Climate denialists BTFO

>No one denies the numbers
I do. I just don't trust the people assembling these enormous data sets, I don't trust their sources or their motives. I don't trust NASA or their NOAA, the UN or the entire climate science industry. I trust the weather forecast most of the time, the science of meteorology, but even they get it wrong occasionally. Even forecasting 1 week out is hard. 1 year ridiculous, 10 years laughable. For the insult of trying to predict 100 years out? Then basing a preemptive tax on it!? They should be rounded up, arrested, charged with scientific fraud, sent to prison. Either that or charged with uttering religious prophecy and not being a registered religious institution.

stfu idiot

guys the alarmists are just exaggerating we're not all actually going to die starving to death in 50 years right?

Are you suggesting that a return to such temperatures would be 'fine'?

There won't be a west in 50 years
So nothing to worry about

>in the second stage

Copernicus is not IPCC, Sherlock.

>NASA and NOAA for data prior to 1979
notice how the graph starts changing right around the 80s

>forecasting
>weather versus climate
one of these things is not like the other

The medeval warm period isn't corroborated outside of Europe you dingus.

The Climate Fakers are getting desperate.

Who doesn't enjoy a hot cup
of BTFO on a winter evening?

No, because we can realistically adapt by using nuclear and we'll get better ROI from solar with a weakened atmosphere, like we do with the panels in space. We can also handle agriculture in closed environments and still get food by controlling smaller manmade climates instead of harvesting from nature. Nobody is going to starve from climate change except third worlders who lack the resources for manufacturing (which is going to ramp up the refugee problem like never before).
The real problem is going to be due to us making that switch on energy at the last minute instead of doing a gradual rollover, which is going to fuck everyone over for a while because our power grid and transportation systems are based on fossil fuel. That combined with the refugees which will have to relocate due to damaged ecosystems, will result in a kind of scarcity (not from lack of production, but rather growing demand which outpaces it).

It's kinda funny almost. You'd think /pol/ would be all over preventing climate change if it meant stopping the influx of future refugees, but a lot of them probably can't piece two and two together.

phew, mate, go back to your containment board and keep your tin foil shit out of here
>distrusting the scientific process which is what got us here and what this board is all about

xkcd.com/1732/
made for dummies, not entirely accurate, but just to illustrate how you make yourself look when you say this stuff

One again, the statistical abomination of gluing high frequency, high resolution data at the end of low frequency, low resolution data. Amazing how that creates a hockey stick.

Climate "Scientists" wouldn't last a day in statistics grad school. How about an honest proxy reconstruction? Pic related.

Source: econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf

And he was vindicated by Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier. "A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia." Geogr. Ann. A 92.3 (2010): 339-351.

Climate is weather measured over the long term. These climate prophets you call "scientists" are making ridiculous assumptions and predictions that lean towards a predefined narrative because that is essentially what they are being paid to do. If they do not do this their funding is cut and they look for work elsewhere. The world is a business Mr. Beale.

>distrusting the scientific process
This isn't the "enlightenment" or Renaissance anymore. If you are not packing a bit of tinfoil these days you really aren't paying attention to the world around you.

lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#four
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.

All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

In 1954 this was the issue of primary concern. Although the so-called "moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.

>Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent
Is worth repeating because this is precisely what the man made climate change cultists are pronouncing. That they are stupid animals and authority figures will manage these resources better than they ever could, taxation is a great first step, eventual control and rationing the answer. Dark days ahead.

>lawfulpath.com
L0Lno fgt pls

>It's unlikely that humans are the cause. The earth goes through cycles. That's a fact. May have nothing to do with human industry.
Did you learn English by reading Trump tweets? "That's a fact." is neither a convincing argument, nor a complete sentence.

>No, because we can realistically adapt by using nuclear
Given the shitstorms about nuclear proliferation, and the insane upfront costs of nuclear power stations, that's probably not going to happen.

>we'll get better ROI from solar with a weakened atmosphere
"Weakened atmosphere"?

