Sup, Veeky Forums

I met Neil DeGrasse at the Museum of Natural History before. Nice guy.

ask him if we can do the same to his race as he did to pluto.

Ask if Carl Sagan smelled like fresh baked blueberry muffins. Because that's how I always imagine him smelling.

Ask him what is the most recent scientific paper he contributed to. Since there isn't anything he has contributed to it will be fun to watch him try and pull shit out his ass.

''What's a good product for American hair?''

...

As him that twitter question when he was asked if he thought the artificialness of his house was a stupid border, just like international borders. You know the one I mean

This please.

Ask how many papers he coauthored this year.

the ice fuels more fusion and the sun gets hotter and heavier

like your mom every night

Do you feel humbled and proud when referred to as the black science man, black science man?

"How does the fact that Mars exhibits symptoms of climate change reflect upon the anthropogenic model we employ for Earth?"
Just let him answer that in front of all those people.

>/pol/ thinks that's a gotcha question

Is there an answer? I'd like to hear it. I'd rather hear an answer than incoherent sputtering or a "gb2/pol/" equivalent response.

Technically Venus was used as an example of CO2 causing green house effect, what do you mean by climate change symptoms?

symptoms of climate change

What exactly? There are many symptoms of climate change and almost all of them alone can be caused by other things.

I don't care what you'd like. Go back to /pol/

He's referring to this article
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Something that /pol/tard love to reference as proof that it's a hoax, while also failing to read their own source beyond the title.

This would be epic, please record it

I was getting ready to post a different article, but does that one really seriously go on a rant about how his observations contradict the IPCC's official™ report, and the fact that they're accurate is pure coincidence? Couldn't they just report on the findings with an objective point of view?

His observations don't contradict anything. It's more that he tries to use Mars warming together with Earth as a proof that it's not greenhouse, which definitely isn't a proof of anything.

Did you read the article?

>Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
>"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
>"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

The article also references that the ice age cycle is caused on Earth as well as Mars by fluctuations in the axial tilt of the planets, as if this somehow puts to rest the idea that a hotter sun would melt more ice. If anything that lessens the likelihood that climate change is man-made.

Yo what's the best atom?

Did you? The observation of Mars ice caps melting doesn't contradict theories. His theory of why they melt contradicts other theories. You're implying his theory somehow wins the experiment when that's wrong. You're pretty much more biased than the article.
>The article also references that the ice age cycle is caused on Earth as well as Mars by fluctuations in the axial tilt of the planets, as if this somehow puts to rest the idea that a hotter sun would melt more ice. If anything that lessens the likelihood that climate change is man-made.
Axial tilt induces cyclical changes. Current Earth climate change has nothing to do axial tilt, it's too step and doesn't fit the pattern. What they are saying is pretty much that Mars temperature increase would fit the tilt change instead. Also climate change has other points besides average temperature increase. Extremes of temperatures will be more well extreme for example, and several other phenomena better explained by actual climate scientists or meteorologists.

Look up Milankovitch cycles you literal retard.

And what? Earth's current climate change failed to be explained by just orbit deformations.

Maybe because the exponential projections published by the Minitrue aren't based on fact. They call the discrepancy between figures "the pause". Have you seriously not looked into this at all?

The fug is minitrue?

It's an organization from the book 1984 satirizing how the mainstream media will immediately jump to the defense of any crazy whim of the federal government. It's a sad reflection on our world that ever since that book was published the world has shifted more towards the dystopian scenario depicted rather than away from it.

I don't see how that helps your argument. We're less dystopian than ever

I'd rather not go on a political rant on Veeky Forums despite the recent political season completely contradicts that sentiment, but doesn't the Paris Climate Accord literally call for a global carbon tax?

It's an agreement that has global goals because climate change regardless of being real or not is something global.

It's pretty normal that if you believe in climate change you want to do something to prevent it. Not everything that is global is automatically bad. Is Geneva Convention for example some evil plot to kill our national industries of mustard gas and torture tools?

The Geneva Convention isn't asking for a tax with no clear public plan on what it is funding (new world order).

Does Paris Climate Accord carbon tax fund an army? Is it forced on other countries by military might. One of their goals is transparency.

