Stop denying anthropogenic climate change.

[Anonymous No.9249918]

[Anonymous No.9249938]

>>9249918
Only if you stop exaggerating it and making people scared and think that it's a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.9249950]

Will turning our sons into girls and punishing whites (who usually have 1-2 kids, 3 tops) for having too many kids and doing nothing about Africans who have at least 10 kids for the sake of fighting the overpopulation help us solve the problem of anthropogenic global warming?

[Anonymous No.9249955]

>>9249950
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9250153]

Stop accepting anthropogenic climate change.

[Anonymous No.9250197]

>>9249938
>Only if you stop exaggerating it and making people scared and think that it's a bad thing.
Why? If it's true, it's true, regardless of the outcome.

[Anonymous No.9250230]

>>9249950
Yes

[Anonymous No.9250530]

>>9249955
>In developed world
Why if it's the problem only in undeveloped world?

[Anonymous No.9250538]

>>9250530
"people" in the developed world have 6-times the carbon footprint of someone in the developing world

20-times if you're an American

[Anonymous No.9250550]

>>9249950
Not that it matters, but whites born in the United States and Europe will have a significantly higher impact on climate change than blacks born in Africa, despite their relative populations. So yes.

Sorry if this kills your narrative.

[Anonymous No.9250571]

>globalists are priests
and they say atheism isn't a religion. They literally tout this stuff as dogma

[Anonymous No.9250579]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9L2Rhn8EyM

[Anonymous No.9250583]

>>9250579
>video on communication skills
>people in the video talk in the most patronizing tone possible
What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.9250585]

>>9250579
>how to pull wool over people's eyes and practice taqiyaa

[Anonymous No.9250638]

I wouldn't deny that the climate is changing. What I would deny is the social commentary that has latched onto it like a parasitic disease that thinks the west is responsible for all the world's terrors and that we should continue to disadvantage ourselves in a plethora of ways because of that fantasy.

China and India currently have a larger carbon footprint than the entire NATO area. And the print is stable and lowering in said NATO area while steeply climbing in the developing world.

The current rates at which people are being lifted out of poverty worldwide and the population growth in Africa are both astronomical figures. It is likely that by 2200 that continent is going to have a carbon footprint that dwarfs that of the Chinese.

No amount of climate concerns are going to ultimately stand in the way of human prosperity. Trying to do so is going to be futile in practice and harmful to international relations in ways our descendants are not going to be thankful for. Trying for enforce policies to prevent climate change will place such a tremendous cost on human prosperity that you might as well be arguing in favor of stopping Africa from ever developing as a continent. It is a genocidal argument.

The wiser path would be to prepare and adapt for the changing climate, instead. You know, the way in which life has always prospered. Even before mankind.

[Anonymous No.9250666]

>>9250571
>Evolution is a religion
>Round earth is a religion
>Any facts I don't like are a religion

[Anonymous No.9250682]

>>9250666
did I say that you shit-eating moron?

[Anonymous No.9250691]

>>9250638
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Obviously we should only take actions which are cost effective. The problem is that you people deny global warming will be costly and greatly exaggerate the costs of mitigation. You think that mitigating climate change will be genocidal, and yet we're the alarmists?

>The wiser path would be to prepare and adapt for the changing climate, instead. You know, the way in which life has always prospered. Even before mankind.
Yes and let's not take vaccines, let's just adapt to polio.

[Anonymous No.9250694]

>>9250682
Retard, do you understand what an analogy is?

[Anonymous No.9250697]

>>9250691
vaccines are polio you fucking idiot. No law can change the "climate" because no law can keep the tide from coming in to shore.

[Anonymous No.9250701]

>>9250697
>vaccines are polio you fucking idiot.
Wow what a non sequitur! Your stupidity is stunning.

>No law can change the "climate" because no law can keep the tide from coming in to shore.
What the fuck? This isn't a poetry reading, idiot. Of course laws can change the climate, if you reduce GHG emissions you will reduce global warming.

[Anonymous No.9250705]

>>9250694
>some off topic shitpost in a thread about bill nye and climate change is my analogy against it all being radical soul-searching that morphed into a religion
you're fucking stupid. The catholic church has recognized atheism as a religion

[Anonymous No.9250710]

>>9250705
Yes please post more schizophrenic rambling.

[Anonymous No.9250715]

>>9250701
>my metaphor is retarded and pointing it out is stupidity!
okay smart guy. I guess I shouldn't point out that you have a terrible grasp on both science and english.
>this isnt' poetry
its not poetry its political science which was related to the climate in the middle ages.
>reduce global warming
its all a hoax, none of the laws that were passed in Europe have reduced "climate change". Or prevented the natural disasters and shortages that were touted as because of it.

[Anonymous No.9250722]

>>9250710
>if you stay on topic you're schizophrenic
okay you shitposting moron. Keep talking about stuff that has nothing to do with thread topic.

[Anonymous No.9250726]

Prove it's anthropogenic.

Protip: Some half-assed correlation between temperature and time isn't enough

[Anonymous No.9250733]

>>9249918
:^)

[Anonymous No.9250740]

>>9250715
>he doesn't know what a metaphor is... yet he says others have terrible grasp on English
>he thinks that pointing out the polio vaccine is polio somehow has anything to do with the analogy, which is that mitigation is often preferable to adaption, even if only adaption was available in the past
>the analogy had to be explained to him like he was a five year old
>he thinks poetic cliches are actual arguments
>he thinks science is a hoax

[Anonymous No.9250747]

>>9250740
>im a nigger
all you had to say

[Anonymous No.9250753]

>>9250722
So my analogies of the "religion" fallacy is off topic because they mention other topics, which is the entire point of an analogy? You are retarded, but keep talking about the catholic church and atheism, it's clearly on topic.

Oh and whatever you believe is a religion, so you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.9250759]

>>9250726
It's proven via direct causation, no correlation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

[Anonymous No.9250764]

>>9250753
>my analogies in science are on-topic
>my analogies which put words in other people's mouths are legitimate arguments
>you are retarded for arguing with me
it is on topic you shit-smearing faglord. Climate change is litreally a part of the atheist creed.

[Anonymous No.9250768]

>>9250759
>wikipedia
just a maggoty field of lemmings who don't get paid

[Anonymous No.9250769]

>>9250733
>95 years before present
>Present actually refers to 1950, not 2000
>graph doesn't show temperature past 1855
>yet deniers will still post it, even though they know all this by now after having been told over and over

[Anonymous No.9250773]

>>9249918
What was that?
Anthropomorphic Climate Change?

[Anonymous No.9250782]

>>9250764
>my analogies in science are on-topic
Where did you get the words "in science" from? My analogies are on topic because they counter your argument that climate change is a religion.

>my analogies which put words in other people's mouths are legitimate arguments
You lying above about what I said is putting words in someone's mouth. Analogies are not. I never claimed you said those things, you just assumed that I did because you don't understand how analogies work.

>Climate change is litreally a part of the atheist creed.
Most atheists, along with most of the populace, tend to adhere to scientific facts. I know that is an extremely hard concept for you, but atheism is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.9250786]

>>9250768
>attacking the source and not the greenhouse effect
You lose.

[Anonymous No.9250792]

>>9250747
>nigger
Why the racism?

[Anonymous No.9250793]

>>9250782
you don't understand the platonic form of analogies, English nomenclature, or theology.
>most people
don't speak for other people most people side with God in the USA over godless abominations that have been ignored.

[Anonymous No.9250802]

>>9250793
>you don't understand the platonic form of analogies, English nomenclature, or theology.
You're projecting.

>don't speak for other people most people side with God in the USA over godless abominations that have been ignored.
Whatever you say schizo. I can tell the meds are wearing off because the punctuation is disappearing.

[Anonymous No.9250804]

>>9250786
>you lose
sorry bub. But if you kill your enemies they win. So I win.
>>9250786
>saying nigger is racist
you should learn what discrimination is which is why the term was created.

[Anonymous No.9250810]

>>9250804
>But if you kill your enemies they win. So I win.
I'm still posting, so you obviously didn't. And again you didn't respond to the argument. You lose.

