Climate Change BTFO Forever

But the temperature data was collected improperly, so all of that isn't happening.

give me a real source or fuck off to /pol/

It means something else is causing those things and not "climate change". We need to reassess what is happening and why. Pollution can cause environmental problems, obviously. The climate changing/Earth heating up is not correlating to what humans are doing though. At least not to the extent currently being parroted in the media.

but they made various mistakes in collecting the temperature data, so all of that isn't happening

Been telling you idiots on /b this for years. It's all about money for "research." Always has been. In the 80s, it was a huge hole supposedly in the ozone layer. Now somehow man caused the earth to over heat. Yeah ok. Kys libtards.

>give me a real source or fuck off to /pol/
Why is the content of the article bad? It is detailing an interview with a first and reporting on a NOAA scientist talking about methodology issues with the data provided.

>Trump is climate change denier
>Trump somehow associated with frog meme magic

I'm not a Trump supporter, and I don't believe in the "meme magic" bullshit, but you gotta admit it's kinda spooky how well this old anecdote fits right now.

...

Been telling you idiots on /pol this for years. It's all about money for "experts." Always has been. In the 80s, it was a huge hole supposedly in the lungs of tobacco smokers. Now somehow CO2 isn't causing the earth to over heat. Yeah ok. Kys /pol/tards.

That anecdote was based on faulty science.

Everyone knows climatology is the retarded stepson of actual science and probably should get a blood test to see if they are related at all.

Asking for a different source at the moment is foolish because the guy was whistleblowing directly to DailyMail and the article was just published today.

Telling me to go to /pol/ is just a kneejerk reaction instead of actually wanting a discussion. I am trying to be polite and be respectful, but you're just sticking your head in the sand to any criticism.

This is all clearly bullshit, which is why I invested in some soon to be beachfront property.

Holy shit. My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets and I literally screamed at her and hit the plate of chicken nuggets out of her hand. She started yelling and swearing at me and I slammed the door on her. I’m so distressed right now I don’t know what to do. I didn’t mean to do that to my mom but I’m literally in shock from the news tonight. I feel like I’m going to explode. Why the fucking fuck did they dupe the data? This can’t be happening. I’m having a fucking breakdown. I don’t want to believe the world is so corrupt. I want a future to believe in. I want the data to be just the way I envision it and to scam these countries of their precious tax dollars. I cannot fucking deal with this right now. It wasn’t supposed to be like this, I thought they were telling me the truth???? This is so fucked.

tl;dr

Why did he go directly to daily fail instead of a reputable media outlet?
>inb4 fake news outlets
Daily fail is much more fake.

>reputable media outlet
good one

You know what's funny, all the deniers get together at their climate conferences each year, and occasionally they pay a guy like Roy Spencer to speak at their conference. Often times Spencer is the most reasonable one in the group, despite him having many crank ideas about climate. Yet when Spencer gives talks showing how they use adjustments to better understand the data (he works with satellite data which requires a lot of error correction and temperature adjustments in order for it to be valid), or how they have to take into account errors in the instrumentation and alter the data to correct for those errors, he is lauded and praised by the climate deniers. Yet, when legitimate climate scientists engage in the same exact, valid scientific practices, it's a conspiracy, it's a fraud, it's "fudging the data," or some other such nonsense.

Or, for example, how they prop up Willie Soon, the oil-industry funded solar physicist in these conferences, a man who uses proxy reconstructions to explain how the sun is causing global warming (despite his work being ridiculed by his colleagues). But when other climate scientists like Michael Mann use proxy reconstructions on tree rings (like he did for the "Hockey stick") deniers shout at him saying how you can't use proxy reconstructions and that it's all bullshit.

Climate change deniers are full of these type of fallacies in regards to their understanding of climate science, it's actually laughable.

There's also nothing deniers hate more than being called deniers, which is also ironic considering how they have coined the term "warmist" and refer to climate scientists as "cult leaders."

Anyways, I saw this in another thread and read through it a few hours ago, well worth the read:
arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

What could be causing tropical zones to expand globally? Any ideas? Any ideas at all?

