Global Warming Thread

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

I am torn between whether or not this is complete bullshit propaganda, or if it's factual. What do?

All urls found in this thread:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html
https://youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/03/21/heavy-california-rains-par-course-climate-change/
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/23/sea-level-expert-rips-study-claiming-fastest-rise-in-2800-years-study-full-of-very-bad-violations-of-observational-facts/
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/10/new-science-scandal-us-climate-report-edits-out-highly-embarrassing-section-temps-warmer-in-1920s-30s/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/10/new-science-scandal-us-climate-report-edits-out-highly-embarrassing-section-temps-warmer-in-1920s-30s/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/burrow-project-gerlich-and-t-have.html?m=1
https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368?journalCode=phgb
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-115.59,71.99,1106/loc=-116.014,67.051
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
http://retractionwatch.com/
https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/
https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-temperature-fraud-matters/
https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@kizzmybutt

why don't you read the scientific papers for a start?

notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/
notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Factual.
But like anything, it's used by ignorant marketers to make stupid trends and sell unrelated products and do anti consumer moves with GW as their shield.

Same with environmentalism.

Both are factual and very important, but the general public is literally too stupid to do things right.

Remember thst these people are mainly millenial hipsters that "love green movments" , hate consumerism, but yet they drink starbucks and have the latest iPhones

StonedTime
StonedTime

@TalkBomber
I have read way too much I think most of it is bullshit, i can't be sure when there are plenty of papers that show contradicting trends. both sides seem to be completely biased towards confirming their position

eGremlin
eGremlin

both. Climate change is factual and humans are somewhat responsible but there are other factors at play and it's hard to isolate a single parameter to measure its effects. It's a very normal thing that has been happening since the beginning of the earth and the rising sea levels and temperatures increases are not really worrying as "scientists" try to make everyone believe

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@eGremlin
@TurtleCat
The fact that everyone in the media shills this topic really hard makes me suspicious that this is all just a meme intended to get people to do shit.
I understand that humans do contribute to climate change, I just don't think this shit has any real significance

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

@StrangeWizard
Well, it's a pretty big deal.
CO2 levels are at 400PPM now, highest in any registered atmosphere probe from different geological layers.

And we know that the Greenhouse effect exists, and the temperature rise is also true.

Now, this trend picked up starting at the kndustrial revolution.
We have all the evidence to point that human activity is damaging the planet in many ways.

Media is shit. Period. The government should enforce much harsher measures, but they're pussies because they want to branwash the people into voting for then again. Instead of what the earth needs.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@kizzmybutt
It is in fact true that the earth is warming in a faster hate than ever, and it seems really likely that the Humans play a large role in that heating.

Models considering only natural sources of greenhouse gases can't explain the rate of reating, but modeling with human contributions does.

Also, there is industrial propaganda to try to deny or make climate change seem less worrisome than it is, the same doubt mongering happened when:

1. Cigar vs Cancer relation was first found, the Tabacco industry made a massive propaganda campaign to discredit that.

2. Sulfur polution causing acid rain - same thing again

3. Second hand smoking causing cancer- same thing again

4. The Hole in the ozone layer was linked to CFCs - same doubt mongering again

And now it is climate change that is being merchandised against, and the people behind this are basically the FUCKING SAME (ex: Fred Singer)

You can find sources for this, and more about this stuff, in the great "Merchants of Doubt" from Naomi Oreskes, a really interesting and revolting book

Booteefool
Booteefool

@TurtleCat
anti consumer moves
marketers
Wtf? Give me an example

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

@StrangeWizard

I just don't think this shit has any real significance

The significance is buried beneath the rhetoric. Two of the biggest problems climate change will bring forth is a series of paradigm shifts in how diseases will spread and the reduction of accuracy in weather forecasting by rendering collected data years past useless due to more radical patterns.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

@StrangeWizard
The media actually hardly talks about it compared to how big the problem really is. The media also completely ignores the ecological side and that makes the problem look not as bad

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

@Crazy_Nice
Another example
Myron ebell
Besides being a paid sociopath for big tobacco and the fossil fuels industry, that claims the endangered species act is tyrannical, he also lead Donald trumps EPA transition team.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Stark_Naked
400 ppm

400 per 1,000,000

What is the LD50? 50,000ppm
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

The only people in favor of government intervention are those leftists and 3rd world pooNloo's like this fag who want to destroy your 1st world lifestyle.

Ice core data shows this is not dangerous unique or "harmful to the planet". These people are Ecoterrorists.

cum2soon
cum2soon

Quite funny to see how many people in Veeky Forums ignore the scientific comunnity and good evidence and trust "alternative facts"

likme
likme

@cum2soon
Globalists and their alternative facts are scarey and not funny.
@Crazy_Nice
warming
1 degree F warming +/- 3 F
muh false equivalency
these are unrelated and also not as settled as you imply

This is why no one takes you seriously.

hairygrape
hairygrape

@eGremlin
Climate change is factual and humans are somewhat responsible
Climatologists agree that humans are mostly responsible for the warming trend since the industrial revolution. What information is telling you otherwise?

but there are other factors at play and it's hard to isolate a single parameter to measure its effects.
That doesn't mean we don't know to a good level of certainty how much warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions and other forcings. We can measure that directly via radiative spectroscopy.

It's a very normal thing that has been happening since the beginning of the earth and the rising sea levels and temperatures increases are not really worrying as "scientists" try to make everyone believe
No it's hardly normal. It's the fastest rate of warming in the paleo record. Consider that the fastest warming prior to this is interglacial warming over ten thousand years, and is an order of magnitude less than current warming. It's hardly normal for humans to pump record GHGs into the atmosphere this quickly.

Techpill
Techpill

@SomethingNew
What is the LD50?
Wow I have never accused anyone of being a shill but the massive irrelevance and misdirection before your argument leads me to believe you are one.

Snarelure
Snarelure

@Stark_Naked
@Crazy_Nice
Suppose the earth is warming! How is that a bad thing, this leads to more vegetation, sounds like a pretty good solution to population growth and deforestation

Emberfire
Emberfire

@cum2soon
The community was overtaken by communists user. the community had a good reputation which leads to shills, just fucking shills everywhere

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@hairygrape
climatologists
Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy? This line of reasoning is offensive to Veeky Forums
good level of certainty the temp increase
No you dont, the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation.
Fastest warming ever
This is a lie. The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were

Overall you got a nice troll, but there is never raw data supporting your dire warnings to stop eating meat and driving an H2.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

@Techpill
POO

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Snarelure
Suppose the earth is warming! How is that a bad thing, this leads to more vegetation, sounds like a pretty good solution to population growth and deforestation
Yes because everyone knows deserts have the most vegetation!

It's a bad thing because humans are adapted to live in a certain type of climate, and the ecology we rely on is adapted to live in a certain type of climate. If you rapidly change that climate, that ecology does not have time to adapt. This is why many of the major extinctions of the past are tied to rapid changes in the environment. Not to mention that rising sea levels will damage the infrastructure humans have built on the coast and having to shift agricultural infrastructure is costly. We know the effects will be negative, and we know that the benefits of mitigation far outweigh the costs.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

@TurtleCat
oh bullshit, it's big oil using the same playbook that tobacco used earlier
Even some of the spin doctors that still are alive, are at it still, spewing shit to a new master

https://youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@ZeroReborn
cheeky cunt, deserts can exist at any temperature, as long as their is no water, the increase in temperature would help it by accelerating the water cycle

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@StrangeWizard
I'm a pretty sceptical person but I think this is one of the very few topics where people, including those who work in media, are genuinely worried for the long term survival prospects of both our species and others, given we're not migrating to other planets any time soon, there already being plenty of wars and conflicts and CC is only set to make matters worse. I mean there's no shortage of corruption, greed, stupidity and whatnot in this world but even non-scientists must occasionally give thought to the distant future. Of course on the whole they keep pumping out CO2 and over consuming like there's no tomorrow but then there's every financial, social and cultural incentive to do so (Ie: how spending is massively encouraged) and somehow that just weighs more than any long term considerations, on the whole.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@GoogleCat
t. salesman who wants to sell you a farm in death valley

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@TalkBomber
Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
I asked you what information is telling you otherwise. Instead of telling me you whine that I'm not allowing you to interpret it. Of course you are allowed to interpret anything you want, however if you won't share your reasoning I have no reason to believe anything you say. That's how Veeky Forums works.

