Doesn't the fact that climate science is the only science where skepticism and criticism aren't welcome arouse any kind...

i know this is going to blow your mind, but you can believe that something is happening and still not want more regulations or taxpayer funded research.

Partial and incomplete list of scientists who went against the majority of their fellow scientists:

Galileo
Leeuwenhoek
Einstein
Darwin
Newton
Pasteur
Well, you get the idea...

Being a contrarian does not automatically make you right. It does make you one of the people who MIGHT discover something new and advance science.

Science is not Majority Rules.

>you can believe that something is happening and still not want more regulations or taxpayer funded research.

Sure, but then you are just retarded. Actually retarded. The 3 groups I pointed out are not retardes. One does it for economic incentives, the other does it for fun, the other does it because they don't know any better and kinda depend on big oil/coal.

You are just retarded lol.

you can't prove that regulations in the US are going to have any measurable effect on continuing climate change, when china and other developing nations make any reduction efforts moot.

Other political science topics:

Human genetics and evolution
GMOs
Pesticides/Herbicides
Nuclear Power
NASA budget
STEM cell research

I could probably look up a lot more, but those are just off the top of my head.

Exactly! But the reason is obvious.

"Joe the plumber" doesn't care about any other science other than the ones that cost big companies alot of $$$.

And guess what? Where did "Joe the plumber" hear about these sciences? Conveniently on the propaganda machine that plays in his/her room 24/7.

Suuuuspicious.

>you can't prove that regulations in the US are going to have any measurable effect on continuing climate change, when china and other developing nations make any reduction efforts moot.

Who brainwashed you? Do you know that China is right now one of the countries who most strongly oppose Climate Change in their legislation?

Being a country that depends on manufacturing wasn't their choice. The economy has a mind of its own. But they are changing. They have a Carbon Tax and just late last year they announced the funding of the bigges solar energy farm in the entire world.

In their own words this is to:
>“The development of clean energy is very important if we are to keep the promises made in the Paris agreement,” Xie Xiaoping,

Source: theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/china-builds-worlds-biggest-solar-farm-in-journey-to-become-green-superpower

So, no. We don't want the US to helplessly regulated Climate Change, despite how China won't give a fuck. We want the US to fucking catch the fuck up.

china is actually doing an about face on this because it's becoming almost unlivable in some cities

>the fact
no, bcoz not a fact

The US pollutes the most per capita by far. Other countries are actually doing something about it: a lot more than the US. China will soon be the world leader in solar power.

"Opposing in their legislation" is not the same as actually doing anything, though.

What do you means? Laws mean real shit will go down. Do you think the carbon tax is just for show?

I mean, ignoring the carbon tax which is pretty common, I just showed you a concrete example of how China is taking climate change more seriously than any other country. That solar farm is also not for show. It will produce a shit ton of electricity and create a shit ton of job. That is real progress.

You contend that China is always honest about their plans and policies?

I contend that China has solid proof that they are being honest about this one issue. Solid proof I literally just linked you to.

1) There is overwhelming evidence that it is happening
2) It poses a serious risk to humanity if left unchecked

you still can't prove that any singular regulation in the united states will have a measurable impact on climate change. if you want my tax dollars for these regulations, asking for proof that it will work (and more importantly that the benefit offsets the cost) is not an unreasonable request. especially when there are other more pressing ecological issues in our own backyard that could use those resources.

>they are changing
but as of today, they are still the rootinest, tootinest, pollutinist country around. india and soon africa are going to go through the same cycle.

>GMOs

>The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.

>What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.

GMO's are 100% safe, unless 100 billion data samples isn't enough for you.

Yeah never understood why everyone is against GMOs, it's not like organic food is 100% safe

Because there are no legitimate counter arguments. Anti-climate changers are laughably retarded.

This isn't ain't like the memedrive where experimental evidence keeping btfo scientists time after time. Even cuckservatives have fallen back to admitting it's happening and shifted to saying it just isn't man made.

I hate muslims too man but I don't let it blind me to bullshit rightwing talking points. Humans are affecting the global climate.

>you still can't prove that any singular regulation in the united states will have a measurable impact on climate change

If monkeys jumping on the bed causes the bed's deterioration to accelerate then writing a law that says "no more monkeys jumping on the bed" would immediately imply that this deterioration will no longer accelerate.

Arguing for the contrary is pretty retarded.

> there are other more pressing ecological issues

I'd like to hear what you would consider an issue.

>but as of today, they are still the rootinest, tootinest, pollutinist country around. india and soon africa are going to go through the same cycle.

