20:14 2016 No.8539511

>>8539483
>power companies are some of the wealthiest and most powerful organizations in the world and have billions of dollars to spend on making sure their industry remains secure and profitable

Okay we shouldn't trust oil companies because it's in their interest to manipulate or lie in order to keep their industry secure. To an extent I'm with you on that. By why don't you hold climate scientists to that same standard and level of scrutiny? Do you think all of these scientists who's professional career is wholly reliant on climate research funding is incapable of the same sort of manipulation in order to keep the gravy train rolling?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:20:49 2016 No.8539515

>>8539483
There are certain retards like John Holdren who flat out openly call for a universal dictatorship with full rights to cull the population, sterilize undesirables, shut down industry and transportation and control housing as the only way to ensure the continued survival of humanity

I *HOPE* guys like him are an outlier though.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:25:59 2016 No.8539529

>>8539511
>Do you think all of these scientists who's professional career is wholly reliant on climate research funding is incapable of the same sort of manipulation in order to keep the gravy train rolling?
What about the climate scientists who are skeptic and still can't prove climate change wrong? Are they controlled opposition?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:34:41 2016 No.8539554

>>8538984
Even if what the climate scientists said was reliable (and no, this kind of model prediction of a singular, complex system is not reliable), the policy recommendations behind the warmist agenda make no sense.

For instance, the continental plates are made of granite, that's most of the land surface of the Earth, many miles deep. On average, granite is about 10% light metal oxides which will form carbonate minerals if exposed to water and air. This is the main way that granite on the surface chemically weathers. The process can be vastly accelerated by breaking up granite to increase the surface area.

Removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere using this inexhaustible chemical resource is far more economical than foregoing the energy from burning carbon fuels, and doesn't require total global control of industry, which is a political impossibility.

Anyone pushing "reduce carbon emissions" is either scientifically illiterate or has a sociopolitical agenda to push.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:36:51 2016 No.8539556

>>8539511
Most climate scientists have secure, tenured jobs at universities or national labs and wouldn't be put out on the street if climate change turned out to not be happening. Furthermore, please show me a single millionaire climate scientist. There is literally no motivation for them to propagate a massive conspiracy on such a worldwide scale.

Furthermore, writing grants all day sucks and funding rates are around 10% to even get money to study climate change, so it's no gravy train.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:45:04 2016 No.8539574 >>8539554 Great, then why aren't you trying to pilot this idea, save the world, and make billions?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:50:09 2016 No.8539588

>>8539219
>Global cooling
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

>Global Warming
Ample scientific evidence exists.

>Landfills
What the fuck are you even talking about here? Who ever said there wasn't space for landfills, cite your sources.

>Acid Rain
You are attempting to say that Acid Rain doesn't occur in areas with significant pollution? How far up your own ass is your head?

>Deforestation
Which is occurring at very large rates in places like Indonesia and the Amazon, where they slash and burn sections of forest down not for the wood, but to create land for beef / palm oil plantations?

>DDT
I don't even know where you are going with this. DDT and other pesticides have many scientifically proven negative effects on insects that aren't pests.

>Holes in Ozone layer
You mean the hole that is measurable by satellite data over the South Pole, a hole which still exists to this day, and is in the process of healing because we stopped large-scale use of CFCs?

>Mass Extinction
Oh, you mean like the 5 mass extinctions, and hundreds of smaller scale extinctions from the Earth's ~600 million year history of complex life? Or are you talking about the current mass extinction event driven by human activity? What about the extinction of the Megafauna during the last ~20,000+ years? What about current extinctions that are by far exceeding the background rate of extinction?

>Resource depletion, "peak oil"
It's only a matter of time. Petroleum is not abiotic, and oil exploration will only become more difficult in the future with less resources to be recovered.

>Mass starvation
You can thank the green revolution for an agricultural system that can feed the entire world. That was a scientific revolution as well. GMO plants also helped, which were created through scientific endeavors.

>Overpopulation a myth
Not enough space to reply here, but you are a moron.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:54:23 2016 No.8539599

>>8539254
>http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

>Roy Spencer

https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=roy-spencer-catholic-online-interview
https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to cease using Spencer, a known manipulator of his own data, and a known creationist, as a beacon of scientific integrity.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:55:59 2016 No.8539604

>>8539556
>Most climate scientists have secure, tenured jobs
That's not how it works at all anymore. Tenure is for the tiniest fraction of the oldest and most established research scientists. The rest are struggling to hang on.

>show me a single millionaire climate scientist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5036333/Multi-millionaire-climate-change-scientist-jailed-for-child-abuse.html

Anyway, most people aren't in science to get rich, it's for the prestige. They grew up believing that science is the most important thing, the one thing that truly advances humanity, and that scientists are the best people. Not being able to be called a scientist is like death to them. They'll do work they're not interested in, that doesn't seem to be any good, for low pay, with no prospect of advancement, just to be able to say they're professional scientists and to be friends with the other professional scientists. They know that an oversupply of people like them are being raised constantly by the educational system, and there's no way back in anymore if you ever stray from the path or get cast out.

They are extremely sensitive to the prospect of losing their place. They'll commit horrible ethical violations to avoid it.

Beyond that, they have an emotional need to believe in their field, to the point that they'll turn their eyes away from evidence that it has gone rotten, rationalize it away.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:57:50 2016 No.8539613

>>8539404
These people have become incredibly emboldened. Trump selecting multiple persons to his cabinet who are shills for the fossil fuel industry has made them believe their anti-scientific, non-evidence based opinions are validated.

It's hilarious how stupid these people are at ignoring the things that the industry has done over the years to climate change denial.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 16:59:04 2016 No.8539616

>>8539556
>Most climate scientists have secure, tenured jobs at universities or national labs

Not that I support climate denialism, but this is patently false. The vast vast majority of scientists in any field will only work the field for a few years. Turnover is massive and only a tiny minority of specialists ever have secure longterm careers.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 17:02:34 2016 No.8539620

>>8539604
>Anyway, most people aren't in science to get rich, it's for the prestige. They grew up believing that science is the most important thing, the one thing that truly advances humanity, and that scientists are the best people. Not being able to be called a scientist is like death to them. They'll do work they're not interested in, that doesn't seem to be any good, for low pay, with no prospect of advancement, just to be able to say they're professional scientists and to be friends with the other professional scientists. They know that an oversupply of people like them are being raised constantly by the educational system, and there's no way back in anymore if you ever stray from the path or get cast out.
>They are extremely sensitive to the prospect of losing their place. They'll commit horrible ethical violations to avoid it.
>Beyond that, they have an emotional need to believe in their field, to the point that they'll turn their eyes away from evidence that it has gone rotten, rationalize it away.
hahahaha this is even worse than my pasta. have a (you) tard

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 17:03:11 2016 No.8539621

>>8539574
First of all: there's no indication that it's necessary, or that if it will become necessary that there's any rush to do it now. The idea that we have to act now is part of the religion that holds that there are no options but cutting emissions. Rational people who look at ways of reversing the effects don't see it as a one-way street we have to stop going down ASAP.

Secondly: there's no clear way to make billions at it, certainly not just for one person who sees how it's feasible. If it's necessary, then it's a global benefit for a local expense. Unlike the emission-reduction agenda, it is at most a jobs program, not an excuse to grab vast global power.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 17:10:11 2016 No.8539641 >>8539281 >we Don't ever call yourself a part of this board again. You're scum.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 17:12:19 2016 No.8539645 >>8539393 You have to go back.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 17:22:08 2016 No.8539664 File: 1.51 MB, 3000x3000, 1476223377542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8539645 >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 17:32:54 2016 No.8539690 It's disgusting what he's doing but at the same time at least I'll definitely have work after they wreck the environment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 18:51:39 2016 No.8539839 >>8539554 >Removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere using this inexhaustible chemical resource is far more economical than foregoing the energy from burning carbon fuels [citation needed]

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:04:52 2016 No.8539866

>>8539208
>believe in climate change
thats not how it fucking works, m8. climate change is real (and human caused), whether you believe in it or not.

And *clearly* the CEO of a gigantic multinational fossil fuel corporation will be *heavily* biased towards denialism/playing down the consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/rex-tillersons-view-of-climate-change-its-just-an-engineering-problem/
>He suggested at that 2012 event that the impacts of things like sea-level rise would probably be “manageable” — something that very much remains to be seen. He mentioned the possibility of “sea level rising four inches, six inches,” which is nowhere near the worst case scenario.

>Most prominent of all, perhaps, was Tillerson’s technological optimism about humans finding a way to solve the problem:

> And as human beings as a — as a — as a species, that’s why we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions. And so I don’t — the fear factor that people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this, I do not accept.

OH LOOK THE GUY WHO MAKES BILLIONS SELLING OIL TELLS US THAT THE DAMAGE OIL IS CAUSING ISNT ALL THAT BAD, HOW UNBIASED OF HIM

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:12:17 2016 No.8539881 File: 131 KB, 810x287, flyhighrocketman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8539452 >climate physics climate physics >pick one

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:16:46 2016 No.8539890 File: 43 KB, 635x475, 183078cf46ee328607f78052864a36a4ce71483b7810d2a56e2a6be0358cbe12_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:18:57 2016 No.8539893

>>8539866
GOOD!
Fossil fuels make the world go around these days, they will be spent, you will spend your share because that is modern life, when they go past an EROEI of less than 1 that unique part of human history will go the way of the dodo bird. If you don't like it just invent or discover a plausible alternative but why on earth you would think a global carbon police state running around arresting emitters of CO2 would make anything better is puzzling.
I would rather side with reason and common sense than fear mongering over the climate. Man has always dealt with the weather.
Also, how can you not like someone named Rex Tillerson?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:24:23 2016 No.8539902
File: 336 KB, 1405x860, meme President.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539389
he's literally the /pol/ candidate.