>We can also handle agriculture in closed environments and still get food by controlling smaller manmade climates instead of harvesting from nature.
That would be completely unaffordable for the majority of people.

>The real problem is going to be due to us making that switch on energy at the last minute instead of doing a gradual rollover, which is going to fuck everyone over for a while because our power grid and transportation systems are based on fossil fuel. That combined with the refugees which will have to relocate due to damaged ecosystems, will result in a kind of scarcity (not from lack of production, but rather growing demand which outpaces it).
Sure, assuming there is a "moment of realisation". Personally, I think a gradual acceptance long after it's too late is more likely.

>It's kinda funny almost. You'd think /pol/ would be all over preventing climate change if it meant stopping the influx of future refugees, but a lot of them probably can't piece two and two together.
Yeah, long-term-planning really isn't their strength.

...

>Climate "Scientists" wouldn't last a day in statistics grad school. How about an honest proxy reconstruction?
What exactly do you think they DO for a living?

>honest
>E&E
At least put some effort into it.

>These climate prophets you call "scientists" are making ridiculous assumptions and predictions that lean towards a predefined narrative because that is essentially what they are being paid to do. If they do not do this their funding is cut and they look for work elsewhere.
You could actually try posting some evidence to support your conspiracy theories.

>This isn't the "enlightenment" or Renaissance anymore. If you are not packing a bit of tinfoil these days you really aren't paying attention to the world around you.
Paranoia isn't the same as being concerned. One is a delusion, and they other is a response to an observed threat.

>lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#four
Oh dear.

>Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science.
Please stop.

>All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
Obviously the folks who sell coffee to NOAA and the CRU.

/pol/ is obviously a reliable source, and not at all a haven for edgy children, attention-seeking conspiracy theorists, and angry morons.

>>distrusting the scientific process
The "scientific process" is a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was bullshit and the "experts" were wrong.

Let's start from one obvious fact: at this point, finding out that global warming isn't happening, or isn't a threat would be collectively devastating for the careers of most people employed as climate scientists. Furthermore, individual climate scientists do take a position that global warming isn't happening or isn't a threat, and this is individually devastating for their careers. On top of that, for several decades now, people who become climate scientists have been taught from childhood to accept on faith that this position is correct, and merely needs to be "studied" and refined, not questioned.

Now let's add another obvious fact: no one person or small dissenting group can check either the data sets (which require temperature readings taken all over the world for a span of decades) or the models (which require supercomputers and teams of programmers and physical simulation experts). Both are large-scale endeavors requiring large teams of people, who are both individually and collectively incentivized to produce results that support a certain conclusion, as well as huge budgets from organizations that have political agendas that generally benefit from findings which support that same conclusion.

These are not circumstances under which the scientific process as we know it can be expected to happen.

Rather than science as it is usually practiced, this is essentially a large, not-disinterested bureaucratic organization guessing about some aspect of the future. They're applying science, but they're not doing science. Like NASA saying the space shuttle would save money.

Heh, do I sense denial? Yeah I know its a crazy Christian board but regardless of the articles true source, fact or fiction, it's a good read. Having graduated from an electronics program the terminology really made my cranial gears grind. I never fathomed electrical mathematics being applied to the social and economic realm like that. For me, there is no mistaking what man made climate change is, a mass social conditioning and energy control program ushered in through consent of the masses, mostly out of fear and a promise to save earth. Wew, history repeats.

>The "scientific process" is a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was bullshit and the "experts" were wrong.
Sometimes. Other times it's a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was pretty much spot on.

>Let's start from one obvious fact: at this point, finding out that global warming isn't happening, or isn't a threat would be collectively devastating for the careers of most people employed as climate scientists.
Not really.

>Furthermore, individual climate scientists do take a position that global warming isn't happening or isn't a threat, and this is individually devastating for their careers.
Nope.