No you dont, the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation.
I don't know what you're even referring to. Which estimates? Which instruments?

This is a lie. The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were
It is happening according to temperature record and it is the biggest according to the temperature record. Again what is telling you otherwise?

Since you won't share your data and reasoning, I'll have to assume you have none.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@Snarelure

That's like asking why a forest fire near a village is a good thing. Yeah it clears the growth for new plants but also kill the people living there and burns down their homes.

Supergrass
Supergrass

@ZeroReborn
rising sea levels
7.3 billion fucking keks, the deserts and the soil will absorb all of the displaced water, essentially acting as dessicants.
also the water cycle will just run faster, more water in the atmosphere, more rain, said rain evaporates

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@New_Cliche
death valley maybe not,
northern africa, and middle asia, hell yes

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

@GoogleCat
cheeky cunt, deserts can exist at any temperature, as long as their is no water
Yes that's exactly my point. Global warming causes more water to evaporate from the soil and water sources and less regular precipitation in the world's agricultural centers. It doesn't "accelerate" the water cycle, it increases the severity of droughts and flooding in critical areas.

King_Martha
King_Martha

@Stupidasole
Forest fires occur due to sunlight not hot weather, muh activation energy faggot,
also CO2 will help with the sunlight

5mileys
5mileys

@Sir_Gallonhead
when did this

cum2soon
cum2soon

@Supergrass
7.3 billion fucking keks, the deserts and the soil will absorb all of the displaced water
Ah yes all those coastal deserts...

And yes the soil will eventually absorb the water after it floods coastal cities. That doesn't actually help at all. You have the reasoning abilities of a toddler.

also the water cycle will just run faster, more water in the atmosphere, more rain, said rain evaporates
Yes, just look at California's ever increasing cycle of droughts and flooding to see how great it is.

askme
askme

@5mileys
turn into this

Bidwell
Bidwell

@5mileys
@askme
Is there a coherent point in there or are you having a stroke?

massdebater
massdebater

@cum2soon
you idiot do you understand how circulation works, the increase in temperature just increases the amount of water in circulation

Inmate
Inmate

@Bidwell
The point is that most of the water lies in muh oceans and that the increase in temperature just increases the distribution of rainfall

idontknow
idontknow

@ZeroReborn
Deserts occur adjacent to mountain ranges that block water vapor from jet streams... NOT muh global warming.
if you rapidly change the environment
You assume your theory is valid without supporting it.
sea level
The rate of rise is less than the rate of of concrete degradation in marine environs. Literally not an argument.
@PurpleCharger
This is a false equivalency logical fallacy. Conflation makes you appear dumb.
@Fuzzy_Logic
This is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
@New_Cliche
Desert formation is actually understood. Youre wrong.
@Ignoramus
You are attempting to deny agency to anyone who's smart enough to read and interpret data. A "card carrying climatologist" would get the same fallacies and tricks thrown at him too, this can be easily observed in the media with underhanded attacks on any climatologist who doesn't say what you want. Reminds me of Google engineer who got fired for stating biological facts on gender. The left is insane and uses intellectually dishonest tactics to silence reason and truth.

likme
likme

@massdebater
No it doesn't "just" increase the amount of precipitation, it affects the timing and type of precipitation which in turn leads to droughts and floods. This was predicted by climatologists 30 years ago avid we are now living it:

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/03/21/heavy-california-rains-par-course-climate-change/

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

@Inmate
But it doesn't just do that. I've already explained this to you.

Playboyize
Playboyize

@kizzmybutt
Entropy you nigger

TreeEater
TreeEater

@kizzmybutt
muh ice caps
Is this enough reason to abandon the 1st world and give all our food and resources to those poor african chilrrens? Is my 1st world lifestyle inherently evil? What's your end goal, to drop white nations 10 pegs down in order to raise africa and POO-istan just 1 peg?

I didnt believe them at first but /pol/ was right.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@Ignoramus
Not him but neither of you have provided sources I believe.

Emberburn
Emberburn

@TreeEater
Pol is always right

Evilember
Evilember

@idontknow
Deserts occur adjacent to mountain ranges that block water vapor from jet streams... NOT muh global warming.
That explains cold deserts. I'm talking about warm deserts, which cannot retain moisture due to heat. Try to keep up.

The rate of rise is less than the rate of of concrete degradation in marine environs.
Yes because the rate of concrete degradation matters, not the actual cost of surrounding your coasts with ever increasing amounts of concrete, the production of which emits large amounts of CO2 which in turn exacerbates the problem which is being fixed.

You are attempting to deny agency to anyone who's smart enough to read and interpret data.
You are illiterate, since I asked for the reasoning and data which led to these claims and all you retards do is whine about it Instead of telling me how the research is wrong.

Flameblow
Flameblow

@Playboyize
You have no argument and you know it. You lose, scum.

WebTool
WebTool

@Carnalpleasure
Climatologists have not provided published data and research for their claims? I am simply asking for the reasoning and data which led him to the opposite conclusion of the published consensus.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

@Flameblow
Kill yourself.
The argument is that the heat will make water more fluid on the planet if all of the waters go to the fucking oceans then it results in massive precipitation over landmasses that don't get water and the land masses that do have water will lose water due to heat, the water will be distributed, for fucks sake please tell me you understand entropy

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Evilember
If that was you demonstrating your ignorance of desert formation you shouldnt pretend you are now an expert. Thanks for the laugh at your expense though.
concrete
You keep pretending like sand and portland cement is expensive, or that inches of sea level rise is an issue, but the co2 comment made me chuckle at your naivety again..

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@VisualMaster
the earth is an isolated system.
What a moron.

JunkTop
JunkTop

@Crazy_Nice
What about lead gasoline?
@Lord_Tryzalot
paradigm shifts in how diseases will spread
Last winter was mild, above average temperature and then in the spring the media was saying that insects like ticks and mosquitoes will be bad because the mild winter.

Unrelated question. what about carbon sequestration? I remember years ago seeing something in scientific american magazine like a carbon scrubber, but where is it?

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@AwesomeTucker
It can be viewed as an isolated system being supplied with heat

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@BinaryMan
If that was you demonstrating your ignorance of desert formation
You're the moron who claimed all deserts are rainshadow deserts when in reality most deserts are not.

You keep pretending like sand and portland cement is expensive
You keep making up strawmen. Cement and Saabs are not expensive, building barriers to prevent flooding over the entire coast is. Far more expensive than simply mitigating climate change.

or that inches of sea level rise is an issue
Inches of sea level rise is huge, yes.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@CodeBuns
An isolated system being supplied with heart is not isolated you utter moron. And it destroys your argument that entropy on earth must increase.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

@Stupidasole
The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that the earth gets heat, fuck off with terminology, it is a system nonetheless

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Dreamworx
The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that it's not isolated
Wow, what an insight. You really helped your argument and convinced everyone tagging you know what you're talking about.

