Have any of you sciencecucks ever even bothered to personally verify the (((climate change))) theory...

I critically read several sources on the subject, read the opposition's and concluded the official version was more credible.

this has always been my problem with /pol/. why trust those news sources over another? youre still just reading things that affirm your bias. stop acting like youre more redpilled when youre just as much a dumbass for trusting stormfront over any other news source

What sort of data set would satisfy you more? My thermometer?

Yes

youtube.com/watch?v=iQV3i95qzCM&t=955s

I know I'm a le denier etc but if - hypothetically - the government wanted to falsify data about some physical phenomena to scare people into supporting a particular political agenda and/or buying certain products (and not buying certain products), how hard would it be for them to do it and would the result be very different from the current controversy over climate change?

Well I just analyzed my readings from my thermometer over the last couple seconds and I saw a clearly disturbing trend for global warming, are you satisfied now

Obviously not what I meant.
If you got a real data set from an independent or personal non-goverment funded organization maybe I would be more inclined to believe the climate hoax theories.

So you mean China, Russia, and the US actually agreed on something ? And you think [math]we[/mah] are the ones who aren't skeptic enough ?

China, Russia, and the US have always been globalist allies. Trump is gonna break things up though.

Do you have a data set that backs up your claims then? Surely you must have some evidence that this data set isn't accurate, right? I'd be more than happy to analyze any data from an independent or personal non-government funded organization.

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." (IPCC)

Globalist allies at the Cop21, then fierce-ennemies-that-will-go-to-war-if-you-elect-Clinton the next. So Clinton is the anti-globalist one ? How does that work ?

Global fascism is a complicated beast. The populations of individual countries can still believe in their unique nationalism while the leaders of those countries can recognize they have more in common with each other than their respective populations. If Trump could bring Russia and China in on a universal carbon, CO2, taxation - trading scheme he would be all for it. Of course such beasts would be so rife with corruption and fraud as to be meaningless.

Human activity is decimating almost every ecosystem that exists, regardless of what the global temperature is. The future is bleak for most of he world population. This richest will always survive along with their livestock.

I literally don't give a fuck about this issue either way.

It's creating new ecosystems of its own, cockroaches, seagulls, bedbugs, crows, starlings and other human parasites are thriving along with invasive weeds and any crop or piece of livestock man uses or that can adapt to mankind and his settlements thrives.

Sure biodiversity is taking a big hit but earth apparently goes through regular decimations and extinction events and the climate apparently fluctuates wildly as well.

Life is short, man in small groups or some individuals are brilliant and capable of great feats of intelligence and ingenuity but mankind group think is seemingly retarded which makes me really leery of large group efforts like tackling issued like AGW, biodiversity or invasive species. These things typically can't be undone and efforts to do so would probably just make things worse or promote psychopaths to positions of great power wide open to massive abuses.

I don't care about the holy models, I follow the available data and their trends, and I do some sanity checks that are within my limited mathability. A simple linear calculation based on ∆T and ∆CO2 leads to 0.003 K/ppm and a more extensive calculation including feedback estimates arrives at 0.002 K/ppm (Temperature Anomalies and Carbon Dioxide, a Correlation Attempt). A simplified calculation of the climate sensitivity using satellite data over the last two decades leads to a ∆T of less than 1 K for 800 ppm. At the current rate of about 2 ppm/year that would be in two centuries, possibly long after the end of the modern warm period. It should be obvious that the effect of any realistic CO2 reduction would be barely noticeable. The real climate dynamics doesn't care about our shenanigans and all we can do is observe and adapt. I'm pro CO2 and I'm pro warming - because here in the dark North cold kills.