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ my friend. Man is so ignorant that he thinks he can control the climate! No man can alter God's perfection! The Bible says so!

I guess those just don't exist then, right? So why post a news article from any of them? It's the media, the media can't be trusted.

The DailyMail has a long history of posting shitty articles on climate change. It's the last place I would go for any information on scientific matters, let alone matters of any other variety.

>What could be causing tropical zones to expand globally?
Deforestation leaving holes in ecosystems for new wild life to adapt? Global transportation increasing the spread of non-indigenous species?

There are other possible reasons that aren't climate change.

>every day a /pol/tard comes to Veeky Forums and gets owned by his own arguments

It's not that none of them can be trusted (although I don't automatically trust anything I read and I think doing otherwise is stupid and lazy), it's that the messenger would be shot anyway. And honestly, many aren't going to carry what doesn't confirm their bias or give them a lot of grief they aren't interested in. So the first step of anyone feeling they need to fight against a narrative or groupthink is to just get it out there one way or another. Example: National Enquirer has a lot of nonsense but they've broken a few legit scandals too.

...

Granted all three are infested with people living in their parent's basement simply regurgitating the results of their google searches.

That anecdote was based in human nature.

We may boil alive without noticing it.

False. I live on my parent's second floor, we don't have basements where I live.

But they are all man made.

I'm getting tired of this bullshit, climate change denier steps into the white house, and suddenly...

Puff.

All goverment paid scientist agree, climate change ain't real. meanwhile my country it's burning down.

theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/chile-fire-firefighting-international-help

Literally.

>But they are all man made.
But you would go about fighting deforestation and fighting non-indigenous species in a way completely different way than climate change. We aren't fixing any issues unless we are putting the effort in the right areas.
>I'm getting tired of this bullshit, climate change denier steps into the white house, and suddenly...

>Puff.

>All goverment paid scientist agree, climate change ain't real. meanwhile my country it's burning down.
Where did I say anything like that? Now you're just strawmanning really hard. It is guilt by association and not good.
>theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/chile-fire-firefighting-international-help

>Literally.
It isn't clear what the fire has to do with you're saying to me. Are you trying to imply that global warming caused a fire like this?

It is important to remember that Chile as a country capable of keeping reliable records has only existed for several hundred years at best.

>theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/chile-fire-firefighting-international-help
How are forest fires proof for climate change? You do realize the reason why there has been a rise in fires is because of efforts by humans to control it? Nature has a way of keeping the forests in control, and eliminating surplus trees. This makes them less prone to fires. This is also why prescribed fires are a thing...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

The cartoonist doesn't even understand the "boiling a frog" idiom. Sad.

I'll explain the connection for you,

Higher temperatures, (as it's been registered that every summer they go up), dry the grass and the weeds, so they burn more easily.

Now we have a record of 80 simultaneous fires all over the country, and it's a big country.

There's also no point to make a controlled fire this time of the year and don't start with the insurance fraud, cause or right already tried that, and less than 3% of the areas are insured.

The part where the globe is warmer isn't evidence of global warming?
Unless every thermometer in the world is broken, most countries are experiencing record temperatures.

Correlation≠causation

>Higher temperatures, (as it's been registered that every summer they go up), dry the grass and the weeds, so they burn more easily.
I don't think that is inherently indicative of an inevitable trend in warming when records of such fires wouldn't have been reliably recorded. It hardly seems like conclusive evidence.

The globe isn't warmer than it has been historically. See The data was wrong, the actual temperature is much lower.

Look, I'm sorry, if don't take the time to calmly prove you wrong.

But the whole fucking place it's burning, and every biologist, geologist, astronomer and physicist that I know agree that it is a consequence of the rise in the temperature.

The whole country it's near the ocean so the temperature should be really stable, but it's going up at an stable rate.

Now are you going to accept this simple facts as evidence that maybe, just maybe, Me, You and every other human on the planet, have affected the climate at a global scale.