P.S. the earth also gives off infrared heat, you fucking dunce

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Crazy_Nice
infrared
My dick also gives off infrared.
You're anal on the technical shit, you know the fucking argument you dunce entropy related, look at the earth as a whole.
The problem is that you don't want to explain to me why my reasoning is wrong

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

@SomethingNew
You're anal on the technical shit
Your argument relies on the assumption that entropy on earth must increase. Clearly that is false. Your argument is not simply technically false, it's logically incoherent.

Techpill
Techpill

@lostmypassword
It's supposed to increase, prove that it wouldn't increase, thermodynamics nigga check em

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@kizzmybutt
What do?
Produce less waste, recycle shit, etc.
Saving the planet starts at home©.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@PackManBrainlure
Kek

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

@Techpill
It's supposed to increase
No it's not. Go back to high school you fucking moron. Only the entropy of the isolated system containing earth is supposed to increase, and it does, since the sun loses energy. This is elementary stuff.

Emberburn
Emberburn

@SomethingNew
What is the LD50? 50,000ppm

What are you fucking retarded? I'd smash your head with a rock if you were anywhere near me

SniperWish
SniperWish

@Burnblaze
what fucking system containing the earth.
Earth is the system in question if the system is supplied with heat that it cannot lose according to you caggots, then entropy increases. If you say that the earth can lose the heat significantly to the universe then you don't need to worry about global warming, global warming is about trapping heat, heat Increase will go towards increasing entropy.
Go back to middle school retard

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

@SniperWish
If you say that the earth can lose the heat significantly to the universe then you don't need to worry about global warming

I guess that's why we're all frozen solid right now

eGremlin
eGremlin

@BlogWobbles
The earth is being supplied with heat constantly by the sun, you caggots are saying the earth is going to have more heat than is usually supplied due to atmospheric change, what are you even on about. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling shill

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@Burnblaze
only the energy of the isolated system containing earth is supposed to increase, and it does, since the sun loses energy
jesus fucking mohammed in the benis you are retarded.

Δ S = Q ln ( T2 / T1 )

the earth is a good calorimeter, it can take in heat and keep it .

RavySnake
RavySnake

@Snarelure
Droughts lead to famines
Famines lead to conflict
Conflict leads to displaced populations
Displaced populations lead to shitskins moving in next door to you

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@RavySnake
Well the thing is, it doesn't lead to droughts, it actually has the opposite effect I dare say

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@ZeroReborn
Well you're wrong about that

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@Fuzzy_Logic
actually it leads to more rain, more flooding and more droughts.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

@Ignoramus
Yes bb butt that's only initially, it reaches equilibrium eventually (equilibrium between dry and wet areas)

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

@Fuzzy_Logic
look, the heat increases the amount of water in circulation at any given instance, which may lead to a seesaw pic related is the disparity of hydration over time

SniperGod
SniperGod

The higher amount of CO2 has actually led to greening. The Earth is greener now than it has been in the past, and our CO2 level is not even particularly high compared to Earth's history. Plants love CO2.
The question is can we survive higher CO2 levels. To which I would say. Yeah. CO2 isn't harmful to humans except when there so much of it we can't get enough oxygen and we asphyxiate. And the levels of CO2 to do that are absolutely enormous. For that I point to two factor.

Greenhouses operate at 5000ppm CO2. Workers do not require breathing masks or breaks for fresh air.
Submariners. They frequently operate at 9000ppm CO2 levels. They are similarly fine.

The sea level has been steadily rising since before recorded history as well. There is no indication the rising sea levels are accelerating or increasing at anything but the same slow, steady trend under real world observation of the sea level. Computer models are not hard data and yet the models are frequently referenced in regards to rising sea levels.

SniperWish
SniperWish

This thread is just sad. I thought that the general Veeky Forums population was a little above average in terms of knowledge and common sense but god dammn i'm impressed of how bad this place is

And it's not even shitposting but people who believe they know about what they're talking like
@SomethingNew
It's just sad.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

@SniperGod
Citations
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/23/sea-level-expert-rips-study-claiming-fastest-rise-in-2800-years-study-full-of-very-bad-violations-of-observational-facts/

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@SniperWish
ecoterrorists
I think that dude was shitposting

TechHater
TechHater

@kizzmybutt

like others have said in this thread

read a fucking scientific paper. the evidence is overwhelming. 97% of scientists agree that it exists. dont buy into normy memes and get joked about by anyone with more IQ than they have chromosomes

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@SomethingNew
LD50
LD50 of inorganic lead is 70 mg/kg (using a rat model). Since it would take a whole 50 grams or so to kill you, I'm sure you won't mind if there's a few milligrams in the paint on your walls, the food you eat, and the dragon dildos you shove up your ass. after all, if it's way less than the LD50, surely nothing bad could happen as a result!

@TalkBomber
Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
post grad geoscience degree here. the problem is that you're not reading and interpreting data. you're hearing stuff that's been filtered through other sources. if you disagree, go ahead and post the primary sources from which you get your info.
the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation
literally a lie. also, you don't know how MOE works with a large number of measurements.
The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were
this is the fastest warming in the ice core record, to be certain.

@idontknow
@Evilember
you are both faggots. warming leads to Hadley cell expansion, which pushes subtropical deserts to higher latitudes, eating up what previously was arable land.

@VisualMaster
more evaporation != deserts suddenly getting more precipitation.

@CodeBuns
an isolated system
being supplied with heat
what part of the word "isolated" do you not comprehend?

@Dreamworx
The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that the earth gets heat
literally a lie. there is significant mass exchange between the Earth and its surroundings.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

Disband the capitalist system.

Help China.

Save the planet.

Obey your leaders (not prumpf though).

Report any suspicious activity to the Authorities.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@BinaryMan
literally a lie.
The intended idea is that it's getting a specific amount of heat and trapping it and releasing a specific amount of heat.
significant mass exchange
is said mass exchange really significant or just minute.
isolated
the idea is to put it in perspective, it was the wrong term to use
muh evaporation
most of the water that will evaporate will evaporate from the oceans, and will precipitate on the deserts. resulting in the distribution of water favouring the fucking areas without water. muh water cycle

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@Stupidasole
Hi lunatic

Booteefool
Booteefool

@Raving_Cute
Just to elaborate on > literally a lie
the concept of a static transfer of energy being ignored in a model isn't new, it doesn't matter where the energy comes from retards, what matters are the energy levels

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@Techpill
@Emberburn
@SniperWish
@BinaryMan
400 ppm
So if that is such a bad comment, make me terrified of 400 ppm. Because when put into perspective it sounds like nothing and then none of you even bothered to rebutt. Why is this so bad when literally nothing changes. Make me swear off my sinful 1st world life and join antifa. I'll wait.

Emberfire
Emberfire

@kizzmybutt
I am as well. I've read the papers, I understand the overall theory. Know very well what the machinery of nature overall can handle and what processes can occur to bring on a chain of ecological collapse. Ocean acidification relates, rising sea levels and their economic / social impacts (read: we're animals, and we cause structural problems when resources are scarce. Mad Max style, possibly.), global cooling, etc.

All that. The overarching mechanics however, I'm uncertain about. What if this is being done, through many other means, on purpose? What if it's being misrepresented to control populations and culture in various ways, UN Agenda 21 style. Is someone benefiting, is it strictly opportunistic? Are other things that are happening an attempt to purge humans before we do any more damage
(eg cell phones, wi-fi, etc, compromising brain function, fertility, and capacity to produce viable offspring)?

