Anyone else here who has studied mathematics/physics/chemistry at a university level...

i am doing masters in environmental sciences and i know that human is so negligible against nature that he can barely change the climate, if there is anthropogenic climate change, than it is nearly 0

but pollution is real. air, land and water pollution is being done every second all around the world, we should fight against that, but some people have diverted the minds of sheeple towards global warming and climate change.

This

Look at india, the place is over populated and they're deficating in their own drinking water. The Indus river, a once gorgeous river is now a toilet river, its absolutely disgusting. Everyone swuabbles over climate change but pollution is the biggest threat humans are facing at this current moment

Both are caused by excessive fossil fuel use, which in turn is caused by capitalism preventing innovation of new technology. What's the problem here?

I can't even imagine what kind of poor education you're receiving that you've come to that conclusion. Is this supposed to be some kind of shitty argument from your own authority?

All of the evidence shows that humans have far more than a "negligible" impact on the Earth's climate system, you would know that if you even bothered to read any published studies on the subject.

>if there is anthropogenic climate change, than it is nearly 0
Hilarious for someone so ignorant on the topic to make such an absolutist statement. Sorry to tell you, but again, you're so wrong it's comical. You clearly have such little knowledge of the subject, it's honestly embarassing to claim you're working towards a masters and have come to this conclusion. Perhaps you should go and read the IPCC report, or some literature focused on climate forcings and atmospheric physics?

Here, I'll help you out:
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
First, read AR5 chapter 8 on climate forcings, it's a long read, but if you're an academic with training you should be able to breeze right through it, no?
FAW from ACS on what climate sensitivity is:
acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

Second, you should read a few studies, as the IPCC is merely a compilation of the knowledge at the time the study is published, the IPCC did not conduct their own research, but many climate scientists, physicists and other earth science professionals contribute to the reports.

>but some people have diverted the minds of sheeple towards global warming and climate change.
Sounds like you're one of them, considering how ignorant you've already proven yourself to be on the subject, especially considering you state you're training for a Ms in environmental science. Truly embarrassing.

Science advances by evidence, you should know this, the body of evidence for anthropogenic climate change is astoundingly large.

>Pooing in a river is caused by fossil fuels

Wew, ok lad

>i know that human is so negligible against nature that he can barely change the climate
Where to people get these retarded ideas from?
Have you never seen an image of an open pit mine, or cites from space?. Humanity’s impact on the Earth is far from negligible, and is measurable almost everywhere.

youtu.be/QV9x79_WYbk
Time to learn some shit.

>Vice

Double wew

Sorry I don't have a breitbart or infowars video discussing what happens to your shit and I know you're too lazy to read a book. You give me very little to work with.

Explain in plain English, without a link or a video, how fossil fuels cause people to shit into rivers?

I don't care if it's not a detailed explanation, I just want to see where you're coming from here.

Excessive fossil fuels use allowed India to reach the unsustainable population it's at now. They have insufficient toilets for the population only because the population is too large. If fossil fuels weren't abused to temporarily inflate the population to ridiculous levels this wouldn't have happened.

>climatologists
I respect meteorologists and am grateful for the services they provide but am not religious. The last thing this planet needs is more priests and politicians or their enablers. The last thing I want to pay is some new age carbon tithe to a gang of organized crooks and liars.

>Many climatologists have training in physics and mathematics
Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist. Fuck off please.

Why are you still hating players instead of the game? Head over to leftypol and learn how you can help put an end to capitalism.

> the Pope of Rome is a chemist

what did he mean by this?

I shit into rivers for fun and I think global warming is a globalist conspiracy.

I'm not sure that's really fair.
India isn't shitting in rivers because of overpopulation, it's shitting in rivers because horrifying levels of wealth disparity means that many (most?) people their have no access to basic infrastructure. The high population density means the shit is a problem, but it isn't what's causing people to shit in rivers in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not even sure India's population is even (theoretically) unsustainable. With proper agriculture, distribution and infrastructure they really ought to be able to take care of an immense population. They're not doing that right now, because of the already-mentioned wealth disparity.

India is basically a case study on why a 21st-century caste society is a momentously bad idea. Fossil fuels are a part of that, but they're far from the root of the issue.

(you) un-ironically think this way.

Sad, how sad. You're the same shitposter from all the previous threads who always whines on about his feelings and emotions and compares a legitimate scientific body of research to religion because it hurts your feelings. Why do you even browse Veeky Forums, and further, why do you continue to make / post in these threads when your argument is literally an appeal to emotion every single time?

>Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist.
Statements such as this show how truly irrational of a person you are, and that you're never going to engage in a rational or reasonable discussion. Why are you so overly emotional? I'm guessing you also believe that your contrarian scientists like Happer, or Singer, or Lindzen, or Spencer / Christy are also "priests?" Keep in mind that the latter three all have training in atmospheric physics, as do many non-contrarian climate scientists.

Do you know what a religious belief is? It's when you reject scientific evidence in favor of an emotional argument, which unsurprisingly is exactly what your entire argument is. It has no basis in evidence, only emotion.

phys.org/news/2017-03-bias-climate.html
Does this trigger you as well? Let me guess, it too is a part of your imagined conspiracy as well, because, why not?
>The conclusion is that climate researchers do not conceal uncomfortable facts which could potentially disprove climate change.

Essentially, the authors tested for biases in thousands of climate science studies, and found that there was no evidence of publication bias in the science. Basically this means that within the field, both insignificant and significant findings were reported, though the more significant findings tended to have a larger presence in the abstract vs. the less significant ones, which isn't surprising.

>The last thing I want to pay is some new age carbon tithe to a gang of organized crooks and liars.

Either that, or the world is fucked huh?

I guess I'd pick that if it were a matter of belief. But its not.

>I shit into rivers for fun and I think global warming is a globalist conspiracy.

You don't have to admit the former if you admit the latter, friend.

>climatologists
>The last thing this planet needs is more priests and politicians or their enablers.
"Science I don't like is a religion because I say so!"
That's creationist-tier reasoning.

>The last thing I want to pay is some new age carbon tithe to a gang of organized crooks and liars.
Look up "Tragedy of the Commons" some time.

>Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist.
Oh no. You're not the Pope-poster, are you?

Everytime some dipshit come over from /pol/ trying to trigger bunch of Veeky Forums and you guys fell for the bait everytime and legitimately address the denier as if he/she is arguing in good faith rather than for the sake of arguing spewing buzzwords and doing strawman logic.

It usually takes 1-2 days and community effort until the shitposter is BTFO, the thread dies, then he makes a new thread pretending to be a new user and the cycle continues.

It's good in a way, I'd rather people be talking about climate change so newcomers can learn than for it to be completely ignored. I appreciate the denier showing up an raising awareness.

Idk. Cancer spreads, and sometimes there's nothing you can do about it.

Which do you think is the easier fight: Getting /pol/raiders to accept evidence, or Veeky Forums to stop relying on evidence when arguing with people who don't care about it?

If that's the case shouldn't we just make a climate change general, with posted FAQs in pastebin just like bunch of other general thread?

Not sure whether general thread are allowed or not in Veeky Forums but this is better than just arguing in circles until the thread dies, rinse and repeat

If not for climate change denier threads I never would have heard about potholer54 and learned the importance of proper citations and checking them for accuracy. The climate is a multidisciplinary field of study and I'm always learning something new. They were a net benefit for me personally.

A question for the ages.

>human is so negligible against nature that he can barely change the climate
this probably b8, but:
this conception of nature as some almighty force is why so many plants and animals, including economically and ecologically important ones, are extinct or endangered. people thought that human influence is so puny that they could never possibly exhaust the resources of the natural world; they had this sense of awe, a powerful belief that this was so. and then we learned what we were capable of.

Yeah I can see your point, we did have climate change thread generals a few times, but denier user makes them anyways so not really any point.

there's no difference between having an endless general and some faggot just spamming his threads whenever they 404

except with the second option you actually have a hope of the threads eventually dying out

It's called cognitive bias, specifically attitude polarization. The more evidence you present, the more they retreat into their echo chamber, to the point at which evidence presented will not have any effect on the person. Basically, climate change deniers get their information about climate change from very biased sources of media, such as conservative / libertarian websites that are very anti-science, or from climate change denial blogs. Therefore, when you present evidence from a legitimate scientific body, it is automatically dismissed because their way of thinking has devolved into imagined conspiracies involving the scientific establishment and government research and whatnot.

I still post evidence in these threads all the time, and always engage the contrarians regardless, because it's fun, and because it helps me keep myself informed about climate change, gets me to read scientific studies and whatnot, so it's not pointless, though I doubt it will ever convince someone that has reached such a high level of delusion.

