Woman are more likely to accept climate change than men

This is a given fact only if you accept man made climate change as a given fact, which is precisely the debate. You are trying to use circular reasoning to prove your point.

No it isn't. Climate change denial stems from the belief that humans can't change the world to such a degree. But sending entire species extinct is such a change.

>women are more likely to accept things told to them by some authority
what a surprise

>No it isn't. Climate change denial stems from the belief that humans can't change the world to such a degree.
No, MAN MADE climate change denial stems from disagreements about the feedback relation between CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere. Nobody is denying we 'can have such an impact on the world'. You literally made that up.

Saying the fact that humans can send a species to extinction is proof of man made climate change is absurd since the human-driven extinction of the dodo in the 17th century is well documented, but surely you would not argue that man made climate change started 150-200 years before the industrial revolution.

>Can we finally come to a consensus that climate change is a myth?

I'm more interested in the meta-problem, which is: What explains all the skepticism about human influence on climate change?

I believe the answer is because we have been trained all of our lives to disbelieve people who claim to be experts when they make predictions about extraordinarily complex systems.

Some examples:

1. Weather forecasters do a very poor job predicting the weather more than about 1 week into the future. This is because the weather is too complex to understand well.

2. Psychiatrists cannot predict whether a mentally-ill person will respond to medication. This is because the human mind is too complex to understand well.

3. Educators usually do a very poor job when they attempt to develop new teaching methods. This is because human education is too complex to understand well.

4. Professional stock pickers select stocks that perform more poorly (on average) than the stock market averages. This is because the stock market is too complex to understand well.

5. When artificial-intelligence programs attempt to translate one language to another, the results are usually abysmal. This is because language is too complex to understand well.

6. When economists make predictions about many macro-economic trends, they have been shown (on average) to be no better than random guesses. This is because the economy is too complex to understand well.

We all have a lifetime of experience being continually disappointed by the severe incompetence of all of the above so-called "experts" and their failed predictions.

So, based on this experience, it's very difficult for us to believe that climate -- an extremely complex system -- is somehow immune to the universal pattern we all know: that the so-called "experts" are always utterly incompetent.

>This is because the weather is too complex to understand well.
It's because weather is too complex to predict well. We understand the component parts pretty thoroughly. It's just that the susceptibility to initial conditions is insanely high. We simply can't record the current conditions in intense enough detail and then analyze it thoroughly enough, quickly enough.

Nah. It's just because it's politicized. Policies that curb carbon emissions hurt certain voting groups, and one of the US' two political parties picked up those voters, meaning they also became skeptical of the validity of the research.

There's a large body of research which shows people's beliefs in certain science issues are predicted simply by political identity. It's why you never see a /pol/ thread arguing about GMOs because that's a liberal science denialism and /pol/ only has conservative denialism, like over evolution and AGW.

Glorified opinions. Talking about the weather - the business model.

I'd say it is more that we tend to distrust things we are not allowed to question. If it were all true and honest, then why the lies? Why the cult? Why the stigmatization?
We are constantly exposed to doomsday predictions and propaganda of the type that '97% of experts agree' (on what exactly?), and any evidence not pointing the right way is quickly dismissed as backward nonsense and we get the feeling that something isn't right. It is indeed similar to economic 'experts' who failed to predict crises in a way. Consider that:

A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere.

Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).

The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.

The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather.

Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

1/2

There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.

If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about.

The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.”

The more you know.

2/2

>No, MAN MADE climate change denial stems from disagreements about the feedback relation between CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.

Why are you trying to represent all climate change skeptics here? Anyone who's ever listened to one knows that what you just said was bullshit. They make up innumerable arguments against non-anthropogenic and anthropogenic climate change.

>Nobody is denying we 'can have such an impact on the world'. You literally made that up

I guess you'll just ignore all the people who denied climate change was even possible, or happening, before they shifted their arguments to anthropogenic climate change. "It's hubris to think humans could have such an impact on the entire planet"

>Saying the fact that humans can send a species to extinction is proof of man made climate change

Nobody said that though, I guess you're too dumb to read things properly.

>This is a given fact only if you accept man made climate change as a given fact
The consensus of the evidence proves it.