There are many questions. Its purported nature is likely incomplete and disingenuous. Just like the organic market. Organic food is almost inherently superior, but it became a thing, now it's corrupted and mostly just marketing bullshit for the masses. You really have to look, and even then you generally don't know.

hairygrape
hairygrape

@SniperGod
The higher amount of CO2 has actually led to greening.
Which has little relevance to humans since it doesn't help agricultural production. CO2 is not the limiting factor in agriculture, and it produces warming which negatively effects the limiting factors. More CO2 will harm agricultural production:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf

The question is can we survive higher CO2 levels.
No, the question is whether more CO2 will be harmful, and whether mitigating that harm is cost effective. Survival is an idiotic straw man.

To which I would say. Yeah. CO2 isn't harmful to humans except when there so much of it we can't get enough oxygen and we asphyxiate. And the levels of CO2 to do that are absolutely enormous.
This is so braindead stupid you must be a shill. Is your brain broken? The harm from CO2 emissions is from the warming it causes, not asphyxiation. Address that and stop spreading this puerile misinformation.

The sea level has been steadily rising since before recorded history as well.
Yes and it's rising much faster now. Funny how all of your arguments are conveniently missing key facts such that they lead to an incorrect conclusion.

TreeEater
TreeEater

@hairygrape
CO2 is bad because of warming? There is no warming.

Snarelure
Snarelure

@hairygrape
Did you ignore the article purporting using hard measured evidence that the sea level's rise has not been acelerrating and how the scientist is calling all the models that show that bumpkis based on faulty data models and not observed change?

Emberfire
Emberfire

@Deadlyinx
hurr you can't make me scared because it doesn't sound scary
Yeah that's the point you utter buffoon. If you are too stupid and too delusional to understand what climatologists have already explained to you in very simple terms, you are not going to be scared. Your stupidity and delusional mind do not somehow reflect on the validity of scientific facts.

WebTool
WebTool

@TreeEater
If you are going to ignore basic science and data I suggest you get the fuck off this board.

whereismyname
whereismyname

@Snarelure
The article claims Mils Axel Morner is a sea level expert when he is just a delusional individual who has been spreading the sane debunked lies for over a decade: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

Please don't try to pass off fringe blogs as "hard data."

farquit
farquit

@whereismyname
Hm alright. Sorry.

Skullbone
Skullbone

@kizzmybutt
What do?

Just because Al Gore wanted to make money off of fixing the problem doesn't mean it isn't a real problem.

Emberburn
Emberburn

@Emberfire
@Deadlyinx
This guy once again completely ignored an easy question. Whats so bad about 400ppm? Seems small and insignificant considering nothing changed.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@Emberburn
There's nothing bad about 400ppm. It's the rapid rate of warming that is harmful, not the amount of CO2.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

@TalkBomber
what if the papers were written by normies though

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

@StrangeWizard
thats because youre mentally challenged, unless your body specifically evolved to live in different conditions than the rest of the 6bil people on earth

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@Dreamworx
This. There are certain things that just disqualify a paper from any kind of consideration, and this is one of them.

More research is need to determine the percentage of a given paper that was in fact generated by a normie. Only above 80% non-normie will be considered, and even then it's on thin ice.

idontknow
idontknow

well if this thread is anything to go by we will still be arguing over the reality of climate change when the massive impact of india, china, and brazil turning into first world nations obliterates the ecology and our civilization ends

TechHater
TechHater

@idontknow
agreeeeeeed

Methshot
Methshot

@idontknow
india 2030

cum2soon
cum2soon

@TalkBomber
@TurtleCat
@Stark_Naked
@Crazy_Nice
@cum2soon
@Carnalpleasure
@SniperGod
@SniperWish
@TechHater

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/10/new-science-scandal-us-climate-report-edits-out-highly-embarrassing-section-temps-warmer-in-1920s-30s/

Bidwell
Bidwell

@kizzmybutt
Global warming factual but the causes and solutions are propaganda.

TreeEater
TreeEater

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@StonedTime
I have read not nearly enough to know what the fuck I'm talking about
FTFY

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@cum2soon
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/10/new-science-scandal-us-climate-report-edits-out-highly-embarrassing-section-temps-warmer-in-1920s-30s/

"NEW SCIENCE SCANDAL: US CLIMATE REPORT EDITS OUT HIGHLY EMBARRASSING SECTION – TEMPS WARMER IN 1920s & 30s"

Seems highly trustable and scientific...
By the " Global Warming Policy Foundation"

A "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4]"

I mean, you are getting your data from a Think Thank, not scientific sources.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@Soft_member
hey guys the temperature is increasing rapidly but only look at this year involving AL GORE

@cum2soon
Hey guys temperatures are increasing rapidly but only look at the years when the middle of America was turned into a giant desert by improper farming

The stupidity and dishonesty of deniers is truly astounding.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@Fried_Sushi
And he is also looking at like, 2 Decades at a time most of the time... Really understand the time scale and all.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@Fried_Sushi
am i right this is just as retarded as people who say natural climate change is fake although their most people who believe that also believe in 15 sexes/genders

Booteefool
Booteefool

@Stupidasole
title of graph identifying it as Greenland ice core and not global temp removed on purpose
improperly identifies "present" as 2000 when it means 1950
doesn't show temperature from 1855 to now, i.e. doesn't show the entire period of global warming
Truly astounding.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

@Booteefool
95 = 1950
holy fucking shit

Soft_member
Soft_member

@TreeEater
Utter garbage

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/burrow-project-gerlich-and-t-have.html?m=1

happy_sad
happy_sad

@Boy_vs_Girl
"Present" in paleoclimatology means 1950 you dumb fuck. Can't you read?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

w8t4u
w8t4u

@happy_sad
( years before present 2000 AD)
1950 was 95 years before 2000 holy shit i had no clue , wow

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@w8t4u
Let me explain this to you in a way even you might understand:

THE WORDS ON THE RED AND BLUE BOX WITH SQUIGGLE ARE WRONG

THE WORD P-R-E-S-E-N-T MEANS 1-9-5-0, NOT 2-0-0-0

PUT THESE INTO MAGIC MATH BOX: 1950 - 95 =

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Deadlyinx
( years before present 2000 AD
i'm done keep going on buddy keep going ignore everything that was presented so that you can feel better about yourself , you aren't smart when you can't even read get over it you fucked up , now grow up please and learn to read most of us did when we were 3 - 4

Emberburn
Emberburn

@Crazy_Nice
You forgot leaded gasoline.

This is just another in a long line of corporate lies to try and make money off ignorant consumers by pretending there's no problem until a disaster occurs.

OP, I am an Earth scientist, I can explain everything you need to know about global warming, why we know it's happening and why we know it's human caused. The best place to start is here.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

It is the best condensed explanation of global warming that I've found so far. If you have questions I'll be around for about another hour or so.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@Emberburn
cites harvard
at least cite a .gov website if you want people to take your word

DeathDog
DeathDog

@TalkBomber
The source is irrelevant. The data speaks for itself.

This is simply the best condensed explanation of global warming I've found. It goes through a quick explanation of the photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, and the steffan-boltzmann equation. None of which is in dispute anywhere. It gives a basic college level understanding of climate I find 99.9% of everyone, from proponents of climate change to deniers are wholly unaware of.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@DeathDog
source doesn't matter
let me just cite articles stating how Jews did 9/11 since source doesn't matter only if it agrees with my opinion

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@ZeroReborn
Go ahead. I bet anything you cite will be found to be horribly flawed easily discovered through simple research.

I don't understand what your argument is supposed to be. In science the person speaking doesn't matter, what's being said matters. Go read a scientific paper published in a major journal and tell me where it states what the person's qualifications for publication are. You will find none, ever. To find out about a person's qualifications you'll need another source than the paper. A college website or something. The journals don't give a rat's ass who's publishing only whether their research is valid.

Science is about DATA, not who tells you what to believe..