>when you acknowledge a bunch of neckbeard anime fans who are frog worshippers exactly once and they become a hardworking thinktank that paints you as the most hopeful candidate in recent American history.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:28:38 2016 No.8539910 >>8539893 If there's anything I learned from your post, it's that Poe's Law is real.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:33:27 2016 No.8539921

>>8539902
/pol/ really thinks they had an impact on the election and trump got elected because their racist views are widespread. no. he won the election because he promised to bring jobs back. that's how he carried the rust belt. the people who voted for him aren't obsessed with jews and blacks, and his platform has nothing to do with /pol/'s fixations.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:36:28 2016 No.8539926
File: 829 KB, 2448x3264, pepe is the most influential symbol of 2016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539921
/pol/ is still the single most influential board on 4chan and the planet as a whole, and no amount of crying can change that. Every time the media tried to slander Trump, an army of /pol/tards, Joseph Goebbels wannabes and /r/The_Donaldfags all came out of the woodworks and meticulously debunked everything.

It was likely some 400lbs /pol/tard who hacked the DNC too.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:41:22 2016 No.8539941

>>8539921
>he won the election because he promised to bring jobs back
Yeah, I don't fucking think so
the only reason trump supporters claim that is the case, is because it was the only topic he campaigned on that wasn't racist, sexist, xenophobic or horrible in some other way
it was his only acceptable position. you've got no choice but to claim that is the one and only thing people cared about

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:44:46 2016 No.8539945 >>8539941 even jared taylor admitted that's why people voted for him, so. also what were these sexist, xenophobic horrible things he campaigned on?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:44:57 2016 No.8539946 File: 2.12 MB, 2898x2226, manbearpig is real you guys.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] explain this one, conspiracy theorists

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:49:25 2016 No.8539952

>>8539926
>pol/ is still the single most influential board on 4chan

probably true - i don't know and nobody can say for sure - but this is a relative statement
let's just say it's true.
the statement "/pol/ is the most influential board on 4chan" does not imply that 4chan has any influence. If you don't have any influence, who cares if the other boards have even less? It's a useless statement.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 19:52:53 2016 No.8539958

>>8539945
>build a wall
>mexicans are rapists and murderers
>refugees are rapists and murderers
>many women are ugly pigs including beauty pageant contestants, and I don't respect them, and I grab them by the pussy and they like it, etc
>I could shoot people in the street
>my political opponent should be jailed
>I wont accept the outcome of this election
>ok I will accept it - IF I WIN LOLOL

that's literally Just off the top of my head

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:05:41 2016 No.8539978

>>8539958
>>build a wall
not racist and goes back to bringing jobs back
>>mexicans are rapists and murderers
off the cuff statement, not a policy or a legitimate reason people voted for him
>>refugees are rapists and murderers
never even heard of this, i think you're delusionally attributing /pol/'s fantasies to him
>>many women are ugly pigs including beauty pageant contestants, and I don't respect them, and I grab them by the pussy and they like it, etc
same as for mexican are rapists
>>I could shoot people in the street
see above
>>my political opponent should be jailed
ie people really dislike clinton
>>I wont accept the outcome of this election
he didn't even say that, expecting accuracy from a /pol/tard might be too much
>>ok I will accept it - IF I WIN LOLOL
...
>that's literally Just off the top of my head
bunch of retarded examples that boil down to, he was politically incorrect, and yes lots of people were tired of political correctness, that's a long way from /pol/'s racist views. and again that's not how you win the rust belt over.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:08:46 2016 No.8539988

>>8539145
You still don't get it. That's probably one of the the best things that could have happened. Most libs are happy about it.

It's not about petty dislike of some controversial guy. It's about the health of the world and you retards are so caught up in your cult of personality that you actually throw facts out the window because you think these are made up, ad hominem attacks on your glorious leader. You think I would be unhappy that Musk could save us from Trump because of which political side I am on? Amazing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:09:05 2016 No.8539989 >>8539910 Rex makes sense and ironic you would cite Poe's Law as the historically recent rise of the AGW meme leans more towards a religious fanaticism than the fossil fuel industry that is based in reality and in fact drives modern civilization.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:11:20 2016 No.8539996 >>8539988 I have honestly no idea how you managed to get from my post to what you just wrote, but ok.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:11:29 2016 No.8539998

>>8539978
Oh yeah, don't worry if the president elect said some things, those are just "off the cuff statements". Who gives a shit if the guy who'll hold one of the most powerful position in the world says things. He said those things, it bolstered crowds and made people vote for him. Most people don't vote on policies, they vote based on their emotions.

>ie people really dislike clinton
"We should jail people because we dislike them"

>I wont accept the outcome of this election
>ok I will accept it - IF I WIN LOLOL
>...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQJzt48wXbA

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:13:08 2016 No.8540003 >>8538984 The orange lizard man shouldn't meddle in climate change. Just like climate change scientists shouldn't try to run a successful university.. hoo fucc wait thou..

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:15:34 2016 No.8540008

>>8539958
>>build a wall
Not sexist, xenophobic, or horrible to control the borders. It's a basic function of government.

>>mexicans are rapists and murderers
Not what he said at all. What he said was that Mexican rapists and murderers were taking advantage of the open border to enter America illegally. Which is 100% true and a serious problem. America has enough home-grown criminals without letting Mexico's in.

All countries have criminals, and Mexico has a particularly serious organized crime problem. Crossing a border illegally is itself a crime, and one which offers many opportunities for criminal profit. It's more attractive and less frightening to career or opportunistic criminals than to people who only want to commit this one illegal act and otherwise stay within the law.

Not only is the violent crime rate in Mexico higher than that in America, but violent criminals are a higher proportion among Mexican illegal aliens in America than the general Mexican population.

Therefore, failing to guard the border lets in rapists and murderers, who rape and murder Americans. This isn't even debatable. It's obviously true.

None of the rest of your examples are any more valid. They're all strawman arguments.

Kind of telling that the same people pushing global warming alarmism tend to be the same ones who believe this bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:16:01 2016 No.8540010 >>8539996 >Oh man Trump did something good for science, what will the libs attack him with now?! We win again haha!

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:16:50 2016 No.8540012

>>8539036
Nothing the US prez does matters according to all you guys anyways.

I don't pretend to know what will happen. But for those of you that do, your numbers don't add up to anything but death no matter what.

If the US stopped 100% of emissions it wouldn't hardly do shit based on all the stuff I read.

Two options.

Kill billions immediately (ironically likely destroying the planet in the process)

or...

Use threats and violence to keep the same billions from ever advancing. Running water and toilets to these billions ends in death for the planet.

So Trump doesn't mean shit according people like yours' own logic.

Just admit to loving Hillary and being a libtard instead of pretending Trump is a problem.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:18:28 2016 No.8540017

>>8538984
Nothing the US prez does matters according to all you guys anyways.

I don't pretend to know what will happen. But for those of you that do, your numbers don't add up to anything but death no matter what.

If the US stopped 100% of emissions it wouldn't hardly do shit based on all the stuff I read.

Two options.

Kill billions immediately (ironically likely destroying the planet in the process)

or...

Use threats and violence to keep the same billions from ever advancing. Running water and toilets to these billions ends in death for the planet. And of course, likely destroying the planet attempting to keep them down.

So Trump doesn't mean shit according people like yours' own logic.

Just admit to loving Hillary and being a libtard instead of pretending Trump is a problem.

Our best chance is to develop technology to combat it, WHICH CAN'T BE DONE WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS DRIVING THE ADVANCEMENT.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:18:36 2016 No.8540018 >>8539978 >he didn't even say that are you kidding me? if you're going to pretend to be a rightwinger at least try a little harder than that

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:21:20 2016 No.8540024 >>8540010 ........ok.....

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:21:30 2016 No.8540025

>>8539998
>>ie people really dislike clinton
>"We should jail people because we dislike them"
He never said Hillary should go to prison because she's his political opponent, or because people don't like her, but because she has committed serious criminal offenses. The evidence is all out in the open, and only the Democrats' control and abuse of the executive branch prevented her prosecution.

Just about all of the everyday, low-level people with security clearances who heard about her handling of classified information said, "If I had done that, I'd be in a federal prison cell."

What Trump was promising was to enforce the law without regard to the fact that she was a prominent politician and generally important person.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:22:33 2016 No.8540028 >>8540017 >>8540012 /Pol/ fags gtfo of here unless you can actually refute climate change with legitimate peer reviewed evidence

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:22:35 2016 No.8540029 >>8540025 in other words >my political opponent should be jailed

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:23:18 2016 No.8540030

>>8539989
>Historically recent
There were concerns about the role of fossil fuels causing climate change since the 1950s, and atmospheric science, along with the Earth sciences really began to mature and have a lot of research during the 1960s and 1970s.

Again, you offer nothing but hyperbole and conjecture. You present no real arguments aside from "le maymay, le science is a religion!" You can repeat your nonsense over and over again and it does not change the facts, it does not change the evidence for a scientific idea. You're the equivalent of the Catholic church telling Gallileo that he couldn't think a certain way because their religious Dogma said otherwise. Ironically, it's the deniers themselves that think themselves to be Gallileo, going up against a religious institution, when in fact Gallileo was the scientific body on astronomy of his time, and it was the church that had no basis in scientific thought or process.