>this tripe every thread

consensus isn't science. 97% of polls said we should be saying "madam Hillary". It's a political construct, not a scientific one. And shitty at that.

>Nah. It's just because it's politicized.

Why can't it be both?

Maybe the distrust of climate science is the sum of two different sources of distrust:

1: The distrust in what people (or groups) say for the selfish purpose of gaining money and political power, and,

2: The general distrust that we have learned during our lifetime of observing severe incompetence whenever so-called "experts" try to make predictions about complex systems.

Number 1 could certainly be a big factor for people who closely follow politics. But not everyone follows politics closely. I suspect that for people who don't follow politics closely, number 2 might actually be a bigger source of distrust.

So, because news media was wrong about opinion polls about an election, that means scientists are wrong about climate change. Nice logic.

Exactly, that's why the earth is flat, GMOs cause cancer, vaccines cause autism, and evolution is a lie.

I mean, I'm sure there are people who fall under either or and both, but most people I know from my small Midwestern hometown just discount global warming because All Gore and Obama says it's an issue and they just disagree with them by default.

I think you'll be disappointed if you think the average person puts more thought into their beliefs than that.

>Nobody said that though,
Except you literally just did you fucking retard

>"Climate change isn't real"
>"It is because species go extinct"
>"But that has nothing to do with climate change"
>"Yes because climate change is the reason they go extinct"

Guess you're too dumb to remember what you said
>inb4 umm t-that was another guy

Fine, I won't presume to speak for all climate sceptics and I'll concede that surely there are retards on both sides but you are doing the same thing when you say that "climate change denial stems from the belief that humans can't change the world to such a degree". The fact is that there are legitimate, scientific reasons to doubt AGW and you need to accept that.

You are more than welcome to refute any aspect of it.

Why? It's been done so many times before. I'm sure you're counting on the fact that people just get tired of your shitposting and just ignore it, thereby making it look like you won the argument to gullible newfags.

>So, because news media was wrong about opinion polls about an election, that means scientists are wrong about climate change. Nice logic.
You don't seem to understand how polling works. The scientists would be the voters, not the pollsters. You can get different results by how you parse the data or even how you ask the question. In science, it only matters who is correct. Not how many you can get to pay lip service to a certain thing.

>>"Climate change isn't real"
>>"It is because species go extinct"
>>"But that has nothing to do with climate change"
>>"Yes because climate change is the reason they go extinct"

Why would you greentext and then put in quotation marks something that you and I both know I never said? Why would you then say I did say it? Anyone can just go to my post above and see that you're lying.

no, now GET OUT OF HERE /pol/!

You have a chance to win a soul here. Point me to your evidence because I sure as hell can't find it.

And how do you know that in this instance, the poll was incorrect? What do you know about how the data was parsed and the poll constructed that shows that it isn't representative of total scientific opinion?

Are you trying to imply that polls are useless? Why do you think that is? Just because in your lifetime you remember one instance where one was incorrect? Because polls have been shown to be accurate in the past.

>Point me to your evidence because I sure as hell can't find it.

Use the archive

Okay I'll spell it out for you
First line refers to Second line refers to Third line refers to Fourth line refers to If you want to pretend that wasn't you then fine, we don't have ID's after all, but "nobody said that" is plain wrong because someone in this thread sure did.

Quality argument m8, sure convinced me

>I'd say it is more that we tend to distrust things we are not allowed to question.

That's a really good observation. (I'm the guy you responded to.) I'm going to rework my position to include that, because I suspect it might have a major effect.

>Why the stigmatization?

I do agree that we are seeing a tendency to stigmatize people who question the dominant views on climate science, and that the stigmatization could be having a "hardening" effect on attitudes.

>If you want to pretend that wasn't you then fine

No it wasn't. Do you find it hard to believe that more than one person isn't convinced by your fatuous arguments?

By the way, even the other people didn't say that.