If the first world is able to advance technology that can replace fossil fuels then simply handing this technology to the third world through smart deals would be the easiest shit.

Third world countries are poor and need to do whatever they can to get the fuck out of poverty. First world rich countries are the ones responsible for the future of humanity.

Not only that, but organic foods produce far less yield (estimated to be 25% less) and thus becomes less and less practical each day as more and more people are born around the planet.

Sounds like religion.

>people invented science

Oh right. People don't like to be wrong about ANYTHING.

>Science is not Majority Rules.

That is exactly what "empirical" means.

Skeptics are welcome as long as they *do research to back it up*, otherwise they're just throwing tantrums with no proof and trying to coerce people into believing it.

Imagine if I went on the news and said that the Earth revolved around Jupiter and offered no proof, then when astrophysicists said I was stupid I yelled that they were trying to quiet the opposition.

When you say "skepticism and criticism aren't welcome", you really mean they aren't accepted. You're free to deny whatever you want, doesn't people will think you're correct.

i feel it for you OP. these sciency guys sometimes are just fucking idiots. if they just stopped and listened for a second instead of mindlessly repeating their two lines maybe they would realize their (((data))) is being tampered with

...

>atheists are the butt of every joke
doesn't surprise me

Except for the fact that climate science has plenty of skepticism and criticism within the field itself, like any other scientific field does.
However, the main sources of "skepticism" of climate science are often not scientists, or are scientists / engineers that aren't even involved in the earth sciences. Keep in mind that many of these "skeptics" trace themselves back to conservative / libertarian organizations that are funded by energy interests, and are strictly anti-regulation of business, often times to the point of universal praise of the fossil fuel industry itself.
There's hardly any legitimate, true skeptics of climate change out there, the vast majority of them are uneducated conservatives who are anti-science on multiple issues, not just climate change. There's far too much exchange of dirty money among the most prominent of climate "skeptics." What really makes them non-skeptics in my mind is that when they are proven wrong, for example, with cliamtegate, or with the "pause," or with the sun's role in the current warming trend, they refuse to acknowledge it or accept the scientific evidence. Another thing that really bothers me is when they accuse scientists of fraud or manipulation, especially in regards to data that is publicly available. Climate change skepticism has no merit when it is wrapped up in conspiracies, instead of studying the evidence itself and finding flaws, or accusations of manipulation.

That sounds right.
Retarded tend to question proven fact, like most of China. No government should be without criticism. It just sounds like China is filled with repressed retardeds at that point

Any science that jepordizes established big business/money is basically on the rich's shit list.

Climate Science isn't the first and won't be the last. But the community being aware of this pattern is going on the preemptive in terms of defense instead being meek.

Hell the only reason alternative energy manage to get mainstream traction is because of the war on terrorism.

A series of natural disaster tied to weather, mass extinction of animals or disease outbreak will have to happen before the naysayers admit climate science and climate change is legit.

Half of these /pol/tard types are wishing for "the HAPPENING" to occur, so they probably still won't admit it's legit. The mental gymnastics are very strong

Nah, people will deny it till they die. There's too much money and policy / regulation riding on climate change. Fossil fuel industry stands to loose trillions in profit due to regulations, they will fight it with every fiber of their being, even if many of these organizations now publicly accept the scientific evidence, they still fund misinformation through third parties.

Doesn't matter for all of these people anyways, they will be long dead before the impacts of our stupidity threaten us all. Easier to make profits now and live the good life while not having a care in the world about future generations, or human civilization itself.

they test vaccine if they work and if they have side effects
i would call that criticism

When you're right you're a majority of one

They should be, for their own sake. They're the ones who're drowning in their own smog, after all.

What about human intelligence differences? There's a huge chilling effect in academia over inquiry into this

On a more positive note, we're already seeing some conservatives retreating from outright denial and questioning whether it's manmade instead. It's not much, but it's a step towards acknowledging the trouble we're in. It's also worth noting that petroleum tycoons are showing (or at least feigning) some interest in renewable energy investments:

theguardian.com/business/2016/may/21/oil-majors-investments-renewable-energy-solar-wind

Now we just have to hope that Trump doesn't gut the EPA too badly...

jesus christ why does trump have to be such an idiot, hoybo

Actually there isn't (at least within academia) the bigger issue is the differences in medical treatment where it's slowly being realized that clinical drugs and therapy are going to have to be designed/ adjusted for different populations, ages and sex to maintain the same effectiveness.

blog.dilbert.com/post/155073242136/the-climate-science-challenge
blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-knowledge
dilbert guy BTFO climate scientists

That's because it's a religion not a science. If it was just a feel good religion that's one thing but it all needs to justify a carbon tithe now so it's like being critical of the Pope during the dark ages or whatever.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

This dilbert guy?
comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppet/

No, it's just that nobody cares.