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

@AwesomeTucker
implying scientific data will have an opinion attached to it
science is an opinion less matter it is what it is not muh opinions gov websites give you direct opinion less info , just cite the gov website and we can end this boring bs unleess you want to cite buzzfeed while your at it

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

@AwesomeTucker
The guy is unhinged, just ignore him.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@BunnyJinx
unhinged
just because you were proven wrong doesn't mean you need to get salty

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

climate cult threads are the best
they always devolve into shitposting

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

climate change denialism is a russo-chinese scam
russia WANTS the permafrost to melt so they can start mining in siberia

obviously that's why donald trump rejects it, wake up you libtard sheeples

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@Sir_Gallonhead
They've been talking about it for decades. Flipping between warming and ice age concerns. Whatever helps the sell the most commercial time. The problem is that Gore and his alarmist ilk ran it into the ground and their predictions never materialized. You can't cry wolf like that for fifteen years.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

@Harmless_Venom
Flipping between warming and ice age concerns.
No they haven't, we're in an ice age.

Illusionz
Illusionz

@TalkBomber
I won't listen to one of the top five research institutions in the nation!
I'll only listen to THE GUBBERMINT
remember when deniers kept refusing to read anything from a .gov domain, claiming that it was all a government hoax? and now that Orange Daddy is in power and is having his mooks take down all the data and reports they can, suddenly NOW the deniers trust the government. pic related.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@kizzmybutt
Well either thousands of mostly underpaid climate scientist have been sitting at their desk for the last 50 years drawing indecent stick figures only to make up a graph or two at the end of a lazy working day.
Or.
All of these people did their job as scientists, made hypotheses, conducted experiments, peer reviewed their works and came to the public with their findings once everyone agreed and now some big corporations didn't like the results and tried to start a campaign to discredit science.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@SomethingNew
you know 200 ppm vs 0 ppm are the difference between a dead, frosted earth and all of what we have now?

Booteefool
Booteefool

@CodeBuns
That is a fantastic false dichotomy.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@Booteefool
I'm confused as to what side you're batting for

StonedTime
StonedTime

@TalkBomber
am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
i wouldn't expect a geologist to properly interpret a biology paper, and i wouldn't expect a physicist to understand a psychology paper.

being able to properly interpret scientific data isn't just running over some goal mark in education in another field, it requires you to be familiar with the history of the field, the accepted theories, the current open questions, and which hypotheses have been rejected by evidence.

so if you're not properly trained in the discipline, you're allowed to read and interpret the data, but you're not allowed to act like an authority on the subject

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@SniperGod
You forgot how more CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which is at this point pretty much irreversibly going to make corals go extinct.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@idontknow
Considering china is doing more about climate change than the US right now, I'm optimistic.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@Booteefool
That is a fantastic false dichotomy.
I don't see how.
Either you trust the scientific method and its conclusions or you have to assume that every single person working in it is either lying or hilariously incompetent. I don't really see much of a third option there.

Also your meme image isn't particularly accurate. /pol/ and infowars didn't even come up.

whereismyname
whereismyname

@Deadlyinx
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368?journalCode=phgb
Either you trust the scientific method and its conclusions or you have to assume that every single person working in it is either lying or hilariously incompetent. I don't really see much of a third option there.
Are you serious? Do you honestly trust the conclusion of linked feminist study?
@Carnalpleasure
What do you think after accusing a warmie of a logical phallacy?

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@whereismyname
You seem to have some trouble reading, friendo. Here let me help you:

Either you trust the consensus of climatologists and its conclusions or you have to assume that every single person working in it is either lying or hilariously incompetent.
Now try to tell me feminists are climatologists.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Harmless_Venom
They have been talking about Climate change without explaining it. Same with al gore. The corporate controlled media also gives way more air time to "public relations" than it does to people who know what they are talking about.
The ecological side is rarely mentioned, I assume because 99% of people are too illiterate to understand. The break down of synergistically maintained order is a mystery to pop culture.

BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND ANTHROPOGENIC PHASE SHIFTS UNRELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE ARE JUST AS DANGEROUS AS CLINATE CHANGE AND MAKE CLIMATE CHANGE MUCH WORSE.

likme
likme

@Dreamworx
In thermodynamics a system can be:
a) open, if both matter and energy transfer is possible through its boundary;
b) closed, if only energy transfer is possible;
c) isolated, if neither matter, nor energy transfer is possible.

Methshot
Methshot

@Dreamworx
@likme
thinking earth systems are thermodynamic systems
what is life even lol?
Dunce

farquit
farquit

@Sir_Gallonhead
@StrangeWizard
@Stark_Naked
@idontknow
@Crazy_Nice
The problem is the media sensationalizes and reduces it to the point of not teaching about climate change, but just saying "if you don't believe in it yet, you're just a stupid rural hick that should go die." Who the fuck, out of anyone who still has any skepticism of this, is going to listen to that? No one. The media is destroying the climate change discussion by turning it into propaganda machine of peer pressure. They, along with our politicians, have politicized a topic that should have broad support from both sides.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

All the deniers can post are news articles and blog posts
Kek.

MPmaster
MPmaster

So do Climate change deniers not believe that CO2 is a green house gas or do they not think humans are the ones causing CO2 to increase?

hairygrape
hairygrape

@StrangeWizard
The fact that everyone in the media shills this topic really hard makes me suspicious that this is all just a meme intended to get people to do shit.
Do you doubt the reality of the Iraq war because it was in the news all the time? Of course not, because the media cover big stories a lot.

Snarelure
Snarelure

@BinaryMan
LD50 of inorganic lead is 70 mg/kg (using a rat model). Since it would take a whole 50 grams or so to kill you, I'm sure you won't mind if there's a few milligrams in the paint on your walls, the food you eat, and the dragon dildos you shove up your ass. after all, if it's way less than the LD50, surely nothing bad could happen as a result!
Or a bullet flying towards your head -- that can't weigh more than a gram, that's far lower than the LD50.

DeathDog
DeathDog

@SomethingNew
You're anal on the technical shit
No shit: you're talking about science

eGremlin
eGremlin

@farquit
THIS
Why do we have to have the same level of discourse as the jersey shore in the media that most people rely on to inform themselves. It's just not fair, social media can't help because it has been so thoroughly framed as a partisan debate.
Yeah, big business is actively trying to manufacture doubt with public relations campaigns, but it is the corporate media that gives them air time. It's the corporate media that sensationalized it into a two sided debate.
It's just not fair, people need to wise up and take control of the means of production for mass media.

JunkTop
JunkTop

@TreeEater
There is no warming.
Fake news

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@MPmaster
The only thing causes earth to heat up is CO2 and nothing more which is all humans fault

Yeah, the ice age ended because of all our excessive CO2 emission. Damn those factories in the roman ages releasing greenhouse gases and heating earth up like that.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

Is the climate getting warmer?
Yes.
Is it a major world problem that needs attention?
Somewhat. In some areas definitely.
Is it completely overblown by hippy treehuggers who make mountains out of molehills on the regular?
Absolutely.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@kizzmybutt
What the fuck is even the point of these threads? People always bicker about if its true or not but thats it.

What if it's real? What's the next step then? Why is nobody talking about this?

girlDog
girlDog

@StrangeWizard
Yeah, heh, those dumb climate scientists probably never even heard of Milankovitch cycles, unlike us enlightened /pol/acks.

cum2soon
cum2soon

Will carbon capture ever be an option? Also, no matter what happens, I refuse to stop keeping old cars on the road. Their contribution becomes smaller by the day as non-enthusiasts adopt more efficient vehicles.

TechHater
TechHater

@Fried_Sushi
Is it completely overblown by hippy treehuggers
Explain how it is overblown.
It seems to me that the people who are most concerned are climate scientists and ecologists.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

@StrangeWizard
Yeah, the ice age ended
When exactly was that?