Your sole argument is that "The fossil fuel industry is perfect! It does nothing wrong and all our civilization is based on it! We can't do anything anyways!" I don't think there's anyone that believes the fossil fuel industry will disappear overnight, or we can cease all emissions very rapidly. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is the solution, investing in alternate energies, whether it's hydro, solar wind or yes, NUCLEAR, because not everyone who understands the evidence for AGW is an environmentalist you see. Nuclear is an incredibly viable solution if not for the massive amounts of regulation, and industry opposition from fossil fuel interests. Guess what, the Oil Industry doesn't want their monopoly on energy taken away, this is another reason why they spread propaganda that nothing can do better than fossil fuels, or that our entire civilization is completely dependent on them with no other solutions.

I have a Nuclear power plant about 30 miles from where I live that supplies the majority of electricity to my city.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:25:44 2016 No.8540036

>>8540025
>she has committed serious criminal offenses
Multiple investigations, including ones carried out by RNC backed investigators have not managed to prove any criminal wrongdoings. There's been more than a dozen investigations. Believing that the DNC managed to control all of them, including those carried out by fucking republicans is lunacy.
>What Trump was promising was to enforce the law without regard to the fact that she was a prominent politician and generally important person.
What trump was promising was to hire a "special prosecutor" to put Hillary in jail for "corruption and lies". He never talked about fair and equal application of the law. Ever.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:26:33 2016 No.8540037

It's just like the bible
Trump can say 100 of the worst possible things, but his supporters will cherry pick and latch on to the 1 or 2 reasonable things he managed to put out

There's no debating or arguing with these people, they don't form opinions using logic or reason, but blind faith, naivety and immense gullibility

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:27:06 2016 No.8540040

>>8539998
>they vote based on their emotions.
he is a populist, that's really all there is to it. not once he said anything about blacks or jews, and i know it's hard for you to identify with this, but people who had a job and are unemployed really want to get their jobs back. I don't know why you can't wrap your head around this, probably because your echo chamber has you believe everybody and trump is a stormfag now.

>Oh yeah, don't worry if the president elect said some things, those are just "off the cuff statements". Who gives a shit if the guy who'll hold one of the most powerful position in the world says things.
what was the alternative? right...

>I wont accept the outcome of this election
>ok I will accept it - IF I WIN LOLOL
clearly playing the crowd btw

>>8540018
>everybody's american
>everybody's a neet and can watch every trump's speech

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:28:21 2016 No.8540041

>>8540028
Sorry double post, Tor threw me for a loop.

So no response to that? Exactly.

Enjoy the ride douche. No one said it's not happening. But your own alarmism has bit you in the ass.

What? You can't do math? That's what youfags always tell the people that argue about CO2 LUL!

No one cares because we're fucked no matter what. And FOR SURE Trump ain't got shit to do with it.

On a serious note, maybe make your cause fighting immediate threats as you might actually help someone that way. Fukushima for instance...nah fuck that right? lulu

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:29:44 2016 No.8540045 >>8540041 >No one said it's not happening no one?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:29:47 2016 No.8540046 >>8540040 nigger, his outright refusal to accept the outcome of the election is perhaps the worst thing he has done so far it attempts to undermine the entire democracy

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:32:03 2016 No.8540049 >>8540041 Mentions Fukushima.. You must be one of those retards that wants to go back to the industrial stone age of coal generated power

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:32:34 2016 No.8540050

I don't know why mods haven't deleted this thread yet. It does not belong on /sci/. It''s 90% political discussion.

Besides, there was another thread earlier today / yesterday that was essentially the same thread and it was deleted.

/pol/fags need to keep /pol/ on >>>/pol/. If you want to have a legitimate discussion on climate change, there is room for that here, but not in this type of thread.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:34:50 2016 No.8540055

>>8540040
>he is a populist, that's really all there is to it.
>clearly playing the crowd btw
Yeah, that's exactly the problem.

>not once he said anything about blacks or jews
Not once did I say he did.

By the way, I can wrap my head around the fact people want their job back, I myself have been unemployed for a while because of the lack of jobs around my area. Doesn't mean I'm looking for a scapegoat to blame all my troubles on, which is exactly why Trump's rhetoric is working on people who are. He's providing a clear, easy to understand answer to the question of "What can I do to improve my situation". Except he's not actually providing solutions, only a scapegoat to rage against. I would be 100% behind a republican who could provide actual policies and solutions instead of playing crowds with populist rhetoric.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:35:05 2016 No.8540057 >>8540045 Not me, it's a turn of phrase...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:36:40 2016 No.8540058 >>8540049 Or just giving an example of a more pressing concern... Leaking nuke plants good? Plants built on fault lines good? http://strangesounds.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/map-nuclear-plants-and-fault-lines-in-the-USA.png

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:36:52 2016 No.8540060

>>8540040
>everybody's a neet and can watch every trump's speech
Nigger, it was during the debates. More than once. I also like how you're backtracking on boldly claiming he never said something, by saying you weren't listening to his fucking presidential debates. You can't claim being sure of something if you don't even bother doing a second of research.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:40:03 2016 No.8540063

>>8540046
compare it to what he actually said to journalists when not playing the crowd
>we will look into it, to make sure the results were fair and there was no rigging
or something along those lines. again as per usual with /pol/tards you're losing the plot.
Trump never campaigned on any of the bullshit you faggot love to obsess about, your racist ideas aren't mainstream, people didn't vote for him to benefit the white race

>>8540055
This conversation started when a delusional /pol/tard claimed trump won because of them, and i simply pointed out that's not the case

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:40:14 2016 No.8540065

>>8540029
Do you honestly prefer that the chief executive should use his authority to prevent the prosecution of any crimes committed by his political opponents?

Where does that end? Should Trump's government just not prosecute any Democrats, regardless of what crimes they commit?

The thing here is, Trump was talking about prosecuting a known criminal, who should already have been in prison but was being protected by the current administration. And Democrats are outraged. But when the Obama administration was caught TARGETTING conservative organizations, for no other reason than their political affiliation, for IRS harassment, Democrats just whistle and look innocent.

What we see over and over again is that liberals throw these accusations of violating principles without actually caring about or understanding the principles at all. They just know conservatives care about them, so they're a weapon to divide and conquer.

Wanting to jail one's political opponent *sounds like* a violation of principle, or it can be made to sound like one, because of the implication that it's for the reason that they're one's political opponent. But when there is open and notorious evidence that this person has committed offenses which warrant jailing, it would be a violation of principle *not to* jail them.

It's like liberal kids screaming, "that's racist!" "that's sexist!" "that's rape!" at everything. They don't really know what it means. They don't care what it means. They just know it's a weapon, they know it gets a certain reaction, and that's powerful. So they grab for that power, to try and get whatever they want, deserved or not.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:40:37 2016 No.8540068
File: 63 KB, 509x304, 0 Global Cooling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539588
>>Global cooling
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
>https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Absolutely false.
285 PEER REVIEWED GLOBAL COOLI|NG REFERENCES RIGHT HERE!
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Kosiba, A. "The problem of climate cooling after 1939 (in Polnisch)." Czas. geogr 33 (1962): 63.

Fletcher, Joseph O. "Polar ice and the global climate machine." Bull. Atomic Scientists (1970): 40-47.
"... the cooling effect of the 1950s and 1960s shows that some other factor is more than countering the warming effect of CO2.... Man's contribution to the atmospheric dust load is increasing at an exponential rate.

Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate." Science 173.3992 (1971): 138-141.
" An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Lamb, Hubert H. The current trend of world climate: A report on the early 1970's and a perspective. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1974. "Much has been written about the global cooling... has been overstressed as regards to its practical implications... There are solid grounds for regarding this as a dangerous misconception."

Kukla, George J., and Helena J. Kukla. "Insolation regime of interglacials." Quaternary Research 2.3 (1972): 412-424. "...the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experiened hitherto by civilized mankind."

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:41:13 2016 No.8540071 >>8540060 Well, it's not really that surprising If he were the kind of person who did research he wouldn't be supporting Trump in the first place

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:41:57 2016 No.8540073
File: 49 KB, 631x430, Cooling 1969.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539588
>>Global cooling
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
>https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
>>8540068
Utterly False
NEEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. "LAWRENCE UVERMORE LABORATORY." (1972). "Global cooling of natural origin could exceed in magnitude changes experienced in historical times.

Potter, Gerald L., et al. "Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation." (1975): 697-698.

Kukla, George J., and Robert K. Matthews. "When will the present interglacial end?." Science 178.4057 (1972): 190-202.

Gribbin, John. "Cause and effects of global cooling." Nature 254 (1975): 14.

Lamb, H. H. "Changes of climate." Wright & Moseley (1975): 169-188.

Fletcher, Joseph O. MANAGING CLIMATE RESOURCES. No. RAND-P-4000. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1969. "We may already be inadvertantly influencing global climate. ... a weakening circulation, southward shifts of ice boundary..."

Braslau, Norman, and J. V. Dave. "Effect of aerosols on the transfer of solar energy through realistic model atmospheres. Part I: Non-absorbing aerosols." Journal of applied meteorology 12.4 (1973): 601-615.

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have Had An Ambiguous Climatic Influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.

Carter, L. J. 1970. The global environment: M.I.T. study looks for danger signs. Science 169: 660-662. Increased turbidity causes gobal cooling.

Lamb, H. H. 1969. Activite volcanique et climat. Revue de Geographie Physique et de Geologie Dynamique 11: 363-380.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:42:14 2016 No.8540074 >>8540060 this was during the debate you idiot?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQJzt48wXbA he didn't quite put it like that in the debate. ironic you talk about doing research, could have watched the video before typing faggot

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:43:00 2016 No.8540076

>>8540068
>>8539588
There was an 83% consensus on global cooling at the time.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s

>As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” >is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the >1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate >influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged >CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the
>“non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Bryson 1974. A perspective on Climate Change. Science. 184:753-760. The "debunking" paper falsely classifies this as "neutral." Bryson thought anthropogenic aerosols were causing global cooling.