[Anonymous No.9250811]

>>9250792
lol

[Anonymous No.9250812]

Does anyone here on either side even have enough experience with dynamical systems modeling to understand the climate models? I feel like you guys are just regurgitating talking points without really having a true appreciation for the actual science and mathematics behind this debate? I ask because I'm learning about systems modeling for my job and I was wondering if anyone here does work on models like these. I really want to get to the point where I know enough about this to interpret a model myself so I can stop just regurgitating other people's points.

Does anyone here have the background to help me out, or are you guys just wasting time talking about stuff you don't REALLY understand?

[Anonymous No.9250814]

>>9250810
they are lowly plebs. They should be working the fields rather than the wikipedias. Their ideas are not worth the time it takes to argue\.

[Anonymous No.9250817]

>>9250812
Shouldn't you be asking a climatologist instead of a board on 4chan? Is that really your intent?

[Anonymous No.9250819]

>>9250812
We all hold several PHDs in the subject, fag, you're the brainlet here.

[Anonymous No.9250820]

>>9250812
>Are you qualified
yes
>models
they're all bullshit

[Anonymous No.9250821]

>>9250550
>>9250538
>Sorry if this kills your narrative.
It maybe would if climate change were the only problem related to overpopulation and if the world could rely on Africa never developing. Of course that's retarded and most likely against your own narrative.

[Anonymous No.9250822]

>>9250814
So you admit you lose. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.9250823]

Well, this certainly got out of hand.
As for whoever responded to me by drawing a comparison with climate and polio:

I think a better analogy would've been bird-flu. As vaccinations are an adaptation to the existence of a disease, not a mitigation of a hypothetical catastrophe. You effectively offered me a reinforcement of my own argument with that one. Whereas with bird-flu pandemics we see a much better equivalence.

However you also seemed to think I was a denier when I explicitly stated in the first sentence that I was not. A little disappointing.

Please look at the numbers. You're going to need some kind of magic if Africa is going to develop without creating a tremendous carbon footprint. It is inevitable, they're not going to just wait for their prosperity if they can help it. Their growth isn't just going to stall because of climate qualms.

Will technologies and solutions emerge that may allow Africa to develop without developing the predicted carbon-footprint? Maybe? Who knows? Are you going to put faith in that? I'd rather not. Faith is for the religious.

[Anonymous No.9250824]

>>9250817
I've had occasional encounters with other serious professionals beyond just narcissistic know-it-all undergrads here, so I figure it couldn't hurt.

[Anonymous No.9250825]

>>9250822
>So you admit you lose. Thanks.
it seems the plebs are hard of hearing. maybe you should wipe the grime off your ipad and read my posts.

[Anonymous No.9250840]

>>9250820
Something we like to say in biology is that "all models are wrong some models are useful". I think that's important to bear in mind when discussing all models. It's disheartening that many models take the same data-sets and give widely varying predictions, but we are making progress in applying systems models to making real, testable predictions, at least in cell biology.

The thing about modeling is that it is not just a science but also an art, and there can be good art and bad art and there can be straight-up dishonest art. I guess what I want to know is, what is it about the recent climate models that you find makes them so bad? Can you link me to an example of a really bad climate model paper and point out the parts of the paper that are especially egregious? My professor will do this sometimes with genetics papers he doesn't think were rigorous and it's a really good teaching technique. Can you sort of point me in the right direction in this way?

[Anonymous No.9250847]

>>9250840
punishment of humans fall under theology and law, not the cooked-up field of climate science.

[Anonymous No.9250850]

>>9250823
>I think a better analogy would've been bird-flu. As vaccinations are an adaptation to the existence of a disease, not a mitigation of a hypothetical catastrophe.
By that logic mitigation is an adaption to climate change, which exists right now. You're just arguing semantics without responding to the point. Mitigation will not simply save money by averting fantastic catastrophes that in your mind are the only proposed consequence of climate change. In reality, climate change is much more insidious, and billions of dollars in damage will go by barely noticed, because the change is so gradual and over such large scales.

The question then is how much mitigation is cost effective, but you must at least first admit that mitigation can be cost effective. For some reason, it seems you denied that possibility entirely.

>Please look at the numbers. You're going to need some kind of magic if Africa is going to develop without creating a tremendous carbon footprint.
Please look at the numbers yourself! For example look at the research on optimal carbon taxes.

>Will technologies and solutions emerge that may allow Africa to develop without developing the predicted carbon-footprint? Certainly not if you keep denying that it's a problem in the first place. But yes, I agree that we should fund more research on cleaner energy.

[Anonymous No.9250854]

>>9250638
But China is taking YUGE steps to lower it's carbon footprint. They're spending insane amounts of money on rail, building massive hydro-electric plants, nearly doubling their nuclear capacity by 2020, and have imposed some of the most aggressive mandates for EV sales.

Meanwhile the US is pulling out of a "I promise to do better" agreement.

[Anonymous No.9250859]

>>9250825
Yeah I just read a bunch of posts where you failed to respond to the fact that the greenhouse effect exists, GHG forcing is increasing, and humans are currently the main net source of GHGs.

[Anonymous No.9250865]

>>9250847
I am also a Christian, but God's Earth is still subject to his laws, and we have done a good job with modeling some other things that happen in his world, like infection and gene regulatory networks. From an epistemological perspective, there's nothing saying we shouldn't be able to model climate, at least not for theological reasons. What church to you belong to?

[Anonymous No.9250875]

>>9250859
>greenhouse
unproven, unscientific, atheist, and promoted by face-less maggots ans snakes like bill nye and the kill-whitey democrats.

[Anonymous No.9250877]

>>9250875
I can't tell if this is a parody or a real insane person. Either way, it's hilarious, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9250880]

>tfw devout Christian
>tfw I believe God's mandate to mankind as having dominion over the whole earth makes conservation a religious issue

[Anonymous No.9250883]

>>9250877
>it's hilarious
im laughing too. Can't wait for all the socialists to start their green-revolution and get shit on

[Anonymous No.9250894]

>>9250865
Judiasm.
>disease, gene
designations

models are based off matrices mixed with variables which doesn't work because then it has to morph into reality which is not the closed system that matrices are used to describe.

[Anonymous No.9250898]

>>9250883
>It's a socialist atheist democrat globalist illuminati conspiracy bill nye religion!
Yup, totally sane reaction. You really scientifically disproved global warming.

[Anonymous No.9250902]

>>9250898
>he doesn't know about the gay frogs
keep pointing fingers and putting words in my mouth you pathetic excuse for a scientist

[Anonymous No.9250903]

>>9250894
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging

>confirmed for schizo

[Anonymous No.9250906]

>>9250902
OK, so it's a parody, not bad but you went a little too far there.

[Anonymous No.9250908]

>>9250903
>psychiatry
not even a skill
>wikipedia
faceless maggots who swipe at people who disagree

[Anonymous No.9250915]

>>9249918

>tfw upper midwest border resident
>tfw less winter means more crops, more oil drilling
>tfw all I have to do is not give a shit about the effect on elitist faggots with beachfront property or overpopulated third world hordes clustered close to their native coastlines

Deny? I fully embrace climate change.

[Anonymous No.9250922]

I feel like climate change advocates would be more successful if they focused more on air pollution and bundled GHD in with it. Global warming is such an abstract thing for most people, but air pollution is something people deal with everyday of their lives. For example, California's Central Valley has some of the worst air in the country, which is more due to it's geography than with the people that live there, but is also relatively conservative with a lot of climate change denial. I get greentards want to win with their factual arguments, but while those are important for policy creation in the Legislature, that's not how you move people to action in their everyday lives. Global warming is completely abstract to those people. Air pollution, on the other hand, is very real. It's something they deal with everyday. Kids get asthma from it. Some days you have to be careful about going outside. If activists focused their movement to the public on that, I think they'd be more successful.

TL;DR: Use a real fear of air pollution to get the public to care about environmental policies.

[Anonymous No.9250923]

>>9250915
But if all those people die, who are you going to sell oil and crops to?

[Anonymous No.9250925]

>>9250894
>models are based off matrices mixed with variables which doesn't work because then it has to morph into reality which is not the closed system that matrices are used to describe.
Models don't have to be as complex as reality. They're models. If you want to make a map of north carolina so you can drive somewhere, you don't need really to include the temperature data or the data on bird populations, even though that means you're not fully reflecting reality. The model is always 'wrong' in some way because it's an oversimplification, but the important part is whether it predicts and/or explains the aspect of reality you're interested in (the roads, in the analogy.)