Boring research gets no funding.

>you still can't prove that any singular regulation in the united states will have a measurable impact on climate change.
Utter nonsense.

>if you want my tax dollars for these regulations, asking for proof that it will work (and more importantly that the benefit offsets the cost) is not an unreasonable request.
Did you look for it before asking for it? No? So you are complaining about something without knowing anything about it?

nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n7/fig_tab/nclimate2249_F1.html

pro tip: they were all experts in their fields and not corporate shills.

>skepticism and criticism
That's fine

Rolling up and saying the entire field is fake is like going up to a Latin teacher and telling them the Romans didn't exist

Yes. There is a whole industry that profits from "interpreting the data" released by climate scientists by going to the other extreme. Just look at what BS the Guradian publishes on it's opinion pages every now and then, or what jokers like Guy McPherson (Near Term Human Extinction) and Sam Carana (Guy McPherson lite) make a living off of.

Fallacy:
1. It does allow criticism: that is why it is so robust.
2. It is not the only one: flat earth, moon landing, 911, astrology, homeopathy, phrenology,...,

Stupid people both doubt and accept what they shouldn't because they are stupid.

Closed systems sometimes have a dark secret.

A historical perspective (pic) allows the deconstruction of the current climate narrative.

In the Beginning there was Hansen, and Hansen was the algore engine that pushed the CO2. The catastrophic predictions reached a level of absurdity that some adjustment was required.

The scientific provenience of the CO2 power factor deserves closer investigation:

Myhre (1998) cites Edwards (1992) and himself, writes about halocarbons and SF6, then cites Shine (1991) as his radiative model and Shine is also into halocarbons. Why halocarbons? What's up with SF6? Where's the CO2 data? Myhre and Stordal (1997):

We investigate the role of spatial and temporal resolution for estimation of radiative forcing due to SF6 and a range of halocarbons as well as CO2. A broadband model, which is used in the calculations, is described. Some comparative calculations have also been performed with a line-by-line model.

Sounds like early HITRAN dabblings rather than modern physics.
The real modern physics has moved to the 3% exclusion zone.

The water vapor trick - dark secret of the 97%

...

That is just looking at the animals that are being fed GM feed.
What about the environment (& animals) at the area where the GMOs grow? And there is more than one GMO, saying that one is safe doesn't mean that all are.

One style of GMO is to improve resistance to pesticides and then increase the pesticide usage. And that can certainly have negative health impacts for the animals being fed GM feed and the humans consuming those animals.

Why don't the big money just be the early adopters/pioneers of renewable energies? They should think of all that money to be made, instead of a desperate cash grab that will harm everyone in the long run

I really don't know, but if I were to come up with an explanation, I would say that it's simply too expensive and outside of their expertise. Natural gas / coal / oil is cheap energy, easy to exploit, and highly profitable. They make trillions upon trillions in profit from it each year, there's no need to change and invest billions into something that is much more risky and costly to develop, especially when you don't have the expertise to do so.
They don't really care about the long run anyways. Most of these people that are making bank right now off exploiting fossil fuels won't have to deal with the impacts of climate change in the future.

It's like asking why the oil industry didn't just invest heavily into electric cars, it was their competition, so they put up efforts to stop them (like they did in the 1990s). Another example is how the auto industry helped to destroy public transport in many American cities, like how they bought up the Streetcar companies and then dismantled them.

>they don't have the expertise
Poaching talent is a thing. They, with their money and power, have the negotiating advantage desu.

It's more to do with renewables being direct competition to their interests. Renewables, once up and running, don't need a fuel to run off, they have the sun, wind or water movement to power the generators.

Think about it this way, the oil / gas / coal companies are harvesting a natural resource and exploiting it, selling it for consumption. There's a lot more money to be made by selling fossil fuels compared to selling electricity from renewables. a LOT more, as so much of the world relies on the fossil fuels for transport, industry and electricity generation.

>Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

This attitude is fine, if only the fossil fuel industry was actually honest like this, I would hate them a lot less. Manipulative lying bastards, the lot of em.

>they test vaccine if they work and if they have side effects
>i would call that criticism
He's got a point, though.

Everyone who has done their homework knows that vaccines kill people. Aside from bad vaccines or bad batches, some people just randomly have a bad reaction and die.

As for more subtle long-term problems, there isn't solid evidence for them, but nobody's been looking very hard either, and while it's easy to imagine various ways in which vaccination could cause problems, it would be very difficult to find and prove specific issues.