>On top of that, for several decades now, people who become climate scientists have been taught from childhood to accept on faith that this position is correct, and merely needs to be "studied" and refined, not questioned.
No.

>These are not circumstances under which the scientific process as we know it can be expected to happen.
Science is working normally. You just don't like the answers it came up with, and are throwing a tantrum because of it.

>Other times it's a lot of people checking for themselves and finding out that the "consensus" was pretty much spot on.
...and the "checking for themselves" aspect is key. When it's too expensive to check, or the standards for refutation are too unclear or the position is not even theoretically refutable by any presentation of evidence in the present, you're not talking about something that can be established to the kind of standard we normally associate with science and base science's generally good reputation on.

>>Furthermore, individual climate scientists do take a position that global warming isn't happening or isn't a threat, and this is individually devastating for their careers.
>Nope.
Oh, so you're one of those obvious reality deniers.

>Given the shitstorms about nuclear proliferation, and the insane upfront costs of nuclear power stations, that's probably not going to happen.
Neither are the reason new nuclear plants aren't being constantly built
It's only regulation that stops it, something Trump will eradicate

>scale
>thousands of years before present
>millions of years before present
Sure does look like a peak in that last 100 years. It's not like the atmosphere was made of much larger concentrations of CO2 in the distant past.

Why does that graph stop its data record right when Western industrialization gets into full swing in the 1940s? That's not even counting India and China catching up.

>One again, the statistical abomination of gluing high frequency, high resolution data at the end of low frequency, low resolution data.
They have the same resolution and frequency. Five year average, moron. Try again.

Vostok ice core

>m-muh CO2 ppm!
>m-muh ~50 years of semi-reputable data points
>m-muh atmospheric models that omit clouds

This isn't /pol/

You can take all of that one step further by the actions taken to mitigate man made climate change so far, in hindsight something looks seriously awry. These actions are all energy sinks and result in additional emissions, starting with the massive and never ending echo chamber conferences hosted at taxpayer expense, to the super computers chugging away 24/7 in cooled computer rooms on the questionable climate modeling programs crunching of their questionable data sets, teams of programmers forever massaging the output.
The cap and trade or carbon tax programs requiring substantial administrative overhead bloating already bloated bureaucracies, assigning arbitrary conditions on emissions computed to somehow adjust earths temperature in the process, all just farts in the wind really.

Also this resulting push and subsidizing of so called green or renewable sources of energy, most of these new age trinkets and baubles - solar and wind - are manufactured in China which laughs in the face of man made climate change controls on industry, and so by outsourcing manufacturing to another corner of the globe we are supposed to believe we are fixing something while impoverishing our own economies? We are also now expected to take on these inefficient and unreliable sources of power and pay for that out of pocket to appease the bureaucracy that forced them on us?

If good alternatives to fossil fuels are discovered they won't need any help to make themselves worthy. Most of all, in the end, fossil fuels will be spent as long as the upright monkey walks the face of this earth. Should they be spent below an EROEI of 1 before viable alternatives are discovered so be it, natural depopulation gets underway and the problem solves itself. All the legislation points to so far is control of how those are spent and by whom. I just don't trust most of these people taking over the reigns now that 'the debate is over and the science is settled'. Science is never settled.

I'll fully believe the Climate Alarmist memesters when they stop giving retarded meme reasons for their hypothesis being right like "97% of us believe it's right" and go with the more tried and true method of our mathematical models predict X in the next Y and then in X years Y happens, instead of getting BTFO nearly every year.

>Why can't they lie about temperature data

>90% of scientists agree on global warming
>calls them all liers involved in global conspiracy
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>"described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money."
>remaining 10% scientists actually indicted for lying and being part of global conspiracy
>still have to see climate change deniers on a Veeky Forumsence board every fucking day.

Dood, You've been brainwashed into a mouthpiece working to brainwash other people into becoming mouthpieces. Just accept that your brain has been fucked with. Just stop and think for a moment. It's not too late to wake yourself up.

Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that AGW is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to climate research budgets?

Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that evolution is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to biological research budgets?

fukken REKT

>nor a complete sentence
Subject: "That"
Verb: "is"
Object: "a fact"

Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that the earth being round is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to astronomy research budgets?

Because biological research constantly produces plainly useful, economically positive results far in excess of its costs, and doesn't spend the vast majority of its funding generating confirmation for the theory of evolution?

Greatest puzzler of all time: why aren't any of the people who claim that vaccine safety is "settled science" in favor of massive cuts to medical research budgets?

If we're gonna play the "where does the funding come from", we can talk about where these 90% of scientists(which is a fake number) get THEIR funding from

Everything you just said is true for climatology. Most papers nowadays are not attempting to prove what climatologists already know is a well-evidenced fact.

youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=25

Holy shit, vaccine safety isn't "settled science", or even science. Vaccines kill people every day, and have sometimes caused rather than prevented epidemics by infecting people with the disease they were supposed to protect against.

Each new vaccine and every batch of vaccine is a potential disaster, averted only by the competence and conscientiousness of the people producing it and confirming its safety, and even then, some people have a bad reaction and die from good batches of good vaccines, because the human immune system is a highly complex system with great individual variation.

Saying "vaccine safety is settled science" is like saying "food safety and nutrition are settled science".

At least someone has the time to respond to these morons, you're doing good work user. Honestly, I would bother replying as well but I've given up on debating these retards years ago. You cannot convince someone that is wrapped up in conspiracies to understand the scientific evidence. They simply cherrypick and use mental gymnastics every single time, and will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence presented is.

They are nearly the equivalent of evolution deniers, or flat Earthers, or any other number of wackjobs that deny basic scientific ideas and concepts, despite the strength of the evidence supporting them.

>we can talk about
How about no. There's no point arguing with idiots. Nobody wins.

If you REALLY wanna know, google it for fucks sake, but we both know you won't do that because you're not here for learning. You're here for the argument, or rather here for the fight. Your fight or flight reflexes are hot wired and overriding other parts of your brain which might allow you to see reason. Take a few breaths user.

>Vaccines kill people every day
>Sometimes caused rather than prevented epidemics by infecting people with the disease they were supposed to protect against
Post your source / evidence, and it better be from an academic medical journal, not some blog or other non-credible scientific source.

Would you rather diseases such as Polio or Small Pox still exist, instead of being eradicated? What about HPV in females? Measles? Meningitis? Diphtheria? Do I need to continue listing all the various diseases that have been irradiated due to vaccinations that otherwise would still be causing massive public health crises worldwide?

The safety of vaccines (which is not disputed, and is based in scientific EVIDENCE of their safety) is even irrelevant when you look at the statistical data for the amount of good they have done overall.

You sound like a typical anti-vaxxer that has zero arguments based on merit or evidence. To say that there is no negative effects whatsoever for Vaccines is not true, but it is also equally retarded to pretend that vaccines have not had an overwhelmingly positive impact on public health.

Seems like, while even before that edgy /pol/ """""invasion"""""" a few days ago there were contrarians lurking here constantly, for the sole purpose of starting these exact type of threads, that it's getting worse and worse.

What's so strange is I don't even understand why they come here in the first place, is it like says that you're only here to argue, not actually engage in a conversation where evidence is presented and rebutted? Seems to me like every single time evidence is presented supporting climate change, you have nothing but a bunch of edgelords responding not by attacking the evidence itself, but constantly falling into logical fallacies and attacking the messengers, instead of bothering to escape their echo chamber and look at the evidence itself.

You are so wrapped up in a circle-jerk of mindless science-bashing nonsense that you refuse to be a skeptic, and question your own pre-conceived notions about the evidence for climate change. It's so much easier when you don't have to question anything, and can rely on your "skeptic" echo chambers like WUWT or Climatedepot to provide you with whatever cherry-picked misnomers they wrote about on their blogs in the past few days instead of actually looking at the scientific evidence itself by reading the scientific papers that present the data. Of course your average armchair expert from /pol/ has no such time for those things, not that your minuscule attention spans would allow it regardless.