I thought you said you were qualified to discuss models, but now you're dismissing the entire concept. Why?

[Anonymous No.9250931]

>>9250923

Tesla drivers and street shitters are not critical target markets.

[Anonymous No.9250933]

>>9250925
Because he has no idea what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.9250938]

>>9249918

(((Muh Vagina Dance)))
((( http://youtu.be/AVDBD_HXtMs )))

(((Castrate Your Male Kids)))
(((Gorillions of Genders)))
(((White Genocide)))
(((Fucking White Males)))

[Anonymous No.9250944]

>>9250915
>>tfw all I have to do is not give a shit about the effect on elitist faggots with beachfront property or overpopulated third world hordes clustered close to their native coastlines
Yeah man lol it's not like this could lead to global war and it's not like that will affect you indirectly lol.

[Anonymous No.9250952]

>>9250944
>demagouges start another world war
just more money and technology. Only good can come of war

[Anonymous No.9250957]

>>9250944
>this could lead to global war

War is an excellent market for crops and oil.

[Anonymous No.9250964]

>>9250944
>Being scared of overpopulated third world countries declaring war
What are they actually going to do? They're third world for a reason.

[Anonymous No.9250966]

>>9250952
>>9250957
Enjoy your refugees.

[Anonymous No.9250971]

>>9250964
As you probably already know, the term 'third world' originates from the cold war. The first world was the US and its allies, the second world was the commies and their allies, and the third world was everyone else. These countries often served as battlegrounds in the complex geopolitical game that the two main powers played. In the modern world, when war breaks out, the top dogs will always use it as an opportunity to do something, so these wars definitely affect our lives.

[Anonymous No.9251014]

>>9250538
>20 times if you're an American.
There's literally thousands in the undeveloped world per American. Even American carbon footprint can't hope to touch the total carbon footprint of the billions in the undeveloped world. Further, it is easier to reduce the carbon footprint of the undeveloped world than it is to invent further marginal steps for the developed world to take.

Put out the tire fire before switching the fire engine from diesel to electric.

[Anonymous No.9251028]

>>9250966
no refugees here faggot.

[Anonymous No.9251087]

>>9250824
There's a dude on Youtube who represents the anthropogenic climate change model very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Complete, of course, with sources from the scientific literature.

[Anonymous No.9251094]

>>9251087

Thanks for actually delivering anon!

>>9251028

Not yet ;^)

[Anonymous No.9251113]

>>9251014
Actually, there are numerous countries that are not America that are working to reduce carbon emissions. Solar has become cheaper than coal. China is planning to replace all carbon-emission vehicles by 2030, as is Paris (not sure about France as a whole) and the Netherlands.

It's pretty much America that shoves its head up its... sand. It's a sad world when we look to China for our salvation.

[Anonymous No.9251119]

>>9250538
Actually, there are numerous countries that are not America that are working to reduce carbon emissions.

It's pretty much America that shoves its head up its... sand. It's a sad world when we look to China for our salvation.

It's Time: The Netherlands Is Planning to End All Its Coal Power by 2030 www.sciencealert.com/the-netherlands-is-planning-to-end-all-its-coal-power-by-2030

Paris plans ban on combustion engine cars by 2030
europe.autonews.com/article/20171012/ANE/171019832/paris-plans-ban-on-combustion-engine-cars-by-2030

A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind

Nominee for EPA’s air office tells senator he is ‘not familiar’ with climate data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqjfEpJwrv8

[Anonymous No.9251136]

>>9251119
>It's a sad world when we look to China for our salvation.
To specify...
"China, the world’s leading fossil fuel consumer, has pledged to cap the growth in its carbon emissions by 2030 and increase the share of nonfossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to around 20 percent by that time."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-age-of-wind-and-solar-is-closer-than-you-think/

[Anonymous No.9251152]

>>9250971
>term 'third world' originates from the cold war.
Started by our british empire to refer to anyone that wasn't in the british empire, a colony former or otherwise, or an empire we were allied with or one that had a certain level of power or size we were at war with.

Third world would refer to the shitholes inhabited by poo in loos, obongo from africa, and the subhuman micks.

It was not an amerifat invention, just another thing the mongrels stole and claimed they owned.

[Anonymous No.9251192]

>>9251094
No problem anon

[Anonymous No.9251200]

>>9251094
>im going to suck your dick
sure showed me with your wink and kike-faced nose

Also,
>bar the gates to the hunnics

[Anonymous No.9251201]

>>9250691
If agw politics actually produced policy that resulted in mitigation, I'd probably be OK with it. Carbon taxes are literally a pyramid scheme and the Paris Agreement ensures nothing, so I'm still waiting.

[Anonymous No.9251224]

>>9251152
I'm Amerifat, and I always thought 1st was old world Europe/Asia, 2nd was the British colonies (and breakaways like we), and third was the undeveloped, mostly Dark Continent.

[Anonymous No.9251235]

>>9251224
That's basically it. The irish were also third world as they were below african civilisation when it came to anything outside british rule

[Anonymous No.9251383]

>>9251014
> There's literally thousands in the undeveloped world per American.
No there aren't. There are 320 million Americans and 7.6 billion people total. Even if you're an American and classify literally everyone else as underdeveloped, that's no where near "thousands per American." Americans are about 4% of the world's population, so for every American in the world there are about 24 people who are something else. ANYTHING else.

[Anonymous No.9251418]

>>9250906
>im literally lobotomized and demand I argue about some fake graph
you are fake news. and the allegory of the cave

[Anonymous No.9251527]

Stop denying the real solution and stop pushing meme green energy

[Anonymous No.9251536]

>>9249950
Also, to further damage your narrative, the global fertility rate is 2.3 so EVERYONE has on average 1-2 kids, 3 tops

[Anonymous No.9251537]

>>9251536
everyone 'is' average, but they're not 'the' average my brainlet friend.

[Anonymous No.9251543]

>>9251201
How are carbon taxes a pyramid scheme and how do they not mitigate AGW?

[Anonymous No.9251548]

>>9251543
the money will stop at time point because the hoax unraveling. The people who get paid to do all of that keep trying to invite more people in like Leo Decaprio who advertised that shit. The allegory of the cave disproves the idea of using numbers as a reliable measure of reality

[Anonymous No.9251555]

Bill Nye is right AGW is real but it's not really that bad if you don't give a fuck about ecosystems and whatnot. It's not gonna kill that many people directly, it's just gonna make it harder to do some shit (like live on the coast). There are some hidden pros for some people too. It's really only catastrophically devastating for polar bears and salmon etc.

[Anonymous No.9251598]

>>9251536
And everybody has on average less than two arms, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.9251647]

>>9250821
>if the world could rely on Africa never developing

That's a pretty safe bet.

[Anonymous No.9251700]

>>9251548
>the money will stop at time point because the hoax unraveling.
That doesn't answer the question I asked. You're just doubling down on your retardation. How is global warming a hoax? Go ahead, debunk the science.

>The people who get paid to do all of that keep trying to invite more people in like Leo Decaprio who advertised that shit.
Which people? Take your meds.

>The allegory of the cave disproves the idea of using numbers as a reliable measure of reality
CANT NO NUFFIN! My one weakness!

For fuck's sake, seek help.

[Anonymous No.9251800]

>>9251700
if it was based on thought experiments it would be useful. But its not so its not useful
>which people?
obama and solyndra and tesla

[Anonymous No.9251920]

>>9251548
>The allegory of the cave disproves the idea of using numbers as a reliable measure of reality
Why do faggots like you use these copouts to say reality is unknowable, but then only use them against facts you dislike?
You could argue that you can't ever know whether or not you're a brain in a vat being fed false information to your senses, but it doesn't affect any claims whose basis is in the reality that you and I inhabit and experience every day, you stupid shit, and you'd still bring up phrenology or some other fuckery and defend it as gospel

[Anonymous No.9251927]

>>9251800
>nothing explains reality but thought experiments
Ok
>obama is still leading the new world order along with a defunct and bankrupt embarassment of a company and one niche car manufacturer
Ooook
Isn't it funny how denial of things like climate change usually lines up just right with these schizoid fucks?

