All these warnings about climate change

>finger pointing
>divisional propaganda

If there is a problem, don't point a finger, do something about it.

>If there is a problem, don't point a finger, do something about it.
I don't think you understand how this works. In the US the government is entirely controlled by the Republican party, and the republican party is controlled by industry. Unless you expect people to invent new battery chemistries in their garages, politics and finger pointing is the only road forwards right now.

Also, shitting on the floor and then asking people why they're blaming you rather than cleaning it up isn't exactly going to make you many friends.

Reminder that if you are proved correct 1,000 times but proved wrong once, you are wrong

Also there is not a single issue that 98% of scientists agree on, so that claim is bullshit

If people really cared about this climate change shit they'd do something instead of begging for people to pay taxes towards stupid bullshit "research"

I've noticed it get hotter every summer and less snow etc

>Reminder that if you are proved correct 1,000 times but proved wrong once, you are wrong
What are you even referring to?

>Also there is not a single issue that 98% of scientists agree on, so that claim is bullshit
There are plenty of issues with wide scientific support. That's what happens when we've had solid evidence for more than two decades.

>If people really cared about this climate change shit they'd do something instead of begging for people to pay taxes towards stupid bullshit "research"
They are doing things, and they'd be doing a lot more if there weren't systematic efforts to block them.
Also, how the hell is studying a problem an unreasonable response?

It is a contradiction in terms to be both proved correct and later be proved incorrect. If you are later proven to be incorrect, then the original proof of correctness was no true proof.

False

nobody has been made rich from climate science funding, and nobody studies climate science with the aim of getting rich. there are much better schemes for getting riches.

>nobody has been made rich from climate science funding
who is al gore?

found one
You should be forced to provide for atleast 30 Bengali refugees

Al gore isn't a climate scientist

forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/13/ipcc-in-a-stew-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-books/

"[...] Larry, they have found that the public will believe almost anything that is represented as being agreed by “scientists”, provided that you have enough of them and they are backed up by the requisite number of celebrities and public figures.

Unfortunately for their message, there is no evidence that human-emitted greenhouse gases have a harmful influence on the climate. So it becomes necessary to use spin, distortion, deception and even fabrication to cover up this absence of evidence with a collective assertion of belief in their cause to an increased level of certainty. In the end they must rely merely upon collective opinions within their selected ranks, of which they once again claim high levels of certainty. However, they run into the problem of imposing such severe discipline on so many people, most whom have been trained to think independently."

>Larry bell
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Heartland_Institute_Called_Out_for_Blocking_Action_on_Climate_Change
Manufactured consent straight of the line

Just wondering why literally everyone denying climate science isn't doing it with climate science, and is paid by Exxon Mobil?
Doesn't add up, clearly the answer is the climate scientists are lying. The tree of liberty must be baptized with crude oil

A beach I used to visit as a child in Jamaica no longer exists due to rising sea levels.

>Al gore isn't a climate scientist
did you misread my post?

-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_Gore
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Benedick
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wirth
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Bolin
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_J._Molina
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
-vetscite.org/2005/04/could-dandruff-be-altering-the-worlds-climate/
-independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Crutzen
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe-Biesterfeld
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle
- David Blood institutionalinvestor.com/article/3486105/asset-management-hedge-funds-and-alternatives/david-blood-and-al-gore-want-to-reach-the-next-generation.html
-
Koffi Annan commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-oil-for-food-scam-what-did-kofi-annan-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/

And the list goes on, as lots of enterprises get benefits from global warming. These are the main names.

missed the syria war then, huh

ufck yu i was gonna make this thread

nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

inb4 global warming muh 97% believers are laughed at 100 years from now

I will admit I find the entire thing strangely dogmatic and overly politicized.

No one really questions physicists when they talk about black holes. But no physicist I've ever met has ever really talked like they're certain of anything at all. And yet everyone I talk to about climate change is.