Byerknes, J., 1958: "Related Fluctuations of Trade Winds and Northern Climates," Geophysics Helsinki, Vol.6 , No. 3-4. 169-177

Budyko, Mikhail I. "The future climate." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 53.10 (1972): 868-874

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:43:25 2016 No.8540080 >>8540065 >a known criminal Wrong Nice hyperbole by the way. You got more of those ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:44:40 2016 No.8540082 File: 354 KB, 799x666, Consensus making.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8539588 >>Global Warming >Ample scientific evidence exists. >Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Not so much

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:45:03 2016 No.8540083 >>8539881 >it's not science if I don't like it!

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:45:12 2016 No.8540085

>>8540063
>Will you accept the results of the election?
>>I will let you know at the time
>So, to be clear, you will not state that you will accept the results of the election?
>>I will let you know at the time. I will keep you in suspense
this is during a fucking debate
this is more damaging to society than any leaks from Snowden will ever be

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:47:07 2016 No.8540087

>>8540036
>Multiple investigations, including ones carried out by RNC backed investigators have not managed to prove any criminal wrongdoings.
What the FBI has basically said from the beginning was, "Yes, obviously it's a crime. No, we're not going to recommend prosecution, because we know the DOJ won't pursue it seriously."

Hillary Clinton belongs in a federal prison for the rest of her life. She's corrupt and her corruption got people killed. She's a good deal worse than the average murderer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:47:10 2016 No.8540088 >>8540065 >Do you honestly prefer that the chief executive should use his authority to prevent the prosecution stopped reading here you're now arguing against something that wasn't even being discussed

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:47:19 2016 No.8540089 >>8540074 Here you retard. I did the research for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP0G4vJ5OMw >inb4 He didn't say he wouldn't accept it, he said he would look at it at the time The next day he said this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQJzt48wXbA

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:48:11 2016 No.8540091 >>8540085 after the debate he gave an interview where he explained what he meant, besides that doesn't sound anything like "kikes run everything and cause white genocide" "niggers are subhumans" so how does that relate to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:48:26 2016 No.8540092 >>8540087 How are those millions invested in Saudi businesses going for Trump by the way ? I sure do hope that won't affect his decision making.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:49:33 2016 No.8540094 >>8540089 >inb4 you tell me i was wrong you were wrong faggot deal with it, inb4 doesn't change that

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:51:22 2016 No.8540101

>>8540088
I'm responding to: >>8540029
>in other words
>>my political opponent should be jailed

Which was responding to:
>>8540025
>What Trump was promising was to enforce the law without regard to the fact that she was a prominent politician and generally important person.
...and not disputing it.

So yes, >>8540029
was saying, "Doesn't matter why. Doesn't matter if she committed actual crimes. The only thing that matters is that the person he wants to prosecute is a political opponent."

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:55:02 2016 No.8540107

>>8540101
Yeah
I pointed out that he said his political opponent should be jailed
you then gave a bunch of reasons why she should be jailed and agreed that he said it
then I again pointed out that he said his political opponent should be jailed using the same exact greentext
so at this point you and I are in agreement

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 20:58:05 2016 No.8540111
File: 147 KB, 1024x768, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540068
>predictions made in the 1970's were inaccurate

Alert the fucking presses.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014

Anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for prevailing trends of increased tropospheric temperature, ocean acidification and declining alpine and sea ice. Tell the truth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:00:55 2016 No.8540117 File: 72 KB, 828x575, 1481504745123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8540076 >>8540068 >>8540073

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:10:12 2016 No.8540124

Why do you deny climate change just because non-scientists have to blindly trust the science?
That doesn't mean it's false, and you are not rebelling against some great conspiracy for realizing that yes, we all have to trust the work of other scientists without doing it ourselves.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:21:15 2016 No.8540137

>>8540124
if people choose not to believe something there will be no convincing them
just look at evolution for another example
if they can't be convinced with hard evidence that they can see and hold, there certainly will never be enough climate change evidence to convince them

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:27:07 2016 No.8540142

>>8540092
>Trump is rich, that makes him automatically corrupt!
>(disregard the wealth of all Democratic candidates)
The people who voted for Trump understood he was rich when they voted for him, and also understood that rich people today normally have internationally-diversified investments, and that real estate magnates have all sorts of tenants.

Of course there are conflicts of interest, but there are always conflicts of interest. Everyone cares about things other than their job. Millions in an old billionaire's fortune isn't a *serious* conflict of interest. It's not like he can't afford to lose it, and his children are already rich and successful even if they inherit nothing from him. Having already made a monstrous fortune and done the best he could for his family, the best thing he can do now for his rich, successful children is to leave them with an unsullied name and a stable, peaceful country to live and work in, not risk making their lives shameful or dangerous just so he can leave them more money. His interests are therefore quite well aligned with those of the American people.

There's a huge difference between Hillary Clinton getting money she needed for her campaign from the Saudis specifically for this purpose, and Trump having a fraction of a percent of his diversified portfolio in Saudi Arabia.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:32:06 2016 No.8540148
File: 240 KB, 513x460, Consensus on Global Cooling.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540117
Why do you deny 285 papers? Why do you pretend that Global Cooling wasn't a genuine fear?
> Look now that global warming alarmism is fashionable, global warming papers are Soooooo popular.
Wow, who would have known?

There was an 83% consensus on global cooling at the time. You're the poster boy for denial.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:33:14 2016 No.8540149
File: 125 KB, 319x411, Dr Murray Mitchell of NOAA says Global Cooling.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540117
Read up buddy; NOAA said there was Global Cooling

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:34:16 2016 No.8540151
File: 120 KB, 689x628, Hansen 1981.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540117
>>8540117
Read more buddy; James Hansen, 1981, former director of NASA GISS said there was global cooling.

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:35:19 2016 No.8540152
File: 494 KB, 522x853, CIA Cooling Climate.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540117
>>8540149

Read up buddy; the CIA said there was Global Cooling

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:36:34 2016 No.8540153
File: 409 KB, 988x1704, Global Cooling according to international team.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540117
>>8540149
>>8540151

Read up buddy; an international team of climatologists said there was Global Cooling

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:36:55 2016 No.8540154 >>8540142 Go back to /pol/ you disgusting piece of shit.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:38:20 2016 No.8540155
File: 501 KB, 703x588, Hubert Lamb Global Cooling.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540153
>>8540117
>>8540149
>>8540151

Read up buddy; Hubert Lamb, the father of modern Climatology said there was Global Cooling

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:38:28 2016 No.8540157 >>8540148 >>8540149 >>8540151 >>8540152 >>8540152 >if i keep spamming my blog and ignoring cooling papers were outnumbered 5 to 1 the past will change

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:38:36 2016 No.8540158 Also Jesus Christ, obvious script is obvious. How much they pay you to AstroTurf like this?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:39:26 2016 No.8540160

>>8540076
>http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/
That's not how metanalysis is done (not surprising, since this is a blog, not a peer reviewed study).

I'll summarize for the benefit of other 4chan dwellers:
There was a scientific debate in the 70's about global cooling or warming.
Warming effect from comes from co2, cooling from aerosol particulates. Both sides knew this, and had know it for a long while.
By the late 70's the preponderance of evidence showed that the warming effect would overwhelm. This is clear from the sources the blog itself uses
Read it yourself
>http://www.albany.edu/cpr/stewart/Papers/J1290-StewartGlantzNDU1985cap.pdf

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:40:28 2016 No.8540162
File: 15 KB, 296x99, NAS Global Cooling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540155
>>8540153
>>8540117
>>8540149
>>8540151
Read up buddy; the National Academy of Sciences said there was Global Cooling

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:42:12 2016 No.8540164 We are being AstroTurf by bots and the mods do nothing. Fucking /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:43:36 2016 No.8540165 I think if you don't hand out (you)s the bot author can't see them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:45:18 2016 No.8540169

>>8540076
>>8540073
>>8540068
>>8540155
>>8540153
>>8540152
>>8540151
>>8540149
>>8540148
>Notrickzone.
>If I keep copy-pasting the same shitty blog links my argument is completely valid!

He posted a shit ton of articles, but reading through a few of those pages, I've seen a lot of quotes he selected taken out of context, or quotes that do not support a cooling hypothesis for the paper at hand at all. This is not a scientific or peer-reviewed study, I don't know why you would even take it at face value. It's some guy writing a fucking blog.

I honestly can't believe you guys continue to harp the "global cooling" bullshit so hard. It's almost like you have no real arguments based in evidence, and solely have to focus on CONJECTURE alone.

Isn't it ironic however that all the people like yourself, that claim that there is no consensus on climate change, or claim that a consensus doesn't matter, always default to global cooling, where you claim there was a "consensus" therefore it was correct?

You should really read this article on the history of global warming as a science, it is very well detailed:
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

>>8540082
Nice comic mate, that completely invalidates all the scientific, peer-reviewed evidence I guess, we should pack it up guys, climate science is over! You should take your little comic of yours straight to congress! I'm sure Jim Inhofe would love to present it as """"evidence"""" just like his little snowball last winter.

>>8540137
Funny that you mention it. One of the most cited researchers of climate by AGW deniers is Roy Spencer, who also conveniently denies evolution.