[Anonymous No.9252074]

>>9250550
So you're saying Africans are inherently incapable of economical development and increasing their carbon footprint? If so, you're more racist than all of /pol/ combined

[Anonymous No.9252661]

>>9250197
>Exagerated
>true

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.9252671]

>>9251119
>Actually, there are numerous countries that are not America that are working to reduce carbon emissions.
>It's pretty much America that shoves its head up its... sand. It's a sad world when we look to China for our salvation.

As a point of information -- looks like we got our head out of the sand, you should consider pulling yours out of your ass and looking for some data before making assertions.

[Anonymous No.9252674]

>>9251136
So, in other words, China promises to keep increasing co2 emissions until 2030, at which point it promises to stop increasing them, trust us, China never lies.

[Anonymous No.9252677]

>>9250971
>>9251152

Yeah, "third world" used to mean different things. After the Cold War, it came to mean "underdeveloped world," whi9ch is now often called "developing" because of PC reasons and not hurting the fee fees of countries.

[Anonymous No.9252680]

>>9251383
So you are not down with putting out the tire-fires?

[Anonymous No.9252697]

Reminder that no matter what the civilized world does, India and China will offset it and then some.

[Anonymous No.9252715]

>>9252671
>>9252697
Oh the horror!

[Anonymous No.9252718]

>>9252661
>>Exagerated
>>true
>Pick one.

They're not mutually exclusive. "Exaggerated" is how you describe the potential consequences of the truth.

Scary, I know. But I'm old, so I don't give flying f if the world bakes. Got no kids, either.

[Anonymous No.9252721]

>>9252715
That's actually pretty scary considering that China is the biggest emitter and most of its population are poor country bumpkins.

[Anonymous No.9252723]

>>9252677
>After the Cold War, it came to mean "underdeveloped world,"

Horseshit. I grew up in the cold war. My whole life, 3rd world meant the un(der)developed. That's how I learned it, don't know anyone younger or older that thinks otherwise.

[Anonymous No.9252727]

>>9252671
Look at the years when the CO2 emissions were dropping. Consider the political climate then and now. Look at what Agent Orange is doing in the White House, and the support he gets. Compare that to what the Chinese have planned (and we don't).

You can't rest on the laurels of your predecessors and then take credit.

[Anonymous No.9252731]

>>9252674
Not even that. They just say they'll stop their rate of growth of increasing co2 emissions then.

[Anonymous No.9252739]

>>9251920
you're illiterate and uneducated. Hence, you rely on empirical evidence and get duped by con artists like the green movement.

[Anonymous No.9252740]

>>9250550
>ignores the push to migrate millions of Africans into first world nations

Sorry you're too much of a brainlet to be aware of what's going on in the world around you.

[Anonymous No.9252747]

>>9250769
>Implying we're anywhere close to the Roman warm period today

Way to nitpick to ignore the truth.

[Anonymous No.9252752]

>>9250840
>what is it about the recent climate models that you find makes them so bad?

Climate models show a systematic bias towards more catastrophic warming, to push a narrative and secure funding. It's pretty easy to see this.

You also have to realize the climate is an incredibly complex and most importantly -chaotic- system. Chaotic in the mathematical sense essentially means it's impossible to accurately model in the long term.

I would say the entire discussion about climate change is off. We shouldn't be talking about global climate so much as ways to adapt local climates to changing conditions. The dust bowl is a good example of man made climate change and how to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.9252765]

>>9252752
>Climate models show a systematic bias towards more catastrophic warming, to push a narrative and secure funding
In order to show that all the models are wrong about more warming, you would have to show that there is not going to be more warming. So how did you determine that this is a bias at all? Where exactly is the error?

>You also have to realize the climate is an incredibly complex and most importantly -chaotic- system.
Weather is chaotic due to fluid turbulence, the climate is not since it is driven by identifiable drivers of the Earth's energy balance. If it's impossible to model in the long term, how have we done so for decades?

>I would say the entire discussion about climate change is off.
I would say you have no idea what you're talking about, much like a creationist who thinks he has debunked evolution.

[Anonymous No.9252766]

>>9252752
>Climate models
faulty mathematics touted as science

[Anonymous No.9252773]

>>9252766
>faulty mathematics
How are they faulty?

[Anonymous No.9252779]

>>9252773
you can't measure a real object and weigh it against arbitrary other objects which were inaccuratelly measured and ignore the actual reason there are theses natural disasters. Because of impiety.

[Anonymous No.9252780]

>>9252765
>So how did you determine that this is a bias at all? Where exactly is the error?

Now this may be too complicated for a brainlet such as yourself, but you look at the predictions made 20 years ago about the warming we would see today, and compare them to the actual warming we have seen. If you do this, you'll note the vast majority were very far from the truth, almost all entirely predicting a HIGHER warming than we've seen.

> If it's impossible to model in the long term, how have we done so for decades?

We haven't. Climate is chaotic because it is a large set of nonlinear differential equations, which in general don't have close formed solutions.

>I would say you have no idea what you're talking about

I would say you're projecting, like someone under the Dunning-kruger effect.

[Anonymous No.9252782]

>>9252747
You're absolutely right, we are not even close to the Roman warm period, we are much WARMER.

Not to mention that the relative warmth of either period is irrelevant, it's the unprecedented *rate* of warming which is of concern. It's not called Global Warmth, it's called Global Warming.

Fucking hell, you idiots just can't stop putting your foot in your mouth.

[Anonymous No.9252786]

>>9252779
>you can't measure a real object and weigh it against arbitrary other objects which were inaccuratelly measured and ignore the actual reason there are theses natural disasters.
That's nice, but I'm asking you to show me that the science is actually flawed, not just claim vaguely that it's flawed over and over again while thumping your bible. Now take your meds.

[Anonymous No.9252789]

>>9252780
>chaotic because it is a large set of nonlinear differential equations, which in general don't have close formed solutions
uhhh that's not close to being the reason. chaos in a system is quite specific, things like topological transitivity etc
obviously linear systems aren't chaotic, but having a closed form (whatever meaning you give to that) is irrelevant

climate "science" is shit though, yeah, free money for making shit ""mathematical"" models predicting whatever the politician hiring you wants

[Anonymous No.9252796]

>>9252786
>thumping your bible
thats not what the phrase means you dolt. And nothing I said was christian in the least.
>show me
every model that has been used to predict the changes in weather has failed to. A la Al Gore's, and the one that said sea levels would rise.

[Anonymous No.9252797]

>>9252782
>it's the unprecedented *rate* of warming which is of concern

>compares the rate of warming from data sets that only give temperature at a time scale of centuries to satellite data sets accurate at a time scale of a day

You don't think the crazy spikes you're seeing may just be you're using two different methods with vastly different time sensitivities?

[Anonymous No.9252802]

>>9252780
>Now this may be too complicated for a brainlet such as yourself, but you look at the predictions made 20 years ago about the warming we would see today, , and compare them to the actual warming we have seen.
Yes! Let's do that and see exactly how misinformed you are:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>If you do this, you'll note the vast majority were very far from the truth, almost all entirely predicting a HIGHER warming than we've seen.
This is pure fantasy, you know you're making this up because you have no data. Pathetic.

>Climate is chaotic because it is a large set of nonlinear differential equations, which in general don't have close formed solutions.
Again you confuse weather for climate. What are the differential equations of the climate? The weather is modeled with fluid dynamics, the climate is not. Again, you are just making shit up. Not to mention that solving PDEs is unnecessary since practical models will just approximate their solutions.

>I would say you're projecting
Anyone can see you're lying about basic facts.

[Anonymous No.9252805]

>>9252747
How is that nitpicking? If 'present day' is 1950 (as is practice), and the graph begins at '95 years before present,' would that not allow for enough time for anthropogenic CO2 emissions to accumulate into the atmosphere?

Also, where the hell did you find this data? I can't find this anywhere. All i'm getting is:

http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html

http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/Bibliografi/Alley2000%20The%20Younger%20Dryas%20cold%20interval%20as%20viewed%20from%20central%20Greenland%20QSR.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222652431_The_Younger_Dryas_cold_interval_as_viewed_from_central_Greenland

[Anonymous No.9252810]

>>9252797
>compares the rate of warming from data sets that only give temperature at a time scale of centuries
Surely you realize that global warming has been going on for several centuries. Your point is irrelevant. The instrumental data in that graph has no more resolution than the reconstruction.