>2016 confirmed as the warmest year on record, warmer than 2015 by close to 0.2°C
Warmer than the runner up (1998) by 0.02°C... with a 0.1°C margin of error.

So no, not "confirmed", and the way of measuring the global temperature continues to change every year.

>Muh IPCC

Every. Single. Time. I know you won't respond to me, but I'm going to do this anyways:

The IPCC does not collect data. The IPCC does not publish scientific papers. The IPCC is essentially a bridge between the climate researchers around the world, and policymakers in world governments. It's meant to present the information that researchers have collected, and combine it into an assessment for policymakers to read and understand the impacts of climate change.

It does not, I repeat NOT carry out any research of its own. It's not a research organization, and the vast majority of climate research worldwide is done by independent researchers working for public and private universities. Government organizations like NOAA and NASA for example obviously contribute as well.

Now that that's out of the way, let's address this silly graph that I'm assuming you, the same person that always posts these images in these threads, posts every single time. I mean honestly, a full rebuttal to this would take dozens of posts, but I'll try to keep it brief. First off, this is a misleading graph, not because it is inaccurate, but because of the way the data is presented. If you look on the X-axis, which is geological time, the far left which is the far past has increments of 100 million years, which moves to 10 million after the Cretaceous / Tertiary, into 1 million in the Pliocene, and then 200,000 in the Pleistocene. Even less in the most recent Holocene era. This means that on a normal, equidistant X-axis these exaggerations would be a lot less significant, and you would see a much more flat change in temperature overall in Earth history.

Second, it's always hilarious to see the so called "skeptics" harping on paleoclimatological data which has nothing to do with the current trend of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the associated rapid rise in temperatures in the post-industrial revolution era.

Yes, Earth has been warmer in the past, colder too.

>Most papers
I didn't say "most papers", I said "the vast majority of its funding", and I didn't say "attempting to prove", I said "generating confirmation".

The big money goes into stuff like satellites and supercomputers. Why do people with control of such funds approve this spending? To generate confirmation, to strengthen the political case for basing policy on belief in AGW.

...and you know, the science isn't anywhere near settled. They keep discovering new feedbacks.

That's just ad-hom and strawman.
The cherry picking goes both ways, in fact the cherry picking data problem is one of the biggest flaws in climate science aside from the fact the climate doom prophecies have for the most part proven overblown and inaccurate discrediting any farther flung predictions. The frightening part is that in light of these inaccuracies and mistakes, instead of admitting them the dogma is amplified and seemingly no reconsideration of the theory examined. CO2 emissions and nothing else being the dogma.

In more enlightened times our places of higher education taught rhetoric, critical thinking skills and the need to always question why.

>climate change
We know we are coming out of a relatively recent ice age, we know climate changes with man or without man. This so called climate science has only been bashing itself, it's sole application in the real world to implement a carbon (life) tax in all corners of the globe if possible. The high priests of climate doom science admittedly concede their tax will not solve anything and omit the fact they put food on their table through this science. It has also garnered a rather large faction of very devout climate alarmists and zealots in tow who would I fear give up their rightful claim to a portion of this worlds fossil fuel bounty and by extension their very life in order to save the planet from impending climate doom? These people in my opinion are extremely ignorant on the matters of energy and living in the oil age. Some seemingly so ignorant in fact that it would be hard to believe they could comprehend even a fraction of their so called climate science themselves yet they are true believers?

Hey, we just don't want to be dragged down into your new age dark ages, it's time well spent in my opinion.