Your national government alone could be funding retarded shit. You should worry more about actual government measures to increase surveillance or limit free flow of information.

That's not an argument. Of course I'm worried about mass surveillance and how our next director of the CIA wants Edward Snowden's head, but I'm also worried about any movement to transform nations into administrative districts of a global super state.

"have you ever watched cat/duck sex?"

You're worried too much because you might as well try to stop every foreign relations. Solution for global climate change must be global. You might as well go to your city and bitch about your nation being too big and your city being an actual administrative district.

The entire world is globalizing because our means of transport are faster and cheaper than ever, and internet pretty much eroded most of informational borders. Of course you're gonna be worried about the entire world if your consumption level goes through the roof and to produce now basic human needs you need resources and work force from all over the Earth.

Which is why anthropogenic climate change is a fitting cover to establish a global government. I'd just like to know how such a ludicrous hypothesis managed to get bullied into the mainstream in the first place. Appeal to authority is not scientific, and I'd imagine scientists would see that.

Mostly through scientific papers. Most of everything can be a fitting cover. Like terrorism isn't real because you can use it to establish more surveillance etc. In the end you actually need hard proof.

now it's time to go back to /pol/ retard

>he says while posting a non-argument

The thing about scientific papers is that thanks to the internet one can just as easily publish another paper that contradicts the first one. When the bulk of the mainstream media comes down to denounce one work in favor of the other, it makes you think.

>When the bulk of the mainstream media comes down to denounce one work in favor of the other, it makes you think.
Yeah. When my prof denounces one guy's work in favour of another guy's work it really makes me think. It's not like the first guy is an idiot and wrote bullshit.

If the papers are written with the same level of factual evidence, you have to wonder why your prof is so adamant about denouncing one of them and not both or neither.

But they mostly aren't

>if this somehow puts to rest the idea that a hotter sun would melt more ice
Mmmh interesting. I bet you have data showing increase solar output compatible with the increase in temperature over the past 50 years.

Is this one?
drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

No, because the temperature of the sun sun isn't the only factor that affects the temperature of the Earth, for example, the axial tilt.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php

Ok. So, not that guy but I'm a 4th year Earth Science student that probably knows more about Milankovitch cycles than you do. Exactly what is the purpose of bringing them up?

Asking him about the fine-tuning theory and say that maybe God wrote a system that is self-reliant, one that run's itself on its own. Given this new view of God's design does he think fine-tuning is plausible hypothesis.

I can't answer you indepth cause it's not my field of expertise and usually peer reviews of serious stuff take time.

His data fits are pretty lax though.

>climate models
who cares? At no time do I need climate models to prove man made climate forcing.

Spencer is one of the very few climate change deniers I respect because he puts his money where his mouth is, is well educated in climate science, and actually does research.

Doesn't make him right though. The Iris model was long ago proven wrong and was based on faulty data from the tropics. It was a good paper, published in a respectable journal but it was later found to be flawed. It is not accepted by any scientific community. Spencer still doggedly holds to it as he probably will the remainder of his life, always searching for the elusive data to prove himself and Lindzen right. Not much hope in it left of course.

He also accepts intelligent design. So, there's that.

>I can't answer you indepth cause it's not my field of expertise and usually peer reviews of serious stuff take time.

The culture of professional scientific publishing is so cutthroat and vindictive that if there was truly any good evidence against anthropogenic forcing that could withstand the scrutiny of peer review in reputable journals, the theory would almost immediately be purged. But it hasn't. Even Spencer's articles have been rebuked many times over by people far smarter than himself.

We scientists are so petty and love nothing more than to trash each other's work, and if Spencer's findings were in any way valid, then people would jump ship without much hesitation.

B-but muh one world government, muh infowars, muh marxist jews

Seriously. Actual scientists get the same thrill in anonymously destroying a colleague's flawed findings that normies feel for a fleeting instance during that bar scene in Good Will Hunting.

That's an appeal to authority assuming that these reputable scientific journals actually do a reliable job of purging faulty theories, which clearly they don't for ones designed to achieve a political goal with which they align.

gr8 b8 m8

grotto botto motto

Ask him how superposition relates to jazz

Ask him if bats can see.

hahahaaha this please