>NYT is a scientific Journal
>Newsweek is a scientific journal
>Times Magazine is a scientific journal
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

Literally all you're doing is spamming links and images from newspapers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:45:39 2016 No.8540170 This is why you don't engage with denialists /sci/. They're not actually there.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:45:49 2016 No.8540171

Remember when they told us that polar bears were disappearing? Well they're not. Has it gotten hotter? No. We're in the middle of a 16 year pause that may extend for another 20 years or so. I could bring up the bogus hockey stick theory, the faulty data from Britain, or the other flat out lies about consensus but I think I've made my point. The biggest problem with the climate change agenda is this: It's baked into a crazier mission to handicap America's economic system, by recasting industrial progress that's saved millions of lives as an attack on earth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:47:01 2016 No.8540174 Why are you replying to a bot?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:49:41 2016 No.8540180 This is the future /sci/. An endless stream of FUD delivered by robots with shitty ideologies.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:50:32 2016 No.8540183
File: 385 KB, 719x482, NOAA Cooled 1921 to 1979.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540160
>There was a scientific debate in the 70's about global cooling or warming.
Paid shill tries to rewrite the past.

Hubert Lamb, best climatologist of the 20th century: >>8540155
International team of scientists: >>8540153
Central Intelligence Agency >>8540152
James Hansen, former director of NASA GISS >>8540151
American Association for the Advancement of Science >>8540148
National Academy of Science >>8540162
83% of relevant published papers during that time period >>8540148
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pic related.

There was a consensus that there was global cooling.

Seriously, Didn't you get tired of spewing crap with CTR? Yet here you are. How do you look at the mirror each day?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:52:05 2016 No.8540185 Remember this thread the next time some "race realist" or creationist or other sort of denialist shows up. There's no one there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:52:36 2016 No.8540187 If you don't have an elaborate, detailed argument, they dismiss you on those grounds. If you are prepared to argue, you're a bot or a shill working a script.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:54:46 2016 No.8540191

>>8540169
>, I've seen a lot of quotes he selected taken out of context, or quotes that do not support a cooling hypothesis for the paper at hand at all.
> I didn't actually show a thing but take my word for it.
Straight from the rapid response team of paid shills. Ever get tired of being a chump?
Don't you feel sickened when your job is to deny the data right in front of your eyes while defended authoritarian fraud? Or are you a useful idiot?

Seriously, you rapid response guys are pathetic.

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

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:55:26 2016 No.8540195

If you dislike my assessment, you are free to go back to /pol/ where you belong. Or maybe not use a script to post your Gish gallop. It's disrespectful. So nice of you to actually show up in thread though. Be nice if you checked in on your shitposts a little more frequently.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:56:01 2016 No.8540197
File: 83 KB, 684x539, Science Then and Now.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540169
Tell me, What agency do you work for? How much are you getting paid?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More from your brethern, the Climate Fundamentalist brownshirts:

"Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated "Crusher Crew" where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* "Watts up with that"? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort." - Robert Way [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"I think it might be better to start out with smaller fish. Build a community and a team. Find some methods and strategies that work. Then start moving up the denier food chain with our targets set on WUWT. I could see this expanding into a broad team of 100 or more people (outside the scope of this SkS forum of course). [...] We just need to raise our collective voices to drown them out. I would venture to guess that most people here know of 4 or 5 regulars on comments sections that would be interested in coordinating their efforts. I know probably 10 or 20 people who would like to help with this." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:57:19 2016 No.8540200 Shill accuses others of shilling, spits conspiracy theories and generally reeks of /pol/. Welcome to /sci/, enjoy your stay.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:57:29 2016 No.8540201 >>8540195 If you're tired of being a paid shill, getting twangs of guilt, perhaps its time to get a new job.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:58:40 2016 No.8540204

>>8540197
>>8540191
Are you schizophrenic or something, you seem to be copy-pasting pre-made responses to every single reply, simply waiting for the post timer to count down till you post another reply. No one even knows what the fuck you are rambling on about here.

>>8540200
Blame the election. /sci/ was a very quiet and slow board before 2015.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:59:11 2016 No.8540206 Oh look we're in for another script bomb. Watch for the incoming wall of trivial bullshit. It's easy to bury the truth, no matter how bad the lies are if you have enough of them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 21:59:21 2016 No.8540207

>>8539921
No. MSM only memes that because his real selling point of kicking all the disgusting beaners out would just prove that the majority of the country is racist. Meaning it is actually socially fine to be openly racist as most people share that view. The internet provided the first real means to talk to people all around the country without fear of social backlash and has exposed that there is literally nothing wrong with being racist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:00:42 2016 No.8540212 >>8540201 go back to /pol/ you irredeemable piece of shit

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:01:22 2016 No.8540213

>>8540183
>Paid shill tries to rewrite the past.
Please source your image. The planet did cool for a few decades. It's what I imagine sparked the debate. The people in favor of warming (which were the majority) said this was a temporary trend. I wouldn't be surprised if you're omitting such context from your quote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:01:58 2016 No.8540214 >>8540207 go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:02:23 2016 No.8540216 >>8540207 wanting to get rid of illegals and curb immigration has all to do with the job market and nothing to do with pol's racism you delusional faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:03:43 2016 No.8540221 >>8540213 Do not engage. Call out scripts, call out /pol/, never engage. Make these threads as boring as possible for them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:04:06 2016 No.8540222
File: 31 KB, 250x295, 250px-CANov1994Prop187.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540214
go back to redit. The only thing that separated Trump from the other primary candidates was the Wall. He had the hardest line on immigration and won easily because of it.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:04:21 2016 No.8540223
File: 23 KB, 300x274, The Science is Settled La La La.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540204
>>>8540197
>>>8540191
>Are you schizophrenic or something, you seem to be copy-pasting pre-made responses to every single reply, simply waiting for the post timer to count down till you post another reply. No one even knows what the fuck you are rambling on about here.
> He posted facts that demonstrated that the major climate organizations believed in Global Cooling
> He posted facts that demonstrated that the majority of relevant papers from the time agreed on Global Cooling
> He cited several papers
> I know, I'll say he's rambling!
Your denial is extraordinary. Either it is evidence of deep psychosis, or paid shilling.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:05:41 2016 No.8540228 >>8540212 >>>/mlp/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:06:55 2016 No.8540230 Go back to /pol/ with the rest of the scum

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:08:06 2016 No.8540233 Go back to /pol/ with the rest of the engineers

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:09:23 2016 No.8540236 Go back to /pol/ and then kill yourself

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:10:10 2016 No.8540238

>>8540223
> He posted facts that demonstrated that the major climate organizations believed in Global Cooling
You didn't. A random blog is a far cry from a peer reviewed metanalysis.
A decent article would at least describe the methodology used for selecting and evaluating papers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:11:11 2016 No.8540242 Please stop engaging. Just name, rank, and go back to /pol/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:13:45 2016 No.8540245

>>8540183
LOL, this image proves you people are dishonest hacks. The image is *deliberately* cropped to make it seem as if the highlighted parts are the same sentence, but they aren't. Here are the highlighted parts with the cropped part:

Analysis of warming since 1881 shows most of the increase in global temperature happened before 1919 before the more recent sharp rise in the amount [of pollution by so-called greenhouse gases. The debate over global warming came during the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting. The greenhouse effect theory is that carbon dioxide and other gases emitted by industrial and automobile fuel burning is accumulating in Earth's atmosphere, acting like the glass of a greenhouse to trap heat from sunlight. Computer models by Hansen and others suggest that by the middle of the next century, Earth's average temperature may rise 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly altering storm patterns, triggering droughts, making crops fail and raising sea levels] carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Thomas Karl, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Source: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/68079093/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:16:19 2016 No.8540249 You got us.We lied. You've won. You can go back to /pol/ now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:18:12 2016 No.8540253 The conspiracy is uncovered. Everyone, /pol/ was right we were wrong. No one needs to shitposta ever again.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:18:40 2016 No.8540255
File: 24 KB, 613x510, US Temp Data Show No Warming.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540245
>Analysis of warming since 1881 shows most of the increase in global temperature happened before 1919 before the more recent sharp rise in the amount [of pollution by so-called greenhouse gases.

What was that?
>most of the increase in global temperature happened
> BEFORE the more recent sharp rise in the amount [of pollution by so-called greenhouse gases.

So he said that most of the warming happened before the big jump in greenhouse gasses. Then he called out James Hansen. Obviously he was disagreeing with Hansen's greenhouse gas fears. He even used facts and logic to back his opinion up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:19:19 2016 No.8540256 go back to /pol/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:19:19 2016 No.8540257

>>8540223
Alright buddy. Here you go. Souce #9 when scrolling down is this link:
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/254014a0
This is not a peer-reviewed journal article, it is from a newsletter. This is not a scientific piece of literature, it is essentially an opinion piece. The author, John Gribbin is an astrophysicist, not a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin

So right there, the author's claim is that they left out cooling studies or some other such nonsense, and the author in an attempt to debunk the peer-reviewed paper posts links that aren't even relevant to the study itself, because they aren't peer-reviewed nor are they scientific studies in the field of climate science.

It took me around 5 minutes of scrolling down to find one single flaw on the first page of the first link. If I had a lot more time, I could analyze every single link this guy posted and I don't doubt that I would find a lot more similar cases to this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:20:22 2016 No.8540264 Do not engage. Remember: name, rank, and go back to /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:26:23 2016 No.8540283 >>8540255 The new york times is not peer reviewed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:26:56 2016 No.8540286 Step 1: Name Step 2: Rank Step 3: go back to /pol/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:28:57 2016 No.8540290

>>8540030
>Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is the solution
Do you seriously believe an earth with 8 billion humans who all want fossil fuels is going to wean themselves off?