I'm sure this is because it's been overly desseminated amongst laymen and the discussion has mostly fallen between to people with no expertise at all, but I still find it strange. I trust science insofar as it is able to determine, model, and predict natural phenomenon. And it should always be questioned. That's what bugs me the most. Laymen demanding that other laymen stop questioning science.

I'll often see people say 'prove it' and they'll bust out figures, models, and data, but this isn't really proof. You need to start from the beginning and be honest about what we know and what we don't. The people questioning this data don't understand the math behind the models or the difference between that and experimental data. On top of this a model is proven retrospectively. So facts and figures are really only as useful as the individual is willing to accept them as true until after the events that the model has predicted have occurred, and only if those events were properly predicted by the model.

On top of this it doesn't help that there's a huge number of news organizations that freely manipulatr scientific data to their own ends, and this has led to people generally having mistrust in the validity of overly politicized data (as they should).

It's all very strange.

To not mention all the studies based only on mathematical models.

>ahem aids ahem cofff coff.

The reason it is as politicized as it is, is not because of the climate scientists or the science behind it. It is because companies are at risk of losing a lot of profit. So they are trying everything they can to spread FUD.
On top of that, some companies might actually gain from climate change. Polar regions become more accessible (for extracting oil).

>to create a worldwide hoax and crash the global economy
I have literally never heard this even as a joke. Both sides are the same end, to protect their profits and investments, but even that is a fallacy and pretends that we should ignore them outright based on ad hominem attacks on their beliefs and guilt by association. It's just fucking dispicable and childish.

>both sides are to the same end
bullshit

That's cool, enjoy your belief that Obama and Hillary weren't pro-oil when they moved the pipeline forward as well and only threatened to scrap it if it meant recouping their declining public image into a positive one. Not to say that Trump is the best role model either, but if you honestly believe that people don't bank from organizations and lobby groups creating and requiring approval through environmental regulation stickers to paper, food, sea and oil industries then you're not only biased but fucking blind. It's like thinking erroneously that doctors don't get kickbacks for pushing medicine because they are always doing what is right for the people. It's a fallacy. There's good things that come out of both sides based on the current issues at hand but it's all a neverending power play on regulation of government and businesses.

>let's become rich by forcing people to be ecologically responsible
yeah right

I don't think you realize how easily abused carbon credit systems are and just how full of corruption they are.

There's truth here. Cap and trade is a joke. If we're serious, we need a simple flat carbon emissions tax and a simple flat carbon emissions import tariff.

Yes, that is right. And wherever there is money flow there is someone who will take advantage of it.

Even though many regulations were very needed and some came way too late, the killer of industries and production in the US was not solely overseas competition, but over-regulation on our own to the point that they couldn't compete without being forced to relocate to where they could avoid regulations.

And investing in your beliefs is nothing new to the relationship between scientists and politics.

I used to work in biomedical engineering research and I found that even there, people would publish sensationalist results. I was told directly by my superior that we only want to talk about and include things that agree with our stated hypothesis/design purpose.

And this was in the field of biomedical engineering.

I can't even imagine what being a climate researcher is like, with the added social and political pressures to publish certain results.

the oil industry is orders of magnitude larger than the ENTIRE environmental sector, even if the they were fully corrupt it would barely make a dent

no one is pushing environmental propaganda to steal money wholesale, it's an altruistic movement

anything can be used with malicious intent

>anything can be used with malicious intent
Good intentions are no excuse.

I've only ever taken one statistics course (t. engineer), and all it did was made me realize how little I know about statistics and how to properly analyze and interpret data.

And yet apparently every liberal in the USA has scoured a wide variety of climate science publications, accurately assessed their applicability, and formed their political opinion around it.

BTW ignore all the plastic consumption, meat farming, and other nasty (consumer fault) pollution. The absolute main priority should be taxing CO2 emissions, the most harmless pollutant imaginable. That oughta fix it all up.

but then that applies just as much to the polluters and there's no reasonable reason to believe environmentalism is any worse corruption wise

>this is how deniers legitimately argue scientific fact

Not sure what you're talking about. My point is that "cap and trade" should not be done, and flat carbon emission taxes and import tariffs should be done.