And I guess you admit you were lying about the Roman warming period since you just ignored that entirely.

[Anonymous No.9252819]

>>9252810
yeah global warming, which is 100% caused by emissions from our evil cars and factories, has been going on for several centuries :^)

[Anonymous No.9252821]

>>9252810
Your graph didn't even go back to the Roman warm period, only the medieval one... Also that spike is entirely since the time of satellite data.

Yes, the data has two different constructions, one from when it was all land based and one from after we sent satellites into space to observe the temperature.

You're also completely misinformed, the reconstructions use many different methods with different resolutions. In the modern era you have land based recordings (which have their own problems of synchronizing instruments around the world) which give way to satellite based recordings.

In the historical data set we use multiple different sets from ice cores to tree rings, neither of which gives the same level of accuracy as modern methods.

I'm not the poster who posted the original graph which included the roman warm period, i was just going based off the fact we haven't seen an entire 2 celsius increase in the last 150 years.

[Anonymous No.9252822]

>>9252797
No anon, the individual spikes we see are normal climate erratics. It's the TREND of rapid warming that we're referring to. Surely you concede that some years are just warmer or cooler by nature or our unstable day-to-day climate conditions?

It has nothing to do with the sensitivity.

[Anonymous No.9252824]

>>9252819
>We are emitting lots and lots of CO2 now with our technology so we can't have been emitting lots 100 years ago!
Your arguments are getting dumber. Try actually looking at the data instead of making these idiotic platitudes.

[Anonymous No.9252827]

>>9252819
Do you not think that human emissions can affect the planet's climate, as a whole?

Your position would seem to imply so.

[Anonymous No.9252828]

positive feedback loops though, methane is like 25x more effective at blocking long wave radiation then CO2
>methyl calthrates
>permafrost
just look at venus

[Anonymous No.9252832]

>>9252822
Right, but all such spikes will be smoothed over in our reconstructions of historical data as a result of our methods.

Surely it's easy to see that if some decade were randomly warmer in 100 AD we won't see that at all as compared to if we experience a warm decade today.

Time resolution absolutely matters when you're pointing out a spike over a few years and comparing it to a different data set constructed from completely different methods of 1000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.9252848]

>>9252802
>Not to mention that solving PDEs is unnecessary since practical models will just approximate their solutions.

It's like you don't understand that you can prove numerically approximated Nonlinear DF EQ's have an error component that grows exponentially with time. That's what I'm referring to. A chaotic system is a set of non-linear equations with an error component that you can show dominates any approximation in the long term.

[Anonymous No.9252859]

>>9252832
You're right, the scale would make it harder to see, but we aren't talking about the individual spikes. I'm just saying that those individual spikes could be easily explained by "normal climate erratics." We can effectively ignore the individual spikes.

The thing is, like I said in my last response, that it's the TREND that matters. The Ljungqvist line in that graph approaches the line from the Medieval Warm Period. Mann 2008 shows a trend that extends much higher than that of the MWP. That red line at the end is significant because not only is the anomaly so extreme, it's extended. This is not just a warm decade, it's several warm decades.

[Anonymous No.9252861]

>>9252821
>Your graph didn't even go back to the Roman warm period
Does the Roman warm period not extend into 400 AD? If you think otherwise, it's time to provide your own proof of your claims.

>Also that spike is entirely since the time of satellite data.
And? As I already said, the resolution of the data in that graph is the same as the reconstruction, so how is it biased by resolution?

>Yes, the data has two different constructions, one from when it was all land based and one from after we sent satellites into space to observe the temperature.
But that's wrong, the modern data is instrumental land based.

>You're also completely misinformed, the reconstructions use many different methods with different resolutions.
And when they are compared, they are averaged onto the same resolution. For example, the graph attached takes the decadal average. You don't seem to understand your own argument.

>In the modern era you have land based recordings (which have their own problems of synchronizing instruments around the world) which give way to satellite based recordings.
Again, this is just nonsense. Satellite data did not take over from land based data, in my graph or in climatology. It's just another source of data with it's own issues.

>In the historical data set we use multiple different sets from ice cores to tree rings, neither of which gives the same level of accuracy as modern methods.
Yes, which is why all data is averaged to the same resolution. Again, none of this applies to what you're attempting to argue against.

> i was just going based off the fact we haven't seen an entire 2 celsius increase in the last 150 years.
Where did 2 degrees celsius come from?

[Anonymous No.9252868]

>2017
>Ameritards still denying human inpact on environment
>TMW hurricane
>"coincidence"

[Anonymous No.9252874]

>>9252848
>It's like you don't understand that you can prove numerically approximated Nonlinear DF EQ's have an error component that grows exponentially with time.
Dude, you completely failed to respond to the point, climate models do not use approximations of PDEs. The PDEs you are thinking of are for the fluid dynamics in weather. Climate modeling is primarily an energy balance problem, which is much easier and less chaotic.

And I'm still waiting for all these failed models from 20 years ago. Surely you didn't lie about that too.

[Anonymous No.9252876]

>>9252821
Whereas it's awful being so concerned about climate change you need to pretend it's not real it's also fucking pathetic to go out of your way like this trying to convince people with so much bullshit just to sink deeper into denial

[Anonymous No.9252877]

>>9252861
>Where did 2 degrees celsius come from?

From

>>9250733

Which shows the peak of the warm period at 300 BC. Your graph only shows the very end of it, which is dishonest. As I said, I did not post that graph, and am having difficulty finding more data on the Roman warm period, which seems odd, you'd think it a topic important to understanding climatology.

You're also wrong that taking a high-sensitivity recording and averaging it to the same resolution as a low resolution recording eliminates any biases. You will still absolutely not get the same picture, because if you did, the last 20 years of warming wouldn't even be included in a graph where most of the time resolution is at the scale of a century.

You're literally pointing at a spike constructed with thermometers and satellites comparing it to thousands of years of measuring tree rings...

[Anonymous No.9252878]

I tried reading a graduate text in climate change one time and the fucking statistics was out of this world man. Real mathmagician shit. I would not fuck with real climatologists, you have no idea what you're up against.

[Anonymous No.9252881]

>>9252878
>im illiterate and believe that computer-generated spam is legit

[Anonymous No.9252884]

>>9252874
>Climate modeling is primarily an energy balance problem, which is much easier and less chaotic.

You're pretty dense. You're ignoring all the feedback loops which depend on highly perturbable systems. You're also pretending that we even know how CO2 will influence cloud formation, which is the largest damn feedback loop and we still can't tell if the feedback factor is positive or negative.

They absolutely are PDE's because as a small warming causes a reduction in ice melt, which changes the reflection of sunlight, higher Co2 and temperatures cause more vegetation, which absorbs sunlight, etc. etc. It's more chaotic than the fluid dynamics you speak of, because there are far more interdependent factors, many of which we likely are still not aware of.

Also, sorry i'm arguing with multiple people, so I don't have the time to look up everything for you.

[Anonymous No.9252888]

>>9252876
>you need to pretend it's not real

I've never done that, I simply think Co2 is a big distraction and actually a net positive. I think talking about 'average global temperatures' is a bunch of nonsense because that doesn't exist except in a statisticians room.

Local climates can be impacted by human behavior at a far more understandable level, and that is what our focus should be on.

I also think you should be more worried about microplastics in your drinking water and mercury in your seafood. Let the Co2 reverse some desertification.

[Anonymous No.9252897]

>>9252884
The Earth's global systems are incredibly complex, as very many things, organic and inorganic connect and affect eachother in all directions. Not easy to understand or predict with accuracy, but it's quite easy to observe trends, and right now it's getting quite a lot warmer. Denying this is just flat-out denial, unless you're clinically mentally handicapped.

You're right tho bro

[Anonymous No.9252898]

>>9252888
It's without a doubt important to stop using fossil fuel by all means though. I'd say the main concerns are deforestation and pollution since they destabilize the ecosystems completely, and unlike climate change those can't really be regenerated that easily.