My argument is the AGW is irrelevant but I also suspect a nefarious and Machiavellian agenda is afoot. They will be spent with or without a global bureaucracy attempting to ration or otherwise control those resources which would be a nightmare, read more history. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely, when dealing with literal power especially. We will wean off them under natural depletion and letting the market alone drive the demand for alternatives which will demand their efficiency is the best course. Nuclear will surely supplement electrical grids more than it is today but that doesn't solve anything in reality as radioactive rocks will deplete. The refining process gradually get more expensive being fossil fuel intensive and under the current breakdown underway make budgeting new construction of plants difficult. There is no oil monopoly, you are free to enter the business or invest in it yourself. The barriers now and more than ever down the road are going to be put in place by the type of entities the AGW crowd wants to enable who will work hand in glove with 'big oil' to crush the working class, enrich the elite class and bloat government while solving nothing.

The analogy to the Catholic Church is startling and ironic. The more things change the more they stay the same, guess who fully endorses AGW theory and is in the process of training their clergy to disseminate AGW propaganda? History repeats. Dark ages incoming. The church thrives in an atmosphere of misery, poverty and holy war, energy poverty certainly won't hurt their cause.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:37:37 2016 No.8540306

>>8540290
>Do you seriously believe an earth with 8 billion humans who all want fossil fuels is going to wean themselves off?
I definitely hops so. It's possible and nessisary.

> We will wean off them under natural depletion and letting the market alone drive the demand for alternatives which will demand their efficiency is the best course.
That's utterly retarded. Look up that externalities are.

>The analogy to the Catholic Church is startling and ironic.
It's not ironic, it's just stupid rambling from people who deny reality because it refuses to fit within their political beliefs.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:39:17 2016 No.8540313
File: 36 KB, 609x439, share_energy_consumption-large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540290
>Everything is a global conspiracy: the post - see history!
>ur just dumb like read more history and u will see its all a conspiracy heh
>Nuclear isn't renewable therefore we should only continue to use non-reneable petroleum, natural gas and coal, cuz uh it's all we got and uh yeah
>There is no fossil fuel monopoly
>Muh pope conspiracy
Go ahead and post more pictures of the pope shaking hands with people, so scary! Holy shit it's all a conspiracy!
>muh dark ages

Is this not what a monopoly looks like? When almost the entire energy sector is based on three types of fuel, you don't believe that there is a considerable special interest to maintain this monopoly among the various fossil fuel industry corporations?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:46:09 2016 No.8540334 LOOK AT ALL THIS ENGAGEMENT UNDISCIPLINED, /SCI/, VERY UNDISCIPLINED go back to /pol/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:47:23 2016 No.8540335
File: 773 KB, 1400x2051, crippled 4chan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8539952
/pol/ and 4chan decided the most influential fictional character of the year, as decided by Time

they decided several of the biggest trending twitter hashtags of the year

they decided the president of the united states, even when everyone kept saying these white nationalist sexists on 4chan really like that Donald Trump guy

they decided the most watched journalist of the year, who was thanked personally by the President-elect, should be Alex Jones

and this is not long after 4chan having had decided the time Person of the Year the first time not so long ago (when Moot was Person of the Year).

/pol/ is simply a recent invention that's become not only the highest trafficked board on 4chan, but also the most influential. The tip of the spear, if you will.

The fact that you think you're not browsing the single most influential website on the planet outside of Google, Facebook and Twitter is the real punchline.

Also here's a doctorate in Theology explaining how 4chan created a religion about frog worship: http://reallifemag.com/apocalypse-whatever/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:49:34 2016 No.8540339 I want you all to imagine a glorious future, where disgruntled schizophrenics ramble unanswered into the uncaring void that is /sci/. Be the change you want to see in the world /sci/. Never engage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:50:40 2016 No.8540341 go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:51:49 2016 No.8540346 Name: go Rank: back Serial Number: to /pol/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:56:47 2016 No.8540363

>>8540255
So, no excuse for lying? That's what I thought.

>most of the increase in global temperature happened
>BEFORE the more recent sharp rise in the amount [of pollution by so-called greenhouse gases.
Yeah except it didn't. Where is the analysis that says this?

>So he said that most of the warming happened before the big jump in greenhouse gasses.
No he didn't. you're lying about the article again. What the article says Thomas Karl said is that the global climate cooled from 1921 to 1979 is negative. But it didn't, no data shows that. It seems the article just misquoted him by saying "global climate" when he was talking about US climate. As you can see, the US had a cooling trend from 1921 to 1979, but all this shows is that you can make the trend whatever you want if you choose arbitrary start and end points. 1921 is abnormally hot and 1979 is abnormally cold.

Once again, you can't write a post without lying and misrepresenting the facts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:59:05 2016 No.8540370 File: 47 KB, 788x445, arbitrary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8540255 >>8540363 Forgot the pic of the classic denier cherrypick.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 22:59:44 2016 No.8540374 File: 69 KB, 911x669, 54.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Climate change is established and widely accepted science. Oh you want proof? J-j-just go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:00:33 2016 No.8540376 Be the uncaring void /sci/. Never engage.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:01:04 2016 No.8540377

>>8540363
>>8540255
See
>>8540257
as well. That entire series of articles posted on notrickzone is incredibly misleading, as the actual study that I first posted examines the actual, peer-reviewed climate science studies posted of that era.

This retarded blogger's attempt to discredit / disprove the study is not only riddled with errors that are completely unrelated to the study itself, such as using newspapers or magazine articles as evidence of a cooling consensus, but also misrepresents the actual scientific argument of the study itself.

Literally took my a few minutes just to scroll down page 1 before I clicked a random study, examined the linked .pdf and it was immediately clear that this was just one such example of probably many that he linked that aren't' actual peer-reviewed scientific papers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:01:36 2016 No.8540379 go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:03:39 2016 No.8540381 this is a lot of shit engagement I see in a shit thread Welcome to FUD. There is no victory. Stop trying for it. Embrace the void.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:04:12 2016 No.8540382 >>8540374 >I need proof that all the experts aren't involved in a government propaganda conspiracy well, you're an idiot, sorry

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:04:44 2016 No.8540383 Discussion is impossible. Truth is unreal. Cease. Desist. Let the blackness take you. Never engage.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:05:18 2016 No.8540385

>>8540376
>>8540383
Fuck that, I always engage them, discredit them with the evidence and the facts. Point out when they use conjecture or conspiracy in their argument. Ask them to present their sources, analyze their sources and find the flaw in their methodology. That is the scientific approach to dealing with these faggots. Saying shit like "get back to /pol/ does not accomplish this. I'd much rather actually combat their rhetoric with scientific data and analysis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:05:56 2016 No.8540388 >>8540382 Yeah keep propagating the myth that all experts agree on climate change. That will help your case.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:06:44 2016 No.8540391 File: 60 KB, 788x445, liars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8540255 >the denier will ignore this

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:07:40 2016 No.8540396 >>8540391 How come you only go back to 1900?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:08:39 2016 No.8540403 >>8540396 I don't. I go back to 1895 which is the limit of NOAA data.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:09:25 2016 No.8540405 File: 38 KB, 600x400, Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8540396 I can guess

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:10:33 2016 No.8540407 >>8540388 they do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:10:52 2016 No.8540408 >>8540405 I can guess you're retarded and can't come up with a coherent argument.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:11:28 2016 No.8540410

>>8540306
>I definitely hops so
That's just straight up ignorant wishful thinking though, wtf.

>That's utterly retarded. Look up that externalities are
Unless a serious contender to replace fossil fuels is invented or discovered, which looks more unlikely every passing day no matter the amount of wishful thinking and misplaced trust in technology which is really another energy sink, that is exactly what will happen. Just deal with reality for a minute here please.

I don't even know what your argument is with the Catholic Church, it is very political and has never changed, the business of AGW propaganda dissemination is exactly what it intends to do, denial is not an argument. Why would the church do this? A little out of its realm or perhaps right up its alley? AGW is looking more like a new age earth worship religion than science.

>>8540313
Wew, 3 types of fuel, 1000 companies exploiting them and selling them on an open fungible market is not a monopoly. OPEC is perhaps a cartel but it has no monopoly on fossil fuels. What you just posted is like saying because there are 3 types of common forest products, spruce, pine and fir, they have a monopoly on forestry.

Com'on, step up your game ITT.
I think these sorts of appointments in government are great and could even make America great again! Don't be so butthurt, it's not the end of the world, CO2 molecules are not evil and not emitted by evil doers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:11:44 2016 No.8540412 >>8540407 see >>8539254 You're not helping your credibility by going with that 97% bullshit

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:12:41 2016 No.8540414 >>8540412 it's true, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:13:16 2016 No.8540415 >>8540412 see >>8539407

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:13:32 2016 No.8540416 >>8540412 See the replies to that post, moron.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:14:16 2016 No.8540418

>>8540408

You have a confirmation bias with climate change so you only accept data that supports your case. That's why you chose a picture that only goes back to 1900, because when you go back thousands of years you'll see that the earth is cooler than it was. It's called cherry picking.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:15:26 2016 No.8540420 >>8540416 Nobody addressed the problems with the 97% number and how it's based on blogger tier shit.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:16:17 2016 No.8540422

>>8540385
The denier only wishes to spread FUD. Gish gallop with scripts and get someone to bite and argue so they can create a false equivalency of sources.

The unmotivated reader comes away with "gee golly, I'm just not certain, I can't possibly read all that but it looks like there's a lot of evidence on both sides."