I love it when you retards show how stupid you are by pretending to know what you're talking about.

Lunatick
Lunatick

@Garbage Can Lid
The only reason people deny climate change is because they are afraid of having to accept that it can't be solved by their political ideology.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Stark_Naked
And we know that the Greenhouse effect exists,
If you understood how it works you would know that CO2 greenhouse effect is very limited.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

@Crazy_Nice
Limited compared to what? Is it or is it not what climatologists claim?

farquit
farquit

OK, guize, let's try this. Post a fuckton of papers PROVING that the Earth is still getting warmer since 2010 and we can chew through them.

I've seen a lot of stupid shit, mostly ado with (scientists) saying something along the line of:
"to the untrained eye, these numbers appear to be decreasing, because their numerical value is decreasing, however, if we apply polynomial regression of order 7 we can see that the function obtained continues to increase long after the measurement timespan, thus, when science was considered, the temperatures have been proven to increase"

5mileys
5mileys

@Boy_vs_Girl
Greenhouse works base on change of frequency of EM radiation. The IR span that CO2 captures is very narrow. CH4 can capture much more IR and so can H2O. When you surpass that maximum it has no effect.

Bidwell
Bidwell

@5mileys
@Boy_vs_Girl
But the problem of humanity is that those physicists, who didn't want to study, studied climatology. Sad how time and again, the lowest species assumes control and fucks everything up.

iluvmen
iluvmen

@farquit
Post a fuckton of papers PROVING that the Earth is still getting warmer since 2010 and we can chew through them.
Why would you need "a fuckton of papers" when the temperature record clearly shows this? More importantly, why is the trend since 2010 important?

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@5mileys
Greenhouse works base on change of frequency of EM radiation. The IR span that CO2 captures is very narrow. CH4 can capture much more IR and so can H2O. When you surpass that maximum it has no effect.
And? Are you claiming climatologists don't know this? What are you saying which is different from what climatologists conclude?

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@iluvmen
@Deadlyinx
Brave Sir Denier ran away!
Bravely ran away, away!
When reason reared it's ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled!

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

@whereismyname
Do you honestly trust the conclusion of linked feminist study?
some sociologists said some dumb shit about glaciers in a shit-tier soft science journal
therefore we can't trust climate science
dickhead

WebTool
WebTool

@whereismyname
But the image you posted was specifically showing how deniers use the same tired, irrational arguments in every thread and get btfo the same every time.

Or did you just not actually look at it? That would, of course, be exactly as expected of you.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@TurtleCat
these people are mainly millenial hipsters that "love green movments",
hate consumerism, but yet they drink starbucks and have the latest iPhones
You seem to have made quite a study of "these people".

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@AwesomeTucker
I bet anything
there is no wagering at Veeky Forums, Grandpa

Spamalot
Spamalot

@ZeroReborn
Lmfao

Fuck u stupid sci niggers

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

@Fried_Sushi
Nice proof backing up your claim there. I see you are an expert on the subject and posted evidence to support your claims.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@StrangeWizard
Ice age ended during the Roman times
How are you this dumb sir?

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@StrangeWizard
Look at all these people who die of natural causes, stupid murder fags think Ted with his head blown off must have died to a bullet!

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@StrangeWizard
The ice age ended because of an increase in CO2. Do you understand how increasing CO2 levels might be a bad thing?

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

@Fried_Sushi
For fuck's sake, the current ice age never ended. You are referring to glacial periods within the current ice age. Learn the terminology, everybody.

Methshot
Methshot

@farquit
Maybe its just the republican's fault for being retards, no?

Snarelure
Snarelure

@haveahappyday
Yeah, OK I'll give it to you. I blame Hollywood though for confusing interglacial cycles with ice ages

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@SomethingNew
I went to sleep, really. Sad you have to resort to personal assaults, but such is the way of more primitive human specimens and it is to be taken into account when dealing with social matters.

@Deadlyinx
No, the climatologists don't take that into effect. I bet some of them understand it. There is only one paper insofar that I have read that actually deals with finding out what part of heating is attrituted to CO2.

@iluvmen
I see a nice unsourced graph on Veeky Forums. How does that explain the e-mail found in climategae (yes, it's illegal to view it, wait for CNN), where two scientists talk to one another how problematic the lack of temperature increase is.
inb4 sauce it
look up climategate emails, preferably without google.

Lunatick
Lunatick

@Raving_Cute
@Deadlyinx
Most climatologists chanting only makes sense if you think that global temperatures are linearly dependent upon CO2 emission levels.

MPmaster
MPmaster

@Raving_Cute
climategate
You mean the climategate emails that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing?

Spamalot
Spamalot

global memeing
implying there exists a globe

farquit
farquit

@MPmaster
You mean the climategate emails that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing?
To the people who think for themselves the emails clearly prove that the "anhtropogenic CO2 self destruction" is mere propaganda.

For the more gullible it was ofcourse brought to court (what the fuck do lawyers and judges know about scientific method), were it was "debunked" (what the fuck is there to debunk).

Now ofcourse, the easiest way to move forward is to decide that the media (studies have shown that journalists have the lowest IQ among all professions btw) has thouroughly analysed the emails and somehow concluded that they should not be read nor considered by the public.

If you are not one of the type who wants the media to tell you you are intelligent and if you are not one of the type to believe the media that something must not be read them ofc you're not buying it. I work in academia and if anyone in my team was as unprofessional as the authors of climategate emails they would be fired immediately.

Bidwell
Bidwell

@kizzmybutt
Pretty sure this graph is the one where a climate skeptic got the author to admit that there is no statistical confidence in that spike at the right end. I remember seeing the XKCD comic by some fruitcake on facebook and looking into the cited authors and learning this.

RumChicken
RumChicken

@Garbage Can Lid
We all can see you originally @Deadlyinx
referred to the scientific method in general, not limited to climate science. Your feeble failed attempt of backtracking and editing older posts can be read like an open book.
@Sharpcharm
If science is corrupted to some degree, you would be a fool to take the word of any scientist for granted.
@WebTool
The image reflects the type of low-level discourse of both sides on Veeky Forums very well, which is why I posted it.
@iluvmen
@iluvmen
Hmmmmmmmmm...
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@Bidwell
no statistical confidence in that spike at the right end
The data at the right end are *data*, for which your concept of "statistical confidence" (whatever the fuck that is) has no relevance.

Nojokur
Nojokur

@Lunatick
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

FastChef
FastChef

@Raving_Cute
No, the climatologists don't take that into effect.
Liar.

There is only one paper insofar that I have read that actually deals with finding out what part of heating is attrituted to CO2.
Ah well if you haven't read it, it must not exist, since you are the expert on these things.

I see a nice unsourced graph on Veeky Forums.
When the source is right there in the image... There seems to be a theme here of you mistaking your ignorance of something for its nonexistence.

How does that explain the e-mail found in climategae (yes, it's illegal to view it, wait for CNN), where two scientists talk to one another how problematic the lack of temperature increase is.
Why would a graph of global temperature have to explain your delusional conspiracy theory? You're really grasping at straws here. I provided what you asked for and now you are shifting the goalposts. And you didn't answer my question: Why is the trend since 2017 important?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

@farquit
clearly prove
Enlighten us

Evilember
Evilember

@kizzmybutt

Honest Reality : Environmentalism is an Anti-science Cult @ Amazon books

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

@RumChicken

@Garbage Can Lid
(You) #
We all can see you originally @Deadlyinx
#
Wrong.

referred to the scientific method in general
Where is the scientific method in the paper you posted, retard? You truly are illiterate.