[Anonymous No.9252899]

>>9252877
>From
>>9250733
>Which shows the peak of the warm period at 300 BC.
No it doesn't, that is from the GISP2 ice core. It represents the temperature in a single location in Greenland, not the averaged NH temperature. Funny how you (falsely) criticized me for comparing two data sets with different resolutions and then make the same fallacy immediately afterward.

>As I said, I did not post that graph, and am having difficulty finding more data on the Roman warm period, which seems odd, you'd think it a topic important to understanding climatology.
So if I'm dishonest for posting a graph that shows the end of the RWP, what are you for failing to post one at all?

>You're also wrong that taking a high-sensitivity recording and averaging it to the same resolution as a low resolution recording eliminates any biases.
It eliminates precisely the bias you accused me of. I'm all ears for how exactly there is a systematic bias in these reconstructions such that they do not yield the correct decadal averages. So far all you've done is pray for one.

>You will still absolutely not get the same picture, because if you did, the last 20 years of warming wouldn't even be included in a graph where most of the time resolution is at the scale of a century.
Which data set here has the scale of centuries? Did you even try to look at them before you made this shit up?

>You're literally pointing at a spike constructed with thermometers and satellites comparing it to thousands of years of measuring tree rings...
You're literally lying. I am comparing the trends over the last 150 years averaged over the same timescale and finding that the current one is much faster than any other. You haven't even looked at the resolution of the reconstructions or what they're made of, yet you lie about them as if you have. You have no credibility.

[Anonymous No.9252902]

Whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is irrelevant to wanting to reduce emissions imo. We just.... SHOULDN'T pollute our atmosphere. Any brainlet who disagrees should press their nose against the exhaust of a truck while the driver floors it in neutral, take a big whiff, and think again.

[Anonymous No.9252909]

>>9252902
South Cali has those laws and they're more polluted than any other place in the country.

[Anonymous No.9252911]

>>9252715
i wonder how much of this is just the US moving manufacturing to china so they can pollute there instead

[Anonymous No.9252912]

>>9252911
>i wonder if I can blame the USA for china polluting

[Anonymous No.9252913]

>>9252898
>I'd say the main concerns are deforestation and pollution since they destabilize the ecosystems completely

I agree with this, I think part of the problem is considering Co2 a pollutant or not. Higher Co2 will actually help in reforestation as it accelerates plant growth and mitigates drought (plants lose moisture primarily through opening their stomata to absorb Co2, so at higher concentrations they can conserve moisture).

Honestly, I'm not sure the negatives associated with fossil fuels outweigh the negatives associated with mining rare earth metals for batteries.

[Anonymous No.9252916]

>>9252912
how much did china pollute before they started making goods to fuel american consumerism?

[Anonymous No.9252918]

>>9252899
>You're literally lying.

Are you saying you aren't comparing data from thermometers to data from tree rings?

[Anonymous No.9252922]

>>9252884
>You're pretty dense. You're ignoring all the feedback loops which depend on highly perturbable systems.
So the climate models currently being used have ignored feedback loops in the climate?

>You're also pretending that we even know how CO2 will influence cloud formation, which is the largest damn feedback loop and we still can't tell if the feedback factor is positive or negative.
So we don't understand how it works, but we know it's the biggest feedback loop? Both of these contradictory claims are demonstrably false. See the IPCC report which shows that the research on this has shown a small positive feedback:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf

>They absolutely are PDE's because as a small warming causes a reduction in ice melt, which changes the reflection of sunlight, higher Co2 and temperatures cause more vegetation, which absorbs sunlight, etc. etc.
This is all be modeled under climate sensitivity, it's not that chaotic.

>It's more chaotic than the fluid dynamics you speak of, because there are far more interdependent factors, many of which we likely are still not aware of.
Then how have we been successfully projecting global temps for decades???

>Also, sorry i'm arguing with multiple people, so I don't have the time to look up everything for you.
It shouldn't be that hard to back up the claim that the majority of climate models from 20 years ago failed. Either you have a source for this or you lied, which is it?

[Anonymous No.9252924]

>>9252916
as far as enviornmental damage goes China was doing worse in the past when its cities were covered in smog and farms were turned into wastelands.

[Anonymous No.9252926]

>>9252897
>Denying this is just flat-out denial

Almost nobody denies it's getting warmer. But at this point it's still difficult to tell how much of that is due to natural trends and how much is due to human activity. Even worse is trying to decide the best course of action to deal with it.

Because I think you can agree this warming trend is in at least part a natural trend from coming out of the little ice age, as well as the fact that our data about today's warming is MUCH more accurate than any of the historical data that we have.

I really think it makes more sense to adapt our local climates to the change than it does to try and stop breathing.

[Anonymous No.9252927]

>>9252918
I am saying that you are lying about the data in that graph having different resolutions.

I am saying that you are lying about what data is used in those constructions in order to imply that their resolutions are on the order of centuries.

Instead of responding to my arguments you decided to be obtuse. You lost.

[Anonymous No.9252930]

>>9252922
>It shouldn't be that hard to back up the claim that the majority of climate models from 20 years ago failed. Either you have a source for this or you lied, which is it?

[Anonymous No.9252931]

>>9252926
>But at this point it's still difficult to tell how much of that is due to natural trends and how much is due to human activity.
No it's not. This was proven decades ago and climatologists have moved on. You are doing nothing but attempting to spread pseduoscientific propoganda, and your failing. Get lost.

[Anonymous No.9252933]

>>9252931
Which decade was that? The one where the coming ice age was the consensus?

[Anonymous No.9252936]

>>9252931
>climatologists
not even a degree you hack try again

[Anonymous No.9252938]

>>9252930
>look ma, I posted it again
Doubling down on dishonest tactics will not help you.

[Anonymous No.9252942]

>>9249938
retard alert! retard alert!

[Anonymous No.9252944]

>>9252933
>coming ice age
We're in an ice age you fucking moron. So I highly doubt any climatologist predicted we are going into one.

>inb4 idiot posts quotes about the inevitable next ice age after the current one in millions of years

>was the consensus?
More delusional fantasies, really helping your credibility.

[Anonymous No.9252946]

>>9252927
At the end of the day, you're still comparing two vastly different sets of data and acting as if you've understood everything.

Get back to me when you can tell me how climate change is going to influence cloud formation (which is considered the largest feedback loop because clouds reflect light in the upper atmosphere and occur globally).

[Anonymous No.9252947]

>>9252924
>China was doing worse in the past when its cities were covered in smog
>in the past
>were

[Anonymous No.9252948]

>>9252944
>We're in an ice age
this is you're brain once you drinked ALL the climat kool-aid. I bet you think the day-after-tomorrow is real too.

[Anonymous No.9252949]

>>9252936
This has to be the stupidest ppost on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9252951]

>>9252944
>We're in an ice age you fucking moron.

I thought you said we're at the hottest temperature in the last 2000 years.

[Anonymous No.9252952]

>>9252946
>considered the largest feedback loop
no it's not
also consider the time it takes for different parts of the Earth system to react to stimulus, there is a lag depending on the material etc
>ie oceans respond slower than land etc

[Anonymous No.9252954]

>>9252948
>hahaha look at how ignorant I am
Educate yourself, you embarrassing retard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

[Anonymous No.9252958]

>>9252951
>I thought you said we're at the hottest temperature in the last 2000 years.
We are. We've been in an ice age for 2.6 MILLION years. Fuck, why do idiots like you think they can talk about what they obviously know nothing about?

[Anonymous No.9252959]

>>9252954
Oh, so this warming is natural, since it's not necessarily common for the earth to have ice caps? No reason to worry, because we're just going to a non-ice age.

[Anonymous No.9252960]

>>9252949
>t. shitflinger
I guess we can discuss ideology in a thread about ideology
>>9252954
>educate yourself
>on wikipedia
the kool-aid just keeps on coming

[Anonymous No.9252965]

>>9252959
>Oh, so this warming is natural, since it's not necessarily common for the earth to have ice caps?
Only if by "natural" you mean literally anything that happens on Earth.

>No reason to worry, because we're just going to a non-ice age.
Yes, let's not worry about leaving the ice age, even though that would mean humanity's demise. Humans and the ecology we rely on evolved in and have always lived in the current ice age. I can't wait for us to go back to the time when all land masses were barren, can't you?