That's victory for FUD. There's nothing to be done. Just tell them to go back. Refuse to engage. Be boring. Be so boring no one reads the thread. Be so boring they leave. Be so boring they find a new opinion to style themselves in opposition to. Be the void. If people want to learn about climate change, they'll have to do it somewhere other than /sci/, because we are under occupation.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:16:32 2016 No.8540424
File: 39 KB, 640x486, president donald j trump.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540313
i don't get it, weren't we just always releasing carbon? weren't all our ancestors farting and shitting and making fires in caves constantly?

now just because we burn oils and gasses instead we're supposed to believe it's all our fault the earth will go to shit.

what is your solution really, you expect us all to just completely convert to renewable energy that barely works in comparison and build nuclear reactors everywhere? or is it better to just cut the population down to like 20% or less because that's all the planet can sustain.

i'm being guilt tripped into believing the whole earth is gonna boil over when there's an extreme cold warning and homeless people dying of hypothermia in my city.

I don't even fucking care if global warming is real or if it's our fault or anything anymore.

I hope ALL the energy we use creates mass carbon emissions and I hope the methane releases and I hope the ice caps DO melt just because it will piss you people off. I hope we really do run out of energy and just start eating our grandchildren.

this global warming shit needs to hurry THE FUCK up and I will do anything and everything to make sure it does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:17:51 2016 No.8540426 and I hope that the Illuminati is real and kills us all and I hope it because people like you exist go back to /pol/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:19:12 2016 No.8540429

Consensus meant nothing anyways. The evidence of climate change speaks for itself, that is peer-reviewed scientific evidence and data published from sources globally.

The only reason things like the infamous "97%" study even happened is because of all the misleading statements from deniers about climate change being controversial and whatnot in the past decade, most of these deniers funded directly and indirectly by the petro industry.

>>8540418
Always hilarious to see deniers claim someone else is cherry-picking, and the same old claims that "because climate changed in the past, the current trend must be natural."

I honestly don't understand where this shit comes from. I believe it has to do with some sort of religious zealotry where people believe only a God / Gods can change the planet Earth, since God created Earth in their view or something, and his creations are powerless to enforce Gods domain. A lot of these types of arguments at least stem from this foundation I think. Why is it so hard to understand the evidence for climate change, and how it is linked to mankind's activity? Are there seriously people ignorant enough to believe that mankind has had no large impact on the ecology and environment of our planet?

Fuck, we were causing species extinctions before we even knew what an extinction was. We have been altering the ecology of this planet for tens of thousands of years, as long as humans have been spreading across the globe.

There's just such hubris among these people who believe this crap, that humans are doing no harm, despite not just the climatological evidence that says otherwise, but the ecological as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:19:39 2016 No.8540430 If tomorrow I found out that the NWO was going to kill off the Earth's population, I would volunteer to help. fuck off back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:21:38 2016 No.8540432 If tomorrow I found out that Obama was raising death squads to invade middle america and kill some "real Americans" I'd volunteer for those front fucking lines go back to /pol/

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:24:05 2016 No.8540434

>>8540418
>You have a confirmation bias with climate change so you only accept data that supports your case.
The pot calling the kettle black.

>That's why you chose a picture that only goes back to 1900
I didn't choose the picture because ti only goes back to 1900. It goes back to 1895 because that is the limit of NOAA data. Why did I choose NOAA data? Because the post I'm replying to is talking about what a NOAA scientist said about the temperature.

>because when you go back thousands of years you'll see that the earth is cooler than it was.
Hundreds of thousands of years, yes, but this is utterly irrelevant to anything in the argument. AGW does not say that the climate is warmer than it ever has been, it says that it is warming at an unprecedented rate for an unprecedented reason. Not to mention that your graph doesn't even show modern temps so that you can claim it was warmer thousands of years ago. Not to mention that just because the climate was warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago does not in any way show that such warmth is fine for us humans living today. This is an extremely hackneyed argument that only someone completely ignorant of climatology would make.

>It's called cherry picking.
No, it's not. How did my choice of data set (I didn't choose the start and end points) effect my conclusion about AGW? It didn't. Only some of the data is directly relevant to AGW, and the rest does not in any way contradict AGW. In fact, the historical temperature record can only be explained if the greenhouse effect and its related feedbacks are true. Try looking up "Milankovich cycles."

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:26:02 2016 No.8540435 >>8540420 >Nobody addressed the problems with the 97% number and how it's based on blogger tier shit. What problems?

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:28:21 2016 No.8540438

>>8540435

Did you even bother reading the post?

>In 2009, a University of Illinois student conducted a two-question survey for her master's thesis that asked respondents if "global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor." Skeptics and proponents typically answer yes to both questions, so unsurprisingly 97 percent said yes. Additionally, only 79 scientists responded to the survey.

>A student at Stanford found in 2010 that 97 percent or 98 percent of "the most prolific climate change writers" believed that "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." No mention on how serious the problem was, and he only found the views of 200 researchers when the number of climate change researchers are in the "thousands."

>Blogger John Cook determined in 2013 that 97 percent of "abstracts of peer-reviewed papers" believed that "human activity is responsible for some warming," but a more exhaustive study of Cook's work determined that only 0.3 percent of the 11,944 papers reviewed by Cook concluded that "human activity is causing most of the current warming."

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:28:21 2016 No.8540439 >>8540418 You mean this? >>8540405 First, give source. Second notice how the graph ends before 2004, and the box titled recent proxies.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:29:46 2016 No.8540442
File: 565 KB, 514x862, m16 alex jones.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540416
it says of the 34% that stated a view (opposite of the 66% who didn't state a view), 97% of them think it's human caused.

So basically you have 1/3 of the climatologists for certain on your side. Great. Now where's that consensus?

>>8540429
Moving the goalpost, great. Ever thought the climate deniers could be people who don't want carbon taxes (which will effectively do nothing) sucked out of their assholes? The data has always shown humans contribute a very small portion of the overall CO2 emissions on the Earth, and again the climate has always been changing and always will.

Man has always lived and died by the whims of the Earth. We have never killed this planet and we never will, it or something bigger than it will kill us in the end.

>>8540426
>>8540430
>>8540432
And every time in history an order has risen up to subjugate the people, the people eventually end up rising up or the weak empire crumbles from weakness. The same will happen to you.

/pol/ will never leave.

/pol/ has never left.

it was /pol/ that lead the scandinavian conquerors

it was /pol/ that lead Genghis Khan

it was /pol/ that lead the British Kingdom and Empire

it was /pol/ that founded America in 1776

it was /pol/ that put a man on the moon

it was /pol/ that made Donald Trump president.

There have always been people like us.

There have always been people like you.

And the people like us always win.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:30:00 2016 No.8540443 >>8540438 What are the sources of the criticism? Characterizing it as "blogger tier" failure is dishonest. Those surveys endured peer review. It's only natural that any criticism should pass the same standard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:30:23 2016 No.8540444 >>8540439 Google "holocene temperature variations"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:31:34 2016 No.8540447 >>8540443 The source is me and you can verify it yourself. Find anything I've said that was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:31:37 2016 No.8540448 >>8540444 No. Give your source, you're the one making the argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:32:56 2016 No.8540451 >>8540442 the third reich lost /pol/ is never right

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:34:04 2016 No.8540455 >>8540448 You want proof that paleoclimatology exists? It's a field of study.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:34:44 2016 No.8540457 go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:34:50 2016 No.8540458 >>8540447 Not exactly an exacting standard, then. It's well known that anonymous people on the internet are reliable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:35:06 2016 No.8540460 File: 486 KB, 540x735, trump hitler.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8540451 the third reich lost the fourth won't

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:36:02 2016 No.8540462 >>8540460 It will, because every time in history an order has risen up to subjugate the people, the people eventually end up rising up or the weak empire crumbles from weakness. The same will happen to you.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:36:03 2016 No.8540463

>>8540438
Yes, I read the post. The first quote is hilarious as it claims "skeptics" agree the climate has warmed and humans are a significant cause when this thread is full of /pol/tards denying both.

The second proves that there is a consensus on GHGs being responsible for *most* of the warming.

The third is simply a misuse of statistics because it includes all the papers that never made a declaration at all. That's like saying there is no consensus on evolution since it's so widely accepted that only a small fraction of papers even bother making a declaration on whether it is true.

So, the only "problem" remaining appears to be that the post starts with the strawman of a consensus for "urgent action" rather than a consensus on the scientific fact that is AGW.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:36:07 2016 No.8540464 >>8540455 The graph comes from a peer reviewed article which you've failed to provide. Most likely because their own conclusions directly disagree with you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:37:24 2016 No.8540469 LITERAL NAZIS THE DENIALIST IN THREAD IS A LITERAL NAZI WHY ENGAGE WHY DO ANYTHING TRUTH IS A FICTION. REALITY IS MEANINGLESS. EMBRACE NIHILISM. BLOW THINGS UP. KILL PEOPLE. IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:39:27 2016 No.8540473
File: 779 KB, 1200x677, trump bible.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540462
Which is exactly why the Third Reich failed, he tried to subjugate the Jews which was a fatal mistake. In comparison President Trump realizes the important of maintaining the Judeo-Christian union, for the time being. The Fourth Reich is about liberty (the complete opposite of subjugation) and the Jews will play an important role in this process. Trump is simply here to correct the first Fuhrer's mistakes.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:39:37 2016 No.8540474

>>8540458

I noticed that when people who are really invested in a specific belief are challenged on something they tend to fall back on asking for sources for very stupid things so they can eternally justify dismissing what other people are saying. It is some interesting psychology. I wish you would really think about what you're asking me to source. I mean, if you would just read what I said you could verify and easily disprove anything that I've said that was wrong.

>In 2009, a University of Illinois student conducted a two-question survey...

>A student at Stanford found in 2010 that 97 percent or 98 percent of...