Any FAQ you post will be dismissed. If you even post a wikipedia article on global warming, which is a great introductory / faq on the issue, it will be dismissed. The AR from the IPCC are probably the best and most comprehensive resources out there though, but they're literally THOUSANDS of pages long.

You're retarded.

You give them gooble-de-gook that could be read and interpreted in many ways.

Climatology is a difficult science but its results are being mangled for easy political results.

>present evidence from a legitimate scientific body, it is automatically dismissed because their way of thinking has devolved into imagined conspiracies involving the scientific establishment and government research and whatnot.

You do realize we're going through a paper crisis because a number of fields are finding themselves to be unable to replicate the majority of experiments?

People aren't being (exceptionally) retarded. They understand that humans are political animals and understand that things which are "pushed" into the public have a political intent which could be positive or negative to them.

Maybe we could just make a pastebin of copy-pasteble replies to counter /pol/s copy-paste arguments? I know I've typed out the same "The UN isn't the recipient of climate finance money" post maybe a dozen times, and I'm sure others have too.

And then there's the "old RSS data plotted 1998-to-2013" chestnut. Nonsense about how the US government has a vested interest in people believing in AGW (they don't) and are leaning on Climatologists (they aren't). There's that page of 200+ links to claims about Global cooling from the 70's, that actually just links to dipshit newspapers and aerosol forcing research. Every other thread has a post about the "missing" tropospheric hot spot, despite it both actually existing and not really mattering. There's that one flickery animated graph that claims that data's been cooked (you know the one). There's that graph (by Judith Curry, I think?) showing "averaged model runs" against old-RSS and balloon data, but the baseline's way off and Gavin's already shat all over it. And then there's...

Fuck, we could do them all, and ctrl-c ctrl-v the hell out of these threads.

I only know psychology and medicine are, what other fields?

It seems to me like you're just looking for excuses to dismiss anything that doesn't confirm your biases.

>You give them gooble-de-gook that could be read and interpreted in many ways.
Actually I try and be as unambiguous as possible. Given you couldn't be bothered pointing to a specific example, or even clarifying what you mean by "gooble-de-gook", you're really not coming off as sincere here.

>but its results are being mangled for easy political results.
That doesn't make the results wrong, or justify ignoring the science itself.

The "replication crisis" is a concern for people directly involved in actual research, but I'm not sure it's nearly bad enough that outsiders should be getting exited about it. It is DEFINITELY not grounds to completely ignore entire field of research when they say things you don't want to hear.

>People aren't being (exceptionally) retarded.
Of course not. People stick their heads in the sand when they're told about large scale problems, that's normal. And companies with financial interest in doing things that make the problems worse are obviously goign to spread doubt, and push people to keep their heads in the sand. That's also normal behaviour.

"Normal behaviour" here is completely suicidal. THAT'S why people are pushing AGW so hard.

>They understand that humans are political animals and understand that things which are "pushed" into the public have a political intent
That's not a free licence to ignore the opinions of actual experts though.
If you think someone might have ulterior motive for telling you to do something, you should try and find evidence for that. You shout NOT just flat-out ignore them based on a hunch.

>I only know psychology and medicine are, what other fields?
I don't have a link the a paper on me, but IIRC almost all fields have been hit with it. Medicine and Psychology are just the worst offenders.

>That's not a free licence to ignore the opinions of actual experts though.

You don't understand. They're not even qualified enough to evaluate the experts!

There's been a lot of technocratic egregiousness. So to speak.

The notion of calories and the whole fucked up food pyrmaid bullshit they came up with has mangled diets and led to a situation where we have many diseases that wouldn't have to be treated acutely if we had a sane notion of proper diet.

And fucking calorie counting. What a fucking waste of cognitive power.

So you have to understand, "experts" aren't unequivocally respected.

sure buddy

I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

The replies to poltards isn't about them, it's just a convenient place to drop a useful pic or link for lurkers.

I understand the whole "debating for the sake of the audience" idea, but that requires you to actually HAVE an audience. How often do you see posts here from people who are honestly curious about AGW, but don't know much about it?

Nutritionists are several degrees removed from the fundamental hard sciences, math, physics and chemistry.

Climate science has strong foundation in hard sciences. Climate models for example are simply combination of four very basic, 17th century physics with conservation of energy (thermodynamic equation), conservation of momentum (through Navier Stokes equation of fluid momentum transfer), conservation of mass (mass into grid = mass out grid) and equation of state (based in ideal gas law).