You can try to reproduce the poll and see if you get the same results. You can also look at the crosstabs and methodology. I've seen these 97% polls tossed around over the last twenty years. In one, they sent a survey to 2000 scientists. Then they decided that only 180 were qualified to answer the question (so why did they send it to 2000 in the first place?) and out of the 180, 97% were on the side of AGW. The media release said something like "2000 scientists were surveyed and 97% felt AGW was a real problem". There was also a database keyword search that was promoted as consensus. The problem with that is that the paper had to explicitly rule out human impact. Otherwise, they were lumped in as supporting the "consensus". Not very accurate either. Most scientists tend not to completely rule out anything. So these polls functioned as political tools to promote the narrative. And scientists are human and not all study climate change and very few are directly involved in combing over temperature data. So if you repeat a lie often enough, you can get them to repeat it too. There is a bias toward wanting to be in the majority. "Consensus" arguments just don't have a place in real science. It's more of the realm of shit tier popsci.

>"Consensus" arguments just don't have a place in real science.

That's absurd, because items of scientific consensus are things we call facts.

The Earth revolves around the Sun, for instance. That is a fact borne from scientific consensus. You're trying to portray science as a libertarian wet dream, where people argue constantly and nothing is true, because it's convenient to your narrative that experts aren't as trustworthy as your own personal opinion.

By the way, the statement that you first tried to argue against wasn't the oft-quoted "97%" consensus, it was simply that there is a consensus.

>Exactly, that's why the earth is flat, GMOs cause cancer, vaccines cause autism, and evolution is a lie.

Those aren't complex systems.

Any public distrust of those comes from a different source.

I didn't claim to explain why some people distrust simple evidence (such a simple photograph of Earth taken from space that shows it has a spherical shape).

My claim pertained only to why people distrust predictions made about COMPLEX systems.

If a person distrusts a simple photo of a spherical Earth, then I suspect that the cause is either psychological or political.

Not that guy but I don't think the basic issue of climate change is a complex system. If you put greenhouse gases in a box and let the sun heat it up, the temperature will rise. That's a pretty basic principle, more basic than the issue of CFCs for example which the public had no issues trusting.

That's silly. You don't need a consensus for something to be a fact. So if you could get enough people to agree that the earth did not revolve around the sun then it would not revolve around the sun? Facts tend to naturally gain consensus but neither consensus nor the insistence of consensus can make something true if it is not true.

>So if you could get enough people to agree that the earth did not revolve around the sun then it would not revolve around the sun?

Yes absolutely, if enough scientists tested the idea and found that it was true, it would become a fact.

>I think you'll be disappointed if you think the average person puts more thought into their beliefs than that.

It's easy to point to politics, because that's something you see in the news all the time.

But just because something's not in the news much doesn't mean it doesn't have a fundamentally important influence on us.

I submit that the complete failure of almost all of the so-called "experts" to make correct predictions about complex systems has had a deeply profound affect on our attitudes toward the "experts".

In fact, it's so universal, that we don't even bother talking much about it. Something so universal is very likely to have an immensely important effect on us.

Oh look, another one of these retarded threads. Looks like the deniers got BTFO in the last one and decided to try again with the same old arguments that have been refuted time and again. How long before they unironically cite Beck and Jaworowski in here, and start cuntpasting altered quotes from WUWT?

>There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past.
So are you denying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, or that higher temperatures result in more water vapor in the atmosphere? Because both are easily proven true.
Or are you subscribing to Lindzen's "iris hypothesis" about clouds, which has literally no evidence whatsoever to support it?
>It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
pls explain Snowball Earth events then.

nice falseflag, falsefag

the consensus isn't the opinions of scientists, but rather the conclusions of studies. deniers seem to be locked in to this false idea that the consensus spoken of is just a popularity contest...which it's not.

No, facts are facts. You can't poll your way out of them. If one scientist disagreed with the group and said "you guys are wrong, the earth revolves around the sun" then that one would be correct. And science would only care which group is correct. No matter the relative size of the groups.

>the consensus isn't the opinions of scientists, but rather the conclusions of studies. deniers seem to be locked in to this false idea that the consensus spoken of is just a popularity contest...which it's not.
Wrong. There are at least a few different versions of the so-called "consensus" as was already mentioned earlier.

>There are at least a few different versions of the so-called "consensus"
The existence of polls of experts doesn't negate the fact that studies of published papers consistently find 95%+ concordance that anthropogenic climate change is indeed happening. See Cook et al. (2013, 2016), and Oreskes (2004), among others.

