Who's with me?

Who's with me?

Other urls found in this thread:

warosu.org/sci/thread/S8575247
science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
environmentalscience.org/career/climatologist
soapboxie.com/social-issues/Climate-Change-Predictions-How-Accurate-Are-They-Really
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

me. /pol/ is nazi too so its not like they were not gonna do a hate crime later

...

Let there be memes

ive got one for you then
vaccines are little ufos and cause breast cancer, testicle cancer, and vagina cancer...
what to do with Veeky Forums?
>warosu.org/sci/thread/S8575247

You have to go back

lamo

Anyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.

... you buffoon - pol is critical of Global Climate Change

+88

If they are from the 0.1%, YES

Apparently you don't know how to read a simple graph. The y-axis doesn't even show temperature. It shows radiative forcing.

That was just an example. idc about y-axis because x is the problem here. Earth is much older than 250y so it means that this graph shows extremely local data, which is manipulation.

are you saying they should make it look more like a hokey stick curve? Because that's what it'll look like if you extend the x axis.

>walk in
>take pants off
>shit on floor
>look around
>"this isn't the bathroom!"

>Earth is much older than 250y so it means that this graph shows extremely local data, which is manipulation.
That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Then we might as well say it is 2 degrees warmer than yesterday so it proves global warming.

Why does that graph separate anthropogenic effects and non-anthropogenic effects then. And im sure the data they use isnt just about temperature but many factors and how it correlates with human activity.

...

Do you really want to send that many scientists to jail? Interesting.
How about we start sending people who falsify data to jail. Wouldn't that make more sense?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

...

>crickets

the oil industry propogandization is strong with the Veeky Forums crowd.

The false data propaganda crowd is still much bigger. Doesn't mean they're right.
99% of scientists were against Galileo. How did that one work out?
They even locked him away and had him renounce his discoveries. OP and the rest of you are the 2017 version of them, you must be proud.

>They even locked him away and had him renounce his discoveries
That'd be the Church that did that you mongoloid.

see

>believing the """generations""" meme
Top kek

Yes, and "climate change" is the new religion...

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
pic related, from the article
>How about we start sending people who falsify data to jail.
It's already illegal to forge data.

Ironically, that statement is demonstrably false.

Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.
From the same Wikipedia page, but there is so much more in there. I'll get back to you soon, still reviewing the hundreds of peered reviewed journals against man made "climate change"
tty soon

Fucking moron. The study you quote didn't survey scientists, but instead surveyed a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta.

>reviewing the hundreds of peered reviewed journals against man made "climate change"
What a spectacular way to show that you're not even an undergrad yet. Keep trying.

...

you skipped over the most important part, the part that directly contradicts the point you're making:
> "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

farmers can move from drying regions to greening regions

humans are simply fixing a dead end in the carbon cycle the same way white fungi did, we will be raising CO2 levels nice and high now

You can say that about any modern theory all that strawman does is promote absurd skepticism. It also ignpres the fact that we have a completely different scientific climate today.

Who's with me?

>8591480
Your Flat Earth thread needs attention.

The point is that you can use any arbitrary time scale to reach different conclusions.

How do you demonstrate what time scale is relevant?

Also there are 0 predictive models in agw. It is literally not a science or theory

You know this is false right?
Even if it were true, which it isn't, consensus doesn't mean anything

How so?

All timescales are relevant if you can correlate them to activity.

"Fucking moron."-you
Responding like this shows that you either have a vested financial interest or emotional attachment to your viewpoint. It shows that you aren't open to any information that contradicts your pre disposed opinion. It also exposes your lack of intelligence.
Here's another example of misleading things are.
John Cook et al., 2013
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. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

...What that basically says is that 66.4 percent had no position. That leaves 33.6% that do. Out of that 33.6% (note how the article doesn't publish that percentage) 97.1% of the 33.6% do believe that humans are contributing to "global warming". That's hardly a consensus.
Also note the last line about the vanishingly small proportion of published research. That's the fear factor that's preventing scientists to speak their minds. They don't want to be chastised or vilified, because that means they don't get to eat anymore once the religion of "climate change" destroys their careers. This whole situation is analogous to the whole Galileo fiasco, and very bad for science in general.

If we compare to 4 billion years ago, the current warming looks negligible.

If we compare to 50 years ago, it looks hugely abnormal

What does the sampling over time tell us? How do we pick a time interval that gives us an accurate picture of what's going on?