Wait, do you really think that NOAA is the only organization in the world collecting temperature data?

We're not the same posters, and forest fires STILL do not prove climate change!

...

>Look, I'm sorry, if don't take the time to calmly prove you wrong.
It's fine if you don't, but if you don't prove us wrong you can't reasonably ask us to believe you on your word. Especially on an anonymous image board. How can you expect people to accept "simple facts" if you can't provide them?

You haven't refuted the point of people potentially preventing fires that normally would burn out forests and would thus make fire less likely to happen in the future. Which would fit Occam's razor from someone who doesn't have knowledge on fires in Chile since before larger populations and after.

Last census showed that our population aren't increasing, besides that the number of fires and the temperature rise it's compared to the last five year meassurements.

But I don't think that really matters to you, I used a cheap resource like the fact that we are burning alive, to try to shake some sense into you.

If every field of science,(not only climate science), can measure a change, you should be more humble and accept that, even if it means to agree with liberals, it's in the best interests of anyone you have ever known, to stop defending climate change deniers.

Cause they clearly don't have your best interests in mind.

>Last census showed that our population aren't increasing, besides that the number of fires and the temperature rise it's compared to the last five year meassurements.
I think you missed my point. It's that before larger human populations and industrial scale efforts to prevent fires may have lead to overgrowth that is now unable to be stopped by previous measures. Not only that, our ability to record things like this could very easily lead to over reactions to things that may or may not have been normal in the past.
>But I don't think that really matters to you, I used a cheap resource like the fact that we are burning alive, to try to shake some sense into you.
It would matter to me if what you were saying proved what you asserted it did. You are already preparing to turn off the discussion and instead turn it into a lecture where you are the one educating the "misguided". This is the antithesis of science. Yet you tell me to be more humble.
>If every field of science,(not only climate science), can measure a change, you should be more humble and accept that, even if it means to agree with liberals, it's in the best interests of anyone you have ever known, to stop defending climate change deniers.
I will accept it when you provide proof that these fires are being caused by increases in temperature and not just ASSERT that experts saying it means it is right. Without even providing a link to any said experts opinions.
>Cause they clearly don't have your best interests in mind.
The repeated guilt tripping and condescension doesn't make your assertions any more true.

It's not warmer.

Your own image shows that it's been warmer historically than it is now.

Can /pol/ people read? This post shows that they cannot.

> posting the hockey stick like it means something
That was debunked almost a decade ago now. Get some new material.

Ok here it's study from the department of geophysics.

dgf.uchile.cl/rene/PUBS/articles-39442_pdf_Estudio_texto.pdf

Hope you can read spanish.

any actual historical temperature record, prior to the 80's is literally all guesswork

Micro-climate changes in urbanized areas accounts for the land temperature increase

>Hope you can read spanish.
I can't, but thank you for providing it anyways.

And here is the study made by the department of agriculture, for the impact on the crops.

odepa.cl/wp-content/files_mf/1388169148cambioClimatico.pdf

This shows how the rise in temperture may affect the areas that are being affected by the fires.

No one disputes that you dumb fucks. It's been warmer in the past, it's been colder, that's meaningless in the context of the current climate trend.

>debunked
Hate to tell you that you're wrong, and it's been confirmed by multiple independent studies since your so called "debunking."
rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.abstract
researchgate.net/publication/235885717_A_Reconstruction_of_Regional_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Yearshttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al
nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

From Marcott et al. 2013
>Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (

Also see:
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

Also Mann published a book on the controversy surrounding the "Hockey stick" a few years ago, good read if you want to understand it better.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_and_the_Climate_Wars

In terms of the warming here's a video summarizing the temperature anomalies using data from 1880-2015, notice how the temperature anomaly is highest in the arctic.
youtube.com/watch?v=gGOzHVUQCw0

Finally, here is temperature data showing the current warming trend from multiple data sources. Notice how they all correlated very closely with each other, despite the analysis being separate.

