/Pol/ack here

Maybe if you tried actually reading journals and published work, attempted to understand the mathematics behind climate change, world temperature and rising sea levels, alongside the known information of our o-zone layer and genuine issues with air pollution - China, Paris etc, instead of presuming your epilogue of 'make me believe' can be gauged with no actual understanding

Oh, how cute. You think climate scientists measure things.

Glad you mentioned a hundred years of excellent temperature records. So explain to me how
1. The 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100 years. If the only factor that correlates slightly with rising heat is CO2 levels, why were the 1980's colder than the years before? Did we experience less burning of fossil fuels in the 80s? Seems highly unlikely. Not to mention the overall cooling trend from 1940 - 1980.

>inb4 muh aerosols

not an argument
although i do enjoy seeing how smug you fuckers are. do you sniff your own farts too?

> I want irrefutable proof
Except that you cannot convince someone who actively resists reality. I could tell you that water boils at 100 C. I could put water on a stove, stick a thermometer in it, and heat it, showing you the bubbles.

A /pol/ack would still claim that I'm a providing fake news with a trick thermometer.

You need to believe that climate change is fake. To believe otherwise would upset your fragile ego. When you are ready, you will find the truth.

Note how I said correlation and not "direct correspondence". CO2 is not the only input to global climate.

The effect of sulfate emissions on climate is well known, sulfate emissions were known to be higher in that time period, and the cooling effect associated with an increased aerosol layer can be estimated rather well.

>not accepting the reality of your own cognitive dissonance and bias regardless of political ideology and killing yourself.

No, they would call the thermometer a Jew and screech about cucks.

Same general idea, though.

>not an argument
another fart sniffer? geez maybe I shouldn't have told you guys I'm a /pol/ster. Listen buddy I came here because I wanted to question my beliefs and you're trying to shit all over me for asking for some proof.
>cannot convince someone who actively resists reality
right because by coming here and asking for proof I'm trying so hard to protect my "fragile ego" on an anonymous basket weaving board. grow up faggot

Such a shame that the Little Ice Age data is "just barely outdated" for these arguments. Kind of like terror statistics in the USA beginning on September 12, 2001

So explain to me how
>1. The 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100 years.
It wasn't. That was 1917.

climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/115/

>If the only factor that correlates slightly with rising heat is CO2 levels,
It isn't. There are many factors that affect the climate. CO2 just happens to be the most significant factor in the long term warming being observed. There are plenty of other factors that can overwhelm it in the short term like solar activity, ENSO, AMO, etc.

Anything else?

>sulfate emissions were known to be higher in that time period
sulfate emissions have clearly dropped off recently but are not even close to the levels they were pre 1940. Try again.

convince me that the earth is round
convince me that the sky is blue

>Heres the proof
>Hur durr not reading that proof its all kikery
You came to shitpost and not learn I see

>fart sniffer
>/pol/ster

EBIN TORL DETECTED

U SUR GOT ME

Question: If Trump came out tomorrow and said that AGW is real despite what he said in his campaign and president-elect days, would we still get these threads? Really makes you think.

Regardless, reported for spam as there's already a fuckload of climate threads open.

>not even close to the levels they were pre 1940
And? CO2 emissions have been rising steadily. We had a peak of sulfate emissions around that time that temporarily outweighed CO2, but then CO2's effect outpaced it, aided by sulfate's modest drop.

1. okay you got me there, but still there was a cooling period roughly from 1940 to 1980
2. >the only factor that correlates slightly with rising heat is CO2 levels
this claim was originally made by a Veeky Forumsfag not me. So thanks for helping me debunk this.
>there are plenty of other factors the can overwhelm it in the short term like solar activity
so what you're saying is that climate change is not largely the result of human activity? thanks

not an argument

i fucked up my green text someone call me a newfag

>It's another climate change thread on Veeky Forums

I'd have no problem with these threads if they had intelligent discussion. Unfortunately, there is hardly any to be found in these threads and it's only shitflinging, name calling and other assorted shit arguments that belong on /b/ or /pol/.