Once again a massive wall of text consisting of nothing but hyperbole, conjecture and memes, no evidence presented as typical for your average """"skeptic"""" because people like you have never read a scientific paper on climate change in your life, and never will because you prefer to be ignorant. Also hilarious how you treat a scientific field as a monolithic entity in which everyone things the same / parrots the same things, there is far more diversity in climatology, and Earth sciences in general than many other scientific fields, and you have people that are multi-disciplinary with background in all other major scientific areas studying climate. The language and the way you type belongs on /pol/, not Veeky Forums, so kindly leave and go back to your echo chamber where no one will challenge your rhetoric. Here, I'll help, just click this link . Funny how you complain about ad hom when your post is nothing but an ad hom attack on climate science, that does nothing to address any evidence, but simply goes into the typical alarmist conspiracy territory.

Have you ever thought for once in your life that the vast majority of climate researchers aren't alarmists, and that the majority of alarmist propaganda comes from the media and non-climate scientists themselves? In your world, you view every non-educated environmentalist as a climate scientist, an expert in their field with years of research behind them. You live in a world of lies and delusion.

>new age dark ages
Absolutely delicious, you truly do have your head far up your own rectum.
>in more enlightened times
Man you sure do like to tip your fedora ultra hard. Honestly, considering you literally have no arguments, it seems that you're just another typical /pol/ contrarian, I'm seriously questioning why I even bothered typing this all out now.

do you know what regression to the mean is?

i am putting together a report which calls into question the nature of the climate data.

does this observed phenomenon follow a linear progression?

what progression does it follow?

by answering these questions we can more accurately predict what will happen in the future.

my bet is on a fluxuation towards being warmer for a period, and then back towards the middle before progressing to a cooler temperature, and repeating this periodic cycle.

looks a lot like a sine wave right?

figure out the formula for it's function, and you will be the winrar

here's an irritating example of someone who is misleading the public by implying that this trend has a linear progression.

all they did was zoom into the graph on this one spot so you can't see it in the context of the overall trend.

either this guy has never taken a stats 101 course, or he's being deceptive

there is a period (frequency) to the function of this graph.

it's pretty easy to figure out. solve it for yourself for homework, and you'll know more than any so called "climate scientist" out there

here's another example where they purposefully included outliers in their calculation of a deceptive mean, rather than excluding them, as is the practice when you wish to have a true representation of the data.

outliers are defined as being more than 3 standard deviations from the mean

actually, i think this data might be entirely fabricated, but i don't have time to investigate their sources. it just looks so much different from the stuff normally out there, and it's from a site called mother jones, go figure

"the world's average long-term temperature will be 2.7-8.6°F higher in 100 years' time depending on our actions taken now and in the future" ≠ "it will be 71°F and raining in Seattle on March 1 2116"

look up "climate vs weather"

so a lot of modern "climate change" hubbub is really based on hand waviness, rather than math and data?

yes without a doubt. the notion that it's hand wavy it is self evident too.

>the fictitious runner up (1998)
the actual runner-up is 2015,
Lrn2data fgt pls

Oh boy here we go again, same idiots arguing about the little ice age, medieval warm period, and saying that the current trend is natural or some other variation of the same argument that has been debunked time and time again.

This is how climate data has always been presented. Data is plotted to a baseline average temperature, even the skeptic scientists involved in the field of climatology (yes, they do exist, I know! Shocking!) do this method of statistical analysis of the data. Stop being delusional.

How about you go read the UAH or RSS satellite data yourself that the claims that 2016 is the hottest year on record are based on, or alternatively you can continue to shitpost.
images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1
>The record warmth was caused by long-term global warming combined with the strong El Niño event that occurred in the winter and spring of 2015-2016.

That's Mann's hockey stick, is this babbies first time looking at climatological data?

Yes, just trust the opinion of some random shitposter on Veeky Forums you moron.

>yes without a doubt. the notion that it's hand wavy it is self evident too.
Do you take pride in your ignorance?

>a period to these aperiodic data
Lrn2time-series fgt pls

you're waving your hands again

i'm looking right at that shit and it has a period to it. it is in no way aperiodic. it's not a perfect sine wave, but it has a period.