>Not that guy but I don't think the basic issue of climate change is a complex system.

To be honest, I've never read anyone who considers the climate to be anything other than a very complex system. So your response is surprising to me.

I think you can get a rough idea of how complex a system is by seeing how easy or hard it is to create a computer model that is capable of making "good enough" predictions.

My understanding is that a computer model of climate would be extraordinarily complicated to construct.

For example, weather is a micro-scale subset of climate -- and even weather forecasters have a difficult time predicting the weather one week in advance within a useful margin of error. Now, scale up weather forecasting to the scale of climate forecasting, and it's hard for me to see that the computer modelling gets any easier.

My understanding is that there a "chaos" factor at work here -- which means that small changes tend to amplify with time into large changes. That "chaos" factor plays a big role in making weather predictions difficult over a one-week time scale. I suspect that the "chaos" factor also would make predicting climate change 100 years into the future quite difficult as well.

>weather is a micro-scale subset of climate -- and even weather forecasters have a difficult time predicting the weather one week in advance within a useful margin of error. Now, scale up weather forecasting to the scale of climate forecasting, and it's hard for me to see that the computer modelling gets any easier.
Scaling things up actually makes things easier by removing a lot of the effects of random variation.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
This is why it's hard to predict temperature trends over the next week but very easy to predict temperature trends over the next year; the influence of noise is smaller.

Climate is complex, but that doesn't mean it can't be modeled.

Why? Literally search climate change in the catalog and look at the other threads where this same misleading, garbage graph from Christy / Spencer has been posted, then look in the archive and see how many times it's been posted and been refuted over and over again.

the tl;dr version is that Christy / Spencer made several "errors" (by that I mean he did it on purpose to manipulate the result) in producing this graph in order to skew the results and make them support his own political agenda.

Keep in mind that this graph is not peer reviewed, and is not from a scientific paper or anything like that, it's just something Christy / Spencer essentially made up for his own shitty website, and it spread from there to all the typical denier websites who took it as gospel.

Here's some good reads on what exactly is wrong with these graphs, the first one in particular which goes over the process Christy used to create his result and why it's flawed.

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets
blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html
blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-wearier.html

It's hilarious that climate change deniers engage in such shady tactics like manipulating the data to fit their own agenda, when that's exactly what they love to accuse actual climate scientists of doing with no evidence, yet we have evidence right here of someone that is looked up to and seen as an "authority" on climate to deniers manipulating the data for his own political agenda. How ironic.

> Scaling things up actually makes things easier

Except when chaos is involved, in which case increasing the time horizon makes things exponentially more difficult. (Actually, chaotic error grows far faster than exponentially -- but I just said "exponentially" to give you a rough idea of the intractability of the problem of dealing with chaotic error.)

The "law of large numbers" does tend to cancel out random fluctuations, but in a chaotic system ANY non-zero random fluctuation (no matter how small) will grow over time, and will eventually make profound changes in the results.

This is why -- for example -- it's impossible to predict the positions of the planets 1,000,000 years from now, yet it's possible to accurately predict it 100 years from now. The chaotic factors in the solar system are very small, but they will eventually always win out in the long term. The "law of large numbers" is no match for the power of chaos.

>Climate is complex, but that doesn't mean it can't be modeled.

Of course it can be modeled. Anything can be modeled. The question is whether the predictions made by the model are accurate within a useful margin of error.

I've always wondered what deniers believe is the endgame.

Oil is not sustainable, nor is coal, in the long term. The oil and coal industries have proven time and time again that they do not have the public interest at heart, they just want their fucking money before the tit runs dry.

What exactly is to be gained by supporting them? Let's say that climate change is a complete hoax just used to gain grant funding in academia. Okay, ignoring the fact that this would require unheard of coordination between universities around the world, who honestly gives a shit?

Greedy fucking oil companies start wars for black gold, yet no one seems to care. At the worst, climate supporters would impose a tax on the biggest offenders, not your average joe schmuck in his Hyundai. There's two scenarios:

1. Climate supporters are right but not to alarming levels, world is fucked but salvageable. Oil companies taken down a peg and forced to have more eco friendly practices that support our ecosystems and nature in general.

