Just think about it. If we can put out CO2 enough to change the climate, then we can just absorb it back in enough to change climate. Sure no one's bothered coming up with a way to yet, but if it really mattered then we could do it easily.
The real reason why liberals push climate change is to retard the economic progress of 1st world countries through energy restrictions so that 3rd world countries can surpass us. They want to end Western domination, and climate change is just another mean to an end.
Why have we let politics corrupt what could have been a reasonable field of science?
It would cost more to reabsorb the carbon than to simply not release it in the first place. You're paying for it right?
>The real reason why liberals push climate change is to retard the economic progress of 1st world countries through energy restrictions so that 3rd world countries can surpass us. So 97% of climatologists want their own countries to suffer economically?
And yes I saged this obvious bait.
Josiah Cruz
>Sure no one's bothered coming up with a way to yet, but if it really mattered then we could do it easily. Moron.
Sebastian Morris
First of all sage. Second of all
Wyatt Brooks
>If we can put out CO2 enough to change >the climate, then we can just absorb it >back in enough to change climate >bcoz putting in and absorbing back >are symmetrical operations no.jpg >we let politics corrupt What do you mean by "we", Peasant?
Aiden Ramirez
climate change policymakers are equivalent to pro-lifers in that their concern is for the unborn than the currently living. they want to enslave us to their taxes and regulations so that the unborn come into existence. sorry we have no obligation to future generations.
it's just moral grandstanding. sad it got this far.
Ryder Anderson
>climate change policymakers are equivalent to pro-lifers ... in the mind of the anti-abortion anti-warmist.
Levi Fisher
nope, pro-abortion and don't deny agw. i'm just not easily manipulated emotionally into doing things against my own self-interest unlike you people.
Gabriel Jones
yeah yeah and cigarettes don't cause cancer
Evan Martinez
i just want to see the planet burn
Connor Lee
Exactly how does implementing environmental policy affect the average person though?
Colton Rivera
>What is CCS
Logan Stewart
>The real reason why liberals push climate change is to retard the economic progress of 1st world countries through energy restrictions so that 3rd world countries can surpass us. They want to end Western domination, and climate change is just another mean to an end. This is too retarded, third world has more to gain by running on coal than 1st world countries, because coal is a low cost tech solution with a low cost fuel. First world already controls all the tech, so it doesn't matter if they run on coal or nuclear. Also, nuclear is only astronomically expensive because of unreasonable safety restrictions placed on it by left leaning conservatives.
You can nip a lot of developing countries by imposing unreasonable carbon emission restrictions that 1st world countries never faced on their way to 1st world status.
The reason BRICS formed was because the international bankers, under legislative pressure, stopped investing in developing countries' coal power projects. So, China saw an opportunity to create a bank that would invest in these essential projects.
>If we can put out CO2 enough to change the climate, then we can just absorb it back in enough to change climate. Even if it was possible, it's not easy to uncook an egg
>Why have we let politics corrupt what could have been a reasonable field of science? Get your head out of your idealistic autism infested asscrack. The world is politics, it's all a fucking game, I can tell that you have never worked in academia.
Jordan Morris
Leaving this here in case anyone doubts the science. Also, pic related.
>The real reason why liberals push climate change is to retard the economic progress of 1st world countries through energy restrictions so that 3rd world countries can surpass us.
John Hughes
>if it really mattered we could [reverse entropy] easily
Daniel Hill
>Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. Nice debunking.
Luis Brooks
>in case anyone wants to know the science: >spam links This is how a climate "scientist" discusses science. The only thing you need to take from this thread.
Isaiah Phillips
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows: The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming" The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)" Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [14] Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[15] Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along".[16]
Luis Bell
Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not".[17]
A new paper[18] by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".
How about we read the whole thing before shilling that there is a real consensus on whether or not humans contribute to climate change
Levi Thomas
>while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. >of those that did, i.e. not the 66.4% >he can't read. Sad!
Michael Taylor
This is how any scientist discusses science. You give references to back up a claim. Go back to /pol/.
Nathaniel Phillips
Sounds like someone doesn't want to know the science
Gavin Hall
you gots ta go back
Samuel Jackson
Okay, I read the whole thing. Thanks for wasting my time since nothing there suggests they were wrong.
>Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited as climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work Considering they looked at 12 thousand papers, I'm not surprised if they misinterpreted four of them.
>Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not".[17] BTFO. Anyone can talk shit, it means nothing on its own.
Not every paper related to global warming is about its causes. It doesn't mean the authors have no opinion on it. To find out the scientific consensus you would look at papers that actually do take a position on the issue.
Aiden Bennett
So since the vast majority of papers on evolution give no explicit position, I guess that means there is no consensus on evolution either. The more consensus there is, the harder it is to prove it!
Oliver Ortiz
I disagree, I don't deny climate science, but link-dumping does not help the discussion advance. Your average person is not going to want to read through long, terminology-ridden scientific papers published not for the public, but for scientists in their respective fields. Not only that, but many of your links require a subscription to the journal simply to view the study, and only allow the person to view the abstract. What you're doing is counter-productive.
Yes, even the Wikipedia article is well sourced and a great resource for learning the basics about the science.
Chase Fisher
>thinks climate deniers consider any of these legitimate sources
Sweet summer child
Nolan Rogers
I was actually going to mention that, they usually ignore NASA as a source, as well as any blogs actually run by climate scientists, like RealClimate. Then of course Wikipedia is never a valid source to these people in this scenario, because it is well sourced and says something they disagree with.
Most people that deny the science deny it simply because they are ignorant and choose not to understand the evidence. There are, however, professionals in the field that still deny it that some of the more advanced / informed denialists look to as authority figures, like Christy / Spencer and Lindzen. Even though the methodology of these three figures is often questionable and debatable. People like Spencer in my mind don't really have any credibility anymore.
Levi Howard
climate change is, all things considered regarding how it is presented, partially real, partially a hoax, and even partially anthropocentric.
however, there is no cause for alarm because of climate change; it's literally not a problem, not for us in the USA and europe.
in fact, climate change will HELP us a great deal, as it disadvantages developing nations, and improves the amount of arable land we have.
climate change will help us secure our control of the third world so that the future belongs to, and benefits, us.
Matthew Foster
What about hordes of rapefugees?
Jack Walker
We'll build a wall.
Caleb Brooks
Hello prick. Sorry, too late. The ground temperature has risen and methane release is accelerating. Methane is 40% more deadly than CO2.
The runaway greenhouse event has started. We are fucked and everyone knows it - deep down
Matthew Baker
Reminder that the IPCC skews results regularly to get funding and has NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL.
Coimate change is a fucking hoax. Just wait until they deploy one of thheir """""solutions""""" and hen fuck it all up inevitably because there wasn't shit wrong in the first place.
Also, there is literally no evidence that CO2 causes warming. NONE
Alexander Baker
>Reminder that the IPCC skews results regularly to get funding and has NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL.
You're right, they consistently omit likely feedbacks for political palatability
Christopher Diaz
t. /pol/ autist with zero citations for any of his baseless claims.
>Also, there is literally no evidence that CO2 causes warming. NONE Please stop wearing your ignorance as a badge of honor. No, it does not make you intelligent, it makes you look like a contrarian uneducated edgelord. What you are saying here is essentially that the greenhouse effect does not exist, this is something even the most ardent of climate denialists to not agree with. CO2 has been proven through chemical and physical experiments to induce a greenhouse effect, the first such experiment was back in the late 1800s by John Tyndall, who focused on studying the effects of radiant heat absorption of gasses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
Despite being a very small portion of our atmosphere, it contributes a very large amount of the greenhouse effect itself, from 9 to 26%. When sunlight passes through the atmosphere, and is reflected off the surface of the ground back into the atmosphere, it can hit a CO2 or other greenhouse gas molecule, causing the molecule to vibrate and give off heat in a positive feedback loop.
Also, you can directly link the industrial revolution / today's carbon emissions to the carbon in the atmosphere by isotopic ratios of 13C/14C: esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/
All you can do is parrot off the same meme's like "IPCC has no credibility" despite not backing up anything you say with any sort of evidence, contrary to what actual climate scientists do. You also might want to try proofreading what you type so it's not riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.