It's the hit to biodiversity that hurts me so badly. The beautiful cascade of organisms strewn across our planet by evolution is my absolute favorite thing. I love life, biologicaly, at a fundamental level. Nature has evolved such mindblowing, unfathomable molecular self replication machines with adaptations so perfect they appear at a glance to have been designed intelligently. The deepness with which organism's are imprinted by specific niches or other organisms is mind blowing. All for the sake of replicating DNA. The branch tips of the tree of life exist in every single crevace you could imagine and are all twisted so beautifully around one another. Life's voracity for existence, its scale and its age are all humbling. Maybe this is why people just can't seem to understand how fragile it all is. Of course new branches are always evolving and adapting, but we are lopping them off so mich faster than that is happenning. What's worse is that world powers seem to be working at quickening the pace of the damage by denying that we're doing any at all, all for short sighted, selfish power grabs. Even if nature just isn't your shit, humanity relies on it so heavily. Of course I think that life will always survive whatever we try to do to it, save total nuclear anihilation, but I am legitimately in fear of what the future looks like. Our global society so far from sustainablilty. Humanity cannot exist without the rest of the earth, especially at its current level. So many people are going to die and I feel so totally powerless.

I've always wondered the extent to which people recognize climate change as just that
Obviously air pollution and smog exist and can easily be seen/recorded
Is that not enough?
Like, is the argument that we should be able to continue as we are until we get to the point where places like china and india are and only then should we adopt different policies?

>Implying that Climatology is a rigorous science.

Funny, that's what every denier said about Berkeley Earth, until it came to the conclusion they were never going to accept in the first place.

Are cherrypicking and taking quotes out of context the only technique deniers have? What about actual science?

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential." (IPCC)

>I know I'm a le denier etc but if - hypothetically - the government wanted to falsify data about some physical phenomena to scare people into supporting a particular political agenda and/or buying certain products (and not buying certain products), how hard would it be for them to do it and would the result be very different from the current controversy over climate change?

Stupid question. Figures, a le denier.

Are cherrypicking and taking quotes out of context the only technique deniers have?

Nope

>What about actual science?

Nope

And that ensemble leads to an enormous range of outcomes; making the theory almost impossible to falsify. Yet, if god forbid, the measured temperatures still fall out of the ensemble range; We'll bury that result and recalculate the models with vastly increased variability, preventing much feared falsification.

Pic related. The ensemble had an enormous range of predictions about 1.0 degrees C, more than the temp variation of nearly the whole 20th century. Yet it failed. So IPCC AR5 published a graph with vastly increased variance in the models.

>making the theory almost impossible to falsify
>Yet it failed

Really made me thunk.

>At the current rate of about 2 ppm/year that would be in two centuries,

Current Mauna Loa YoY: 3.4ppm

assume a 75% increase in rate in your calculating.

What does 2050 look like now?

>And that ensemble leads to an enormous range of outcomes
Your image is an improperly baselined graph from a draft of the AR5 report. And the grey area represents the range of short term natural extremes, not the variability of the ensemble. So not only did you lie about the graph being published in AR5, it doesn't even support your argument.

Here's a challenge: Try making an argument with out cherrypicking, taking a quote out of context, posting a misleading image, or outright lying.

>Here's a challenge: Try making an argument with out cherrypicking, taking a quote out of context, posting a misleading image, or outright lying.
...

That's what I thought

Daily reminder that while you cucks are wondering which one of Chad's taxes will reduce carbon emissions, ISIS soldiers kill your friends and rape your wives and get away with it.

Here's a challenge: Try not being a stupid cuck
...

That's what I though

Yes actually, considering I'm 1 semester from finishing an Earth Science degree I have in fact personally verified the man made climate change theory. If it's wrong then physics and chemistry are wrong too.

Here is the actual real uncensored science behind it:
fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

If you have any problem understanding anything in that lecture that you read you are more then welcome to ask for help in understanding it. Many people on this board can help you out not simply Earth Scientists. What that lecture amounts to is 'Climate change is happening, it's caused by humans, and if you doubt it you're fucked by the evidence, hardcore'. Seriously, it is simply physics and chemistry.

I think that world view is somewhat obscured because you don't have to live off the land like an animal, infested with ticks, tapeworms and plagued by biting insects every second of the day.