2. Deniers are right, it's all a hoax. Climate is fucked by natural change. Oil companies continue to let their lobbying run rampant and control society's direction until the last slick drop is mined from earth, then we all die as countries fight for the remaining energy supply.

3. Climate supporters are right, to alarming levels. We're fucked and could've prevented it, but spent 3 decades bickering and listening to people representing companies that have intentionally misled the general public to promote discontent in order to keep their Jew shekels from oil.

Explain what is the purpose of supporting scenario 2 if you are not an oil executive. At least in the first scenario there's more incentive not to pollute the land.

Oreskes wasn't reproducible and on the spectrum of belief, the paper had to explicitly reject anthropogenic cause in order to not be counted toward "consensus". Cooke had a similar fate in that only 34% of the papers offered an opinion and 33% of those seemed to support AGW to him. Thus he claims 97%. But that's wasn't reproducible either. Another attempt to reproduce his work fount the number of abstracts at 1%. It seems to be more of a study of the bias of the researcher. But it's good enough for media and popsci and that's all these things are really trying to influence.

tl;dr but #1 appeals to me

#3, but we can't prevent it

If it was phrased as
>climate change is accelerated by human activity
Instead of
>climate change is caused by human activity
You would have far fewer people willing to deny it.

This is the ol' "at least my side has the good intentions" argument. Or "the ends justify the means". But there is another saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The "renewables" tend to be a product of unsustainable materials as well. The material making up the batteries, the material used in the magnets, etc. And then there is the amount of money spent attacking a trace element where even the most alarmist see a very tiny change due to the proposed "solutions". And you ask yourself "what if that money went toward actual pollution". What if it went toward conserving actual land. Measurable and tangible goals such as the amount of rainforest protected. And they tend to say "oh well all that's included under AGW". No. Not everything is included in AGW. But that's what the public thinks and that money thrown into that pit will somehow do all these other things. But I think you'll find that some of these other causes are having trouble being heard above the "climate change" noise. It doesn't help that the last decades have been spent with alarmist rhetoric failing to materialize. So alarmists have a fair amount of blame in the skepticism and a fair amount of blame in aiding other ecological problems by sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

your claim is that papers which don't take a stance either way should be counted as rejecting the consensus, rather than simply set aside.
by that logic, you could claim that there is no consensus that evolution by natural selection is responsible for current biodiversity, since most papers on biology don't explicitly say so.

>Oreskes wasn't reproducible
it's pretty rich of you to claim that seeing as Cook actually reproduced Oreskes's results.
>Another attempt to reproduce his work fount the number of abstracts at 1%.
You're referring to Legates et al., which was a hot crock of shit. read this refutation:
>andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/

There is a very high degree of certainty (>95%) that almost all of recent warming is caused by anthropogenic activity. It's not an acceleration, it's human activity being the driving factor of the climatic changes we are observing in the present.

Extraordinary claims require more than scenario models conjured by climate scientists without proper modelling backgrounds.

The world isn't fucked, even if climate is changing at alarming levels compared to the past. If you look at a larger time scale, life has survived, and thrived, with higher levels of green house gases. It's important to look at the paleobiological/geobiological landscapes so that we can better understand and prepare for the changes that will come.

Yes, there will continue to be massive die offs of life as organisms adapt to rapid change. Yes, we should probably mitigate this by creating large swathes of untouchable land as carbon banks. Yes, we should curtail our resource exploitation (sorry underdeveloped countries, you missed out on the exploitation window). Yes, we should pour resources into alternative energy.

No, this isn't going to produce some apocalyptic scenario. Habitable zones will change. Agricultural zones will change. Weather patterns will change. Humans will adapt.

The goy know... Shut it down.

>That's a really good observation. (I'm the guy you responded to.) I'm going to rework my position to include that, because I suspect it might have a major effect.
Although I really don't want to touch the subject with a 20 foot pole, I think this is the same psychological effect we see with holocaust deniers and 'Bush did 9/11'-type people.
>I do agree that we are seeing a tendency to stigmatize people who question the dominant views on climate science, and that the stigmatization could be having a "hardening" effect on attitudes.
Definitely. It's impossible to win people over to your side by insulting them.

