Let's talk climate change ans how normies have been convinced that if you believe in it your IQ is sealed 10 points...

Yes, it is. It even mentions the sources. Something climate change deniers and "race realists" never do

thank you for this adjusted "corrected" data that conveniently begins during the post-medieval little iceage

>In short, I know a lot about the earth’s atmosphere and climate. I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models.
He doesn't, as we'll soon see.

>And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future.
This is just empirically wrong. Models in the past:

realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

We can stop here since the rest of the video is attempting to explain something that is false. I will come back later to debunk the rest of this nonsense.

skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>the most rapid spike in human history can be disregarded because it was warm 200 million years ago

>"corrected" data
Data gets corrected when there are known problems with it. If you had any integrity, you'd pick a specific correction and point out flaws in its justification. Instead you're invoking a massive scientific conspiracy, based on no evidence at all.

>Don't add more data and don't correct mistakes
You are an asinine hypocrite.

wrong. I point out that the data was modified repeatedly to exaggerate the amount of global warming

yet you claim these modifications are trustworthy even though they are from the same people who have a proven track record of false predictions of global temperature in the future

the corrections are so severe they are even outside of former error margins

look, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. it is your side that claims that global temberature has increased by more than 1.5 K in the past ~130 years. so the burden of proof is on you to explain why you constantly change your data records to further increase this number and how any of this is legitimate

>I point out that the data was modified repeatedly to exaggerate the amount of global warming
Many of the modifications have also DECREASED the amount of warming.

>yet you claim these modifications are trustworthy
They're justified in the papers they're published in. If you think one of the modifcations is wrong, point out where.

>even though they are from the same people who have a proven track record of false predictions of global temperature in the future
Firstly, being wrong about something doesn't make someone a liar.
Secondly, the track record of climate predictions is actually pretty good.
Thirdly, what you are doing is a blatant ad hominem.

>look, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. i
The enormous pile of published papers justifying the temperature record is more than enough to meet the burden. If you want to challenge it, be specific and make actual claims.

1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.
3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.phpOn average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.
In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

truth is not a popularity contest

my position is the following:
global temperature is rising and human activity has a major impact on this. however, the extent of the warming is exaggerated and the claimed impact on human society is blatantly false

referred claimed impact is that "climate change" is the biggest threat to human society and will cause extreme damage to us and the world. climate change has always occurred and a small rise in global temperature and athmospheric co2 if anything could be beneficial for mankind. also, the stress on the environment (e.g. biodiversity) due to global warming is insignificant compared to direct pollution and destruction

here you have my claims

You are correct good sir, and also are you aware that high atmospheric co2 is what gave rise to plant growth in the beginning of creation?

High co2 will give us more plants and thus better global air quality in the long term. Especially considering we are in an ice age currently and co2 is a greenhouse gas.

George Bush was surprisingly correct in saying God loves crude oil.

this is me again

I just wanted to add that I think pic related is probably a trustworthy temperature data source. the trend has been modified downward almost as much as upward

the next 5-10 years will be very interesting to see if recent warmth is a temporary anomality or the new normal

I have heard interesting theories that atmosphere used to be significantly larger during the age of dinosaurs as explanation why such large dinosaurs could exist. this is mere guessing but long term trends seem to be earth slowly losing its atmosphere, slowly getting colder and co2 levels slowly declining and worries are that all these trends have negative consequence on earth's fertility and life on earth is already long past its peak

however, I don't give a shit about these long term trends. what matters is the here and now, not whether macroscopic life on earth will still be viable on earth in 500 million years and how soon earth will turn into mars 2.0

>High co2 will give us more plants
bs
The heat and droughts and wildfires will destroy any advantage the extra co2 brings

>believe
you wot m8

You don't have to believe in it for it to be true.

O shit, would it?

I actually haven't heard that argument presented. Is there some numbers on that? Essentially a cost comparison of wild fires versus plant growth due to rising co2 levels?

I actually don't know which one would win out.

> people who dont believe in climate change
Donald Trump
> people who dont believe in climate change
Obongo, Shillary, Sanders
I think the choice is obvious.

I think its clear what board you come from, what range youre IQ is in, and where you need to go.

> try to conduct a research about the race
> a swarm of critics appears immediately
> no more funding
> no more publications
Gee, I wonder why, looks like it was ebil white male all along.

(You)

>figuring out the molecular structure of DNA makes you educated in the genetic basis for complex traits in different populations
Cultural marxist conspiracies!

Fuckking soyboy, people like you ruined math for me.

how it plays out depends on politics/wealth, but tropics and subtropics, lat 0...40, get hammered in the long run.
Best case: California wildfires
Worst case: Syria, before Arab Spring, a 5 year drought ruined the agriculture

Sorry if your cooky theories don't quite fit reality and some of the people supporting genetic differences in the same complex trait Watson gets blasted for are not only published and employed, but sit in the editorial boards of journals on intelligence.

So one posts calls someone a culteral marxist, then the next calls that peraon a soyboy? I thought the cuilteral marxist and soyboys were the same group.

why has no one checked these quads yet

Because this isn't /s4s/

your claims mean fuck all because you havent provided an alternative theory or cited specific issues you have with the data, you are the worst kind of retard

This chart supports climate change re rising average temperatures. How fucking dumb do you need to be to cite evidence contradictory to your stance? This is the power of american education, you cant even read a fucking graph.

I am not "american" and the graph is not contradictory to my stance at all you idiot