We need a predictive model of agw that says specific human activities will cause a specific response. The models that have done this failed terribly which is why I'm skeptic. When we gain predictive power that matches a previous interval as well as matches future observation, I'll stop being skeptic.

Nice try Soros. People are free to have their own opinions especially in science where every theory should be open for debate.

>a few hundred years of questionable data and 50 years of supposedly less
questionable data is sufficient to predict trends for something that has been acting like it does today for hundreds of millions of years

You haven't proved shit faggot, that wouldn't be acceptable in ANY other field, there is simply not enough evidence

>97.1% of the 33.6% do believe that humans are contributing to "global warming"
This is all you need to know. Because if you phrase it differently, only 2.9% of published papers take position against anthropogenic climate change. Articles that 'mention' climate change don't necessarily need to explicitly state a position, because whether that is important or not depends on the study in question. If I study changes in bird migration patterns due to climate change, then no need to bring up the cause of climate change, because I'm studying birds migrations.

>That's the fear factor that's preventing scientists to speak their minds.
No, kek. I'm a neuroscientist. If I find consistent data that goes against a dominant theory, I fucking jump on publishing that shit, because those are the most interesting papers and tend to make it into high ranking journals. Novelty sells. It just so happens that climate data consistently points in the direction of anthropogenic warming.

Fucking moron.

And how do you know the activity millions of years ago? The evidence is empirical and that's not good enough

>questionable data
Kek, you obviously don't know shit about these journals. Have a look at their ranking before you say dumb shit like this.

*not empirical

You're absolutely right! Less than a hundred years ago, we didn't even know other galaxies existed. "Climate science" has been around since the sixties, in any kind of serious way.
Trying to find out who the first person with a climatology Phd. is, not having much luck. Seems to be some big secret or something. If someone knows please post. I did find this however.
environmentalscience.org/career/climatologist

No, kek. I'm a neuroscientist.
That has to be the biggest larp I've ever seen, congratulations.
I'm Albert Einstein, and I've travelled through time to bring you this message.
You're an idiot...
Tesla came with me, you don't want to know what he thinks of you.

>That has to be the biggest larp I've ever seen, congratulations.
I'm full on kekking now. The fact that this is difficult for you to believe further demonstrates that you're not even an undergraduate.

This may come as news to you, but scientists are people too and they know how to use the internet!

Yes, there are trolls of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds. I still don't believe you, not because "scientists can use the internet too", but because you structure your wording like a fifth grader. You also use /pol/ terminology like "kek".
>It's glaringly obvious.
There I threw in some green text, just for you. You seem to like that a little to much as well.

>I still don't believe you
That's not really my problem though, is it.

I'm glad we were able to discuss the topic at hand with structured arguments.

Oh wait.

But then again those points dont sway the debaye the other way eithet. And i think u have to really be open about how much weve changed and its potential effect on earth. How can you ignore the idea. The skepticism you invoke doesnt kill climate change arguments and we do still have data. Kind of like when theists say you cant disprove god. No but we can still have some good reasons to believe so. Youd also actually be surprised at the standards of evidence used to propose all sorts of things in science. Not saying its bad, just people have a distorted view on reasonableness given available evidence. Science isnt necessarily about conclusivity.

>it's the "climate was warmer in the past therefore warming in the present will have no consequences" meme
Hi /pol/!

I tried, but was faced with...
>KEK TOP KEK FUCKING MORON DENIERS! YOU PEOPLE ARE SOOOOO FUCKING STUPID, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
Oh well. I'll just get back to reading the journals.
>Have a nice day

Your mistake is taking an insult for an ad hominem. If you had read my posts you would have responded to the arguments, and taken the insults as the wonderful cherries on top that they are.
>I'll just get back to reading the journals.
I wish you'd do that.

Here's a list for you to start at:

One more thing. When you ask a question, a question mark should follow it. Not a period.
>I guess they must do things differently in the neuroscience department...
That was a valiant attempt to come across as more intelligent though. 5/10

>When you ask a question, a question mark should follow it. Not a period.
Oh, is that so. You don't say.

Note also that you again deflect and ignored the valid reference to pretty much the only actual scientific literature posted in this thread. But oh well. I'm not mad. Actually, I'm happy that you /pol/tards keep coming back. You might even learn a thing or two about science.

Yes, I'm learning all kinds of things. Things like how emotion and opinion have taken over science. Things like how insults and academic intimidation are used to stifle research, and experimentation.
Scientific truth will win the day, either way. It just might take awhile.