>Blogger John Cook determined in 2013 that...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:40:16 2016 No.8540475 ASSASSINATE TRUMP, START A CIVIL WAR, KILL YOUR NEIGHBORS, KILL YOUR FAMILY WORK FOR MONSANTO AND POISON THE CORN ITS NOT WORTH IT MIGHT AS WELL FEEL POWERFUL FOR A MOMENT AS WE ALL BURN TOGETHER IN THIS SHARED HELL

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:41:18 2016 No.8540477 >>8540464 >Most likely because their own conclusions directly disagree with you. Are you sure? because my position is that it was warmer than it is right now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:41:57 2016 No.8540478 >>8540473 your grandiose fantasies are not /sci/ material take it to /pol/ you credulous rube

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:41:58 2016 No.8540480

>>8540442
>So basically you have 1/3 of the climatologists for certain on your side. >Great. Now where's that consensus?
So I guess you also don't believe that there is a consensus on evolution too right? The more widely accepted and less necessary it is to state a view, the smaller and smaller that percentage will get. So the only reason to use such a percentage to argue against a consensus is to mislead. Why are you trying to mislead? It's not working by the way.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:42:03 2016 No.8540481
File: 2.67 MB, 152x270, haywire-hillary.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540469
>TRUTH IS A FICTION. REALITY IS MEANINGLESS. EMBRACE NIHILISM. BLOW THINGS UP. KILL PEOPLE. IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE.
>ASSASSINATE TRUMP, START A CIVIL WAR, KILL YOUR NEIGHBORS, KILL YOUR FAMILY WORK FOR MONSANTO AND POISON THE CORN

is this how your brain feels when you vote Hillary? sheesh, we really did dodge an apocalypse, didn't we

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:42:24 2016 No.8540483 File: 90 KB, 1753x565, All_palaeotemps.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] INTERESTING

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:43:17 2016 No.8540487 you have to go back

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:44:51 2016 No.8540490 Fuck it. I'm posting bomb recipes every time I see a climate change thread from now on. At least bombs are marginally /sci/ related. See you next thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:47:15 2016 No.8540496 >>8540477 That conclusion is irrelevant since AGW doesn't claim it was never warmer, and the graph you posted doesn't even support it since it doesn't show temperatures "right now".

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:47:19 2016 No.8540497

>>8540410
>That's just straight up ignorant wishful thinking though, wtf.
It's not ignorant or wishful, I said it was "possible and nessisary". It's possible because we have the technology to generate large amounts of electricity using other means, even if they're not as practical or cheap (yet?). It's nessisary because are lot of people are going to suffer if we don't.

>Unless a serious contender to replace fossil fuels is invented or discovered, which looks more unlikely every passing day no matter the amount of wishful thinking and misplaced trust in technology which is really another energy sink, that is exactly what will happen.
There are many serious contenders. Hydroelectricity is a mature are widely deployed example.

>Just deal with reality for a minute here please.
no u

>I don't even know what your argument is with the Catholic Church
My argument is that they have basically nothing to do with it. They've moved from not talking about it to talking about it somewhat, which is basically what most governments have done. Why are you so obsessed with them?

>AGW is looking more like a new age earth worship religion than science.
That shits getting boring.

>>8540424
>i don't get it, weren't we just always releasing carbon?
The source of the carbon matters.

>i'm being guilt tripped into believing the whole earth is gonna boil over when there's an extreme cold warning and homeless people dying of hypothermia in my city.
Try and learn the difference between weather and climate before talking about either, It will make you look like (very slightly) less of a moron.

>I hope ALL the energy we use creates mass carbon emissions and I hope the methane releases and I hope the ice caps DO melt just because it will piss you people off.
Fuck off.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:48:14 2016 No.8540498
File: 88 KB, 960x796, 4.5 billion years trump.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8540478
>/pol/ rants and raves about Trump becoming President and being the champion of liberty and freedom
>he actually becomes President, already Making America Great Again

>/sci/ rants about global warming not being a Jew conspiracy
>literally the end goal is reducing world population, taxing the shit out of everybody and forcing everyone to live in squalor with inefficient fuel resources

And all was right with the world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:51:57 2016 No.8540506 >>8540477 Yes. At that time scale, I'm, in fact, sure.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:53:12 2016 No.8540508 >>8540483 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event Interdasting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:55:55 2016 No.8540518 >All deniers are funded by big oil and can't be trusted Let's just ignore the fact that renewable's investment has reached 359 billion annually. Nope, no possibility of a conflict of interest here.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:57:27 2016 No.8540521

>>8540483
This graph is incredibly misleading. First of all, look at the scale of the X-axis. Starting from the left you have separations of 100million years, making the points look much sharper then they are in reality. On the right side of the X-axis the separation is far less, in thousands of years.

This is because the climate data we have for the past ~100,000 years is far more reliable than anything from paleoclimate that is hundreds of millions of years old. That said, it's not exactly a revelation that climate has been both hotter and colder on average in the geological history of Earth. In fact, it is widely hypothesized that before complex lifeforms on Earth formed, nearly the entire globe up to parts of the tropics was covered in ice sheets. The role of CO2 in countering the albedo effect in order to shrink these ice sheets may have allowed complex life forms to evolve on Earth.

Also, this data is comparing everything to a modern baseline (1960-1990), which makes the changes millions of years in the past look a lot more dramatic.

Anonymous Wed Dec 14 23:59:25 2016 No.8540525

>>8540518
Actually it's more like deniers are either funded by big oil or just plain ol' retarded. Most are the latter. But yes, 97% of climatologists are somehow bought by renewable companies with no actual connection to the scientists, oh and just ignore that the oil industry is worth trillions and couldn't for some reason bribe more than 4%...

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:00:36 2016 No.8540527 Anyone remember that time professor Chris Turney expected to see a clear path for his ship to the south pole due to global warming but ended up getting his ship stuck due to the expanding ice? Whatever happened to him?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:01:05 2016 No.8540528 >>8540521 How is it incredibly misleading? It doesn't imply anything that you argued against.

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:02:24 2016 No.8540532

>>8540525

I'm just pointing how people hold both sides to wildly different standards. One side is automatically dismissed based on the mere suspicion of where their funding came from while the other is completely ignored, and worse still, anyone that questions anything about it is labeled a dirty stinking denier.

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:04:11 2016 No.8540543

>>8540525
There are literal connections to some of the most prominent deniers today, including "legitimate" scientists like Roy Spencer / John Christy / Richard Lindzen to denialist circles that are directly and indirectly (once the media caught on to their direct funding, they shifted to third parties to hide the money trail) funded by oil companies:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_C._Marshall_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

>>8540528
It is misleading because the average person that looks at that chart will see the gigantic spikes in the fucking paleozoic / mesozoic and believe that the paleoclimate data for that era of geological history is just as sound and foolproof as more modern data.

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:05:21 2016 No.8540546

>>8540527
[citation needed]

>The Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014 made it clear from the start that we went pole wards to try and refine our understanding of why there is more sea ice in the south. We most certainly never ‘believed the computer models that everything would be melted’.
>I fear Senator Cruz has confused which way is up. As I hope Senator Cruz is all too aware from his time chairing the US Senate Science and Space Sub-Committee, the Arctic is a large ocean surrounded by continents while Antarctica is a continental ice sheet surrounded by ocean. The two respond to climate change in quite different ways.
>Since satellite observations began in the 1970s, the amount of sea ice in the Arctic has suffered a long-term decline and is now at an all time low. In marked contrast, the amount of sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent has reached an all time high.

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:06:31 2016 No.8540548

>>8540528
Most of the post you're responding to is context and is not implied otherwise by the graph.
The graph is misleading in that
1) changing the timescale in the x axis makes changes more abrupt than they are at the beginning
2) modern methods for determining temperature are different and more accurate (so comparing them is dicey at best). Generally we have more uncertainty and "more averaged" temperatures for the old records.

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:09:37 2016 No.8540555

>>8540532
I don't see anyone in this thread claiming that deniers are wrong because they are funded by oil companies. The hypothetical of deniers being funded by oil companies is only used as a comparison to the widely prevalent argument that climatologists are involved in a conspiracy or are being paid to support AGW. It's pretty clear which side relies more heavily on scientific evidence and which side relies on ad hominem and conspiracy logic.

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:11:46 2016 No.8540558

>>8540543
Or they will look at the projections on the right and see how this is extremely anomalous. I don't think the graph was created by a denier or with the intention to mislead. It can only mislead when presented with a misleading argument, which it isn't.

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:15:01 2016 No.8540567

>>8540548
Changing the timescale is necessary to show all the data. And there are clear jump marks for each jump.

>2) modern methods for determining temperature are different and more accurate (so comparing them is dicey at best).
Yeah, but where does the graph compare them?

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:19:30 2016 No.8540578

>>8540567
>Yeah, but where does the graph compare them?
By putting them in the same graph, for easy visual comparison.
>Changing the timescale is necessary to show all the data.
Doesn't change the problem.
The graph makes it seem like old and new records are comparable when they're of quite different species. At least a strong caveat should be in place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 15 00:59:09 2016 No.8540656 >>8539604 >jailed for child abuse Good job

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 01:02:34 2016 No.8540663

>>8540532
but that's retarded
fossil fuel industry is worth like 6 trillion dollars and has decades of history of buying people, spending multi millions on building climate denial thinktanks, spending millions on fake research to support climate denial, etc

meanwhile renewable energy companies are going bankrupt
where are they getting the money to not only buy scientists out, but to pay them More than the fossil fuel people can afford?

Anonymous Thu Dec 15 02:34:17 2016 No.8540762

>>8540663
>fossil fuel industry is worth like 6 trillion dollars and has decades of history of buying people, spending multi millions on building climate denial thinktanks, spending millions on fake research to support climate denial, etc
Citation needed

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 15 02:44:52 2016 No.8540770 >>8540762 lol xD upboat

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 ]