I saw that the mods actually deleted one of the threads yesterday, which means there is a mod on Veeky Forums, maybe start cleaning up these threads and banning the shitposters please?

epig shidposting xD
Remember to blogpost on /pol/ how you BTFO us

>not an argument
it was cool the first few times, then it became a cringey tryhard alt-right retort that marks you for humiliation

>inb4 not an argument

Trump won't ever do this, look at the people he has had advising him on climate change; William Happer and Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a fossil fuel funded libertarian / free market "think tank."
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/13/trump-meets-with-princeton-physicist-who-says-global-warming-is-good-for-us/
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-paris-climate-change-deal-myron-ebell-us-president-america-pull-out-agreement-a7553676.html
conservativetransparency.org/recipient/competitive-enterprise-institute/
desmogblog.com/myron-ebell

Trump has no intention of changing his uneducated and misinformed world views. He wants to pull the US out of the Paris agreement.

don't know if you guys noticed, but we are actually having a discussion. It is faggots like you coming here ruining the quality of the thread. If you don't like the thread you don't have to participate. simple as that

Earth is a
rhombus pls
respond

I actually participate in these threads probably more than anyone else. Doesn't change the amount of shitposting they contain.

>"not an argument" is an alt-right retort
yes brother man you got me

Spamming not an argument isnt a discussion. You made a shitpost thread, now go lie in it.

Nothing is wrong.
There is no such thing as climate change.
You have nothing to worry about.

Have you not read the thread? I'm actually responding to you Veeky Forumsguys and the only people shitposting in here are you faggots. GTFO of my thread if you aren't going to contribute

Not an argument

thanks for proving my point

>Its not shitposting when I do it
Read the studies done

>citing the ipcc
hahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha
economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report

sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/IPCCmistakes.htm

I've read some studies faggot. I've also read some studies that say climate change is NOT largely the result of human activity and that the effect is minimal at best

Hi /pol/ack, Veeky Forumsentist here, prove without a doubt one of these:
1) increased CO2 reduces or maintains temperature.
2) CO2 has been decreasing or remaining stable since the start of the industrial revolution.
3) Temperature has been decreasing or remaining stable since the start of the industrial revolution.
4) CO2 has been increasing mainly due to sources outside of human emissions.
5) Temperature has been increasing mainly due to sources outside of CO2 increase.

Make me a believer of the conspiracy that (((they))) don't want me to know about.

>convince me that the earth is round
it's not you retard it's oval
>convince me that the sky is blue
it's not blue you fucking mongol

>99.999% of the world's scientists whose expertise is at all relevant to the subject of global climate, of diverse political and geographical background, not connected by any corporate interest or funding source: "Increased CO2 emissions by mankind are causing the global temperature to rise"
>a handful of scientists employed by companies that profit off of fossil fuels: "nah it's just totally normal for the CO2 levels to rise astronomically with no appreciable source and even though the heat trapping effect of CO2 is easily measurable by anyone with basic lab equipment, it totally won't make the earth any hotter keep buying gas guys"

>Citing an economist blog article
>Citing some webpage that looks like it was written in 1992

Honestly, I really don't have the energy to respond to you faggots anymore. How many previous threads have I responded with links to literature and get ignored, I can't even fucking count. I'm just so tired of you people coming here, spouting the same fucking shit that has been dragged and debunked time after time, and having to write up long, detailed explanations supported by evidence why you are wrong only to be ignored. Fuck this shit.

Cite them, go ahead please.