Tell that to Putin.

youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

we've long known the earth's climate has cycles. how many periods of glaciation? The whole argument is about whether or not humankind has influenced this latest upward swing.
One thing for certain (((they))) always want MORE. MORE money & MORE power. And this whole thing stinks of manipulation just to justify another tax.

If you make less than 900K/yr USD nobody in power is making enough money off you to give a shit.

We have this thread every day.

gud work

>Anyways, I saw this in another thread and read through it a few hours ago, well worth the read:
>arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data

Arstechnica has just gotten slapped by reality. By well documented climate data shenanigans
judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

So too late buddy, the cat's out of the bag. The eminent Climate Scientist Dr. Bates has blown the whistle. Of course,
at this, point, you will do everything to destroy his reputation. So lets have a look at it:

>Dr. Bates’ technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. His most highly cited papers are in observational studies of long term variability and trends in atmospheric water vapor and clouds.

>NOAA Administrator’s Award 2004 for “outstanding administration and leadership in developing a new division to meet the challenges to NOAA in the area of climate applications related to remotely sensed data”. He was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs). He has held elected positions at the American Geophysical Union (AGU), including Member of the AGU Council and Member of the AGU Board. He has played a leadership role in data management for the AGU.

PS The NOAA has also been caught completely making up "warmest ever" data in Africa. See the attached pic, impressive, huh?

ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201612.gif

>PS The NOAA has also been caught completely making up "warmest ever" data in Africa. See the attached pic, impressive, huh?
>ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201612.gif

Turns out it was all Fake Data. Pic related.
ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201612.gif

>Why did he go directly to daily fail instead of a reputable media outlet?
Why did Edward Snowden pick The Guardian instead of the BBC?
Why did Seth Rich go to Wikileaks instead of CNN?

Media outlets aren't infallible - they have agendas, they have biases, they have narratives that they want to push or suppress. If you're going to risk your livelihood by becoming a whisteblower, you need to pick an outlet that you know will at least publish what you have to say... even if not everyone will take that source seriously.

It doesn't help that we've come to a point where certain topics in science have become sacred cows and any critical discussion of them is basically a career-ending move, regardless of how valid the criticism.

>The findings of this paper on global warming are interesting, but I have some questions about the methods you used for measuring this data and your data reduction procedure.
>ANTI-SCIENCE FASCIST! WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE PLANET!?

>Different 'races' are more or less the same, but there are clearly small, but distinct, biological differences that warrant medical treatments, social strategies, etc tailored to their ethnic group.
>RACIST! GO BACK TO YOUR KKK MEETING!

>Maybe we should look at the long term effects of SRT before we start recommending parents put their six year-old on hormones and cut their penis off.
>BIGOT! TRANSPHOBE! HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE ON HER RIGHTS??

My plasma physics professor spent years trying to get someone to publish his findings on the problems and limitations of Langmuir probe measurements - even though nearly all of his criticisms turned out to be completely valid, nobody wanted to publish a paper that concluded that many measurements made by other researchers might not be valid.

Hurr, durr, when an eminent climate scientist Blows the Whistle, I'll post a meme.

That'll teach 'em.

Ah yes, the fraudulent Marcott. The guy who redated proxies to make the hockey stick temperatures go up instead of going down. It was his own way of "hiding the decline.| But he got caught. and had to walk his nonsense back in RealClimate, "Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

The irony here is incredible. user posted fraudulent data to defend data fraud. Would anyone other than a shill do such a thing?

PS Shill user will now proceed to say that the late 20th century data is irrelevant even though that data is exactly what's relevant.

Those "sacred cows" you're talking about aren't opinions or best guesses that are open to discussion or debate - they're scientifically accepted FACTS, and it's not our place as scientists to question them.

>they're scientifically accepted FACTS, and it's not our place as scientists to question them
You know... I've read a lot of stupid shit on Veeky Forums over the years... but this might take the cake.