> unstable shithole
I guess you're american

well that's not what I'm talking about

>I guess you're american
you guessed wrong, also not an argument

>If you don't agree with the consensus, then you must be outcast and ignored. Everything must be black and white.
Pretty much, this bullshit has been around since the first societies and civilizations and the idea that you can't question it or argue against it goes against everything science stands for.
The environmental sector of the United States in terms of profit is about as large as the two biggest Oil companies combined (Exxon-Mobil 268.9 billion and Valero 130.84 = ~399.74 vs 353.7 billion is the actual profit) based on data from 2014 and 2015.

By magnitude, the environmental sector is about 50% big as every single oil company combined with a gap that was proven to be shrinking, however Trump's deregulations if passed are and will surely continue decrease revenue to the environmental sector. Nevertheless, it's a lot more profitable and closer than you've claimed to be "barely making a dent" against the most profitable industry in the world.

It's also how believers argue fact.

>We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.

>it was Climate Change
>not the chain of Arab Spring revolutions being encouraged by the US/UK/EU

I'm supposed to trust these guys' opinions on a chaotic system like global weather when they can't even analyze such a blatant and obvious political situation.

>no one is pushing environmental propaganda to steal money wholesale
>no one who is actually religious or associated with us is having sexual relations with minors in our churches
>no one who is of our employment roster would ever do something so heinous
>no government official or police officer would ever overstep their authority
>no child of mine could ever be so evil as to lie because he only has good intentions
Still waiting on the indisputable proof for that fallacy.

>what's acid rain from fossil fuel and natural gas production

Still, oil companies etc stand to gain a lot more by being dishonest and environmental regulation isn't used to make money and never has been.

>there is evidence

top zozzle

Again, you're using No True Scotsman fallacies to attempt to fight a valid point that the environmental industry is very similarly profitable to the oil industry. Saying that something that is new is imperceptible to being thronged for further profit is just biased wishful thinking.

have you gone to china by any chance? everyone there now wears protection masks in urban areas

>environmental regulation isn't used to make money

>he doesn't know you can make money by forcing people to NOT sell something

I wonder how expensive paper and goods would become if they upped their regulations to match even 25% of America and Europe's.

OP, I have been personally affected by climate change.

Ask Me Anything™.

On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being the highest and 0 being none:

How homosexual are you?

0

NEXT QUESTION

What was it like in the old days?
What is it like now?

Fact: CO2 emissions are getting higher. this level has always fluctuated between 175 to 300ppm. It is currently at 407 ppm. Such an increase means more infrared energy absorbed by earth atmosphere, therefore a raise in global temperature. Fact: Golbal temperature kept going up since the beginning of the industrial era. Correlation is most defenitive. At what point can ALL the scientists in this field be lying about CO2 data and global temperature data? And why? What would they have to gain. So you're telling me, all the climatologists in the world meet up in this secret underground reunion so they can make their data match and better lie to us? On the other hand, what does a bunch of climate change denier have to gain? money. Stay stupid

Because it's institutionalized racism

They're using the same playbook as the tobacco lobby.

youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

Environmental regulations are used to make money, as most politicians are well connected with environmental contracting entities. They're as corrupt as the SEC lol

Way too much money is put into reversing global warming as opposed to adapting to it, because celebrities and politicans own shares in that specific industry

Most climate skeptics are paid by big oil, and most people who make inventions for new efficient engines etc have their patents bought out by big oil, or else they "disappear"

See, there can be a middle ground. We're all fucked, just stockpile ammo and diesel

The government has been forcing factories to close at gunpoint for years now, they have pretty stringent regulations.

(Cont.)

CO2 hasn't increased. Pre-industrial age levels were about 500 ppm; now with factories are at 380.

nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/abs/315045a0.html

klimarealistene.com/web-content/07.05.pdf

nature.com/nature/journal/v371/n6495/abs/371323a0.html

Carbonipherous levels were 380, the same we have today; at Cambric, levels were above 7000 ppm -where were the industries?-

skepticalscience.com/Does-high-CO2-in-past-contradict-CO2-warming.html

(Cont.)