I can actually cite several studies on Earth Energy Balance, radiative forcings of various climate change factors, and climate sensitivity of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that unequivocally show that human emissions are driving the current trend:
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_be02100q.pdf
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/improved-constraints-on-21st-century-warming-derived-using-160-years-of-temperature-observations.pdf

>There are plenty of other factors that can overwhelm it in the short term like solar activity, ENSO, AMO, etc.
If our discussion is the cause of long-term climate change, it doesn't make sense to consider short-term oscillations, especially when we already know they're garbage at predicting long-term variation.

1) I'm not making the argument that CO2 reduces or maintains temperature, just that the effect is minimal at best at current levels
2)not denying CO2 has increased since the start of the industrial revolution
3)from roughly 1940 to 1980 there was a global cooling period, another Veeky Forumsguy pointed out 1917 was the coolest year on record. the industrial revolution started in 1820-1840. I'm not denying that temperature has increased as well. Once again I never made the claim that temp. has been entirely stable/ decreasing since the IR. why are you asking me to prove things I didn't claim?
4)Again, never made the claim CO2 increasing was from outside sources
5) this is the one that really makes you look retarded. The consensus on Veeky Forums seems to be that global warming is caused by human activity and rising CO2 emissions. I simply came here asking for proof of that statement. The burden of proof is on YOU to back up that statement. It is not on me to prove that temp is rising due to something else. learn2debatefaggot

>OP identifies himself as /pol/tard
>people still respond to him anyways

>January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who had been an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the portion of the IPCC to which he contributed had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns.

>A 2008 Report for the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) suggested that the IPCC report may have been 'overconfident' with its uncertainty estimate for the total aerosol forcing.

Are you denying there have been several noted problems with the IPCC report from reputable sources? Seriously?

However I must say THANK YOU for linking those sources to me, I'll take a look. Finally someone who has provided what I asked for - simple proof. I'll be taking a look at all of those, but for the sake of time and the thread, do you want to pick one which is most the convincing to you and we can discuss the validity of it?

Not an argument.

I think you are just too dumb to understand evidence.

You need something you can see with your eyes.

Check out 1:20,
m.youtube.com/watch?v=iH-W3gYx8vY

OMG WOW why didn't anyone show me this before?!?!?!?!?! If only I could just SEE that carbon dioxide comes out of cars, surely this would be irrefutable proof that rising global temps are the direct results of CO2 emissions!!!! Thanks user!!!!!!!!!! You got any cool Bill Nye videos I can watch next?

You created this thread right? How can anybody be making claims when a thread didn't exist before now? What proof do you have that Veeky Forums believes anything? You started a thread making claims and are accusing others of doing that instead. How does burden of proof fall on anyone but OP?

So you just created this thread to troll Veeky Forums?

I'm actually a /b/tard, it's so fucking easy to troll Veeky Forums you guys don't even present a challenge to me. Now it's time to troll /soc/ since they're next on the board list. See ya.

>you started a thread making claims
really? what was that claim?
I simply asked for proof of a claim I see on Veeky Forums a lot. and if you're denying that the majority of Veeky Forums believes global warming is caused by human activity you're either retarded or a newfag

>posts video of carbon dioxide coming out of cars
>claims this is proof that global warming is largely the result of human activity
lol and I'm supposed to be the troll? please kid, let the adults have a discussion

this is not OP

Disregard that I suck cocks.

>the overall cooling trend from 1940 - 1980

That was because of the Cold War, the Earth is heating back up now that it's over.

You ignore this monolithic thread and the dozens that came before it on daily basis, How are you not a troll or a retarded person?

all he's saying is that visualizing carbon dioxide doesn't prove anything on a global level. you get the same visualization when its cold outside and you can see the exhaust of cars, etc. but that doesn't show the global impact, which is the topic of the thread

Fuck you I'm allowed to make threads if I want to now debate me motherfucker.

I like to pleasure myself as I leave my humvee running in the drive way and sniff the exhaust.

Okay, sometimes I stick my dick in there. Oh damn! You got me! This is me, OP,

youtube.com/watch?v=q0S642NtHtE

This. We're not obligated to teach our degrees to Joe Plumber who is just looking for a new way to vent anger at his wife.