The two big American state of the art climate models, GISS model (from NASA) and CCSM-Community Climate Science Model from NCAR are completely open source (CCSM3 requires email registration). If you have Linux machine and some FORTRAN installed, 16 GB of RAM you can run them.

simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/
cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/

For CCSM3 you can sieve through the codes and report any bugs/mistakes here, we'll be happy to address any real concern about the model
bb.cgd.ucar.edu/

Correction, I meant 19th century physics not 17th century duh

>i am doing masters in environmental sciences
No you aren't you larping /pol/tard. Go back to your echo chamber and stay there.

>capitalism preventing innovation of new technology

Wew, lad

The reason why anthropogenic climate change is a religion is because for 99.9% of the general population (even those who are literate in science), they are not directly involved with the research and they don't have access to the numerical models that the climate scientists use to make predictions, etc etc

The general principles related to climate change (CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans emit CO2, therefore humans probably influence climate change) are well understood by anyone with a 60+ IQ. But for someone to claim that they are literate in climate change research is ludicrous.

What they really mean, when they say they believe anthropogenic climate change is happening, is that they have FAITH in the scientists who claim that it is. It is nothing more than FAITH, because these claims cannot be verified by anyone other than the people making them.

I'm not necessarily saying that anthropogenic climate change is a myth, it may well be 100% accurate, but it necessarily requires FAITH to believe that it is true. The experiment is not repeatable.

>gut instinct
>Veeky Forums - Science & Math

At least three of those principles relate directly to nutrition

>Conservation of energy
>Conservation of mass
>Ideal gas law

>Graphs stop in 2000, conveniently ignoring the 20+ year pause that has occurred since around that time

>posting on a Honduran kirigami imageboard in 2017 to say that a report from 2007 should have included data through ~2020
can I borrow your time machine and give your mother some contraceptives?

>Yeah and the Pope of Rome is a chemist

But he IS a chemist (at least at a high school level).

I want you to remember making this post, and see how you feel about it "in a few decades' time", assuming you live that long.

Yes, I was doing the same and started having a similar feeling about certain things I was learning.

Just kidding, it's everything
youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

youtube.com/watch?v=sULjMjK5lCI

Notice how the disinfo troll spends every sentence condemning OP's motive for questioning then drops a link to an 'authoritative source' without even elaborating on it further, truly sad, believing most people are like themselves and will shudder at being ridiculed.

>The "replication crisis" is a concern for people directly involved in actual research, but I'm not sure it's nearly bad enough that outsiders should be getting exited about it.

Are shills usually this obvious?
Here's where the 'facts' comes from

Notice how the 'anti-AGW' posts all have the most obvious intentional typos in what's clearly an attempt at ridiculing the opposition, or consensus cracking through sock puppetry.

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#170

>naturalnews.com
>/x/
However, there are also pre-print servers like Rxiv, and some open review journals that publish anything, and some other international journals not included on this list. Just because a few organisations publish most papers doesn't mean they control what's true or not, because if you can't get published in a good journal, you go down the list and you eventually get published in a lower impact factor journal.
Unless your paper is absolute garbage, someone will publish it.

>if you can't get published in a good journal, you go down the list

and cough up $2500

youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=5m5s

>The experiment is not repeatable.

CMIP stands for Climate Model Intercomparison Project. The project uses 28 state of the art climate models from various countries, independently built from one another using basic fundamental equations and intercompared with one another. Literally all of these climate models are open source and have unrestricted access to the public.

cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/availability.html

The result from these climate models mostly converge. This means that the modeling exercise/experiment conducted is very repeatable. There is a whole chapter on the IPCC report that is also freely available to the public solely dedicated to model intercomparison and evaluation (although to be fair a lot of the content of said chapter is just copy paste from CMIP5 results)
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

It really doesn't take FAITH to believe, but the public just need to be willing to educate themselves and find reliable sources. Again I'll reiterate that ALL 28 state of the art climate models used in CMIP5 are open source and freely available to the public to debug.

>Excessive fossil fuels use allowed India to reach the unsustainable population it's at now.

Really it was the green revolution - better crops that make it ridiculously easy to feed people. The same problem is at play in Africa now.

Also any thread that discusses climate that doesn't go into water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas) and the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere really isn't worth reading.

>that doesn't go into water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas) and the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere really isn't worth reading.