>fuck you, Veeky Forums spam.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

It's been settled for almost 20 years. Unless something absolutely massive comes up, it's very likely going to stay settled.

why is talking about ocean acidification not more popular in the argument?

It's something easily measurable as a basis for rapid change, as the fact that the ocean pH changes due to CO2's equilibrium with carbonic acid is incredibly indicative of a change that moves faster than the reaction rate of the acid dissociation.

Not only that, but the effect is so easy and non-disputable to measure, and its effects are widespread and are already having drastic effects on the ecosystem. Fishing in WA has gone to shit thanks to it, because the lower the pH of the ocean, the harder it is for calcium carbonate based shells to form, the fewer mollusks can live, so everything that preyed on them before end up without a lot of food.

It's a simple logic that's easily provable, and relatively easy to explain if you've ever taken a chemistry class. I genuinely don't understand why it's only an incidental issue while atmospheric sciences, which are harder to collect and display data for, are given more attention.

Maybe it's because they're more muddled that they're given attention, by politicians and by the media. Maybe conflict is good for the people who profit off of discourse happening, or it's some kind of distraction. Maybe you're a fool if you spend your time arguing things that have literally been built so people argue about them.

Not my place to say.

>At what point can ALL the scientists in this field be lying about CO2 data and global temperature data?

Money from carbon tax

Government sponsored research is no different than corporate sponsored research

Both lie for profit

>why is talking about ocean acidification not more popular in the argument?
it is though?
i don't experience it not being part of the conversation

it's just deniers not mentioning it, because it's not really convenient if you think about it

if no research can be trusted because of a profit motive, then the only option is to abolish profit

No, I understand it's spoken about, and I've talked to a lot of brilliant people on the subject. Just that it's not the kind of thing I see on TV when discussing climate change, or that I remember any real focus on in school.

Real people dedicated to studying climate change study it in depth, it's just no popularized and hyped as much as the 'warming' aspect.

Though you're right, it could be because it doesn't generate the same level of pushback because it's hard to argue against.

There's no such thing as settled science, that goes against the very foundation of science ie falsifiability. However, there is a thing as being scientifically illiterate, which I think most of the deniers ITT appear to be.

>trying to debate a scientific issue with political ideologue

Holy fuck when will mods do their job and purge these brainlet fucks from existence.

>Climatologists working in countries were the government is in denial about AGW publish results that support AGW.
>Clearly they're just doing it for the government funding!
What?

>There's no such thing as settled science,
Of course there is. Do you think astronomers argue over heliocentricism, or Chemists debate about the existence of atoms?
Once are large body of evince supporting a view builds up, it becomes extremely unlikely that the view will be found completely wrong. Sure, it's not completly impossible that some amazing result will come in and overturn everything, but until that actually happens it's safe to call the view "settled".

Thinking in black and white is never acceptable.

Many in both political fields truly strive for their idea of what is the best course of action for our nation.

SCIENTIFIC LINKS TO ANSWER A POST IN Veeky Forums?!

NOT ON MY Veeky Forums

Holy kek is this the new justification from the left?

Wow what a sad photo of a man clearly two feet away from land where the photographer is, fuck borders and shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=7so8GRCWA1k

republican climate scientist explains why we need to worry about AGW

this is the biggest issue

Dude, the majority of the scientists in the world? Are you kidding me? That's a lot of fucking people to hire for the governments of the world. In any case, look at the numbers; global temperature IS rising along with CO2 increases while solar input dosen't change exept for it'11 years cycle fluctuation. Stop thinking about politics for 2 seconds, and look at the freakin numbers. This is SCI for fuck's sake

>global temperature IS rising along with CO2 increases

First sentence of first link:
>Precise and continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration were first begun in 1958 and show a clear increase from 315 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.)1 then to 345 p.p.m.v. now.
Fucking moron.

Markets are already reacting to climate change predictions so actually you and everyone else has already been affected even if you didn't realise.