Jackson Myers
I'm typing on a tablet, so whatever.
And I don't mean that CO2 doesn't cause any warming, that's stupid. I'm saying that the impact by man-made CO2 isn't significant enough to be a cause for concern.
Adam Barnes
this triggers the climat alarmist
Mason Evans
>Just think about it. Stopped reading there.
Dylan Watson
this triggers the climate alarmists
Lincoln King
>doesn't know how to read a chart with multiple timescales
This triggers the climate deniers btw
Benjamin Thompson
>starts at 1970
WELL MEME'D MY FRIEND
>omg yesterday was cold and now it's hot GLOBAL WARMING CONFIRMED
Mason Lee
>starts at 1970
Oh yeah, I can see how that's way worse than starting at 1983
Aiden Sanchez
lmao
brainlet detected
Angel Lee
Not an argument
Daniel Cox
It is.
The graph that starts from 1983 is about predicted climate models for the future, whereas the next graph is about the observed growth.
Brody Thompson
It doesn't mean anything that it got a bit warmer since 1970, this says nothing about it being manmade, your shitty cuck graph proves NOTHING
Kevin Nelson
then we can just absorb it back in enough to change climate. Sure no one's bothered coming up with a way to yet, but if it really mattered then we could do it easily
Yes they have its this material they can make look like trees and one of absorbe more carbon then 1000 trees.
Gabriel Murphy
Ya it's kinda funny now that the mask is being pulled off these insufferable creatures. They always were bad at science, but it's just now no one wants to listen to them. Same with race, sex, abortion, god, etc. All of these inadequate atheist control freaks are losing it big time. They don't even understand their own self hate yet and it's a bit awkward and uncomfortable to see them without any self awareness still trying to tow the line in front of us as if they are the experts.
Nicholas Perez
Guys it was 2 degrees warmER yesterday then today. Global warming is real.
Jaxon King
>tow the line
This isn't The Empire Strikes Back bud
Mason Barnes
hail jesus! he's bery scientific!
Leo White
Oops I confused an idiom in my cell while at work. As if it doesn't represent what they're doing still.
Liam Adams
Jesus is at least logical.
>Guys wait wait, it's not global warming anymore, it's climate change! Didn't you get the memo??
Liam Hall
SHARE THIS! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!!! The ultimate real Red Pill >Algebraic proof >Alg((h))ebraic >hebraic
Have you swallowed the hardest red pill yet? So called ((science)) and ((mathematics)) are a jewish creation, an instrument to subjugate and destroy the white man. >create ((science)) >build a whole structure around it to make it look logical and reasonable >attribute every invention the white man achieved through his intuition to ((science)) >foster ((science)) to religious status and use it to subvert centuries long traditions and supplant Christianity >use ((science)) to push sexual perversion and loathing of the white man >use ((((scientific consensus))) to create the global warming hoax >use ((global warming)) to create the perfect tool of white genocide: carbon tax
Ayden Green
This is one temperature measurement, atmospheric troposphereic satellite data compared to CMIP5 IPCC.
With anything, you cannot simply ignore land-based temperatures, or ocean temperatures, both which are on track with climate model projections. Also, that is a corrected version of Christy's bad data as well, and it is still within the lower end of projections. UAH is University Alabama, Huntsville, which is where Christy / Spencer research from.
The analysis was gone by Gavin Schmidt, who works at NASA's GISS.
If you knew anything about the scientific process, you would understand why climate science is accepted at the peer-review level. >Abortion Why are you even bringing this up in this thread? Abortion is a political and religious, not scientific issue. >God Again, completely nothing to do with scientific thought or process. There are plenty of religious scientists, and plenty of non-religious ones. A good scientists separates his religious feelings / views from scientific work, which is solely involved in observed NATURAL, not supernatural phenomena. >Sex Here we go again with "all scientists are SJWs" or "all scientists hold SJW views," pathetic attempt to discredit science honestly. >Race Again, what is the point of even bringing this up in this thread? You've spent far too much time on /pol/ bud. >Muh atheists Fuck off back to already. No one even brought up atheism in this thread until you came around, and atheism has absolutely nothing to do with climate science or the scientific process.