>This is how climate data has always been presented

Then the way it's always been presented is wrong. It's also deceptive when you make such a claim as "this is what will happen in the future" which clearly is baseless in fact, and entirely based on your appeal to emotion, and excessive gesticulation of your hands.

Nice response, not that I expected much. You can't form a single argument as you have no evidence, again nothing but conjecture and hyperbole. Maybe you should look up the definitions of these words as I assume you have no idea what they mean.

i come from a background in mathematics and digital signals processing, but i'm applying common mathematical techniques to the analysis of this time series while keeping in the back of my mind that it is nothing more than a signal.

currently creating a function which produces a graph that looks very similar to these data series.

>But it's wrong because muh feelings that it's wrong, you didn't take into account muh feelings in this matter MUH FEELINGS

Hmmm. Standard /pol/-think where you only talk in emotion-driven arguments, while simultaneously accusing others of doing the exact same thing. The hypocrisy is incredibly.

Once again, you present no credible, evidence-based argument. Do you need to look up the definition of evidence as well?

Did you even bother to look at the RSS link I posted, do you even know what RSS or UAH is? Do you know about the satellite temperature records, how they are processed / researched? Do you know the first thing about climate science, or are you just another armchair ignoramus who read WUWT one day and decided he was an expert on all things climatology?

more hand waviness. typical brainlet response when they are confronted by a superior intellect.

let me know when climate data becomes a linear progression and i'll tell you how many days left the earth has.

>evidence-based argument.
my evidence consists of this:

your analysis of the data is inconsistent with the rules of statistics. your analysis is flawed.

btw if anyone wants to steal this idea go ahead, just give a credit to Veeky Forums for btfo'ing the climate change conspiracy

meme magic

It's absolutely hilarious how some shitposter on Veeky Forums believes he knows all the answers that people that have dedicated their entire lives to studying climatology (some even statisticians themselves!). Armchair analysis of climate science is a cancer, it's filled with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual contrarians like yourself who think you're so special and smart, and you know oh so much better than everyone else. Meanwhile, you're here shitposting on Veeky Forums with the rest of us "brainlets."

Man, if you have all the answers, why don't you go publish your mind-blowing, ground-breaking linear progression analysis of SST, RSS, UAH satellite, and land-temperature data? Surely someone of your absolute brilliance would excel rapidly in the field, publish his findings and completely annihilate all the volumes of other climatological data that exist currently, correct?

So please, go enroll at a University with a climatology department, present your mind-blowing groundbreaking ideas to your professors, and get involved in the research process! Surely you can change everything with your shitposts, right?

>dedicated their entire lives
ah, i knew that's why you're so butthurt.

this isn't the first time a mathematician has had to gently break to another colleague that their entire life's work has been a bust. it's hard, man. trust me, i don't want this to be more painful than it has to be.

>climatology department
the problem with -ology's are that they can only exist if they publish papers. those papers don't have to be accurate, they just have to meet the consensus of the community.

mathematics is a bit different, but it's very simple.

either you're correct, or you're not, and you need to be prepared at any moment in time to boil any assertion you may make down to the smallest possible piece of formal logic, known as an axiom. when you're incorrect and someone points this out, you thank them (after being sufficiently embarrassed at your lapse of skill), and improve your methods so that you get the right answer. remember, all answers are set in stone.

in -ologies, you just have to get enough likeminded people together and socially ostracize anyone who is skeptical of your position, or cannot see any reason why you are correct. after a long enough period of time you magically become the "consensus" which, technically, even though it's still not the same thing as being correct, is generally accepted, and the media is able to push it upon the public, increasing your chances of getting funding.

>Greenland Ice-core-data
>Greenland

hmm
1.cherrypicked
2.1920-1960 period looks weird
3. 1977-2016 period not depicted (most important period)

I'm not a climatologist, I'm a Geologist, but nice try.

You sure have proven what an ignorant fuck you are when it comes to climatological data when you think a linear progression over a massive amount of geological time is an appropriate statistical analysis.