Water vapor is indeed the number 1 most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and is the most dominant positive feedback to be concerned about with regard to global warming but there's nothing we can do about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Total water vapor concentration (more commonly known as relative humidity) is strictly a function of temperature, and temperature only following the Clausius Clapeyron equation
science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/clausius.html

What can people possibly do to regulate water vapor? 71 percent of Earth's surface is the ocean, you want to fucking put a giant lid over the ocean to prevent evaporation?

I don't know where do you get the misinfo about the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere, the amount of extra surface area of open water from agricultural activities are obviously insignificant compared to the amount of open water in the ocean and lakes.

Hope this helps

Serious question to the supporters of AGW, why do you guys think public opinion matter? At least if you live in the US, India, and China the 3 largest polluters public opinion DOES NOT matter
scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

This study shows that shifting public opinion is a moot point. Most public in the US think that US congress need campaign finance reform, increase spending in education (both Rep and Dem voters agree), basic stuff but the policy follows special interest and economic elites rather than public interest.

Climate scientists spend so much time and effort marketing climate change, with fancy paywalled papers that got covered in major newspapers, fancy infographs, fancy youtube videos, TV shows with Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc. You guys come off as snake oil salesman trying too hard to push a certain agenda, and most Americans are just busy trying to pay rent and mortgages.

Just because after spending billions in advertisement, advocacy, etc you managed to shift public opinion into believing climate change is real and manmade doesn't mean that there will be significant policy action about it.

youtu.be/AnrBQEAM3rE?t=2h15m

>"supporters" of evidence-based science
>"believe" in climate change
Sounds like you're looking for a religious belief, not an empirical, evidence based science.

>Climate scientists spend so much time and effort marketing climate change
Yes, because presenting evidence to the public is advertisement. What's humorous about this is that the one thing most climate scientists lack is public outreach about their research, as do most scientists in most fields. If anything, there is a severe lack of public outreach as to the evidence of climate change, at least from the people who actually publish studies and analyze the data.

>with fancy paywalled papers that got covered in major newspapers
You can find almost any scientific paper easily, I never have a problem doing so, climate science is probably one of the most open scientific fields out there in terms of ease of access to the literature / research / data. You can test the evidence yourself by downloading the data published by climate researchers.
>fancy infographs, fancy youtube videos
Yes, because climate science deniers never make shitty infographics or youtube videos. Youtube probably has 10 retarded climate change denial videos for every video about climate science, because climate science just doesn't interest a lot of people, and explaining / discussing the evidence isn't that exciting of a subject. However, conspiracies and edgy contrarian opinions about it get millions of views every single time some conservative / libertarian personality decides to make a video.

>TV shows with Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc
Neither of these individuals are climate scientists, nor are they experts on the field. They are popular scientists and of course they get paraded around the media, not just for climate change, but any scientific issue. This is ironic, because the same ~4 denier scientists get paraded around routinely on Fox News and other media organizations.

Geologists and climatologists are brainlets that couldn't get into higher stem, so they chose those non-scientificial fields. Then they read a bad article how someone feels that climate changes becouse last 100 years shows little fluctuation in temperature and starts to parrot it.

Thanks you for enlightening us trustworthy anonymous internet user!

Dude I'm not a denier, I'm just saying that focusing on public opinion is a wrong tactic, because the public are too busy with their lives and climate change happen so slowly (with respect to daily human lives) that it's hard to elevate climate change into an important issue.

A good analogy would be if there's a plane crash killing 100 passengers everyone would freak out. People say to each other "have a safe flight" but not "drive safely to wherever" despite you're way way more likely to get killed in car accident driving and thousands of people each day got killed in car accidents.

If you want to get serious long term climate mitigation policy to pass through congress, a better investment would be to lobby the congress, and join exxon and other oil companies at their own game because again majority public opinion almost has no correlation to the policies and law being passed in congress.

>Just because after spending billions in advertisement, advocacy, etc you doesn't mean that there will be significant policy action about it.
Care to provide some evidence for this claim that "billions" has been spent on "advertisement" for a scientific field? Please be specific and cite your sources.

I can think of quite a few incidents in which millions of dollars have been spent by the petroleum industry in order to advertise fossil fuels, one such notorious recent example was during the last super bowl, in which the API produced an ad about petroleum products:
api.org/news-policy-and-issues/news/2017/02/05/api-launches-power-past-impossible-campa
This is just one example of one organization, you can find hundreds of these type of advertisements for the coal, oil and gas industries attempting to paint them in a good light and generate PR.