Robert Sanchez
Good 1, now kill yourself before it's too late
Elijah Brooks
When did this transition happened?
Josiah Thompson
>implying
Hudson Harris
>peer review
Is that what you call it when all the engineering rejects and physics funkies get together and come up with a theory that keeps themselves employed?
I guess a carcass is peer reviewed by hyenas and vultures too.
Nolan Hill
If anything, this proves the entire thing is a hoax.
It's unbelievably funny that you think governments love and reward climate scientists
Elijah Miller
Alright buddy, you seem to have some kind of beef with the scientific process, and the way that science has been conducted for hundreds of years now. I guess we should just throw out every single innovation, every single breakthrough, every single observation that the peer-review process has brought modern society. I think we should throw away our understanding of particle physics, our understandings of subatomic particles, our knowledge of quantum mechanics. I guess we should scrap all scientific research into Fusion power, and scrap all R&D into new rockets and engine designs, because the scientific process that has led to their development is apparently corrupt because of a single scientific issue that you disagree with (based on no evidence).
I guess we should just throw out all the modern conveniences scientific engineering has brought to our lives, all the technology that basic principles in physics, chemistry and biology have brought us.
Let's throw out all the vaccines, all the antibiotics, all the medical advances of the past few hundred years because science hurts your little feelings because it says you, some random armchair autist on Veeky Forums, says its wrong ; ; muh hoax, muh IPCC, muh conspiracy.
Same crap over and over again in these threads.
Tyler Campbell
No, it actually implies both terms have been used consistently since the theory gained traction in the seventies.
Cameron Powell
Global warming is a complete hoax. The release of CO2 only makes it harder for sun light to reach us, which makes the earth colder. Maybe that's why they switched from global warming to climate change.
Adrian Harris
They're different names for the same thing, why are /pol/tards so obsessed with this particular terminology?
James Rivera
>they >switched
Matthew Murphy
No, actually they're different terms for separate closely related things. Global warming means that temperature is rising, globally. Climate change implies that climate is changing, without any global implication. Global warming leads to climatic changes.
Thomas Rogers
>beef with scientific process
No, I'm talking about the scavenger process you're referring to as peer review. See, the real scientists and engineers are like lions, and they really know how to hunt and kill. This is what happened with climate science. All the good interesting parts were already eaten. Then when that's gone, you get the scavengers coming in trying to pick any meat off the bones. Finally they resort to eating the inedible parts. That's what climate "scientists" (read: biologists, shitty physicists and chemists, opportunistic engineers, etc) are doing today. They are filling their bellies with rotten shit because they can't hunt.
Michael Williams
The way in which the climate is changing is that it's warming. Everything else is a consequence of that.
Ryan Rivera
No, climate is cooling in certain places as a result of global warming. This is why both terms are necessary.
Christopher Barnes
>See, the real scientists and engineers are like lions, and they really know how to hunt and kill.
I can tell you've met lots of real scientists and engineers.
Robert Cox
>same thing
Lol you guys can't even get your own lies straight, let alone your own story straight for which you fabricate your lies.
The goal posts were shifted from warming to change when they realized the long term trends might be indicating a cooling period after decades of alarming about loss of agriculture and mass extinction from the greenhouse effect.
Mason Allen
Fuck me standing, I don't think you've even opened a book before that wasn't filled with your delusions.
Jonathan Brown
>The goal posts were shifted from warming to change when
Indicate this point in time on
Aaron Rogers
The long term trends still indicate overall warming though
Joshua Martin
I am one (yes I do both engineering and fundamental science and have degrees in both areas).
Mason Clark
No they don't. Industrialization didn't even exist on the time scales you're clinging to lol. Yes, keep moving the goal posts as that's the only way incompetent scientists and engineers can keep a job and maintain funding.
Aiden Morales
>I do engineering
Into the box it goes
Gavin Moore
Sorry you can't comprehend the concept of different terms for the same thing.
We should use smaller words when talking to you.
Landon Rodriguez
What? You're pathetic. You haven't done shit in your sorry little existence.
Cooper Bailey
>I do both engineering and fundamental science Sounds like your more than qualified to lecture about climatology to people who do this shit for a living.