>Rest of article.
>Other articles.
>The whole post.
>The three posts.

>Reduced to the first sentence
>of the first link.

>cherrypicking at its finest.

>CO2 hasn't increased. Pre-industrial age levels were about 500 ppm; now with factories are at 380.

Ice core Veeky Forumsentist here, this is the most retarded claim I've ever seen; absolutely not true. CO2 at preindustrial was about 280ppm; see pic related, CO2 from Law Dome ice core, Antarctica. Here's the data you can plot it yourself
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-data.html

You're spamming links about a bunch of studies that doesn't support your claim at all. For example here

nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/abs/315045a0.html
>A detailed knowledge of the CO2 increase since preindustrial time is a prerequisite for understanding several aspects of the role of CO2, such as the contribution of biomass burning to the CO2 increase and the sensitivity of climate to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Estimates of the preindustrial CO2 concentration are in the range 250–290 p.p.m.v
It fucking says it right there that the preindustrial CO2 was around 280 ppm.

I don't know where are you getting these pastas, you must be severely missing some brain cells

1.is greenland fucking melting
2.when are people going to figure things out so projections don't range from pretty shitty 2 to apocalyptic 6 degrees

>1.is greenland fucking melting
Yes Greenland and West Antarctica is melting extensively. One outlet glacier in Greenland, the Jakobshavn ice stream is melting at accelerated rate and this glacier alone is responsible for 4% of global sea level rise.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Glacier

>2.when are people going to figure things out so projections don't range from pretty shitty 2 to apocalyptic 6 degrees
I'm not a climate modeler, so this is beyond my pay grade but from my understanding is that the biggest source of uncertainty in models is cloud feedback. The highest res state of the art climate model is about 10 x 10km grid size, and obviously that grid size is insufficient to properly model cloud from first principle, as cloud condensation etc is a micro physics problem that is happening in micro-meter scale. Because of this, one has to "parameterize" cloud term based on experimental observations, rather than model it with real fundamental physics. The problem with parameterization is that it is fundamentally un-physical (for example a parameterized concentration can go negative, while in real world obviously concentration can't go to the negative).

Another way to estimate climate sensitivity is to compare paleoclimate data (this is what I do). However an argument can be made that we're comparing apple to oranges and climate sensitivity is very likely not a linear term. For example the best studied climate transition was the Last Deglaciation, as the Earth came out ofthe last glacial ~15ka ago. There we know for sure a certain increase in atm CO2 = certain degree increase in global T but there's no guarantee that this relationship holds as the Earth becomes warmer beyond interglacial level. Unfortunately the oldest ice core we had is about 800ka from EDC drilled by the Europeans and during that time period we have no real analogue to the current anthropogenic warming.

you brainlet, it'll probably be past the point of no return by then

Exactly.

Al Gore is an idiot and the guy who made the meme and wrote the yellow text is also a moron.

"The North Polar Ice Cap" doesn't exist, they both might as well argue about fucking purple unicorn. Al Gore and the denier memer might be referring to Arctic Sea Ice extent rather than the north polar ice cap. With that regards, the "sea ice extent grew 60% between 2012 and 2013" was a particularly deliberate misleading claim and straight out failing grade statistics. "Between 2012 and 2013" refer to annual variability, and 2012 was the worst sea ice extent ever (before 2015 and then 2016 beat the record in Arctic sea ice extent minima). See graph related.

I bet the same moron will post about 2017 being +50% growth from 2016 (it is almost guaranteed that 2017 will be cooler than 2016, as we're in La Nina phase of ENSO), despite the obvious fact that the sea ice extent has been steadily declining over the past decades.

This ladies and gentlemen, is the average intelligence of a climate denier.

Take it easy elon

Do you have a source for that quote?

truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013#a2

>"Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years"

See . Al Gore is kind of a moron, but the deniers are even more dishonest with "60% annual increase lol"

Dear diary, /pol/ BTFO once again

Veeky Forums is still an OK board

...

t. exxon

greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/