Fuck off /pol/nigger

/Thread

>believer

do you idiots actually think that people "believe" in science? like it's a religion or something... lmao

So to sum up this thread so far -
I came here acknowledging that I was skeptical of the claim that "human activity is largely responsible for global warming" and what happened? I got snobby ass responses with no arguments, and the responses I did get with a little bit of argument were easily refuted. One of the only quality posts linked me to several studies that I would have to buy to even read past the first paragraph. You Veeky Forumsguys like to act you're the smartest pieces of shit on this earth, when in reality when someone calls on you to defend your beliefs, you act like a bunch of children and can't answer the call. If climate change is so obvious and everyone that doesn't agree with you is so stupid, then why is not so easy to prove it? Why do you hold so much contempt for people that simply ask for proof? Could it be because its an extremely complex issue that even the scientific community doesn't have a clear consensus on? No no god forbid you guys admit that the majority of climate scientists actually disagree with the idea that current global warming is due mostly to human activity. Instead you act like my 12 year old and demand a safe space "why aren't the mods deleting this thread" when ever someone disagrees with you.
Why don't you faggots face reality:
the majority of climate change scientists DO NOT agree with the idea of man made global warming:

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#373686e3171b

>Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

You would be surprised. Climate deniers claim that global warming is a "religion" or a "cult," and call proponents of the evidence "warmists." Funny, as they hate the "d" word Denier so much, yet spew out shit like that.

Confirmed retarded person.

it is true. some people treat science like a religion. just because someone says "I read a study that says X" they believe that X is now an absolute truth embedded into their reality

Not your personal professor, if you want to learn science then enrol in college or self educate like the rest of society, retard.

>You Veeky Forumsguys like to act you're the smartest pieces of shit on this earth, when in reality when someone calls on you to defend your beliefs, you act like a bunch of children and can't answer the call.

See. This here is why no one wants to talk to you.

Your fundamental thinking process is flawed and biased.

You just want to blow off steam after reading some alt-right tabloid that got your panties in a bunch.

not op
not an argument
never said you were obligated faggot. no one forces you to participate in this thread but I see you came here to find validation on a japanese underwater basket weaving board so I'll give it to you: WOW UR SO SMART U HAV A STEM DEGREE HOW MUCH DO U MAK A YEAR?

you are demonstrating his point perfectly

I still have not seen one credible shred of evidence in this thread and yes yes good goy ignore that the majority of climate scientists in the world do not agree with you

>I want irrefutable proof that current climate change is largely a result of human activity and CO2 emissions.

Proof or evidence?
We have evidence but no proof.

>No pussy shit like running my car makes the earth heat up .000000000000001 degrees.

Mechanism is different.
CO2 traps heat
That's it.
Your car puts CO2 and then that traps heat.
For 17000 years.
The effect accumulates because the soil has Co2 bound in it.
Heat a little and a little more is released.
A runaway effect so to speak.
So its not about heating the planet.
Its about making it so that heat can't leave the planet.

>I want proof that the rise in temperature is almost entirely due to us during fossil fuels.

Evidence for the claim that burning C02 creates climate change is this.
You take air and see the amount of C02 it has.
You do this every year.
If it is increasing and the global temperatures are also increasing you got evidence that they are related.
Correlation is not causation though so we don't have proof.
Only evidence.

>Can Veeky Forums make me a believer?

Don't believe us.
We have a model to explain climate change.
Unless you bring a better model to us we will hold it to be true.

(Better here meaning a model that have less assumptions and explain more facts)

there isn't anything to believe. stop using that word. it doesn't make sense in the context you're using it. there is nothing to believe in science. it is a collection of findings by people highly educated and knowledgeable in their very specific field of study, not some cult recruiting people and requesting handouts as they tell you to believe in a spaghetti monster as they fuck a 7 year old up the ass. they couldn't possibly be any farther from each other.