[Anonymous No.9252967]

>>9252959
but the rate of change bro

[Anonymous No.9252968]

>>9252948
It's called an interglacial period you fucking troglodyte.

[Anonymous No.9252969]

>>9252954
>educate yourself
>on wikipedia
the kool-aid just keeps on coming
>>9252949
>t. shitflinger
I guess we can't discuss ideology in a thread about ideology

[Anonymous No.9252970]

>>9252951
>the last 2000 years

What the fuck are you even doing here? You think Big Bang occured last thursday? Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9252972]

>>9252960
Let's discuss how fucking massively retarded it is for you to claim that climatologists are not scientists because there is no degree in climatology.

>HAHA I won't educate myself because Wikipedia. I'll just wallow in my own shit because wikipedia says not to!
Why exactly are you here?

[Anonymous No.9252975]

>>9252931
>No it's not. This was proven decades ago and climatologists have moved on

Ok, so how much of it is natural and how much of it is man made? Can you give me a percentage?

[Anonymous No.9252976]

>>9252968
>It's called an interglacial period you fucking troglodyte.
troglodytes aren't real and there is no "period" in the earth's history. All of these animists LARPing about us being dinosaurs on an extinction path need to wake up and smell the roses, there is a God who decides all of this.

[Anonymous No.9252978]

>>9252969
>>9252960
The Retard-o-Tron3000 is glitching again.

[Anonymous No.9252979]

>>9252976
>there is a God who decides all of this.

I thought God gave us free will and reason so that we can decide our own fates.

[Anonymous No.9252984]

>>9252975
>Ok, so how much of it is natural and how much of it is man made?
Around 100%. Natural sources and sinks actually have a net cooling effect, so the contribution from humans is mitigated by nature.

[Anonymous No.9252985]

>>9252976
>Christian
>2017
>Not believing in climate change
>Even the pope believes in fucking climate change

It's not even worth trying to argue with you fucking jesus fuckers

[Anonymous No.9252988]

>>9252984
Yea, considering the warming trend started before the industrial revolution and the fact that we have been coming out of an ice age for centuries, I'm pretty sure that's propaganda to secure funding.

[Anonymous No.9252989]

>>9252976
>>9252985

He's right you know.

[Anonymous No.9252992]

>>9252989
>>9252985
>>9252979
im Jewish, not christian.

[Anonymous No.9252994]

>>9252988
>Yea, considering the warming trend started before the industrial revolution
Wrong, again. What a surprise. The warming trend coincides perfectly with when manmade GHGs started to increase. See>>9252824

>and the fact that we have been coming out of an ice age for centuries
Jesus Christ you're dumb. No we have not.

[Anonymous No.9252997]

>>9252992
Oy vey, can't harm that lucrative indu$try now, can we goyim?

[Anonymous No.9252998]

>>9249950
>>9250153
>>9250682
>>9250697
>>9250705
>>9250715
>>9250733
>>9250726
>>9250804
>>9250814
>>9250820
>>9250847
>>9250875
>>9251028
>>9251548
>>9251800
>>9252739
>>9252752
>>9252766
>>9252779
>>9252780
>>9252796
>>9252797
>>9252805
>>9252821
>>9252918
>>9252926
>>9252933
>>9252936

WHEN VIEWING THESE RETARDS DON'T LOCK EYES. DON'T DO IT. IT PUTS THEM ON EDGE. THEY'LL COME AT YA LIKE A WHIRLING DERVISH ALL FISTS AND ELBOWS. YOU MIGHT BE SCREAMING NO NO NO BUT ALL THEY HEAR IS WHO WANTS CAKE. THEY ALL DO. THEY ALL WANT CAKE.

[Anonymous No.9253001]

>>9252994
Pointing you back at your own graph
>>9252861

Are you claiming the industrial revolution started in 1700?

How fucking dumb can you get?

Also I guess the correct statement is we've been coming out of an ice age for millennia, get reckt son.

[Anonymous No.9253010]

>>9252997
I don't like the idea of people raising taxes for this pipe-dream stuff so in a way yeah

[Anonymous No.9253011]

>>9252998
Mass repliers must be purged.

[Anonymous No.9253016]

>>9253001

[Anonymous No.9253019]

>>9253001
Are you claiming the current trend starts in 1700? Because that's not what the graph shows. So let's go back through your retarded line of thought. I said that the manmade contribution to global warming is around 100%. You then claimed that this can't be true because there was warming before that. But I was not referring to that warming I was referring to the warming that started in the middle of the 19th century. All you did was assume that I was referring to any warming you can point to in the past when I was not. Once again, you embarrass yourself.

[Anonymous No.9253022]

>>9253016

According to
>>9252824

GHG's don't rise until 1900.

So apparently you're claiming a retrocausal relationship of 200 years where higher GHGS warmed the past. Interedasting.

Note, I've had scientists from fields in biology to condensed matter admit to making claims they didn't believe to secure funding. Both of those fields are more rigorous than climate science

[Anonymous No.9253025]

>>9253010
No gotta keep them shekels tight no, goyim?

[Anonymous No.9253027]

>>9253019
>Thousands of years of history where temperature varies naturally

>This period is 110% manmade though

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding.

[Anonymous No.9253031]

>>9253022
>graph shows a notable spike in GHG right around mid 1700

How do blind people like you use 4chan?

[Anonymous No.9253033]

>>9253025
its a another tieth for a new dogma

[Anonymous No.9253037]

>>9253001
>Also I guess the correct statement is we've been coming out of an ice age for millennia,
Wrong again. How many times are you going to get BTFO before you fuck off. Do you have any sense of shame?

>GHG's don't rise until 1900.
No they start to rise exponentially in the mid 1800s.

>So apparently you're claiming a retrocausal relationship of 200 years where higher GHGS warmed the past.
No, the only relevant relationship here is between the increase in GHGs in the 1800s and warming. If the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was defined by how quickly GHGs were emitted then you would have a point, but it's not, shmuck.

[Anonymous No.9253042]

>>9253022
>Note, I've had scientists from fields in biology to condensed matter admit to making claims they didn't believe to secure funding.
And I've had countless idiots like you lying about climate change. What the fuck is your point? Your lies have been debunked at every turn. You have nothing. You are nothing.

[Anonymous No.9253048]

>>9253027
>Thousands of years of history where temperature varies naturally
>It varies unnaturally due to humans pumping up the forcing
Your inability to grasp the argument is astounding.

[Anonymous No.9253053]

>>9252992
>the holocaust rinsed out the weak jews so only those resistant to toxic gasses live on
>large nose filters out the toxins
>by convincing everyone climate change is real they keep the shekels and take over the world
>oy vey

[Anonymous No.9253371]

>>9252868
AGW is like sex, it's on a spectrum

[Anonymous No.9253898]

>>9253027
Your projection of your own mental inadequacies is astounding. You know you've lost the argument yet you refuse to be un-biased and accept it.

[Anonymous No.9254012]

>>9250197
>"Drugs are bad"
False, but has a positive effect on the general population when they believe the statement is true.

[Anonymous No.9254281]

>>9250550
>>9251536
>>9250538

>Africans overpopulate Africa
>Mexicans overpopulate Mexico
>They all flood into Europe and the US because their country can't support all the constant unprotected fucking
>Suddenly the first world experiences a population boom due to immigration
>Suddenly Mexicans and Africans start buying cars and using plastic and begin emitting as much carbon as first-worlders if not more
>More oil is drilled to supply the demand for plastic bottles and gas for all these new brown first-worlders
>They outnumber white first-worlders and offer no solutions and aren't smart enough to give a shit about climate change or green energy at all like white people are
>White people have no kids to attempt to counteract their neighbor having five kids
>White people move to Antarctica or space and discover clinical immortality
>Everyone else in the world turns black and starts killing each other over water

happy new year 2050 you idiots

[Anonymous No.9254610]

>>9253037

You can't graft an instrumental record onto a proxy record. Mike is an idiot and a litigious fraud and his graph is wrong and stupid.