>make sure not to fall for it

kek, why is /pol/ so bad at falseflagging? they're really obvious when they do it

Also, I hope you don't mind if I save that image ;)

>walk his nonsense back
Let's look at the rest of the quote:
>Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval
To put it in words you can understand, they were building a record of the past 11 kyr, and current warming hasn't been going on long enough to get a statistically robust look at it from their work. HOWEVER, the direct instrumental record confirms the warming trend independently.

>I took a photo of a skyscraper and it looks like the building narrows at the top
>>but the top is too far away! at this distance you can't be entirely sure!
>well no, but someone else took a photo of the top, and their photo proves that it's narrower
>>HA! So you ADMIT you can't be sure! WARMISTS BTFO

Save it, it's all yours my friend :)

Science holds itself to a higher standard. There's nothing wrong with questioning established explanations or theories, but you've got to have the evidence to back your counterargument up. Your professor had a theory which disagreed with the accepted consensus, and he had to work really hard to get enough evidence to make a convincing enough argument to overrule any concerns of those supporting the established model.

That's how science works - the accepted model stands until an alternative with better evidence comes along.

Now, with all that said, yes, there is undoubtedly a lot of social and financial pressure coming from groups outside the scientific community that are pushing for scientific conclusions that support their own agenda or narrative and make it easier for those they agree with and more difficult for those they disagree with. It's almost a universal truth that both sides of any issue will be guilty of this.

Drug companies suppress studies that say a given drug has problems, but opponents of pharmaceuticals or vaccinations will push unverified reports that a proven drug treatment is bad. Oil companies will quash environmental studies criticizing their practices, but groups like Greenpeace demonize alternatives like nuclear and natural gas because it doesn't fit their agenda.

I don't know if Bates's concerns are credible or not, but what is for certain here is that he clearly should have gotten all his proof lined up before he went public, and he should have picked a better fucking "news" outlet to go to than the Daily fucking Mail.

>SJWtards trying to steal /pol/ memes
what a time to be alive...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
who are you trying to fool dumbfuck? Veeky Forums can smell your disgusting stench from miles away.

>calls everyone who disagrees with him a SJWtard
>gets triggered whenever someone tells him to go back to

>calls entire Veeky Forums for fact-checking and calling out your desperate bullshit
>>gets triggered whenever someone tells him to fuck off back to

Are you the guy who spams 'SJWtard' over and over again whenever you get butthurt?

...

>SJWtard tears
ssshhh...nobody wants you here. leave Veeky Forums and go back to

>"""fact-checking"""
:^)

I don't get it, is the respond to linking to /pol/ supposed to be pro-/pol/ or anti-/pol/. What are the author of this pic's thoughts on /pol/? I need to know before I can accept it.

>accused of getting triggered whenever someone tells him to go back to >gets triggered EVERY SINGLE TIME
>muh SJWtard
>muh leddit
dance, puppet, dance!

Veeky Forums doesn't want to hear anything /pol/ has to say and /pol/ doesn't want to hear anything Veeky Forums has to say.

Both sides know the other are wrong about some important things.

...

>/pol/ and Veeky Forums are a person
And thats how you spot the desperate SJWtard shitter trying to invade Veeky Forums. We don't want your childish name-calling and your pathetic attempts to divide this board. Veeky Forums is in complete opposition with SJWtards and nobody will take you seriously here no matter how much you cry "pol"

Go back to whatever anus you crawled out of.

...

>ignorant /pol/ opinions
>gets laughed at
>"I'm not from /pol/, I'm the REAL Veeky Forums!"
>youhavetogoback.bmp
>"normies gettout REEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
>gets laughed at some more
>continues to shit his pants with rage every time someone references /pol/
every single day, three threads per day

SJWtards think unless you're pro-illegal immigration, pro-BLM, pro-fake sciences, pro-minority crime, pro-pedophilia, pro-feminist, pro-transgender, pro-jihad and pro-jewish supremacy you aren't Veeky Forums.

Thats why they call 99% of people they see here /pol/ and thats why everyone is their enemy. We made a daily ritual to make fun of SJWtards here on a daily basis and watch them cry "pol" everytime they get cornered. Join the fun.

you're just proving his point really...