>Things like how emotion and opinion have taken over science. Things like how insults and academic intimidation are used to stifle research, and experimentation.
This may be quite a leap for you, but just go with it for a second. Maybe, just maybe, Veeky Forums isn't at all like academia.
>Scientific truth will win the day, either way.
Wonderful! We've finally found something that we can both agree on. Let's close on that one and call it a day.

>farmers can move from drying regions to greening regions
Ah yes! They can simply sell their used equipment for a fraction of what it cost, buy new property that would probably cost several times more than what they'd get for their now worthless farmland, and move. It's so simple!

Nobody says there isn't consequences but it's silly to assert we're the cause.

We as humans have always placed more importance on ourselves than we deserve in an effort to control our short existence.

Ah, the old "its silly" line of argumentation. Good times.

Humanity is simply a blink in the history of our planet. But if you are a human you probably care about that blink and what happens 50 or 100 years from now. If you don't, you shouldn't care about steps to mitigate AGW either.

>We need a predictive model of agw that says specific human activities will cause a specific response. The models that have done terribly which is why I'm skeptic.
Climatological models have been accurate for decades. You are being lied to and if you were actually skeptical you wouldn't gullibly swallow whatever you're told just because it agrees with your preconceived conclusion.

soapboxie.com/social-issues/Climate-Change-Predictions-How-Accurate-Are-They-Really

>Nobody says there isn't consequences but it's silly to assert we're the cause.
Plenty of deniers say it. There are deniers who claim it isn't warming, it isn't bad, it isn't man, and all combinations of this. The funny thing is that they all think they are the true skeptic and every other type of denier is a strawman. When in fact they are really all just denying well established science because they don't like the result.

No models ever are perfect and humans have changed the planet massively. Cant ignore it.

oh would it now? proof?

/pol/ wants me to post a hockey stick curve. Well this is a first.

This thread is about climate heretics and how to punish them for their climate heresy, everything else is a red herring.

Since the science is settled the high climate priests will have more time to spend in climate courts, here we can frog march the climate heretics in and have the climate priests lambaste them before high climate councils of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Heresy - UN-IPCH. These heretics will then be held in detention and their emissions restricted until a consensus can be reached on how to purge them from earth. There is not much time left to act.

That's the thing though.
It's not well established science.

There's a lot of data, most of it shit, suggesting temps are rising on average.

That's not science, it's not even evidence. It's literally just an observation.

>having the wrong oppinion is a crime

wew lad

You have to be delusional to believe AGW is solely based on temperature data and climatology is not a well established science.

DAMN ROMANS AND MEDIEVAL EUROPE WITH THEIR FOSSILE FUEL CONSUMPTION

THEY DOOMED EARTH.

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON FUCKING MINOANS WHOEVER THEY ARE.

But we have anthropogenic hypotheses concerning it too. Do we have any theories for non anthropogenic temperature changes?

Who was the first person to receive a Phd. in climatology, and when did it happen?
Thank you.

that's historically false.
>Cardinal Bellarmine made it clear to Galileo in 1616 that if those scientific objections could be overcome then scripture could and would be reinterpreted. But while the objections still stood, the Church, understandably, was hardly going to overturn several centuries of exegesis for the sake of a flawed theory. Galileo agreed to only teach heliocentrism as a theoretical calculating device, then promptly turned around and, in typical style, taught it as fact. Thus his prosecution by the Inquistion in 1633.

>muh ebul Church setting humanity back a thousand years.
yeah kid learn some real History.

behead those who insult infinite sets

wait so what's the meme here

>there is no global warming

or

>there is a global warming

>making fun of mspaint shitposting

mspaint shitposting is the heart and soul of Veeky Forums
go back to kukddit please

>Thus his prosecution by the Inquistion in 1633.
But this is in full agreement with my earlier post.

That is irrelevant.

The existence of consensus means the common man is probably not smart enough to explain why they are wrong.

Especially not considering /pol/'s only explanation is the merchant meme.

Like it or not, most things are only knowable on the basis of consensus from ones who no better. Without consensus we could be skeptical of most of what us individuals know when taken to extremes

>scientists are people too and they know how to use the internet!
>know how to use the internet!

This board is damning proof that scientists DO NOT know how to use the internet!

Here we are bickering over whether or not it's happening instead of discussing how our species must respond.

Does anyone in this thread know what pic. is and why they're important?

>Here we are bickering over whether or not it's happening instead of discussing how our species must respond.
You know that this is only the case because the /pol/tards started invading other boards since they got cocky after the Trump win, right?