>pls explain Snowball Earth events then
Not that guy but snowball earths are anthropogenic how?

You could not derive that from what I said. I'm saying they were counted as support of the so-called "consensus". Cook was not a reproduction of Oreskes attempt. She referenced journals from 1993 to 2003 and simply used the abstracts. It also managed not to include the works of known prominent scientists that were skeptical. Cook did an abstract search in 2011. 34% expressed an opinion. Of which, he felt 33% sided with him. That was recreated by David Legates who found only about 1% of the papers actually endorsed Cook's claim. So it appears that these studies are at least affected by confirmation bias. Plus Cook is not a scientist. He is a cartoonist by trade. A litteral "science fan". While I think anyone can pursue scientific interests, if his results found the opposite then you would be mocking skeptics for citing him.

AGW is the most pressing environmental concern of the 21st century or so I've been indoctrinated

Issues by severity (not necessarily with respect to humans, just by magnitude):
1. AGW
2. Biodiversity loss (mass extinction)
3. Water Resources
4. Other kinds of pollution (plastic etc)
5. Other (that's all I can think of right now)

t.my professional opinion

how about constant propaganda and diffusion of responsibility

I am not saying anything about either side having good intentions, I'm just wondering what the angle is for deniers. What is the endgame? I don't see the lot of them pushing for anti-pollution methods or anything. It's always "fucking leftist numale cucks" without any substance or anything behind it like this is somehow a left vs right debate. We all have a stake in this. At least people are trying to have some source of civilized discourse in this thread and I respect that of both sides, but I just don't understand the rallying behind oil executives grand schemes. What's the end goal? Even if humans do not cause climate change, why push so hard against climate change supporters if the only thing they'd be detrimental in is helping Exxon line their pockets more?

Obviously corporate bastards are going to control the world regardless, so why not have some other group at the helm? Revolution through innovation could lead to advances and acceptance of nuclear energy eventually, and stop the west from having to suck the eternal cock of the Middle East. How do these goals not line up with denier interests?

You see, you live in a delusional world in which anything that disagrees with your retarded conspiracies is suddenly "conjuring." Just because you're too ignorant and uneducated to understand climate models, or the observational evidence for climate change, doesn't mean that climate scientists are making shit up. Typical Dunning-Kruger moron. You people will never learn, will you?

>Be Canadian
>Country hates climate change
>Meanwhile climate change is speeding up the melting of the arctic, which opens up the North Way passage, which would be a better trade passage than the Panama canal
>Tfw when we have untold billions to gain by climate change but country wants to stop it at all cost

breh, these environmentalists are as retarded as the climate change deniers, so destructive to economic progress

rip polar bears
realistically, sea-ice is probably going to melt enough that oil companies benefit substantially from off-shore drilling in the Arctic anyway

Russia has "claimed" those waters. You're opening up a shit show.

I guess both sides can paint the other as cartoonish villains. The narrative from alarmists has always been to demonize oil companies and pretend they are this massive cabal trying to stop the poor noble and altruistic alarmists. Which seemed to be the justification for alarmists creating their own cabal. Plus the way alarmists demonized any skeptical scientist was to find some point at which they received a dollar from an oil company. No matter how unrelated it was or if the alarmist also had accepted a check from an oil company. Oil companies make great cartoon villains. The problem is that oil companies are not really in the business to get oil. They are in business to make money. That just happens to be a way they found to make it. So if there is money in batteries, they go into that. In fact there was a conspiracy that a battery company was bought by an oil company to kill it. The reality was that the oil company improved the tech. Why? They saw money in it. As to AGW, I suspect the oil companies are the least worried about any kind of carbon tax. Why? They see the people telling you to stop using your car then turn around and fly their jet to a vacation resort to talk about global warming. Consumption isn't going anywhere. Any financial hit such as a tax is just passed to the consumer. Plus they just pull it out of the ground, they don't burn it to any great extent. Given their size, they would probably make money selling carbon credits in such a scheme. Which is the other reason you want to make sure all these "good intentions" have a solid footing in reality and are in perspective. Good intentions tend to be behind a lot of cronyism. The mechanics for creating the housing bubble were sold via their intention. The carbon trading market is a more obnoxious scheme. And last I checked, the tech guys are making all the money and control the world. Practically literally given the amount of personal data they collect.