I am a nature lover but also respect it's complete disregard for what I think about it. Man is also part of nature, if much CO2 emissions come with that so be it and in my opinion, living in a cold harsh land, that is good for life here on earth. As far as destruction of ecosystems and depletion of pristine resources go well that will no doubt be mans downfall in the end and result in a crash, but not so much through blatant mismanagement or willing disregard. It will happen for the simple reason that man has removed so many checks on his own growth, that is natures problem to fix as man cannot fix this himself, cannot stop fornicating. That would be unnatural.

kek

...

The mods (if Veeky Forums even has one) need to start cleaning up these stupid threads. Same exact bullshit every other day here.

Well isn't the very foundations of the AGW meme (((science)))? Slow board, these are always popular threads. Better than, muh homework, muh classes, muh major threads.

Humanity needs to transition to vertical farming if it is to have a minimal impact on nature.

>assume a 75% increase
I'd love to but it is not supported by published data:

1996.96 362.439
2016.96 403.346
samples 240
mean 382.807
least squares trend 2.04533 per year
data from wft based on www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html
file ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

I use the last two decades with three El Ninos, two of them strong, because this time frame is said to represent one third of all human CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution.

>What does 2050 look like now?
What does your own (!) calculation say?

nice try exxon mobil

Why the fuck are you starting in 1997?

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

Anyway, most people aren't in science to get rich, it's for the prestige. They grew up believing that science is the most important thing, the one thing that truly advances humanity, and that scientists are the best people. Not being able to be called a scientist is like death to them. They'll do work they're not interested in, that doesn't seem to be any good, for low pay, with no prospect of advancement, just to be able to say they're professional scientists and to be friends with the other professional scientists. They know that an oversupply of people like them are being raised constantly by the educational system, and there's no way back in anymore if you ever stray from the path or get cast out.

They are extremely sensitive to the prospect of losing their place. They'll commit horrible ethical violations to avoid it.

Beyond that, they have an emotional need to believe in their field, to the point that they'll turn their eyes away from evidence that it has gone rotten, rationalize it away.

The (((science))) behind AGW is primarily social science. Of course it's a religion in every way and can almost be labeled neo-Pagan.

Climate priests like any priest is a sort of authority figure. They can conjure up scary climate scenarios on their super computers, this is prophecy. They can disseminate these prophecies through a world wide propaganda media network, the etymology of propaganda is propagation of church dogma. As scary as these scenarios are there is of course always a fix, a way to save ones soul. In this case if enough CO2 emitters repent, and a CO2 tithe is collected, the prophecies may be forestalled and earth along with the climate heathens saved! this may involve great sacrifices up to and including life itself!

Any rejection of this dogma is met with an Inquisition of sorts, called deniers now this could easily escalate to a climate heretic hunt with weather vane crucifixions!

Like any religion time will tell if it sticks as it gets hold of the children before they attain any critical thinking skills for themselves. The problem with pop religion today is it's great anti-thesis, pop science. This is where the pure genius and Machiavellian nature of the growing AGW cult shines...
>To control the opposition we should lead it ourselves - Lenin

Stale pasta /pol/

This is not social science
Please read it and come up with an actual response.

Because he's cherrypicking El Nino

I don't. I always start NOW and use the last 240 months for the reason mentioned (pic) and because I'm interested in the evolution of the *current* trend, not that of the little ice age. If you're interested in pre-industrial climate look at the image posted at .

>scientists are bought
>no they aren't
>scientists are deviants who like science too much and that makes them evil
Just fuck off. Lack of global warming doesn't even mean we should stop any environmental science. In fact if scientists really love being scientists and the fame they would also love to do some breakthrough in science and break years old consensus.

No you look at the last 20 years because that's exactly when there was a strong El Nino distorting the temperature trend.

Try this challenge

Honest question, user:
Are you religious?
Because I feel like you're projecting.

Not even wrong

the sad truth right here. I hadn't even realized it as much until I read your post, but I know you're right.