>managed to shift public opinion into believing climate change is real and manmade doesn't mean that there will be significant policy action about it.
Oh I see, stage 5 yet again. While the US lags behind, instead of being a world leader in this process, the rest of the world is creating sensible policy on reducing fossil fuel emissions. If it wasn't for the actions of climate change deniers, specifically in the US, and the influence of the fossil fuel industry's anti-regulatory stances, we would have been a world leader in the policy process. There is a massive misinformation lobby on climate change in this country, which has a specific goal of misleading the public and casting doubt on the science.

/thread

Have you visited the swiss alps, or any other glaciers?

this 100%
claiming that we should be more worried about water vapor as it relates to climate change is like claiming that we should be more worried about oxygen as it relates to starvation.

See I'm not a denier. I have climate denier old school republican parents, and in my futility trying to convince them I realized that proponent of AGW spent their resources in the wrong avenue. Money wise, it would take a lot of ads, tv shows, movies, to slowly change my parents' opinion over time, but their vote doesn't matter anyway because policy in the US is controlled by special interest and public opinion doesn't matter.

Even if they're convinced that AGW is real, my parents and other people like them cannot be bothered to pester their congressman, rally on the street etc. They might for a day or two if one can sufficiently indoctrinate them, but then they'll get distracted into other pressing issues such as ISIS, illegal immigrations, Russia, and so on.

Just take a concrete example. You spent so much time shitposting in a Cambodian landscaping forum trying to convince other anonymous Cambodian that climate change exist. Is that really the best use of your time? Say you really convince like 1-2 anons. Then what? Not that the 1-2 anons are likely to be US congressman or British MPs. If you're truly concerned about climate change, then a better use of your time would be donating cold hard cash to charity, carbon offsets, etc rather than stubbornly trying to convince other primates about your beliefs

>Dude I'm not a denier, I'm just saying that focusing on public opinion is a wrong tactic
You're implying once again that there is some kind of organization lobbying climate science out there, "dude." That's a fiction that doesn't really exist, most climate scientists are either independent researching at universities, or work for government organizations like NOAA, NASA, GISS, or the EPA. These researchers aren't out there lobbying congress, that's not their job and that would violate a lot of ethical codes.

>because the public are too busy with their lives and climate change happen so slowly
It depends on where you live, look at Miami for example.

>A good analogy would be if there's a plane crash killing 100 passengers everyone would freak out.
This is far from a "good analogy."

>If you want to get serious long term climate mitigation policy to pass through congress, a better investment would be to lobby the congress, and join exxon and other oil companies at their own game because again majority public opinion almost has no correlation to the policies and law being passed in congress.

Who exactly is this directed towards? Do you believe that climate science is one big conglomerate corporation? Science doesn't work like that, individual climate scientists and organizations have no where near the amount of money and power that the fossil fuel lobby has to spend. Climate change denial is a multi-million dollar business, including many organizations that attack scientists / scientific research and mislead the public on the issue through the media. This is the problem. Whenever there is a "debate" on climate change on a news network, such as Fox, they never invite an actual climate scientists to discuss the issue. Instead, they get bill Nye, and he's arguing against some tard from an organization like Heartland for example. It's never an actual, scientific discussion.

Replace AGW with evolution or any other science you want to ignore.

>You're implying once again that there is some kind of organization lobbying climate science out there

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#Founding_of_NextGen_Climate_.282013.29

>In 2013 Steyer founded NextGen Climate, an organization that works on climate change issues. As of November 2014 he had personally supplied over 80% of NextGen's funds.[49] NextGen Climate provided the environmentalist movement with significant capital and political influence.[51] Steyer tried to get other millionaires to donate a total of $50 million to NextGen, but had raised less than $4 million as of 2010.[49] Steyer spent almost $74 million on the 2014 elections. The vast majority of those funds, nearly $67 million, were channeled through NextGen.[49]

>In August 2015, Steyer was the guest of honor at the California Democratic Party headquarters to discuss bills to cut gasoline use in half by 2030, although Steyer did not commit to spending large sums of money to support the bills.[58]