Hmmmmmmmmm...
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
When your "paper" is so notoriously bad even snopes has an article on it:
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

askme
askme

@FastChef
le graph of global temperature maymay

Global temperature can be defined in infinite ways. Look here and tell me how you would measure the "Earth's temperature":
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-115.59,71.99,1106/loc=-116.014,67.051

You're really grasping at straws here. I provided what you asked for and now you are shifting the goalposts.
You provided an image on the internet. Plenty of those.

In fact, even too many. Seems that any one can push an omnious graph these days. What matters is if it holds up
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

idontknow
idontknow

@askme
In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.
Citation and rationality needed, where is the evidence for this?

likme
likme

@askme
I can say this. As being politically non-conforming to any party I find that debating climate change with those "in the know" is much like debating everything else with politidrones. You can prove it and show it, but in the end you're just wasting time, because they have made up their mind and are just pushing a larger political agenda. The fact is that Earth has been through far worse than industrialization and that the CO2 in coal was in the atmosphere before. In 30 years this will all be over, but let's face it. Climate conformists will not admit to have been wrong.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@likme
As a politically non-confirming scientist who's primary source of information on the topic is science. You are retarded

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@askme
graph starting at 1998 El Nino and ending in 2014 in order to cherry pick a trend
You are scum.

Global temperature can be defined in infinite ways.
It is only defined one way, the averaged temperature across the Earth. It can be measured accurately in many different ways, but all of these ways agree that there is a warming trend between 2010 and now. Once again you have avoided the question I asked, why is the trend since 2010 important? Obviously you thought you could cherrypick that trend to show no warming but you were so pompously ignorant that you just assumed that without even checking. So instead you post another cherrypicked, arbitrary trend and post it. Truly pathetic.

You provided an image on the internet. Plenty of those.
Being obtuse is not a response.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality
See @haveahappyday
for the snopes article debunking this nonsense.

Truly pathetic how deniers can only post the same handful of widely debunked junk over and over again. They know it's false but they post it anyway.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

@likme
The fact is that Earth has been through far worse than industrialization
The earth will be fine, I'm more concerned with how humans will be. Humans and the ecology we rely on have never experienced warming this rapid, sea level rise this rapid, ocean acidification this rapid. Why are you talking about what the Earth has experienced?

the CO2 in coal was in the atmosphere before.
Millions of years for CO2 to accumulate in coal = the same amount being released over a hundred?

Dunning-Kruger in action, everyone

MPmaster
MPmaster

@CodeBuns
I am a more or less climotology-illiterate bystander, but posts like these make me feel sane after all the denial propaganda thats seeping through the cracks.
Like , is there any argument at all that holds up for their side?

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@MPmaster
Just read about climategate.
@idontknow
The link to the paper was already posted. But I am a polite person that is going to post it again for your convenience.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
@haveahappyday
The scientific method and peer review has become a joke in the year 2017. You can either inform yourself on Climategate to observe heavy corruption in its process as well as reading this site:
http://retractionwatch.com/
Also you made yourself a fool by trusting Snopes:
https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@askme
RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

Booteefool
Booteefool

@MPmaster
is there any argument at all that holds up for their side?
No. 20 years ago before a lot of satellite data was in you could still legitimately have doubt but not any longer. The only way you can deny man made climate change any longer is through ignorance.

happy_sad
happy_sad

@MPmaster
Pic is blurry as fuck, what's the deal?

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

@TurtleCat
Whoa there gramps don't hurt yourself.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

the last time the planet had similar temperatures compared to the present, was 120 000 years ago, when sea level was 6 to 9 meters higher

the last time the planet had the present CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, sustained for thousands of years, was over 2 500 000 years ago, when sea level was 20 to 25 meters higher

askme
askme

@Booteefool
The only way the AGW lies can be maintained is by cooking the books.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-temperature-fraud-matters/

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

@askme
Let's go through the scumbag denier checklist:
improperly baselining at a single year to propagate difference in that year throughout the data
check
starting at El Nino
check
claiming that only satellite data is uncorrupted, even though satellite data clearly shows the same trend
check

I'm glad that you finally admitted global warming is real, so now we can move on to what causes it.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@GoogleCat
The scientific method and peer review has become a joke in the year 2017.
Oh, so then you should be able to show me using an argument the flawed climatology that invalidates AGW. And I should not be able to destroy that argument in a few seconds. So far you've utterly failed.

Also you made yourself a fool by trusting Snopes:
So instead of responding to the argument, you are just going to attack the source, while using the "Foodbabe" as your source. Ironic.

Are deniers really this stupid or is this a troll?

Lunatick
Lunatick

@askme
satellite data = RSS

RSS is a piece of bullshit

@Fuzzy_Logic

SniperGod
SniperGod

@CodeBuns
El nino increased global temperatures.
El nino happened in 1998 and that's iti
Most graphs that show warming intentionally finish in 2000.

SniperWish
SniperWish

@Fuzzy_Logic
So when one instrument does not fit your hypothesis, it must be adjusted in order to make it fit? How typical of climate scientists.
Furthermore your video was pathetic; full of cheap strawman arguments.
@Lunatick
Have another (You) you are so desperate for.
@BlogWobbles
You completely missed the point. No doubt you did not even scan the article I linked.
@AwesomeTucker
Oh, so then you should be able to show me using an argument the flawed climatology that invalidates AGW. And I should not be able to destroy that argument in a few seconds. So far you've utterly failed.
Climategate
So instead of responding to the argument, you are just going to attack the source, while using the "Foodbabe" as your source. Ironic.
Your own argument was it is Snopes, so you lose.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@SniperWish
When Carl Mears, the lead scientist behind the RSS satellite data says he made a mistake, why do you trust the data instead?

Protip: "it's what I like" doesn't count

idontknow
idontknow

@SniperGod
So you don't even understand why it's misreading. Hilarious. Deniers start the graph at El Nino because it makes the first part of the graph warm in order to reduce the trend. Why not show all the satellite data if you think it's correct?

Methshot
Methshot

@idontknow
Why not show all the satellite data if you think it's correct?
Implying I even have satelite data.

Firespawn
Firespawn

@idontknow
The warming graphs are focused on 1950 to 2000.
The non-warming graphs are generally focused of the past 20 years.

Why would that be?

Because the Earth has STOPPED GETTING WARMER.

girlDog
girlDog

@Methshot
life obeys thermodynamics too

takes2long
takes2long

@Firespawn
Because the Earth has STOPPED GETTING WARMER.
or because the majority of the heat has gone into the oceans rather than increasing surface temperatures

Spamalot
Spamalot

@takes2long
15 joules
(+/- 20 joules)

happy_sad
happy_sad

@Firespawn
bullshit

@Fuzzy_Logic

Inmate
Inmate

@Methshot
implying that's what I said
Why do you think being obtuse is a valid response?

likme
likme

@Spamalot
wrong
Changes in the heat content of the oceans. Source: Abraham et al., 2013. The 2-sigma uncertainty for 1980 is 2 x 10^22 J and for recent years 0.5 x 10^22 J

Playboyize
Playboyize

@Firespawn
The warming graphs are focused on 1950 to 2000.
Which graphs moron? Its been warming since the industrial revolution. All the temperature records show this.

The non-warming graphs are generally focused of the past 20 years.
The trend over the past 20 years is warming. The only way you get no warming is by deliberately cherrypicking endpoints, which does not do anything to argue against the fact that the earth has been warming since we started releasing massive amounts of CO2.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@askme
Hmmm, so the Caspian and the Aral seas are re flooded? Nice.

King_Martha
King_Martha

@TalkBomber
Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
Good Heavens, no. Physics Nobel laureate Giaever expressed doubt about global warming and was immediately dismissed as ignorant. A Nobel prize just isn't enough.