>consensus of evidence is a popularity contest
Having trouble reading there buddy?

Do you know how many species are extinct?

>the earth is not a complex system
>plant genetics is not a complex system
>the human immune system is not a complex system
You are delusional. The only thing you would call complex is that which you already believe cannot be understood. Its circular reasoning.

No the correct one would be the one with the most evidence supporting their claim. That's what consensus actually refers to. And that is undoubtedly what supports AGW.

The rate of extinction in 2007 was 3 species per hour. This isn't exactly proving your point. Considering there are somewhere around 7 billion humans on this planet and we are a rather young species in comparison to the existence of this planet, do you really think, we could destroy this planet over the course of say 300 years as a result of massive advancements. From what I've heard, there were more carbon emissions in prehistoric time than there are today yet we are still trying to find a way to fight nature. I'd say, instead of trying to fight nature, why don't we adapt to nature. If the water level is rising, modify cities or housing complexes to suit the rising water levels. If temperatures are getting hotter, grow foods that suit those temperatures. But at the end of the day, work with nature, don't fight it.

You type so much, but you say so little. You're really a gullible little idiot if you believe the fossil fuel industry is so innocent. The industry has funded climate change denial directly and indirectly since the early 1980s, and continue to do so today. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spend promoting climate change """skepticism""" and denial in that timespan, mostly through donations to libertarian / conservative organizations that spread misinformation and doubt about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Here's a good read on it.

As well as an overview of the various organizations that are funded by the industry to spread propaganda:
ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html
The most notorious of these entities is probably Heartland, a libertarian think tank that had ties to the tobacco industry and lobbied on their behalf in the 80s and 90s. They do the same for climate change denial today:
arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-warm-ars-attends-a-climate-contrarian-conference/
web.archive.org/web/20150726214315/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728
desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

I would also recommend reading Merchants of Doubt, or watching the documentary which delves into what I'm talking about. The same thing we are seeing right now was done for the Tobacco companies in the 1980s, the same spreading of doubt and misinformation to confuse the public / policy makers on the evidence.

The industry itself was actually heavily involved in climate research in the past, until the results that their scientists were discovering grew very concerning for the future of their industry.
nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

I'd use my trip if it was me all along idiot. Why wouldn't I want to show off my argumentation skills?
But species going extinct proves that humans are affecting the earth. This makes it more plausible that humans are accelerating climate change, because we're poisoning the oceans and air, we are definitely affecting the ecological balance as well.

Once you learn the reality of climate change you realize that there is no more hope for polar bears, it's sad but that's how things are. Let's not keep our heads down when there are plenty of opportunities to further develop our country.

Except that both the US and Russia previously agreed that the Northwest passage and most of the the Arctic (my bad for previous typo) was Canadian territory in the past.

If the US or Russia push their ships deep within our territory then that would be one of the largest violations of sovereignty in modern history and would destroy any trust in the international law. We will defend our territory and the law against the jews that decide to change the law based on potential profit to be made.

What do Jews have to do with any of this

Why does this site use Jew as a derogatory remark? They are a good people who don't intrude on others yet are constantly berated for just trying to live

->From what I've heard, there were more carbon emissions in prehistoric time than there are today
Incorrect. Carbon emission rate have never been higher. Warming rate has also never been higher. Not to mention that this is an idiotic point since humans and the ecosystem we rely on did not evolve in order to live in the extreme climates of the past and would be harmed by such climates. By this logic it should be no problem to go back to the Cambrian climate when the land was utterly barren. How about instead of only adapting, we mitigate the problem in the first place? Wow what a concept.