>In July 2015, Steyer called on 2016 candidates to develop strategic plans to provide the United States with at least 50% of its energy from clean sources by 2030. The message was reportedly targeted at Hillary Clinton, who had yet to outline an environmental policy. It was suggested that this was a strategic move to secure a political alliance with Clinton.[59] Steyer has raised money for Hillary Clinton,[60] and hosted a fundraiser on her behalf at his San Francisco home.[61]
Steyer was the single largest contributor during the 2016 election cycle with $87,057,853 in funds contributed exclusively to liberal candidates.[62]

>You're implying once again that there is some kind of organization lobbying climate science out there

Here's one example
comerfamilyfoundation.org/environment/comer-fellows-the-changelings/
They called themselves "the changelings," funded by billionare Gary Comer. This include some of the biggest name and textbook writers in climate science like Wally Broecker. These people publishes in reputable peer reviewed journals and listed their publications here
comerfamilyfoundation.org/our-impact/comer-fellows-publications/

Honestly I don't really know or care much about politics, and I've always assumed the best way to get resolve an issue is to get the public educated about. Isn't that how we got rid of the influence of the tobacco industry?

The problem is that evolution is more intuitive than AGW.

The current description of AGW comes from the interaction of models utilizing mathematics that are literally beyond 95% of the population.

A second "problem" is human opportunism and jealously. People don't like overt social engineering (for good reason).

A third reason is that normal people are already being bombarded with religious/moral messages ALL THE FUCKING TIME. They imagine that the face of "AGW" is some spineless asshole and some fucked up bitch laughing at their faces as they stamp them with boots.

Fourthly, you don't convince people with '"rational" evidence. You have to hit them on an intuitive level.

Who would've thought that the humble water filter salesman wins again at the end of the day

fall off that horse mr jones

>Water vapor is indeed the number 1 most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,
It's the most important, not potent.
>nothing we can do about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Dumb.
>following the Clausius Clapeyron equation
Not when precipitation must be considered.

>you want to fucking put a giant lid over the ocean to prevent evaporation?
Why? Evaporation is good.

>I don't know where do you get the misinfo about the role of irrigation in increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere
Umm
>the amount of extra surface area of open water from agricultural activities are obviously insignificant
No, and areas irrigated sees way higher evaporation rates than open water does.
>Hope this helps
Wasting the time of your betters really helps.

Fossil fuels are mostly going to affect the planet via acidification, not warming.

You are making a ton of idiotic generalizations. It really is not that hard to describe climate models to the general populace intuitively. It depends on what technical level you stop at. For example it is easy to understand what climate sensitivity and radiative forcing mean and how they play together. You can find several sources explaining this and other things to laymen. It's not any less intuitive then what had to be explained to debunk creationist arguments.

There are varying degrees of communication from emotional to scientific that are all employed by environmentalists and scientists, and they are all necessary. If you accept the evidence which tells us that AGW is real, damaging, and can be mitigated, then it doesn't really matter how certain people will feel when you tell them this. So I don't see what your point is.

Sources needed for all that bullshit.

>and they are all necessary
>fear mongering is necessary

ok

Now you're just embarassing yourself.

First water vapor is the most important, and the most potent, as if you do radiative balance calculation the majority of greenhouse effect and IR reflectance is caused by water vapor. 95% of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere molwise IS water vapor, hence the most potent and the most important.

Second, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is governed by Clausius Clayperon relationship only. Precipitation a function of saturation vapor pressure, which is also governed by Clausius Clayperon equation which only depends on Temperature. As the partial pressure of water vapor in an air parcel reaches the saturation vapor pressure, precipitation will happen

Finally, an open water exposed to the atmosphere doesn't care whether it is part of an irrigation system, or it is the surface ocean. Do you have any fundamental physics and argument to back up your claim that water in irrigated areas behaves differently than water in lakes, rivers, and ocean?

>evolution is more intuitive than AGW
people can't conceive of how big the planet is and how long it's been around, so they reject the notion that things could have changed significantly.

>It really is not that hard to describe climate models to the general populace intuitively.

the number one failed course in the US is algebra. even at the "college" level, its algebra. i think you highly underestimate the intellect of the average person.

you are probably one of those people that think bachelors degree's are a dime a dozen nowadays too.

>it is easy to understand what climate sensitivity and radiative forcing mean and how they play together.

Not intuitively. There's a lot of handwaving if someone want to explain radiative forcing and climate sensitivity to the public.

Thermodynamics are the least intuitive process there is. The fundamental equation of thermodynamics in itself requires someone to at least take calculus 1, calculus 2, calculus 3, and ordinary differential equation to grasp.