[Anonymous No.9254618]

>>9254012
only if you perform some mental gymnastics and linguistic slight of hands to connote "drugs" to mean "bad drugs" in that statement.

that is to say, it's an incorrect statement, and you only think otherwise because you deceived yourself

[Anonymous No.9254632]

>>9253031
Well I've returned to own you losers who have nothing to do but stay on /sci/ all night. I mean seriously, you took the time to put a circle on the graph but still couldn't tell the spike occurs at 1800. Astounding. Truly reveals how religiously you hold your beliefs and not out of reason.

[Anonymous No.9254633]

1/3 of all the CO2 man has emitted since 1750 has been released in roughly the last 20 years. Its effects are supposed to be mostly immediate. But, in the last 20 years, global temperatures have not changed, according to satellite data (don't post NASA's GISS, it's a surface record, you ignorant idiot). 50-something excuses have been offered for this hypothesis-destroying reality. You'd think they could.... settle.... on one of them.

But they can't. Because the science isn't settled. Do any of you arrogant, self-obsessed pretend-geniuses ever actually read the IPCC's assessment reports? In addition to lowering their projections every edition (and admitting, in ar5, that the whole extreme weather thing simply isn't happening), they provide estimates for how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by various GHG's. For CO2, they say somewhere between 33% and 66%. A 33 point window is NOT settled science.

And it stands to reason. Science is never settled. For asserting that quasi-crystals exist, Dan Shechtman was called a quasi-scientist by Linus Pauling, kicked out of his research group and told to "go read the textbook." He was right. Everyone else was wrong.

Study the history of science. It's practically the same story over and over. Facts smashing the consensus.

Alarmists are wrong to call global warming a catastrophe. You always were wrong and you will continue to be wrong so long as you cling to this obvious tax and power grab in a futile attempt to save face.

Enjoy your increased crop yields, you know-nothing cunts. Oh, the Maldives lost a few meters of beachfront? Who gives a fuck?

[Anonymous No.9254638]

>>9254632

That's a great graph... if you believe in the fucking bible.

The planet is billions of years old.

[Anonymous No.9254639]

>>9253037
>Wrong again.

So you're telling me we still have glaciers covering most of north america? Wooly mammoths didn't go extinct from natural warming?

You literally overlook the very little you know about the world to arrogantly claim victory. Your ego blinds you.

[Anonymous No.9254640]

>>9254281
Amerindians are superior to europeans though. Your pestilent race will get wiped out for the Amerindian genocide. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.9254643]

>>9253048
>Your inability to grasp the argument is astounding.

It's only eclipsed by your inability to grasp mine. The claim that the warming trend is 100% manmade is absurd on its face. It's something only someone either brainwashed or with an agenda could believe.

[Anonymous No.9254649]

>>9253898
>you refuse to be un-biased

I don't think you've ever experienced what it's like to be un-biased in your life. Your desperate need to feel superior on 4chan of all places is utterly pathetic.

>>9253042
The point is scientists are human and will do what it takes to secure grants. Apparently you trust them the way an altar boy trusts a priest.

[Anonymous No.9254818]

>>9250579
>Youtube video
>"Don't call it climate change"

It's now "you know what"

[Anonymous No.9254854]

>>9249918
Bill Nye is a fucking piece of shit. This man has done more to discredit climate science than Wattsupwiththat.com and Climategate combined.

>"We need a carbon tax to redistribute wealth"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

>"No to nuclear power"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNdigt30Ucg

and

>"Give more power to the government to punish people who does things that I don't approve of"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkUdZ8CDLLM

Nye is a walking advisement for Agenda 21 climate change denier conspiracy theories that global warming is a ruse to empower the government, line the pockets of the elite, and to control the masses like livestock.

If we want to do something about CO2 emissions, we have to give this son of a bitch the boot and promote real solutions to the problem like carbon-neutral forms of energy that isn't dependent on the weather or time of day.

[Anonymous No.9254876]

>>9249918 (OP)
Bill Nye is a fucking piece of shit. This man has done more to discredit climate science than Wattsupwiththat.com and Climategate combined.

>"We need a carbon tax to redistribute wealth"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg [Embed]

>"No to nuclear power"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNdigt30Ucg [Embed]

and

>"Give more power to the government to punish people who does things that I don't approve of"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkUdZ8CDLLM [Embed]

Nye is a walking advertisement for Agenda 21 climate change denier conspiracy theories that global warming is a ruse to empower the government, line the pockets of the elite, and to control the masses like livestock.

If we want to do something about CO2 emissions, we have to give this son of a bitch the boot and promote real solutions to the problem like carbon-neutral forms of energy that isn't dependent on the weather or time of day.

[Anonymous No.9254882]

Nicaragua has signed the Paris climate agreement, meaning that the US and Syria are the only two countries not to be giving the accord their support.

The deal unites the world's nations in tackling climate change.

www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41729297

[Anonymous No.9254908]

>>9254633
>Its effects are supposed to be mostly immediate.
Not really, it takes about 10 years for the feedbacks to activate, and then that warming carries through for the hundreds of years it takes for the CO2 emission to be reabsorbed.

>But, in the last 20 years, global temperatures have not changed, according to satellite data
This is the oldest trick in the book, cherrypicking the timeline to start at El Nino to decrease the trend, and it STILL fails. You are intellectual scum, you have to know that by now.

[Anonymous No.9254918]

>>9254882
>US and Syria are the only two countries not to be giving the accord their support

From 2005 to 2015, per capita CO2 emissions decreased by 10%, an average of one percent per year, without signing any treaty. Under the Paris Agreement, this would not be enough for the US and the cuts would be more draconian but not for countries like China and India, which under the same Paris Agreement, would be allowed to increase their CO2 emissions until 2030, which is plenty of time to get an extension or a new agreement that would let them increase their emissions.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/09/Campbell.pdf

The solutions to AGW is technological. It won't come from bureaucratic blowhards.

[Anonymous No.9254923]

>>9254633
>In addition to lowering their projections every edition
More lies.

> they provide estimates for how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by various GHG's. For CO2, they say somewhere between 33% and 66%. A 33 point window is NOT settled science.
I'd love for you to provide exactly where the IPCC says this considering that the only time such an interval appears is when it is used is to describe what the confidence interval "about as likely as not" means statistically. It has nothing at all to do with how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2.

How much of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 is not even a relevant statistic, since the vast majority of the greenhouse effect comes from the normal composition of gases that has made up the atmosphere for millions of years, which keeps the Earth temperate. It's the percentage of the change from that natural baseline which is relevant. But of course these basics are far too nuanced for your troglodyte understanding of the subject.

>For asserting that quasi-crystals exist, Dan Shechtman was called a quasi-scientist by Linus Pauling, kicked out of his research group and told to "go read the textbook." He was right. Everyone else was wrong.
Question, how do you know he's right? Because scientists figured out that he was right. Instead of telling me how climatology is wrong, you are just writing extremely ignorant, long debunked lies about it. You are no Dan Schechtman. You are excrement.

>Facts smashing the consensus.
I am eagerly waiting for you to stop having a tantrum and bring a single fact to support your delusions.

>Alarmists are wrong to call global warming a catastrophe.
The only one who has been shown to be wrong here is you, over and over and over and over again. Do you have any shame? Apparently not.

[Anonymous No.9254927]

>>9254639
>So you're telling me we still have glaciers covering most of north america? Wooly mammoths didn't go extinct from natural warming?
So you are telling me you still don't know the difference between an ice age and a glacial period? Even though it's been explained to you? Why are you so fucking braindead stupid?

>You literally overlook the very little you know about the world to arrogantly claim victory. Your ego blinds you.
Projection: The Post.

[Anonymous No.9254929]

>>9254643
> The claim that the warming trend is 100% manmade is absurd on its face.
How is it absurd? Once again, you are talking about what you KNOW you have no knowledge about. You KNOW you have not researched where and how this figure was calculated. You KNOW you are lying. Scum.

[Anonymous No.9254934]

>>9254649
>The point is scientists are human and will do what it takes to secure grants.
Idiots like you are human and will make up whatever fantasies you need to to ignore the cold hard evidence right in front of you in order to preserve your pathetic ideology.

The difference is that scientists have presented you with all the data and all the reasoning behind their claims, while you fail time and time again to respond to the argument. No one has any reason to believe you, and it's solely your fault.

[Anonymous No.9256442]

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-5