Vaccines also have a negative effect in that reliance on them enables people to continue behaviors that spread disease and keep us vulnerable to flash epidemics, such as hand-shaking, "presenteeism" (going into public while obviously sick), promiscuity, attending crowded events unprotected, frequent long-range travel with crowding and without quarantine, attacking people who want to raise the standard of hygiene as "germphobes", etc. This keeps us vulnerable to rapid spread of anything we're not vaccinated against, especially bioweapons, which are becoming easier to develop.

However, there's quite a strong push to suppress open debate of the fundamental merits of vaccination policy and dictate to the masses that they simply must get their shots, as the wise and worthy have decided they should.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
What, these guys?
>we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious
The guys at the leftest-of-left-wing strongholds Berkeley, who said the problem with climate science was that it was "too argumentative and too contentious" and then came back and said, "Yeah, the mainstream warmists are totally legit. The problems other people have noticed don't matter. Stop criticizing them."?

Not exactly the strongest example to support a claim of robust, fair debate.

this. Honesty must be the first step to not only finding the most optimal clear energy solutions together, but would also initiate the breaking down of conflict theory, without having to enforce socialism. It's pretty much a sociological cheat code. Normalize the elite and make them realize they work for us, for REAL.

This.

I definitly believe in climate change but if someone was to come to me and say, "Climate change is not real and I have solid scientific evidence to prove it," I'd listen without prejudice.

I've never had that happen, though. I have, however had, "CLIMATE CHANGE IS FAKE, YOU MORON. THE (((ELITES))) ARE FOOLING YOU! WE'LL ALL BE SUCKING ON CHEMTRAILS IN FEMA CAMPS BY THE TIME YOU REALIZE IT!" happen to me a lot, though.

>who said the problem with climate science was that it was "too argumentative and too contentious"
No, they said the subject was argumentative and contentious, not the science.

>and then came back and said, "Yeah, the mainstream warmists are totally legit. The problems other people have noticed don't matter. Stop criticizing them."?
They didn't simply "say" it, they proved it. Berkeley Earth directly tested the criticisms of climate change deniers through data analysis and by developing an independent climate record. Its methods were praised by deniers, until it came to the conclusion they didn't like.

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
-Anthony Watts

>Not exactly the strongest example to support a claim of robust, fair debate.
It would be nice if you actually showed how their analysis is wrong, but we both know you can't. All you can do is insult, insinuate, and lie.

>What about the environment (& animals) at the area where the GMOs grow?
What exactly is unique about GMOs that would make them more harmful to the environment than any other agricultural crop?

>And there is more than one GMO, saying that one is safe doesn't mean that all are.
Where did he say just one is safe?

>One style of GMO is to improve resistance to pesticides and then increase the pesticide usage. And that can certainly have negative health impacts for the animals being fed GM feed and the humans consuming those animals.
If this had negative effects it would be seen in the studies that represent billions of animals being fed GM feed. But it's not. The difference between a skeptic and a denier is that the former accepts evidence while the latter does not. Which one are you?

There's a difference between skepticism and denial. You can be skeptic about claims of global warming, you can even criticize the methods used in a particular investigation.
But when you're confronted with evidence, like that of a meta analysis where 97 or so percent of studies, of which there were thousands, on climate science showed that climate change is very much real, and you still deny that evidence. You're not being a skeptic, you're being a denialist.
And unless you have enough evidence to counter thousands of studies, or you found an error in how that meta analysis was made, your criticism is little more than garbage at that point.

Ah Muller and Watts. You've beaten that story to death.

Muller, of course, pretended to be a skeptic, which proved to be false. In fact, he admitted that he was a hard core warmist already:

Here's a nice quote of his from 2003:

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Thus, when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.

You, of course, hate Watts because he provided an independent proof that the homogenization adjustment algorithm is flawed. He showed that clean data (Class 1 and 2 stations, generally with less UHI, instrumental problems or a history of temp stations movement) warm about 50% less than all data (Class 1&2: 0.155 degrees/decade vs. NOAA 0.309 degrees/decade). Pic related.

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

This is why you have such unabated, unsubstantiated and unjustified hatred of Mr. Watts. He destroyed the legitimacy of the "homogenization" adjustments.

This is hilarious, this is an exact, copy-pasted comment from a previous thread. My god that is pathetic. Do you keep a notepad open with all your shitty comments pasted there to just pull up the same old, tired shitty arguments again and again?

warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:
kek

>This is hilarious, this is an exact, copy-pasted comment from a previous thread. My god that is pathetic. Do you keep a notepad open with all your shitty comments pasted there to just pull up the same old, tired shitty arguments again and again?