This is a board for discussing science, not a homework board. If you want to learn something for your high school project the information is readily available on the internet.

Stop spamming Veeky Forums.

Once you are done reading through,
, leave your counter argument, and then someone will likely respond to you.

I wish mods would delete more of these spam threads.

seriously guys lets keep ignoring reality:
The majority of funding for the study of man made climate change comes from left wing or gov't sources. Are you people really so blind that you cannot see the power structure here? They grant that money to researchers hoping for a specific outcome of the study so they can use it to push their agenda. If the outcome of the study does not help push the agenda they are no longer given funding. It doesn't have to be some /pol/tier jewish conspiracy. This power pull is well known in the community and you're being disingenuous if you deny this. nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

>Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment. “Soon’s integrity in the scientific community shines out,” says Ebell. “He has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.”

but that's exactly what I am saying. many people I know even at a university level who will read something and as long as it says the exact phrase "Studies show that ____" then they take it in a similar way you would imagine a cult would take the word of their deity

How? Does this look like he wants to learn or talk?

> Fuck you I'm allowed to make threads if I want to now debate me motherfucker.

He's just jacking himself off as he blows off steam.

If he was really interested in learning, he would have put a minimal effort of reading before spamming.

I agree with you that something like "2 + 2 = 4" is not really a belief, its a fact. But this issue is not that simple. manmade climate change is not accepted as fact in the scientific community and there i still much debate around it. Suggesting that its a fact and not a belief is stupid and irrelevant. I came here to argue science, not semantics.

>nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
Not a scientific argument.

You need to engage with these ideas.
Even if you think he won't ever be convinced, there are people lurking who will be convinced.
Good job to those that provided evidence.
Fuck you to those of you who took it as an opportunity to jerk yourself off.
Also there's 2 other threads up on this topic.

that wasn't me that posted that retard

so you are just too lazy to give him a good response or what? if you gave him undeniable evidence and proof then I'm confident OP would be convinced. and yes it is extremely frustrating to have a science board that doesn't discuss anything but gets offended by queries

"lalalalalala i don't want to accept that there is bias in the scientific research community llalalalalala go back to your containment board this is my safe space lalalalalalalala"

Explaining climate change simply to someone who knows nothing about the science is very difficult. There are a vast array or resources on the Internet that could help you understand the phenomenon.

>the majority of climate change scientists DO NOT agree with the idea of man made global warming:
Literally a false statement.
First off, what is a "climate change scientist," because last time I checked, there are a wide variety of Earth scientists that study climate change, from atmospheric physicists and chemists, to geophysicists, to oceanographers, to mathematicians and statisticians. Surveys that study the actual published, peer reviewed evidence show that when authors of papers publish on the topic of human role in climate change, the papers have a strong consensus of supporting the evidence that humans are causing the changes via greenhouse gasses and positive feedbacks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

That "97%" figure you hear cited so much comes from several consensus studies, and it refers to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, not fucking random people with a BS or MS degree, or engineers for that matter, it refers to people within the atmospheric sciences itself and what they understand to be the causes of climate change.

Please don't go and cite the debunked Oregon study by the way, that list that literally anyone with a BS can submit to that has hundreds of fake signatories on it. It's completely meaningless.

>Citing a James Taylor forbes blog as proof
kek, you guys never fail to amaze me. Taylor is nothing more than another Heartland shill, on their payroll to spread disinfo.

this

I'd have to say anyone lurking would really question the idea of manmade global warming. There's been like 5 posts actually debating with OP of which most were refuted and one of them linked a bunch of studies that you have to buy

Meanwhile, for actual studies refuting AGW: see pic related.

> implying that OP even cares about Logos or Pathos when he has already proven himself to be too lazy to read through EXISTING threads
> asking Veeky Forums to be happy with b8 threads

> *Logos or Ethos