Jews was basically an analogy for money-hungry assholes in the governments. It's bantz.

its mostly just a meme and bantz

however they're the chosen ones because of then claiming to be the chosen ones. It would be Mormons if that was more popular. Its the mix of how its a religion and a race, and the whole exclusivity chosen people thing.

other than that yea they're just people, I have a few good jewish friends. I can tell tho he sticks much closer with his jew circle

Snowball Earth wasn't anthropogenic, but it's a clear counterexample to his claim that "Earth's atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them". Glaciers near sea level in the tropics (along with what we know of the circumstances surrounding them) are extremely strong evidence that there are indeed positive feedbacks that can cause runaway change.

>You could not derive that from what I said. I'm saying they were counted as support of the so-called "consensus".
This is factually incorrect, and is inconsistent with your earlier claims. I quote you directly:
>the paper had to explicitly reject anthropogenic cause in order to not be counted toward "consensus". Cooke [sic] had a similar fate in that only 34% of the papers offered an opinion and 33% of those seemed to support AGW to him. Thus he claims 97%.
Papers that didn't take a position either way weren't counted towards supporting or opposing the consensus; the reported levels of support were based only on papers that took a stance one way or the other. You are misrepresenting the methodology of Cook et al. and also of Oreskes, not to mention your own statements.
>That was recreated by David Legates who found only about 1% of the papers actually endorsed Cook's claim.
Legates found that ~1% of papers phrased support of the consensus in a specific way; another ~32% unambiguously supported the consensus using different phrasing, ~1% rejected the consensus, and the remainder took no position. Ironically, Legates is guilty of the exact same thing you (falsely) accuse Cook of: selecting a dishonest threshold of agreement to artificially classify as supporting his argument papers that did not.
Seriously, read this and see if you can refute any of the claims in it:
>andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/
>Cook was not a reproduction of Oreskes attempt.
Um, Oreskes randomly pulled a bunch of abstracts based on a keyword search and categorized their support. The first phase of Cook et al. (2013) was exactly that, just using a different time interval.

>oil companies benefit substantially from off-shore drilling in the Arctic anyway
offshore drilling is super expensive. it was only ever viable because continental reservoirs were getting hard to reach. but now, with unconventional production methods refined (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.) there's way less incentive to try and drill in deep water...much less deep water in the Arctic, where weather is super nasty and it's hard to get a rescue/repair team out.
all the drill-baby-drill stuff is just to keep the rednecks distracted. most of it's useless to big petroleum companies, at least while the price of oil isn't super-high.

it gives angry /pol/acks someone to blame for their tiny benises
and from there it became a maymay

That's why you make a screencap of all the times it's been refuted and then post that so that you don't have to type a gorillion paragraphs every thread

>I'm just wondering what the angle is for deniers.
I think the other user just said it. The proponents for a solution to climate change never really offer a tangible solution, and instead offer shit like carbon taxes, which average people just can't relate to; they don't see how it will change anything, it's too abstract. All they see are Jews siphoning away their income and de-industrializing their country.
So basically, climate-activists need to offer a solution that "normal people" can get into, you know, like planting trees or some shit. Also, cutting down on the smug, holier-than-thou attitude towards the working class and skeptics would help

Lmao one of their biggest holidays is celebrating a Jewess tricking a Persian king into massacring his own subjects because they didn't like Jews.
Nice people my ass

No one wishes to discuss candidly that universities are no longer free bastions of inquiry but are descending into would-be boot camps to train progressive shock troops. Careers, reputations, and lots of money are invested in stifling free expression, a project predicated on changing the nature of students, the curricula, and the very atmosphere of the traditional university. The predicable result is again linguistic subterfuge. If unprepared students are frustrated that special admittance does not de facto equate to college success or graduation, the university must make the necessary Animal Farm–like adjustments. Segregation by race and gender becomes “safe spaces.” Ancient stress, the stuff of cramming for finals and paper deadlines, gets embedded into politics, as snowflakes are “traumatized” by a culturally appropriated earring or a gendered pronoun. Free speech that can be challenging and liberate young minds becomes “hate speech” and is banned. Odious censorship is redefined as mere “trigger warnings.”

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/447231/why-progressives-lie-leftist-agenda-requires-deception

>here have some studies about thing
>WELL I KNOW BETTER
Everytime.

Go to the top of the food chain, and you know what you'll see?
Someone of jewish decent. They have all the money and all the power