Ah your butthurt is tremendous. Truth spoken again is still truth. Must hurt a great deal.

How is it not open to critcism? It just takes a lot of work to understand the basiscs of climate science in a rigorous way.

Just noticed he's been doing this shit since September 2014, very plausible he's a paid shill.

I think you should go back to your echo chamber and stay there buddy, there's no point in even arguing with you.

Well why don't you admit that Muller is a phoney. Was never a skeptic and never doubted climate change. And Watts figured it out.

hi, might want to change your file names, that way we can know you're not just here shilling.

This is honestly just sad.

Are you going to respond to any of my points? >Muller, of course, pretended to be a skeptic, which proved to be false. In fact, he admitted that he was a hard core warmist already:
>Here's a nice quote of his from 2003:
A skeptic is someone who uses reason and evidence to determine the validity of a claim. This is exactly what Muller did with Berkeley Earth. Muller is far more a skeptic than the people who deny the evidence of AGW. YOU are the one pretending to be a skeptic.

>Thus, when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off.
What exactly did Muller lie about? Was Watts incapable of finding quotes of Muller several years before Berkeley Earth? Why did he only turn against Berkeley Earth after the results were publicized? You're not a very good liar.

>You, of course, hate Watts because he provided an independent proof that the homogenization adjustment algorithm is flawed.
This paper was thoroughly debunked, the conclusions are not supported by anything.
skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

>but not Darwin
Who says you can't criticize Darwin in the US?

He probably means you can't criticize Darwin without being laughed at for being an idiot.

>>they are changing
>but as of today, they are still the rootinest, tootinest, pollutinist country around. india and soon africa are going to go through the same cycle.

Is your entire argument hinging on the logic of "it's not so bad because other countries are worse?"
Because if so, that is pretty damn stupid and childlike. The US should be an ideal to aspire to, at least from the way they see themselves.
Right now, it seems like in terms of clean energy and reducing pollution, everyone will be on top EXCEPT the US

> The US should be an ideal to aspire to, at least from the way they see themselves.
Fuck that. If the rest of the world wants to do something about "climate change" they should put their money where their mouths are instead of whining and blaming whites for everything. If they're not going to get their acts together, why should the US martyr itself at the altar of climate change? If the US fucks over its own economy and China becomes top dog because they didn't, then guess what? Nothing changes except that the US is weaker and China is stronger. The nations that ignore climate change and press ahead with economic growth instead will win. Why should we choose to fuck ourselves over?

>you'll never be this autistic
feels good

You are of course right, but I was thinking of the fact that while the US can crash and burn of you ask me, the planet should not go down with them. I like it here, and I want my kids and their kids to live in a hospitable environment

im fat im stinky i poop on my back heel cause niggers make me feel like a big stinky peepee! Cacka! Flarping diaareah!

Wow, where'd you get your opinion from on this subject, the guardian? LMAO

It entertains many valid criticisms like the exact effect of carbon dioxide in retaining heat, whether the carbon in the air is really from humans, and what effect it will have on ecosystems. Not "it doesn't exist because anatarica has more ice".

i don't think criticism is welcome in any field if it's based on some retards internet assembled philosophy

You must be new to these threads.

he didn't BTFO climate scientists, he "BTFO" non-scientists who adhere to claims from actual scientists like it was a religious cult

>
>hi, might want to change your file names, that way we can know you're not just here shilling.
He BTFO the Muller vs. Watts argument, so lets ignore it.

Pathetic, that is you.

>A skeptic is someone who uses reason and evidence to determine the validity of a claim. This is exactly what Muller did with Berkeley Earth. Muller is far more a skeptic than the people who deny the evidence of AGW. YOU are the one pretending to be a skeptic.
>Har, har, har.
Taking the same dataset (GHCN) and apply the same methods (cooling the past by "correcting" for TOB and then applying "homogenization") is not skeptical. If he wanted to show actual skepticism of this, he would have compared to the results to clean data e.g., data taken from Type 1 and Type 2 stations (though they can still have some UHI) WITHOUT homogenization (mixing in urbanization).

But he didn't did he? Who did do that? Oh yeah, that was Watts, a true skeptic.
>nb4 hurr durr funding, prove his science false buddy.

And he would of investigated the temporal relationship between CO2 and temperature and noticed that temperature always goes up BEFORE CO2.

But he didn't did he?

Muller didn't show a shred of skepticism. Because he never was a skeptic.