It really shows just how little you know of paleoclimatology, and just how complex climate forcings are, not that you even know the first thing about radiative forcings or climate sensitivity.

Also, yes I trust experts in their field. When I go to a doctor, I don't go to a dermatologist when I have a cardiovascular issue, I go to a cardiologist or a cardiothoracic surgeon, in the same way that I don't go to a Biologist, or an organic chemist to learn about climatology, or a physcisist to learn about evolution. Scientists specialize, just like doctors, they can be incredibly knowledgeable in their area of expertise, you know, which is why we call them experts in their chosen field. Scientists specialize just like doctors do. This is why you have many scientists with crack-pot ideas about things outside their field of expertise, like Roy Spencer, who is a creationist despite being a climate scientist as well. Not to defend Roy though, he does a great job at making himself look like a retard.

People like you show how truly ignorant you are of the scientific process, and the field of Earth Sciences (Geology included for myself) in general. There is no such thing as "meeting the consensus" in the scientific process, the vast majority of climate scientists don't even publish on the topic of climate change, and not every single paper in the field of climatology is even relevant to climate change.

Again, you have presented no evidence, not even a single coherent argument this entire thread to support a claim that climate change is not an anthropogenic scientific phenomena. All you have done is whine and cry about statistical analysis that you clearly haven't even begun to understand

But le first year math students studying things any half-brained person can self-study on their own disagrees with you, because it's not a STR8 LINE - ehehehe.

Reminds me of the times when we had all the "SCIENT-ISM" threads.

So since 1880 the global temperature has raised a little over a degree?
Shit people, everyone stop your engines before we get grilled alive!

>...and the "checking for themselves" aspect is key.
Which is why that's done so often. There are multiple independent groups working at every step from collecting observations all the way through aggregation to studying effects to modelling.

>Oh, so you're one of those obvious reality deniers.
That's nice.

>Vostok ice core
Yes, what about it?

>You can take all of that one step further by the actions taken to mitigate man made climate change so far, in hindsight something looks seriously awry. These actions are all energy sinks and result in additional emissions...
Even if that was true, all that you would have established is that politicians are bad at solving problems. That's news to exactly no-one.

>If good alternatives to fossil fuels are discovered they won't need any help to make themselves worthy.
The problem is that your definition of "good" is fucked up. You're confusing "beneficial for society" with "highly profitable", when greenhouse gas emissions are an externality.

The existence of AGW is "settled science" (as much as science can be settled). The scale, speed, geographical impacts and evolution of it are not.

>Why do people with control of such funds approve this spending? To generate confirmation, to strengthen the political case for basing policy on belief in AGW.
The really bizarre thing is that you seem to believe AGW is manufactured by politicians, when politicians are among the LEAST interested groups of people in doing anything about AGW. Think about it - they get power by racking up votes and money by sucking industry dicks. Threatening to create taxes that push up manufacturing and electricity costs hurt them - that's why all of the "global summits" have been massive flops.

What do they actually stand to gain?

Another retard detected that didn't even bother to understand that small changes can have massive impacts globally.

I bet you're the same type of person that argues that CO2 isn't important because it's a very small part of the atmosphere:

youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&index=28&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

you're trusting experts in their field who aren't experts in mathematical analysis.

when a mathematician says "hey, your data looks different than what you said in your analysis", you listen

that old peak is even higher than the industrial revolution's peak

>he thinks you NEED to be ONLY and solely a mathematician to know math
no

What do you expect from a guy who thinks a linear regression is a "linear progression?"

>industrial revolution's peak
where?

>20,000 years ago

The right doesn't want anyone to focus any attention on this, so they DENY DENY DENY DENY because it allegedly distracts us from the ONE most important and only issue the right has - you figure out what that issue is.

>one important issue

if only it were so simple. the only issue you need to sort out is how to not be a cuck.

hint: learn mathematics.

how would anyone confuse or mixup such basic, and clearly distinct concepts?

i said what i meant.