This line of reasoning is offensive to Veeky Forums
Apparently we need a licence to differ and they are just not handing out those licenses.

farquit
farquit

@King_Martha
A Nobel prize just isn't enough.
by your standards, having a Nobel in Literature means that someone can speak authoritatively on astrophysics

that's just silly.

5mileys
5mileys

@King_Martha
Ah well if a NOBEL LAUREATE says 1+1=3 it must be true

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

askme
askme

@Stupidasole
That's like asking why a forest fire near a village is a good thing.
No. It is not. Unless you too think we are approaching LD50 for CO2.

He asked you one simple question and like a low cost shill you went in the wrong direction. As tactics go that was pretty desperate.

likme
likme

@King_Martha
Forest fires occur due to sunlight not hot weather, muh activation energy
Google [code]forest fires caused by lightning[/code]
Got this:
As many as 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Some human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, negligently discarded cigarettes and intentional acts of arson. The remaining 10 percent are started by lightning or lava.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

@WebTool
I am simply asking for the reasoning and data
And another user asked for your sources.

Nice deflection you got going there.

Emberfire
Emberfire

@King_Martha
forest fires also usually need a fuel source. plants that have died from intermittent rain and damaging storms are good fire starters

Evilember
Evilember

@New_Cliche
the moron who claimed all deserts are rainshadow deserts when in reality most deserts are not
Go on, please tell me more.

RavySnake
RavySnake

@PackManBrainlure
The most efficient thing is to put a lot of money into R&D and education so that industry can put together efficient solutions. Governments never do that part.

Tesla is enabled by a lot of high tech few care about like high efficiency batteries, high voltage and high power thyristors, etc. Over time we get the results, like better solar cells, better wind power (soon 10 MW), while the first generations are always expensive and unreliable.

Nojokur
Nojokur

@RavySnake
Governments never do that part.
except the recent explosions in solar power were only possible because of government subsidies on solar power and government loans to energy sector companies doing R&D

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@askme
LD50 for CO2

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@Poker_Star
Where?

5mileys
5mileys

Why do the mods allow this garbage on Veeky Forums?

The only argument these /pol/ retards have on climate change and the race/IQ subject is "science is a liberal conspiracy and everyone is being paid to lie."

This garbage belongs on /pol/ or /x/.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

@kizzmybutt
I've taken some classes on shit like that and the teacher was basically /pol/.
tl;dr yeah the earth is getting warmer and we MIGHT be helping it but it's a natural process, it's ok
we shouldn't chop down trees to plant stuff because trees take a lot from the soil, not even worth it, the soil won't have a lot of nutrients so not a good idea
fuck if the x y monkey and other species of whatever are dead, really doesn't matter(in a forest), all we need is the trees and plants doing their thing

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Trump saves us again

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@hairygrape
More CO2 will harm agricultural production:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf
Your source refers to grassland, not general agricultural output. Did you actually study the source you cited?

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@Fried_Sushi
Considering China appears to be fabricating data this is hard to believe.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

@StrangeWizard
Most plants and most agricultural products are C3. Read the paper.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@farquit
by your standards, having a Nobel in Literature means that someone can speak authoritatively on astrophysics
No.

He is a physicist. Thermodynamics, radiations and more are parts of physics. I have absolutely no idea why you try to bring literature into this.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

@Nojokur
You really have no idea about this, do you? Research in the technology predates the recent revolution by decades. People like you just look at the last few years and fail to understand the enormity of work that goes into this. Also the commercial R&D people had a degree and an academic foundation that didn't just pop up overnight.

Booteefool
Booteefool

@haveahappyday
user made a wild generalisation. I pointed out the error. Do you even know anything about falsifiability? I just need to point out one single error and his point simply implodes and should be discarded as radioactive waste.

hairygrape
hairygrape

@Fried_Sushi
That doesn't mean his arguments employ that expertise or are valid. And they aren't. See @5mileys

When you want to actually make an argument instead of simply attacking/praising sources, tell me.

Flameblow
Flameblow

@Fried_Sushi
I brought literature into this because you implied that having a Nobel was sufficient for speaking authoritatively on the subject. That statement is so silly it barely even merits a reaponse.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Nude_Bikergirl
Of course there's decades of research. That research would also never have left the lab and made it onto homes without government support. We would be where we were fifteen years ago, with solar only existing as specialty installations for special purposes, not large-scale facilities making up significant pieces of the industry. That was only possible thanks to government subsidies that made solar power competitive with fossil fuels.

idontknow
idontknow

@Booteefool
I pointed out the error.
The error was you misinterpreting the scope of the paper.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

@Flameblow
because you implied that having a Nobel was sufficient
No.

The point was that he had a Nobel in Physics. Really, is this so hard to understand? Stupid arguments like bringing in literature of all things, are what makes global warmerists look so stupid, making them their own worst enemies.

WebTool
WebTool

@BunnyJinx
The point was that he had a Nobel in Physics.
That point has nothing to do with the fact that his arguments have been proven false, which you continue to ignore.

Stupid arguments like bringing in literature of all things, are what makes global warmerists look so stupid, making them their own worst enemies.
Let's look at the arguments being made by deniers in this thread:

@eGremlin
@TalkBomber
@idontknow
@TreeEater
@Harmless_Venom
@Crazy_Nice
@farquit
@Raving_Cute
@Lunatick
@farquit
@likme
@Spamalot
@Gigastrength
Misrepresentation and denial of the facts (lying), then continuously failing to back it up with reason or evidence

@SomethingNew
@King_Martha
@askme
@Fried_Sushi
Red herrings

@Snarelure
@SniperGod
Ignoring any negative effect of warming

@Soft_member
@cum2soon
@askme
@askme
@Firespawn
Cherrypicking

@cum2soon
@TreeEater
@Stupidasole
@RumChicken
@askme
@GoogleCat
Long-debunked graphs and papers being posted over and over again, even though these people must be aware by now that they are wrong

@Boy_vs_Girl
@w8t4u
@Methshot
@askme
@StrangeWizard
Being obtuse in order to avoid responding to the argument, aka "pretending to be retarded"

@TalkBomber
@ZeroReborn
@PurpleCharger
@Raving_Cute
@GoogleCat
Attacking the source in order to avoid responding to the argument (Harvard is not a valid source! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah)

@whereismyname
False equivalency

Illusionz
Illusionz

@SniperWish
You completely missed the point.
The point appears to be that climatologists have "cooked the books" in order to create global warming, since there is a difference between satellite and thermometer data. But this makes no sense since the satellite data clearly shows a similar warming trend. Why would climatologists need to "cook the books" then?

No doubt you did not even scan the article I linked.
The article you linked contains this utterly misleading graph and several like it. Care to actually respond to the fact that the graph you posted is improperly baselined and cherrypicked? Or is that just the modus operandi of your ilk?

Climategate
Is a conspiracy theory created wholly by taking quotes out of context:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Try again.

Your own argument was it is Snopes, so you lose.
My argument was what Snopes said about it, you obtuse moron, which you STILL have not responded to.

girlDog
girlDog

@BunnyJinx
The point was that he had a Nobel in Physics.
which is a different field and says nothing about his expertise in climatology. the comparison to literature is completely valid.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

@Illusionz
different measuring devices have different inherent biases
WHO WOULD EVER HAVE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, IT'S A COMPLETELY NOVEL CONCEPT

iluvmen
iluvmen

@haveahappyday
different measuring devices have different inherent biases
That is exactly why you can't cherrypick the baseline at a year in which the two measurements are maximally divergent in order to propagate that divergence throughout the graph. Again, why did you post an improperly baselined and cherrypicked graph?

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page